‘Partition being practised in Manipur... State polarising society’

AN ASSOCIATE professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University’s School of Social Sciences, ANGOMCHA BIMOL AKOIJAM is an unlikely politician. In this election, he is making his political debut as the Congress candidate from the Inner Manipur constituency. Since the start of the ethnic conflict in the state last May, Akoijam has been a vocal critic of the government’s handling of the conflict. In an interview with SUKRITA BARUAH,HE talks about why he entered politics,andtheissuesfacingthestate, from the Meitei-kuki violence to illegal migration. Excerpts:

What prompted you to join politics?

I come from that tribe called academics and I have my own set of heroes. Gloria Steinem… Michel Foucault, Noam Chomsky, Jean-paul Sartre… They were involved in political issues… I spoke out during the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) movement and one of my nicknames remains ‘AFSPA Man’.

I used to criticise (former Congress CM) Okram Ibobi and tamo (elder brother) Biren Singh used to be close to me. But when (Biren) became the CM, after six months,iwroteintheimphalfree Press (a popular English newspaper in Manipur) that the honeymoon period was over for the BJP.

We haven’t seen a situation like this in our entire history... If a communal riot happens, what do we do? We ensure that the affected people are protected. We have seen Muslim colonies being guarded with the full force of the State so that nothing happens there… Where the State was either complicit or failed to perform its role was the case of the Kashmiri Pandits, and this time Manipur… Why Meiteis were shifted out of Churachandpur? Why is it that you try to inject this narrative that there is no Kuki in the (Manipur) valley and there are no Meiteis in the hills? It’s partition being practised here. What happened in 1947 is what the Indian State is doing here…

There were (Kuki) people in well-protected areas (of Imphal) even after the conflict started… It was only in September, four months later, that the last family was shifted out (by the State). Is the Indian State, with so much military power, helpless to protect 24-25 people in a tribal colony? My feeling is it (was) a jarring (blow) to your narrative of there being no Kuki in the valley... so you shifted them out. This segregation is planned.

I feel that I must change this narrative... it will have more weight as an MP.

If elected, what steps do you intend to take to address the situation?

One of the things is to change the narrative. That is why in the Congress manifesto, we have the word 'reconciliation'. In a society that is fractured and where there is estrangement in inter-community relationships, you need reconciliation… My step would be to accentuate this process of reconciliation.

The BJP is talking about scrapping the Free

Movement Regime (FMR) with Myanmar and fencing the border as solutions.

If I become an MP – and even if I do not – I will tell them (BJP) publicly, 'Do not polarise society.' Fundamentally, you must address estrangement. I do agree that there is a need to distinguish citizens from non-citizens. Everybody has to support the National Register of Citizens (NRC). As long as you believe in a nation state, you can’t allow every Bengali from Bangladesh and every Punjabi from Lahore to come in. Then you have to have a humane way of dealing with them as well…

So this is one part of it, but the reconciliation process is essential. Any form of politics that tries to polarise must be countered.

Haven’t the issues of NRC and illegal migration themselves become polarising?

That is why the people must be asking, 'Do you believe in the idea of citizenship? Should noncitizens be allowed to take advantage of various schemes that citizens share?' I don’t think so.

There is also some resistance to the idea of elections at a time like this.

Yes, especially among people in relief camps... Where livelihood and dignity is not secured, why would you talk about the right to vote? If the people in the relief camps say it, I have nothing to argue against them.