Month: July 2023

In a 35-minute interview to Karan Thapar for The Wire on July 25, historian and political commentator Ramachandra Guha discussed and took further an op-ed he wrote the previous day for The Telegraph on the Manipur violence.

Guha said Prime Minister Narendra Modi was a coward for not facing parliament during this time of national crisis, adding that Modi would show “personal growth” if he were to sack N. Biren Singh as chief minister of Manipur.

He also compares the Manipur violence with earlier inter-communal conflicts in other states and analyses why Biren Singh is still in office.

The following is a transcript of the interview. It has been edited for style and clarity.

§

Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to a special interview for The Wire. In an article, he wrote yesterday for the Kolkata paper, The Telegraph, the well-known and highly regarded historian and political commentator Ramachandra Guha has raised three critical questions about Manipur.

Is the situation in Manipur comparable to earlier instances of inter-communal conflict? Why is the BJP unwilling to dispense with chief minister Biren Singh? And is Manipur worse than Punjab in the ‘80s, Kashmir in the ‘90s and Gujarat in the 2000s?

Joining me now to reveal his answer to those questions is Ramachandra Guha himself.

Ram Guha, in a rather insightful op-ed for the paper The Telegraph that you wrote yesterday, you make several important points about the Manipur tragedy, which I would like to discuss with you today.

First, you point out how the inter-communal conflict in Manipur is significantly different to inter-communal conflicts we’ve previously seen in other states. The first difference is the proportionately greater availability of armed weapons among the combatants on both sides of Manipur. And you add, the widespread looting of police armouries recently witnessed in Manipur, perhaps has no parallel in Indian history. Does this make Manipur particularly worrisome?

Ramachandra Guha: Yes, in terms of the violence, Karan, of course, there is a history of insurgency and discontent in the state. And the three major communities in the state – the Meiteis, the Nagas and the Kukis – have all, at different times armed themselves to varying degrees. So, there is a history of using sophisticated arms by ordinary citizens, not by the state or the police or the paramilitary.

But usually these were radicals or terrorists or insurgents or separatists or whatever you might call them, seeking autonomy or independence from the Indian state using weapons.

Now they’re using them against one another, on a scale probably never previously witnessed in an inter-communal conflict within an Indian state.

So, you know, there have been, as I say in my article, Hindus and Muslims and Punjab and North India, Hindus and Sikhs, in other states. But there’s never been this kind of use of sophisticated arms to that level, both because of the history of using arms and also this widespread looting of armouries, which shows a complete breakdown in law and order.

KT: Which suggests to me that we have a situation which is verging upon civil war.

RG: A mixture of anarchy and civil war. After, you know, I wrote that piece Karan, there was a report of an incident, where a young man from one community – I won’t name the communities – a young man from one community had been detained by the state, by the police, and the police released him to a mob from the other community who bludgeoned him to death.

So what does this tell you about… So it’s not a civil war, it’s anarchy. It’s the Manipur state administration having no control over its police and turning a blind eye to mob violence, which is… and of course, in the earlier case of a video that was widely circulated, of rape, of attacks on women. The police are aiding mobs.

Now, this is actually not just civil war, but anarchy and complete breakdown of the state administration. Perhaps willingly – because, we’ll deal with this later, perhaps because the chief minister and his cabinet, you know, have taken sides in this civil war.

KT: Without revealing the identity and which community that young man belongs to, I simply tell the audience that story was in yesterday’s The Hindu newspaper, and it was exclusive for that paper, as far as I know.

Now the second major difference between Manipur and earlier inter-communal conflicts is what you call the extreme territorial separation that the conflict has produced. You point out that even Gujarat in 2002 did not separate Muslims and Hindus, in cities like Ahmedabad, the way the Kukis and Meiteis have become separated both geographically and demographically in Manipur.

