On Nationalism

In the Dictionary of International Relations, Graham Evans and Jeffrey Newnham start their entry with this relatively benign definition of nationalism. "This term is used in two related senses. In the first usage, nationalism seeks to identify a behavioral entity - the nation - and thereafter to pursue certain political and cultural goals on behalf of it. In the second usage, nationalism is a sentiment of loyalty toward the nation which is shared by people."[1] But, like most modern students of international relations, they argue that nationalism has been one of the most important forces shaping international politics.

What Is Nationalism

Nationalism has been the subject of hundreds of analyses and dozens of theories. However, the Evans/Newnham definition is a good start.

Political scientists draw a sharp distinction between the concepts of state and nation. State refers to government and other institutions which run the country. Nation, by contrast, is a psychological characteristic, what individuals identify with. There are nation-states in which almost everyone accepts the state as theirs and makes it the primary home of their political identity and loyalty. That would certainly be true of most people in the United States or France, but is less true in countries where people might think of themselves as Scots more than British, Quebecois more than Canadian, or Walloon more than Belgian. There are also countries with important Diasporas or groups of people who live outside the countries' borders but would rather not do so. As we will see later in this article, one of the most tragic examples of nationalism-induced violence occurred when Yugoslavia disintegrated into now six separate states. Only Slovenia was anywhere near homogeneous, and most ethnic minorities chafed under the nationalistic rule of the majority group's leaders.


Nationalism and the state are surprisingly new phenomena given the importance they play in international relations today.

Why Nationalism Is Important


Nationalism is important in two ways.

The first is relatively benign and is best seen in the patriotism of most people in the United States, the United Kingdom, or France. In those countries, almost everyone believes that the state is legitimate and supports it often without question. In countries that still have a draft, virtually everyone agrees to put on a uniform if conscripted.

Such patriotism can have an ugly side - who hasn't been appalled by the boorishness of American hockey or English soccer fans. And, most observers are convinced that patriotism can leave most people more blind than they should be to their country's political flaws, something many critics have argued about Americans since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Yet that sort of hyper-nationalism has not often led to the kind of violent conflict which claimed well over 100 million people in the twentieth century. One of the major causes of most of those conflicts has been nationalism of a different kind -- one that gets out of hand, turns into hatred of others, and sparks violence, often of the most brutal form. That is especially true when leaders of states can convince people that they have somehow been treated abusively by the "other" or that members of "our" group who live outside "our" borders need to be incorporated into the "homeland."

As far as interstate war is concerned, there is no more obvious example than World War II. Japan, Italy, and especially Germany were all led by leaders who stressed unmet nationalist goals and grievances in the years leading up to the outbreak of fighting in 1939. While psychologists and historians still debate exactly how this took place, there is little doubt that the intense emotions felt by leaders and followers alike contributed to the atrocities committed by people from all three of these countries.

Nationalism of only a slightly different sort has fueled much of the intrastate violence that has been the dominant form of intractable political conflict since the end of World War II. In some cases, the term nationalism itself may not be used at all in what are referred to as ethnic or other "sub-national" conflicts, as is the case with many of the conflicts taking place inside of multinational countries such as India. In other cases, there is no realistic possibility of creating ethnically pure states; there is, for instance, no way to envision Hutu or Tutsi states emerging out of either Rwanda or Burundi. The largest number of cases involve nationalities whose historical claims to state- or nation-ness are rather tenuous as in Kashmir, Chechnya, or most of the former Yugoslav republics. But, the people who take up arms in those conflicts share the same kind of deeply rooted emotions that gave rise to the Nazis in Germany and any other Volk or nation-based ideology.

What Individuals Can Do


The most obvious thing for an average citizen to do is to resist adopting ideologies that starkly divide the world into "we versus them" terms or choosing leaders who do so.

In more general terms, it is hard for people to refuse to accept such values during times of crisis, such as the combination of defeat and depression that gripped Germany during the interwar years. To begin with, the Germans had legitimate grievances about the humiliation they were forced to suffer as a result of losing World War I. Moreover, the German people were bombarded with "messages" from the media and respected local leaders which served to deepen their resentments. Eighty years ago, Hitler had to rely on newspapers, mass organizations, public meetings, and primitive radio and film technologies. Today's nationalist (and often demagogic) leader has the full range of mass media technologies to draw on. And, in some of the most destructive conflicts in the last decade (e.g., in Rwanda and Serbia), they did just that.

