Baatchit without precondition
|
Free Thinker
For KukiZo-Meitei imbroglio, dialogue is the only solution - everyone is murmuring at the political level, within bureaucratic clique, and security circles and even among the common people. But how, when, where and with whom – these are the pertinent questions? Perhaps the Kuki-Zo side has now a Council to lead but for the Meiteis, is there any apex body to represent them for the parleys?
In any case talks must go on without any pre-condition. If we start putting preconditions, the dialogue may not take off. If one party says the Chief must be removed before the talks - that sounds political. If you say that first assure us a separate administration before the negotiation – that is again impractical. If the other side says first Meiteis be allowed to settle anywhere in the State and make them STs – this will again be a nonstarter.
The question arises who are the parties for talks. No group represents the whole. For Kuki-Zo, they now claim that their Council is the apex body for any decision. It needs to be seen? For the Meitei side which group or party shall represent the entire community – that is a million dollar question. Present people’s representatives collectively may represent the community – if agreeable.
The Government of India and the leaders at Delhi are rather at sea – whom to meet and whom to talk to. Underground elements are also seemingly involved in the present feud. Then what kind of dialogue should be held. They may be dealt with separately.
Some demands are well within the ambit of the Constitution. And some few are beyond the ambit of the Indian Constitution – we all knew that. The demands which can be maneuvered with the framework of the Indian Constitution may be tackled. But the demands which are extra constitutional can’t be dealt with easily.
Former Governor of Manipur set up a Peace Committee to figure out the problems and move towards an amicable peaceful solution. The Committee could not take off because there were reservations about the composition of the Committee. Even some members were reluctant to be part of that Committee.
If the query is - whom to talk to? My simple reply is - we must start talking at all levels – even through mobiles. Dialogue may be between women folk to women folk, between student bodies of both the communities, between political leaders of both sides, between insurgents of both sides, between the elected leaders, between Civil Society Groups of both the communities, between the victims of both the sides. , between the village volunteers. It may sound ridiculous – but we must start talking to one another.
It seems the armed groups on both sides still decide what to do and what not . Even if the civil organizations and associations want to talk and sort out things – the guns are not allowing them. Many leaders (unarmed) want to come forward in quest of an amicable solution – but they can’t because the armed groups put them under pressure to remain still. This is an open secret.
So, one of the most important conditions for a fruitful dialogue between the two warring communities is to sidelined the violence-mongers and hardliners. Otherwise the moderates and majority common people shall remain frustrated forever waiting for peace and normalcy.
Only a few armed bands on both sides are still dictating terms – they have the say. And no one is willing to come forward in front of the guns. If they dare the guns they will become easy victims to bloodshed.
Until and unless bullets & bombs are dumped the dialogue process can’t be smooth and straight. Honestly many leaders big or small want to be part of the dialogue process but they don’t want to take risks. Nobody wants to be the sacrificial lamb. The wolves are still strong. The ring-master from the Centre may kindly tame the wolves and let the dialogue process move forward. People to people contact are the panacea.
The Civil Society groups on both sides – may be for women, students, human-right activists, social workers, professionals and even normal politicians shall come out to have interactions. Past is passed, let us prepare for a viable future together. Keep talking.
Once the talks begin – you can put up any demand. If the demand is within the means of the Government that demand may be considered. Otherwise the extra Constitutional demands will always remain futile .For instance, few Naga demands are still hanging on because the Executive actions are also bound by the Constitutional dos and don’ts.
Demands are demands – there is no guarantee that all demands will be fulfilled. Reasonable demands in the common interest of the people may be complied with. It is understandable that few demands from either side will remain controversial. But talks must go on.
We are told that MHA is telling both sides to silence their guns for a peaceful dialogue. Our earnest request to the MHA is that all must be disarmed at the outset for having a free and fair dialogue. With guns in hand, peace will remain fragile and illusive.
For KukiZo-Meitei imbroglio, dialogue is the only solution - everyone is murmuring at the political level, within bureaucratic clique, and security circles and even among the common people. But how, when, where and with whom – these are the pertinent questions? Perhaps the Kuki-Zo side has now a Council to lead but for the Meiteis, is there any apex body to represent them for the parleys?
In any case talks must go on without any pre-condition. If we start putting preconditions, the dialogue may not take off. If one party says the Chief must be removed before the talks - that sounds political. If you say that first assure us a separate administration before the negotiation – that is again impractical. If the other side says first Meiteis be allowed to settle anywhere in the State and make them STs – this will again be a nonstarter.
The question arises who are the parties for talks. No group represents the whole. For Kuki-Zo, they now claim that their Council is the apex body for any decision. It needs to be seen? For the Meitei side which group or party shall represent the entire community – that is a million dollar question. Present people’s representatives collectively may represent the community – if agreeable.
The Government of India and the leaders at Delhi are rather at sea – whom to meet and whom to talk to. Underground elements are also seemingly involved in the present feud. Then what kind of dialogue should be held. They may be dealt with separately.
Some demands are well within the ambit of the Constitution. And some few are beyond the ambit of the Indian Constitution – we all knew that. The demands which can be maneuvered with the framework of the Indian Constitution may be tackled. But the demands which are extra constitutional can’t be dealt with easily.
Former Governor of Manipur set up a Peace Committee to figure out the problems and move towards an amicable peaceful solution. The Committee could not take off because there were reservations about the composition of the Committee. Even some members were reluctant to be part of that Committee.
If the query is - whom to talk to? My simple reply is - we must start talking at all levels – even through mobiles. Dialogue may be between women folk to women folk, between student bodies of both the communities, between political leaders of both sides, between insurgents of both sides, between the elected leaders, between Civil Society Groups of both the communities, between the victims of both the sides. , between the village volunteers. It may sound ridiculous – but we must start talking to one another.
It seems the armed groups on both sides still decide what to do and what not . Even if the civil organizations and associations want to talk and sort out things – the guns are not allowing them. Many leaders (unarmed) want to come forward in quest of an amicable solution – but they can’t because the armed groups put them under pressure to remain still. This is an open secret.
So, one of the most important conditions for a fruitful dialogue between the two warring communities is to sidelined the violence-mongers and hardliners. Otherwise the moderates and majority common people shall remain frustrated forever waiting for peace and normalcy.
Only a few armed bands on both sides are still dictating terms – they have the say. And no one is willing to come forward in front of the guns. If they dare the guns they will become easy victims to bloodshed.
Until and unless bullets & bombs are dumped the dialogue process can’t be smooth and straight. Honestly many leaders big or small want to be part of the dialogue process but they don’t want to take risks. Nobody wants to be the sacrificial lamb. The wolves are still strong. The ring-master from the Centre may kindly tame the wolves and let the dialogue process move forward. People to people contact are the panacea.
The Civil Society groups on both sides – may be for women, students, human-right activists, social workers, professionals and even normal politicians shall come out to have interactions. Past is passed, let us prepare for a viable future together. Keep talking.
Once the talks begin – you can put up any demand. If the demand is within the means of the Government that demand may be considered. Otherwise the extra Constitutional demands will always remain futile .For instance, few Naga demands are still hanging on because the Executive actions are also bound by the Constitutional dos and don’ts.
Demands are demands – there is no guarantee that all demands will be fulfilled. Reasonable demands in the common interest of the people may be complied with. It is understandable that few demands from either side will remain controversial. But talks must go on.
We are told that MHA is telling both sides to silence their guns for a peaceful dialogue. Our earnest request to the MHA is that all must be disarmed at the outset for having a free and fair dialogue. With guns in hand, peace will remain fragile and illusive.