RG: Of course. In Manipur, which is broadly divided into the valley and the hills… In the valley, the Meiteis were dominant, but there was still a significant minority of Kukis and Nagas. In the Kuki districts such as Churachandpur, the Kukis were dominant demographically, but there was a significant minority of Meiteis working as teachers, doctors, traders, labourers, whatever else.

Now, that kind of ethnic cleansing, willing or unwilling, on both sides… I mentioned the case of Ahmedabad, where there is a ghettoisation of Muslims. You know, particularly post-2002 riots, they were often denied easy access to municipal facilities. Muslim couples, even upper-middle class Muslim couples, cannot get a house in a flat, which is dominated by Hindus and Jains. So there is a kind of segregation.

There’s also, you know, a feeling among some radical Hindus that in Gujarat, Muslims must be consistently shown their place. But this kind of total separation, it’s as if Ahmedabad was purged of Muslims totally.

Or, say a majority-dominated district in, shall we say, in Kerala, [corrects himself] a minority-dominated district, like Malappuram, was purged of Hindus or Christians completely. If Kerala was divided into three – Kerala is comparable because Kerala, like Manipur, has three major communities: the Hindus, who are just sort of a numerical majority, and the Christians and the Muslims who are significant minorities.

Imagine Kerala being separated in three zones: in one zone, there are only Malayali Hindus, in one zone, there are only Malayali Christians, in one zone, there are only Malayali Muslims. I mean, that is where we are headed towards [in] Manipur. I mean, Kerala is one of the most progressive states in India. We will talk about it. You just imagine, that will be the…

I mean, this analogy comes to me as I’m talking to you. I didn’t put it in my article. But perhaps it’s even more compelling, because the demographic composition of these three communities in Kerala, with the Hindus being close to a majority, and the Christians and the Muslims being significant minorities, is very comparable to the Meitei, Kuki [and] Naga situation in Manipur.

KT: Absolutely. And this is where to use your evocative phrase – “a mixture of anarchy and civil war” – we veer much closer to a situation that could develop into civil war, because of the complete separation of communities geographically and demographically.

RG: Absolutely.

KT: Now, the next point you make…

RG: And Karan…

KT: Sorry.

RG: The state’s inability or unwillingness to stop or stem this ethnic separatism, and its absolute refusal to do anything, to even begin a process of peace and reconciliation, and debate and dialogue between the warring communities.

KT: Now, the next big point you make in that Telegraph article is to draw significant parallels between Manipur today and Gujarat in 2002.

The first is with regard to violence against women. I don’t mean to be facile, but Manipur seems to be seeing Bilkis Bano repeated multiple times.

Also Read: Manipur Video: What Connects 3 Kuki Women Stripped, Paraded Naked to Manorama and Bilkis Bano?

RG: Well, it does appear so. I mean, we’ll never know all the details because it’s very difficult for citizens and journalists and human rights groups to go. I mean, citizens groups that have been gone have been slapped with absolutely vindictive FIRs for reporting on what they’ve seen.

But certainly, the attacks on women, the sexual assaults on women, the parading of women and the aiding of savage attacks on women by mobs… The aiding of all this by the police and the state machinery is maybe even worse than what happened in Gujarat in 2002.

KT: But the echoes are the same.

RG: Very much so.

KT: Targeting of women and the apparent complicity of the state machinery to permit it to happen.

RG: Correct, very much so.

KT: Now, the second parallel between Manipur and Gujarat is that, and I’m quoting you, “The political establishment in general and the chief minister in particular, have taken the side of or been identified with the majority community. Here, you’re drawing a direct comparison between Biren Singh, who’s chief minister of Manipur today, and Narendra Modi when he was chief minister of Gujarat in 2002. Am I right?

RG: Yes, yes. Yes, certainly. So, if you read the reports coming out of Manipur – and I’ve talked to people who have been in Manipur – Biren Singh thinks that the way to safeguard his seat is to present himself as the hero of the Meiteis. Just as Narendra Modi presented himself as the hero of the Hindus.