What Leaders Can Do

Obviously, leaders should resist the temptation to support and promote hyper-nationalist ideas. They may pay off in the short term, but the carnage of the last century suggests that they produce few, if any, lasting winners.

But, it may be even harder for leaders to resist hyper-nationalism than it is for average citizens. First, it is clear that some leaders, like Adolf Hitler, truly believe in their nationalism and the prejudices that go with it. Second, and probably more common, are the politicians like Slobodan Milosevic who used hyper-nationalist themes in a more opportunistic way to propel and keep themselves in power.

Of Real and Unreal

Your life is velvet dream lost in the tangle of semi-consciousness. It is a journey to discover the essence of your existence. Everyday you have lost the way, for in the abyss of your shallow consciousness you fancy vivid and pulpy colors while in your waking hours you are feeling grim. Let drop the hypocrisy.Feel the real. C'mon you cannot make love lying alone on your couch wondering about the confusion. The verisimilitude does not lie only in the realization of a successful career; that is a mere snippet.The fragarance is fabricated on freedom ot fly up or the fortification of far-out. Life ain't a decree.


Dreams are for genuine and volition.The sky could be ever cystal clear, unaffected by the cloudiness of your life; the color of love ravishing, not afflicted in vanity and prejudice; and the emotions so naked in substance, undressed by the liberty of your feelings. However the diurnal is shackled by bigotry, monkey-business, conventinality, orthodoxy, pattern, and so forth.


We evanesce in a lifetime yet we could dwell on reverie for a lifetime. So what if it is tranced in a short interval. A world with no religion, but guided by a principle of humanism, and no national boundary between us, only the singularity in living life as cosmopolitan. Wake up into the Real, in the name of all the stars that guide us in the darkness. Listen to the music of the nature, we are One.Can you hear the clamoring call disturbing your dreams? Hey, don't try to! When evrything is gone, only the real remains.

Invitation from Kapil Arambam

View My Invitation here»

thanks,
Kapil Arambam

---

This invitation was sent by Kapil Arambam (kupelderanged@gmail.com) via PimpMySearch to kupelderanged.sanity@blogger.com.
If you would not like to receive further invitations from your friends, please let us know.
Or write to: Zyber Media, PO Box 1046, Novi, MI 48376-1046, USA.

On Humanism

Humanism, philosophical and literary movement in which man and his capabilities are the central concern. The term was originally restricted to a point of view prevalent among thinkers in the Renaissance. The distinctive characteristics of Renaissance humanism were its emphasis on classical studies, or the humanities, and a conscious return to classical ideals and forms. The movement led to a restudy of the Scriptures and gave impetus to the Reformation. The term humanist is applied to such diverse men as Giovanni Boccaccio, Petrarch, Lorenzo Valla, Lorenzo de' Medici, Erasmus, and Thomas More. In the 20th cent., F. C. S. Schiller and Irving Babbitt applied the term to their own thought. Modern usage of the term has had diverse meanings, but some contemporary emphases are on lasting human values, cultivation of the classics, and respect for scientific knowledge.

Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities — particularly rationality. It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems and is incorporated into several religious schools of thought. Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.

Aspects

Religion

Humanism clearly rejects deference to supernatural beliefs in resolving human affairs but not necessarily the beliefs themselves; indeed some strains of Humanism are compatible with some religions. It is generally compatible with atheism and agnosticism but doesn't require either of these. The word "ignostic" (American) or "indifferentist" (British, including OED) are sometimes applied to Humanism, on the grounds that Humanism is an ethical process, not a dogma about the existence or otherwise of gods; Humanists simply have no need to be concerned with such questions. Agnosticism or atheism on their own do not necessarily entail Humanism; many different and sometimes incompatible philosophies happen to be atheistic in nature. There is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere, and not all are humanistic.

As Humanism encompasses intellectual currents running through a wide variety of philosophical and religious thought, several strains of Humanism allow it to fulfill, supplement or supplant the role of religions, and in particular, to be embraced as a complete life stance. For more on this, see Humanism (life stance). In a number of countries, for the purpose of laws that give rights to "religions", the secular life stance has become legally recognized as equivalent to a "religion" for this purpose. In the United States, the Supreme Court recognized that Humanism is equivalent to a religion in the limited sense of authorizing Humanists to conduct ceremonies commonly carried out by officers of religious bodies. The relevant passage is in a footnote to Torcaso v. Watkins (1961). It is often alleged by fundamentalist critics of Humanism that the Supreme Court "declared Humanism to be a religion," however the Court's statement, a mere footnote at most, clearly does not in fact do so; it simply asserts an equivalency of Humanists' right to act in ways usual to a religion, such as ceremonial recognition of life's landmarks.