And now, if you look at that incident where… I mean, and I argued in my article, and we may talk about this later in our discussion, the absolute first step, mandatory first step to stop this situation slipping further into civil war and anarchy is for the chief minister to resign.

But you’ll remember the drama… Actually, I even heard that Mr Arnab Goswami has called for the chief minister to resign. So this tells you how embarrassing the situation is. Even for channels close to the ruling regime… He [Biren Singh] has to go. I mean, he’s been complicit, irresponsible, amoral, and the lapses under his rule have been so shocking. He has to go. That’s the first step.

But you recall there was a rumour he’s going to resign. And, you know, social media was all [inaudible] and they were saying he’s going to resign, he’s going to the governor’s house. And it was all staged drama, and some Meiteis – it’s completely staged – took his resignation letter from him, tore it up and said, you’re our hero, you can’t resign.

Now, what does this tell you? It means as in 2002, a minister of a multi-ethnic… I beg your pardon. A chief minister in charge of the administration of a multi-ethnic, composite state has identified explicitly with one community against the others.

KT: And that is precisely what happened in Gujarat in 2002.

RG: And particularly not just in the… In 2002, it happened to some extent in the riots, and much more visibly in the elections that followed. Now, is this Biren Singh’s calculation? I mean, one must ask that question.

KT: Now, in fact, one of the most powerful sections of that article you wrote for The Telegraph is when you ask the question, “Why is Biren Singh still in office?”

And it seems you have three answers and I want to go through each of them one by one.

First you say and I’m quoting you, “One important reason that Biren Singh remains in office is the Modi regime’s absolute refusal to admit that they have ever been at fault.” I think I understand what you’re saying, but could you explain it more fully?

RG: Yeah. So they have to be presented by their spin masters, by their ministers, as flawless. So they’ve never accounted for the horrible disaster of demonetisation from which our economy has not recovered. [For] the mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly the arbitrary lockdown. For the transgression into what is estimated to be several thousand kilometres of our territory by Chinese troops.

So, they can never make a mistake, and even a mistake that costs the country and its people and its institutions and its stability dearly. So this is of a pattern. Because in this case, as I say also in my article, before an election they may decide, I think Gujarat, you know, recently, that the incumbent chief minister, Mr Vijay Rupani is not going to win them re-election, so they replace him with someone else.

Now, this is very different. This is a situation of, to repeat the phrase, anarchy going towards – not yet – but a state of the Union going towards anarchy and civil war, and the chief minister aiding in this process.

Right. Now, with hundreds dead, many women raped, an estimated 60,000 displaced, a complete separation – territorial and ethnic separation – of the state, and you haven’t dismissed him. And why not? Because you cannot admit – there may be other reasons, and we can talk about that – but essentially one reason is the BJP can never admit to having made a mistake. Which is shocking in a democracy, because you must be accountable.

Also Read: What’s Behind the Manipur Violence and Why Stopping It Poses a Test For Modi

I mean, to the credit of Manmohan Singh, when there were credible accusations against one or two of his ministers, he dismissed them, you know? And he said, “you fight in the courts”, but it appears that these accusations are reasonably credible – and they were senior cabinet ministers – and they went… including not just from the alliance, but even from the Congress party.

So, when there was, for example, the attack on Mumbai in 2008, the home minister was replaced. Mr Shivraj Patil was held accountable and replaced.

Now, in any democracy we do this, especially, if the error or the costs of this error are so… if the error is so egregious and the human costs of this error are so enormous, as is the case with Biren Singh and his maladministration of the state of Manipur.

KT: Quite right. The BJP believes… as a party, it believes that its chief ministers as institutions are infallible, they cannot be replaced because the admission of a mistake would shatter that claim to infallibility.

The second reason why you believe Biren Singh has not been removed comes a lot closer to the bone. You say, “This may lead to calls for the Union home minister to resign as well.” In other words, retaining Biren Singh is a shield to protect Amit Shah.

RG: Well, it could be right. Though, if Amit Shah is canny and pragmatic, he could sacrifice Biren Singh and try to save his own position.