Renaissance humanism, and its emphasis on returning to the sources, contributed to the Protestant reformation by helping to gain what Protestants believe was a more accurate translation of Biblical texts.



Knowledge

According to Humanism, it is up to humans to find the truth, as opposed to seeking it through revelation, mysticism, tradition, or anything else that is incompatible with the application of logic to the observable evidence. In demanding that humans avoid blindly accepting unsupported beliefs, it supports scientific skepticism and the scientific method, rejecting authoritarianism and extreme skepticism, and rendering faith an unacceptable basis for action. Likewise, Humanism asserts that knowledge of right and wrong is based on the best understanding of one's individual and joint interests, rather than stemming from a transcendental truth or an arbitrarily local source.

Speciesism

Some have interpreted Humanism to be a form of speciesism, regarding humans as being more important than other species. The philosopher Peter Singer, himself a Humanist, stated that "despite many individual exceptions, Humanists have on the whole been unable to free themselves from one of the most central... Christian dogmas: the prejudice of speciesism". He called on Humanists to "take a stand against... ruthless exploitation of other sentient beings", and took issue with statements in the Humanist Manifesto II, which he felt gave "precedence to the interests of members of our own species." He also noted, however, that the same Manifesto stated that humans have "no God-given or inherent right to subdue other animals", and acknowledged that "the organizations that have done the most for animals have been independent of religion."

Optimism

Humanism features an optimistic attitude about the capacity of people, but it does not involve believing that human nature is purely good or that each and every person is capable of living up to the Humanist ideals of rationality and morality. If anything, there is the recognition that living up to one's potential is hard work and requires the help of others. The ultimate goal is human flourishing; making life better for all humans. The focus is on doing good and living well in the here and now, and leaving the world better for those who come after, not on suffering through life to be rewarded afterward.

History

Contemporary humanism can be traced back through the Renaissance back to the Islamic Golden Age to its ancient Greek roots. Humanism can also be traced back to the time of Gautama Buddha (563-483 BCE) and Confucius (551–479 BCE) and the Warring States Period, though the term "humanism" is more widely associated with Western philosophers.

The term "humanism" was coined in 1808, based on the 15th century Italian term umanista, which was used to designate a teacher or student of classic literature. The evolution of the meaning of the word humanism is fully explored in Nicolas Walter's Humanism — What's in the Word.



Greek humanism

Sixth century BCE pantheists Thales of Miletus and Xenophanes of Colophon prepared the way for later Greek humanist thought. Thales is credited with creating the maxim "Know thyself", and Xenophanes refused to recognize the gods of his time and reserved the divine for the principle of unity in the universe. Later Anaxagoras, often described as the "first freethinker", contributed to the development of science as a method of understanding the universe. These Ionian Greeks were the first thinkers to recognize that nature is available to be studied separately from any alleged supernatural realm. Pericles, a pupil of Anaxagoras, influenced the development of democracy, freedom of thought, and the exposure of superstitions. Although little of their work survives, Protagoras and Democritus both espoused agnosticism and a spiritual morality not based on the supernatural. The historian Thucydides is noted for his scientific and rational approach to history.

Islamic humanism

Many medieval Muslim thinkers pursued humanistic, rational and scientific discourses in their search for knowledge, meaning and values. A wide range of Islamic writings on love poetry, history and philosophical theology show that medieval Islamic thought was open to the humanistic ideas of individualism, occasional secularism, skepticism and liberalism. Certain aspects of Renaissance humanism has its roots in the medieval Islamic world, including the "art of dictation, called in Latin, ars dictaminis," and "the humanist attitude toward classical language."

Renaissance humanism

Renaissance humanism was a movement that affected the cultural, political, social, and literary landscape of Europe. Beginning in Florence in the last decades of the 14th century, Renaissance humanism revived the study of Latin and Greek, with the resultant revival of the study of science, philosophy, art and poetry of classical antiquity.(see Burckhard The Civilisation of the Renaissance in Italy) The revival was based on interpretations of Roman and Greek texts, whose emphasis upon art and the senses marked a great change from the contemplation on the Biblical values of humility, introspection, and meekness. Beauty was held to represent a deep inner virtue and value, and an essential element in the path towards God.

Humanism's divergence from orthodox Christianity can be identified with the condemnation of Pelagianism by Jerome and Augustine. Like the Humanists, Pelagius perceived humans as possessing inherent capacity for developing the qualities that the church perceived as necessitating the gift of grace from God. Pelagius rejected the doctrine of original sin. The Humanists likewise recognize humans as born not with a burden of inherited sin due to their ancestry but with potential for both good and evil which will develop in this life as their characters are formed. The Humanists therefore reject Calvinistic predestination, and understandably therefore arouse the hostility of Protestant fundamentalists.

Renaissance humanists believed that the liberal arts (music, art, grammar, rhetoric, oratory, history, poetry, using classical texts, and the studies of all of the above) should be practiced by all levels of wealth. They also approved of self, human worth and individual dignity.

Noteworthy humanist scholars from this period include the Dutch theologian Erasmus, the English author (and Roman Catholic saint) Thomas More, the French writer Francois Rabelais, the Italian poet Francesco Petrarch and the Italian scholar Giovanni Pico della Mirandola.

Modern era

One of the earliest forerunners of contemporary chartered humanist organizations was the Humanistic Religious Association formed in 1853 in London. This early group was democratically organized, with male and female members participating in the election of the leadership and promoted knowledge of the sciences, philosophy, and the arts.

In February 1877, the word "Humanism" was publicly used, apparently for the first time in America, to apply to Felix Adler, pejoratively. Adler, however, did not embrace the term, and instead coined the name "Ethical Culture" for his new movement — a movement which still exists in the now Humanist-affiliated New York Society for Ethical Culture

Active in the early 1920s, F.C.S. Schiller considered his work to be tied to the Humanist movement. Schiller himself was influenced by the pragmatism of William James. In 1929 Charles Francis Potter founded the First Humanist Society of New York whose advisory board included Julian Huxley, John Dewey, Albert Einstein and Thomas Mann. Potter was a minister from the Unitarian tradition and in 1930 he and his wife, Clara Cook Potter, published Humanism: A New Religion. Throughout the 1930s Potter was a well-known advocate of women’s rights, access to birth control, "civil divorce laws", and an end to capital punishment.

Raymond B. Bragg, the associate editor of The New Humanist, sought to consolidate the input of L. M. Birkhead, Charles Francis Potter, and several members of the Western Unitarian Conference. Bragg asked Roy Wood Sellars to draft a document based on this information which resulted in the publication of the Humanist Manifesto in 1933. The Manifesto and Potter's book became the cornerstones of modern humanism. Both of these sources envision humanism as a religion.

In 1941 the American Humanist Association was organized. Noted members of The AHA included Isaac Asimov, who was the president before his death, and writer Kurt Vonnegut, who followed as honorary president until his death in 2007. Robert Buckman was the head of the association in Canada, and is now an honorary president.

Modern humanist philosophies

There are many people who consider themselves humanists, and much variety in the exact type of humanism to which they subscribe. There is some disagreement over terminology and definitions, with some people using narrower or broader interpretations. Not all people who call themselves humanists hold beliefs that are genuinely humanistic, and not all people who do hold humanistic beliefs apply the label of humanism to themselves.

All of this aside, Humanism can be divided into secular and religious types, although some Humanists, including the International Humanist and Ethical Union, reject the addition of any adjective at all to "Humanist," and instead intended the word to have universal application.

Secular humanism

Secular humanism is the branch of humanism that rejects theistic religious belief and adherence to belief in the existence of a supernatural world. It is often associated with scientists and academics, though it is not limited to these groups. Secular humanists generally believe that following humanist principles leads to secularism, on the basis that supernatural beliefs cannot be supported using rational arguments and therefore the supernatural aspects of religiously associated activity should be rejected.

When people speak of Humanism in general, they are sometimes referring to secular humanism as a default meaning. Some secular humanists take this even further by denying that less anti-religious humanists qualify as genuine humanists. Others feel that the ethical side of humanism transcends the issue of religion, because being a good person is more important than rejecting supernatural beliefs. The Humanist Manifestos, which represent consensus statements of Humanists, present Humanism as an ethical process and a religion through which we can move above and beyond both the divisive particulars of older religious stances and the negation of these.

Some secular humanists prefer the term Humanist (capital H, and no adjective), as unanimously endorsed by General Assembly of the International Humanist and Ethical Union following universal endorsement of the Amsterdam Declaration 2002.

The secular humanist movement, by that name, hardly existed prior to 1980. In 1979, Paul Kurtz lost his position as editor of The Humanist. Departing the American Humanist Association, he then launched his own publication, Free Inquiry, and founded the Council for Secular Humanism independently of the American Humanist Association yet pursuing essentially similar goals.