But let me just say this, that Amit Shah’s own conduct as home minister in this particular case, has not been salutary. Nor in other cases. I mean, if you think of the Delhi riots that happened when the American president no less was visiting.

The fact that they happened, the fact that in the controlling of those riots, Muslims were gone after disproportionately – many more cases were launched against them, and there was a clear bias in the way the Delhi police, which operates again under Mr Amit Shah, operated.

Also Read: ‘Police Witness Not Credible’, ‘Callous Probe’: How the Delhi Riots Cases Have Evolved

If you look at more recently, in my home state of Karnataka… The troubles in Manipur started in the last week of April, and by early May it was clear that this is a serious issue, that Kukis and Meiteis are becoming implacable enemies.

What does Mr Amit Shah do? He comes to my home state, in Karnataka, and tries to polarise Hindus and Muslims. That was the burden of his electoral campaign even when there is an ethnic conflict emerging and assuming serious proportions in Manipur.

So look at Delhi. Look at Karnataka. Then look at Manipur itself. I mean, he made a brief visit there, and he hasn’t gone back. He promised he’d be back in 15 days. You know, if you look at law and order under him, all kinds of spin was portrayed, that the Kukis are actually foreigners, migrants, and the chief of defence staff had to dispel that, saying, ‘No, this is an internal issue.’

So if you look at the conduct of the home minister, in this particular case and in other cases in the past, it’s not very, you know, encouraging. He’s a person who seems to thrive on disunity and division and discord because he sees in that a route to a consolidation of a Hindu majority at election time.

KT: Then let me ask you bluntly, has the time come for Amit Shah to resign?

RG: I mean, I don’t think… I mean, I am in no position to ask him to resign, let alone, you know, influence the decision.

But let’s say that if you look at the history of home ministers since 1947 – when we became independent – till 2023, and you placed him on a spectrum, Sardar Patel is at one end of the spectrum and Amit Shah close to the other end of the spectrum. As a historian, I will just pass this statement.

KT: Okay. The third reason mentioned in your article in The Telegraph, why Biren Singh remains in office, is because – and again, I’m quoting you – “The sacking of the present chief minister of Manipur would raise afresh uncomfortable questions about the failure of the BJP to sack the Gujarat chief minister after the riots of 2002.”

So Biren Singh is also being retained to protect Narendra Modi.

RG: Well, it appears so. I mean, the parallels are [inaudible].

Let me say this, that in 2002… You see, Karan, let me tell you something. Any inter-communal riot can be stopped from escalating if the chief minister or the home minister intervenes.

I was in Kolkata in 1984 when Mrs [Indira] Gandhi was assassinated. The 50,000 Sikhs in Kolkata were then mostly driving taxis and identified by their turbans. Jyoti Basu said, “Not one will be harmed”. And they were not. So his behaviour was in absolute contrast to that of Narasimha Rao, who was home minister, and Rajiv Gandhi, who had just come in as prime minister.

Now similarly in Karnataka, there have been instances where there have been brave chief ministers. J.H. Patel of the Janata Dal was not a great chief minister, but he stopped a major communal conflagration by sending 10,000 troops.

So in 2002, if Narendra Modi had acted the way Jyoti Basu had in 1984, the riots would not have escalated in the way they did, and the widespread programme against Muslims – which reached deep into the countryside across many districts of Gujarat – would not have happened.

There may still have been a few stray incidents because the state is not omnipresent and omnipotent, but it wouldn’t have achieved this pogrom-like character. So his conduct was, I mean, he failed in his duties.

And that is why, first, the prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, went to Gujarat, visited the refugee camps. When he saw the pitiable condition of the refugees, mostly Muslim refugees, he chastised the chief minister for his lack of rajdharma.

And of course, he wanted to sack him, and as I say in my article, he was overruled by other members of his party, such as L.K. Advani and Arun Jaitley.

So, in that sense, here, because of what happened in 2002, forget the question… Well, I still wish and hope that Biren Singh is sacked, because that would be the first step… Karan, this is a state of our union in a deeply divided and fragile condition. It’s a border state with a history of insurgency.

Already there have been spillover effects in Mizoram and in Meghalaya. That’s happened. This conflict has spilled over and those are all border states. We live in a very hostile and troubled neighbourhood. We don’t have good relations with most of our neighbours, our international neighbours.

Now, clearly, even now, as an Indian citizen, as a democrat who bears no party affiliation, I would want Narendra Modi to sack Biren Singh. That should be the first step. Now he has not done it. And maybe because of what happened in 2002, he can’t even remind the chief minister of his rajdharma. So, it is clear that the parallels run very close to the bone.

Also Read: It Is Naive to Expect PM Modi to Speak up During Crises

KT: Absolutely, and as you say, were Biren Singh to be sacked – unlikely though it seems at the moment – those uncomfortable questions about 2002, when Modi was chief minister of Gujarat, would be once again questions that he would have to face as prime minister, and he doesn’t want to.

RG: I slightly disagree with you, Karan.

KT: But I’m quoting you.

RG: No, I slightly disagree with you, because he could still sack him, in that human beings grow. You know, they grow intellectually, they expand their knowledge base, they learn the virtues of contrition. Maybe their conscience can develop a little more.

If Narendra Modi was to sack Biren Singh today and recognise his failures – his administrative failures and his failures to be impartial, the fact that he identifies with the majority community or the dominant community in Manipur, he would grow.

You know, I’m a biographer of Mahatma Gandhi, and Mahatma Gandhi believed that even, you know, mobsters and gangsters could redeem themselves. So absolutely, I don’t want to hold Modi to what happened completely.

As a historian, I will draw the parallels between what is happening in Manipur today and what happened in 2002. Those are historical parallels I draw as a scholar. As a citizen, I would still want my prime minister to sack the Manipur chief minister today.

KT: And this is a very interesting development in your thinking. Between the article you wrote yesterday and the interview you’re giving today, you believe that Mr Modi would show signs of growth, actually signs of having learned, if he were to sack Biren Singh?

RG: Yes. Contrition, moral growth, some sense of atonement, some regard for how serious the situation is, some diluting of his ego and his pride.

So as a human being, he would be better and the country would be better. And Manipur would be… at least could think of peace and reconciliation and safety for its women if Biren Singh was sacked by Narendra Modi any time soon. Today, tomorrow, next week, whatever.

KT: But let me put this to you. I get the feeling from what you’ve said and the way your thinking has evolved in the last 24 hours, that what I thought was your conclusion in your article about Biren Singh’s position and the need to retain him may not be your position today.

Let me read it out. And then you tell me. I’ll read it out.

You wrote, “The parallels between Gujarat then and Manipur now run ever so close to the bone. Because of his own complicated past, the current prime minister cannot ask for the replacement of the Manipur chief minister. He cannot even ask him to practise his rajdharma.”

But now you believe, that were he to sack him, he would show moral growth. Modi would show that he has grown morally, he has learnt administratively and be a better government official for that.

RG: Of course. And the fact is, I [inaudible] I mean, I wrote the piece, actually, on Sunday. It was published on Monday morning. As I said, even television channels extremely sympathetic [to and], in fact, cheerleaders for Narendra Modi, have recognised that the first step in any damage control would be this. The opposition has been asking for it.

So, it would be both pragmatic and moral, and in the interests of Manipur and of the Republic of India, if the chief… And it would only be the first step. It would not mean there still isn’t a problem, there still [aren’t] issues with law and order, there still isn’t majoritarianism rampant in that state and other states that is threatening our social fabric.

But that should be… At least that should be some concession to all that has gone wrong, atonement and accountability for all that has gone wrong by the BJP government, aided and… in Manipur.

In fact, if I can make one additional point: actually, this is a failure of the so-called propaganda of the double-engine sarkar has come about. Because, you know, the BJP chief minister has failed, the home minister is doing nothing, the prime minister is protecting him.