Religious humanism

Religious humanism is the branch of humanism that considers itself religious (based on a functional definition of religion), or embraces some form of theism, deism, or supernaturalism, without necessarily being allied with organized religion, frequently associated with artists, liberal Christians, and scholars in the liberal arts. It holds appeal for a number of Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, Anglicans and Lutherans. Subscribers to a religion who do not hold supernatural assertions as a necessary source for their moral values may be religious humanists. The central position of human beings in humanist philosophy goes with a humane morality; the latter alone does not constitute Humanism. A humanitarian who derives morality from religious grounds does not make a religious Humanist.

A number of religious humanists feel that secular humanism is too coldly logical and rejects the full emotional experience that makes humans human. From this comes the notion that secular humanism is inadequate in meeting the human need for a socially fulfilling philosophy of life. Disagreements over things of this nature have resulted in friction between secular and religious humanists, despite their commonalities.

Religious Humanism was studied and developed by the late Rev. Paul Beattie during his tenure as editor of Religious Humanism, a periodical which became Unitarian rather than Humanist after his death and continues as such today.

A Jewish form of religious Humanism was developed by the late Rabbi Sherwin Wine, who founded the Society for Humanistic Judaism, now a worldwide movement with 40,000 adherents.
Other forms of humanism
Humanism is also sometimes used to describe "humanities" scholars, (particularly scholars of the Greco-Roman classics). As mentioned above, it is sometimes used to mean humanitarianism. There is also a school of humanistic psychology, and an educational method.

Educational humanism

Humanism, as a current in education, began to dominate school systems in the 17th century. It held that the studies that develop human intellect are those that make humans "most truly human". The practical basis for this was faculty psychology, or the belief in distinct intellectual faculties, such as the analytical, the mathematical, the linguistic, etc. Strengthening one faculty was believed to benefit other faculties as well (transfer of training). A key player in the late 19th-century educational humanism was U.S. Commissioner of Education W.T. Harris, whose "Five Windows of the Soul" (mathematics, geography, history, grammar, and literature/art) were believed especially appropriate for "development of the faculties". Educational humanists believe that "the best studies, for the best kids" are "the best studies" for all kids. While humanism as an educational current was largely discredited by the innovations of the early 20th century, it still holds out, in some elite preparatory schools and some high school disciplines (especially, in literature).

See M. Hadas, Humanism: The Greek Ideal and Its Survival (1960, repr. 1972) and The Living Tradition (1966); J. Maritain, Integral Humanism (tr. 1968, repr. 1973); R. W. Southern, Medieval Humanism (1971).

Humanist Manifesto

Humanist Manifesto is the title of three manifestos laying out a Humanist worldview. They are the original Humanist Manifesto (1933, often referred to as Humanist Manifesto I), the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), and Humanism and Its Aspirations (2003, a.k.a. Humanist Manifesto III). The Manifesto originally arose from religious Humanism, though secular Humanists also signed. The central theme of all three is the elaboration of a philosophy and value system which does not necessarily include belief in any personal deity or "higher power," although the three differ considerably in their tone, form, and ambition. Each has been signed at its launch by various prominent academics and others who are in general agreement with its principles.

In addition, there is a similar document entitled A Secular Humanist Declaration published in 1980 by the Council for Secular Humanism.

Humanist Manifesto I

The first manifesto, entitled simply A Humanist Manifesto, was written in 1933 primarily by Roy Wood Sellars and Raymond Bragg and was published with thirty-four signatories including philosopher John Dewey. Unlike the later ones, the first Manifesto talked of a new "religion", and referred to Humanism as a religious movement to transcend and replace previous religions based on allegations of supernatural revelation. The document outlines a fifteen-point belief system, which, in addition to a secular outlook, opposes "acquisitive and profit-motivated society" and outlines a worldwide egalitarian society based on voluntary mutual cooperation, language which was considerably softened by the Humanists' board, owners of the document, twenty years later.

The title "A Humanist Manifesto" - rather than "The ..." - was intentional, predictive of later Manifestos to follow, as indeed has been the case. Unlike the creeds of major organized religions, the setting out of Humanist ideals in these Manifestos is an ongoing process. Indeed, in some communities of Humanists the compilation of personal Manifestos is actively encouraged, and throughout the Humanist movement it is accepted that the Humanist Manifestos are not permanent or authoritative dogmas but are to be subject to ongoing critique.