Anyway, so clearly, as a historian, the parallels are striking. As a citizen, I still would hope – it may be a vain hope, a futile hope – I would hope that this would… the sacking of the chief minister, followed by many other steps, would begin by rescuing Manipur and Manipuris from anarchy and civil war.

KT: Before I move to the next issue that I want to take up with you, let me ask this question.

Given that Mr Modi would show welcome moral growth, for he to dispense with Biren Singh, that it’s pragmatically the right thing to do, that it’s so obviously in the interest of Manipur itself, and it would reflect well on the government and the prime minister of the day. And also, it would actually help restore the collapse of the double-engine sarkar, which is clearly failing.

Given it’s so clearly the right thing to do on so many levels, isn’t it surprising that it’s not happening?

RG: Well, I think it’s to do with the fact that they never acknowledge mistakes. That Narendra Modi lives in a bubble of his own. He doesn’t like to be associated with bad news. I somehow hope he’ll ride it out.

I think since I wrote that piece on Sunday – it was published on Monday – it’s been deeply disappointing that he has yet not yielded to a very just and legitimate demand of the Opposition that he begins… makes a statement in parliament.

As prime minister, he’s accountable to parliament. But yet he’s been shielded by Rajnath Singh and Amit Shah because all they want to do is protect him, placate him, you know, flatter him and not expose him to any debate and [inaudible].

So it’s really… He is supposed to be a good orator. He’s certainly an intelligent man. And yet he’s a coward, [afraid] to face parliament. I mean, it is absolutely shocking that after all of this…

And I must say, I must put it on record, Karan, that what is… again as a democrat, as a constitutional democrat, the partisan conduct of the speaker of the [Lok Sabha] and the deputy chairman of the Rajya Sabha, I think it’s shocking. I mean, to say the opposition is stalling parliament is manifestly false. For Om Birla and Jagdeep Dhankhar to say that is false.

It is the failure of the prime minister at a time of grave national crisis. Let me remind them of Jawaharlal Nehru and the China war, and how many days he spent – before the China war, when the first border incursion started in 1959 – the days and days he spent, you know, debating and listening to the opposition. And onwards.

Also Read: The India-China War of 1962 and its Political After-Life

Even Indira Gandhi before the emergency would do it, with bank nationalisation, for example. It was a very controversial measure.

So, it’s an absolute abdication of his responsibility as authority and legitimacy as prime minister. Forget sacking Biren Singh, that’s a secondary step. That he can do without parliament. That he is not even willing to speak on it in parliament and allow other people to listen, questioning what’s happening?

I mean, yes, so that he needs a scene, he needs Rajnath Singh, he needs Amit Shah, he needs Om Birla, he needs Jagdeep Dhankhar, all to protect him and to preserve him, his apparently flawless and immaculate image. I mean, it reflects very badly on our democracy. The prime minister’s conduct.

KT: Let me just point out for the audience that bang in the middle of the Chinese war of 1962, in November when the war was perhaps at its worst, from the Indian point of view, parliament was specifically convened at the request of the Opposition to discuss what was happening.

And what was happening was serious adverses [sic] faced by the army and allegations of serious mishandling of the situation by the prime minister. All of that was discussed with Nehru sitting there and listening.

That is the marked difference between Jawaharlal Nehru and the Chinese crisis of 1962, and Narendra Modi and Manipur today.

RG: A minor correction. Not just the war, from ‘59 onwards, when the first incidents happened in Ladakh, and of course, then the Dalai Lama fled to India and the troubles escalated, he [Nehru] was in parliament all through, well before the war, listening and debating and understanding what the Opposition had to say.

He still may be culpable for what happened. I’m not saying that Jawaharlal Nehru’s conduct with the China crisis was [blameless]. Of course it was [not blameless], including his protection of Krishna Menon, which may be similar to Modi’s protection of Amit Shah and Biren Singh today.

But he was willing to listen and debate, and I think in that sense, this is deeply disappointing, and I’d like to make it on record that the conduct of Om Birla and Jagdeep Dhankhar does not bring credit to their office.

KT: Let’s then come to the last point that you make in that article, which I want to discuss with you.

Your conclusion is that the crisis in Manipur is arguably the worst inter-communal crisis India has faced. You write and I’m quoting you, “The situation in Manipur today is far more grave than that faced in Punjab in the 1980s, in Jammu and Kashmir in the 1990s, in Gujarat in the 2000s.”

Do you come to that conclusion… Because three things have all happened simultaneously together [sic]. The demographic separation in Manipur, the incompetence and the partisanship of the chief minister, and the Modi government’s blatant refusal to act the right way. This combination has made it the worst crisis.

RG: And also the fact that it’s a border state. And it’s spilled over into other states. Of course, Punjab and Kashmir are also border states, but you know… Also it’s [Manipur] a small state.

So say, in Jammu and Kashmir for example, the valley was troubled. But some remote districts, even of Kashmir, were not troubled. Jammu and Ladakh were relatively untouched.

In Gujarat in 2002, some parts of Kutch and so on were not so divided on Hindu-Muslim lines. So if you look at the intensity of the conflict in a small state and how it has ravaged the social fabric of that state and made things so fragile, insecure in a small space, and the fact that it’s a border state make it…

I mean, historians will pass a final judgement. These were all serious crises. Gujarat in 2002, Kashmir in 1989-90 when the movement turned violently Islamic fundamentalist and the Pandits were purged.

You know, Punjab starting with Bhindranwale and Indira Gandhi’s utterly ill-advised storming over the Golden Temple and so on. So these are all serious crises. I’m not saying, you know, you should discount the gravity of any of those, and it took us many years to recover from them, and sometimes we still haven’t fully recovered.

So in that sense, that is why if you look at the history of states where there is inter-communal conflict, and the state and the government machinery either is apathetic or takes one side, and from that history, you see how much this has cost the Indian Republic.

It makes it more urgent that proper action is taken by the union government when it comes to Manipur.

KT: Now, over the weekend, Ram Guha, hundreds of Meitei fled Mizoram after a statement by the Mizo group PAMRA [Peace Accord MNF Returnees’ Association], advised them to leave Mizoram for their own safety.

Are you worried that what’s happening in Manipur is now having dangerous ripple effects through the Northeast?

RG: Just a… Again, an important correction to your statement. Hundreds of Meiteis have fled Mizoram, and prior to that, thousands of Kukis fled Manipur for Mizoram. So Kukis felt unsafe in Manipur. So they went across the border, where they felt the Mizos – with whom they have close ethnic ties – would protect them.

And the chief minister of Mizoram, who actually has been very magnanimous, even in giving refuge to migrants across the border, I think is very admirable. He was not supported by the central government. He said, ‘please give me money’, and they didn’t listen to him.

And, of course, we will have this counter-reaction in Mizoram where the Meiteis are seen as causing the fleeing of Kukis from Manipur to their state, which is already a vulnerable and overburdened state. So you’ve seen stuff, some of it is happening in Meghalaya.

So, all of this, I mean, it’s like… I think I would – again this is hoping against hope – I hope, I would still wish, for the state of Manipur and for the sake of India, that the prime minister comes to parliament tomorrow, makes a statement and then listens to what the Opposition has to say, without heckling by the BJP party members.

Then, that day, tomorrow or day after or any time soon, the chief minister is sacked. And an all-party delegation is sent to Manipur. You will recall, in the days when there were troubles in Kashmir, Manmohan Singh, Narasimha Rao, Atal Bihari Vajpayee were quite happy, and in fact encouraged, in the interest of democracy, all-party delegations and meetings.

Now here, there have been people waiting for weeks to see Narendra Modi, he won’t give an audience. At all. You know, so it is not conduct becoming of a prime minister, let alone a prime minister who claims he’s very popular, who claims he’s a world leader, who has 300 odd seats in parliament. And yet he’s so weak and cowardly to address that same parliament.