Humanist Manifesto II

The second Manifesto was written in 1973 by Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson, and was intended to update and replace the previous one. It begins with a statement that the excesses of Nazism and world war had made the first seem "far too optimistic", and indicated a more hardheaded and realistic approach in its seventeen-point statement, which was much longer and more elaborate than the previous version. Nevertheless, much of the unbridled optimism of the first remained, with hopes stated that war would become obsolete and poverty would be eliminated.

Many of the proposals in the document, such as opposition to racism and weapons of mass destruction and support of strong human rights, are fairly uncontroversial, and its prescriptions that divorce and birth control should be legal and that technology can improve life are widely accepted today in much of the Western world. Furthermore, its proposal of an international court has since been implemented. However, in addition to its rejection of supernaturalism, various controversial stances are strongly supported, notably the right to abortion. The general tone of the second Manifesto has been perceived as moving away from sympathy with libertarian socialism toward a more economically neutral libertarian stance.

Initially published with a small number of signatures, the document was circulated and gained thousands more, and indeed the AHA website encourages visitors to add their own name. A provision at the end that the signators do "not necessarily endors[e] every detail" of the document, but only its broad vision, no doubt helped many overcome reservations about attaching their name.

Among the oft-quoted lines from this 1973 Manifesto are, "No deity will save us; we must save ourselves," and "We are responsible for what we are and for what we will be," both of which present serious difficulties for Christian fundamentalists attached to doctrines of submission to the alleged will of an all-powerful supervising God.
Humanist Manifesto III
Humanism and Its Aspirations, subtitled Humanist Manifesto III, a successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933, was published in 2003 by the AHA, which apparently wrote it by committee The new document is the successor to the previous ones, and the name "Humanist Manifesto" is the property of the American Humanist Association.

The newest one is deliberately much shorter, listing six primary beliefs, which echo themes from its predecessors:

* Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. (See empiricism.)
* Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.
* Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. (See ethical naturalism.)
* Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
* Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
* Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

Signatories included 21 Nobel laureates.




Other Manifestos for Humanism

Aside from the official Humanist Manifestos of the American Humanist Association, there have been other similar documents. "Humanist Manifesto" is a trademark of the AHA. Formulation of new statements in emulation of the three Humanist Manifestoes is encouraged, and examples follow.

A Secular Humanist Declaration

In 1980, the Council for Secular Humanism, founded by Paul Kurtz, which is typically more secular and anti-religious in its outlook than the AHA published what is in effect its manifesto, entitled A Secular Humanist Declaration. It has as its main points:

1. Free Inquiry
2. Separation Of Church And State
3. The Ideal Of Freedom
4. Ethics Based On Critical Intelligence
5. Moral Education
6. Religious Skepticism
7. Reason
8. Science And Technology
9. Evolution
10. Education

Humanist Manifesto 2000

Humanist Manifesto 2000: A Call for New Planetary Humanism is a book by Paul Kurtz published in 2000. It differs from the other three in that it is a full-length book rather than essay-length, and was published not by the American Humanist Association but by the Council for Secular Humanism. In it, Kurtz argues for many of the points already formulated in Humanist Manifesto 2, of which he had been co-author in 1973.

HUMANISM AND ITS ASPIRATIONS

Humanist Manifesto III, a successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

The lifestance of Humanism-guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience-encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.

This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.

Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience-each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.

Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.

Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.


Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.

We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.

Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature's resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature's integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.

Contemporary Manipur

Editorials and papers from Web–archive.
Written by: Pradip Phanjoubam (Editor, The Imphal Free Press)

Assorted by: Kapil Arambam
References:
http://ifp.co.in
http://www.satp.org
http://www.manipurresearchforum.org

The greatest revolution of our generation is the discovery that human beings, by changing the inner attitudes of their minds, can change the outer aspects of their lives.
William James

Democracy and Development
2/1/2008

Much like the way democracy has been likened to Capitalism and its brand of free market, democracy has also come to be so closely identified with development, although in the latter case it is not as sinister or the result of clever propaganda. While the question of the co-relatedness, or more pertinently the lack of it, between the Capitalistic free market and democracy, has been discussed enough, the other myth still needs to be exploded and put in place. Is democracy is a necessary condition for development? Here too, while democracy is a desirable option, the hard fact seems to be, it is not the panacea for every ill of the society. Democracy definitely does not seem be a factor of development. As a demonstration, we just need to take a peep at what is happening across the mighty Himalayan ranges in China – the clichéd land of the dragons. The country is not ruled by an elected, representative government, but instead is in the charge of a dictatorship headed by the Chinese Communist Party, and by that very definition alone, not a democracy, as we popularly understand the term. But by any stretch of imagination can anybody claim development has not happened in China, a nation that is today growing at a rate that would see it overtake the largest economy of the world, the US, possibly by 2020 if its current rate of GDP expansion remains unchanged. Perhaps it could still be said that China is not developed if we factor in a scale that measures the general satisfaction and sense of freedom of its people, but then where in the world are people absolutely contented?