KT: Just for the sake of the audience, I will point out that the ripple effects are now also beginning to worry the government in Assam.

Today’s The Hindu reports that the authorities in Assam are deeply concerned that some of the weaponry and guns looted or taken over by militants in Manipur could have reached Assam, and possibly into the hands of ULFA [United Liberation Front of Asom]. That is the extent to which the ripples of Manipur are spreading through the Northeast.

RG: Well, you’re referencing what’s happening in Assam. Allow me to say that the conduct of the Assam chief minister has also been unbecoming. You know, he has polarised things, he’d made all kinds of accusations against the UPA regime.

Incidentally, there was a major incident in Manipur and protests by women against AFSPA and alleged violence on citizens by security forces. Manmohan Singh actually went to Imphal, you know. A year after that, but he went.

So, I think for the Assam chief minister, who is the BJP’s point man in the Northeast, to make more inflammatory statements as he’s been doing, including in his own state, about Hindus and Muslims and so on, I think the whole… I don’t know what they think. They are happy to sacrifice peace, stability, the future of India to win an election by making Hindus insecure.

I mean, the BJP’s election plan in 2024, as it was in 2019 (particularly, not so much in 2014), is if 60% of Hindus vote for us, we will win. And what’s the way? By making them fearful, hateful, paranoid, insecure, that’s all.

And the Assam chief minister is an agent of this policy. The home minister is an instrument of this policy. The prime minister also often is an instrument of this policy.

If I may again give you an example from the last election campaign of the prime minister in my state: what did he do? He came to Karnataka and started talking up this awful film called The Kerala Story, which, you know, stigmatises and demonises not just Muslims, but the whole state of Kerala.

So I think this is what they want to do. I mean, they want to win elections by polarising Hindus and Muslims, and they don’t care for the consequences.

KT: Don’t forget what the prime minister publicly said in Karnataka, “When you press the button to vote, say ‘Jai Bajrang Bali’,” which is clearly an appeal to religion, at the same time, mixed up with politics, and illegal in India.

RG: Very much so.

KT: And just to fill in for the audience, the chief minister of Assam has been claiming that the present problem in Manipur is, in fact, caused by the Congress and Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh because they failed to handle weeks and months of blockades when they were in power.

It’s a very strange connection that he’s making, but that is precisely the claim that he’s making.

My last question. What’s happening in Manipur has been the subject of a discussion and a resolution in the European parliament. Adverse comments have been passed by the US state department and there’s been extensive coverage in the Western media, particularly the BBC and The Observer.

How much damage has both the incident and the government’s inept handling of it done to India’s image and standing?

RG: Well, not very much, because whatever the BBC or The Guardian may say, whatever… I’m glad they’re doing it. Whatever the European parliament discuss, you know, major leaders of Western nations have cynically, instrumentally and hypocritically, for their own purposes, decided to cultivate the current Indian government to ignore all its human [rights] violations, to turn a blind eye to its destruction of democratic institutions.

So don’t look to the West for hope. We have to fight this hatred and this poison and this incompetence within by democratic means.

Indians have to realise, as I’ve said in my answer to your last question, what road the current regime is leading us down towards, and Manipur is merely a symptom and a manifestation of that, though very grave and serious symptoms and manifestation.

KT: Then let me add one last question before I end. Are Indians beginning to perceive the Modi government as a failed government, as incompetent, as irresponsible, in the light of its handling of Manipur? Or do you think that’s unlikely?

RG: That’s premature. It’s too early to say what impact this will have on the state elections later this year, or on 2024.

But what has happened in Manipur and the government’s failure to act, the BJP government’s failure to act, both in the state and in the centre. The failure of the double-engine sarkar, the dual failure, has damaged the Indian republic, Indian democracy and the prospects of our country and the citizens.

KT: Ram Guha, thank you very much indeed.

RG: Thank you.