What exactly is development then? Does it have to do with good roads, good social security where nobody needs to worry about two square meals a day, affording education for children, good health facilities etc? If these are it, then who can say China is not developed. Everybody who has visited the country today returns seduced, and this includes the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, and before him his predecessor,
Atal Behari Vajpayee. Even its Yunnan province, which 20 years ago was compared to northeast India in its backwardness and development bottlenecks, is today growing at a dizzying 13 percent, and the province’s capital Kunming, a city of 5 million, has transformed into a spanking clean modern city, its skyline defined by futuristic skyscrapers and state of the art education, communication and health infrastructures. It was DONER minister, Mani Shankar Aiyer’s turn to be seduced by the place, and he said just this at an address he made in Guwahati recently, urging of course that the NE region should strive in partnership with the DONER to meet the challenge of catching up with what is happening next door.

As Fareed Zakaria, editor of the American weekly, Newsweek, and incidentally a scholar of repute in his own right, having done his doctoral studies in political science at Harvard School of International Studies under Samuel P. Huntington, the author of the controversial but nonetheless influential book, Clash of Civilizations, implied in so many of his writings that as far as development is concerned, good governance can substitute democracy. It is good if the two can come together, but when they cannot, democracy alone would not bring development, but good governance sans democracy can. Zakaria’s case study was Singapore, the Capitalist dictatorship, and he had done several interviews with Lee Kuan Yew, both while the latter was the Prime Minister of this tiny the country and after his retirement from the job. Many others, including another famous economist and statesman, the late Sir John Galbraith, (author of the celebrated Affluent Society) were also once fascinated by the Singapore phenomenon. And now, Communist China has paled Singapore. Would China turn democratic one day? Probably, for the benefits of democracy are also plenty. The point is, we have democracy, which is a bonus, but there is no justification in leaving it at this. Good governance must be made to partner it. Perhaps only then the dream of Manipur and the northeast to join the race to catch up with Yunnan can become a reality. The onus for this project must squarely rest on the shoulders of those who run the government.


Northeast Boundary
1/24/2008

A map of the northeast region released by the Confederation of Indian Industry, CII, and with the official approval of the Department of North East Region, DoNER and the Government of Assam, on the occasion of a seminar in Guwahati on January 11 and 12, eliciting investors to make the Northeast their destination raised many eyebrows, some in profound consternation. Rightly so too, for this particular map made with the aim of taking advantage of India’s new Look East Policy, clubbed West Bengal with the eight north-eastern states (including Sikkim). While there should be no real objection to this, for in theory the free market is supposed to be an area where the benefits reaped by each participant, rather than being depleted by the number of participants, actually multiplies. This theory however is applicable only in situation where the participants are equal in capability and empowerment. However, between West Bengal and the Northeast, in terms of these qualities, nobody would be led to imagine there is any semblance of equality. Again, if this was just about trade and commerce, things may not have appeared so suspicious, but this is not so as the DoNER is implicated in the project. The DoNER, it may be recalled is a ministry with the stated objective of giving a lift to the developmentally backward Northeast so that it can catch up with the rest of the mainland Indian states – and West Bengal is a mainland Indian state where once was located the nation’s capital during the days of the British Raj. Why would (and why should), West Bengal, arguably a frontrunner state in India, come under the protective umbrella of the DoNER is the question being asked by sceptics.

While there are reasons to suspect ulterior motives, to be fair, we should not jump into conclusions just as yet. The CII, DoNER ministry and the government of Assam, all of whom have apparently given their seal of approval to the proposal, must be made to first explain what they are up to. Maybe they have perfectly legitimate reasons, but till such a time as a satisfactory explanation comes from them, it is also perfectly in place for those of us in the Northeast to be wary of open or hidden agendas which may possibly be behind the move. For indeed West Bengal coming to be treated as part of Northeast can have dramatic changes in the profile of the region, and in all likelihood not to the benefit of the region. If at all the West Bengal-Northeast combined is to be treated as a single economic region, enjoying all the preferential treatment of the DoNER ministry, it must have to be after the Northeast has been given the time and space to develop its own economic legs first. The DoNER ministry and its cousin the North East Council, NEC, were precisely meant to give the region these economic legs so that it can compete on an even playing field with the rest of the forward states of the country.

It is not enough for the media alone to raise the alarm in the regard. The governments of the north-eastern states must also take up the matter, not necessarily and automatically on a hostile note, but with statesmanship. Get those behind the move to explain the logic, and if unacceptable, get them to withdraw it. The opposition, if at all, however must not amount to shooing away the CII unconditionally. A partnership with important bodies such as the CII will ultimately be essential, but to re-emphasise the point, as equal partners where both stand to gain in proportions that take into account each partner’s contribution on a mutually agreed upon scale. Maybe if West Bengal must come to be part of the Northeast it could be just the part of it known as North Bengal which constitutes primarily of the Darjeeling-Kalimpong-Siliguri corridor. For one, this region is geographically, topographically and economically contiguous with the rest of the Northeast. For another, since Sikkim already has been accepted as part of the Northeast, the Darjeeling hump could and should naturally from a part of this new formation. In the end, the primary consideration of policies that target the northeast must be to uplift a region which has been for various extraneous and intrinsic reasons, left far behind the rest of the country in economic terms.

Rights Rather than Territory
1/22/2008

Understandably, many post-colonial nations are uneasy, if not apprehensive of the idea of federalism. Nonetheless, it is also a fact that given the diversity of their demography and geography, they were left with little choice than to embrace the federal model when they became free. Most of these nations, despite having adopted federalism, have however ensured that there are conditions to it. These conditions were in many ways aimed at not allowing the federal pledge amount to a suicide pact for the nation. India is no exception. Its own federalism is limited by structural safeguards to ensure its provinces do not get too powerful for the comfort for the Centre. In fact, constitutional experts such as Fali Nariman have openly argued that India is unitary in spirit but its claim of being federal in nature is facile. The strongest alibi he cites for his contention is Article 3 of the Indian constitution, which gives the Centre the power to not only alter the boundaries or change the name of any state, but also to create news states or dissolve existing ones without the consent of the concerned states. Such overwhelming power entrusted to the Centre, and consequently the hegemonic imposition of a sense of powerlessness to constituent states, he had argued in a paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Federalism held in New Delhi last year, is in no way an assurance of federal structure or spirit. His plea was, perhaps India had reasons to ensure that its federal units do not get too powerful at the time of its emergence from British colonial yoke, fresh as it was from the trauma of Partition and the uncertainty that other parts of its newly and hastily patched up provinces may too begin pulling away. Such compelling circumstances would probably have made any nascent nation think of an asymmetrically powerful Centre vis a vis its provinces, but those conditions are today gone. India is a confident and powerful nation now and there is no longer the need to continue to suffer from the same paranoia which it once was forced into. Article 3, hence calls for a radical rewriting, if not dropped from constitution altogether, he had argued. Many in Manipur of course would agree with Nariman on this point.

Today, India along with many other post-colonial nations have matured, having grappled with and weathered the birth pangs of their new modern identities in the half-century that have gone by. Many others however have not been as resilient. Ethiopia for instance has had to undergo a partial dismemberment in recent times. Of the stories of nations which are succeeding in holding together despite their internal diversities, the case of South Africa is interesting. The internal rifts, tribalism, tribal notions of territory etc, have been a very potent mix of extremely destructive energy giving rise of centrifugal forces of such vehemence that it threatened to tear the nation apart on many occasion. Like so many other nations, it too could not have done without adopting a federal model, but it also had to evolve a formula to ensure that this federalism did not amount to its ultimate disintegration. Its slogan hence has been, “rights rather than territory”, a motto which seems to be working. The South African model of federalism should be of interest to many states in north east India where conflicting notions of territory and ethnic homelands have been the cause of so much violent turmoil.

Manipur also definitely could learn from this. It too is at this moment torn by centrifugal pulls in all direction, predetermined as in the South African case by contradicting notions of territory and homeland amongst it various ethnic communities. In the face of all this, it ought to have become clear to all parties concerned that there are no ways overlapping notions of territory and homeland can be segregated from each other to anybody’s benefit. The only way out seems be the substitution of obdurate adherence to territory as a conflict resolution mechanism, by guarantees of rights. Given its diverse ethnic reality, federalism and autonomy cannot be dispensed. But this autonomy cannot be at the expense of the larger common good, or made to endanger the very integrity of the state. Not heeding this warning can only amount to an apocalypse rather than the salvation we all have been hoping and praying for.

History and the Past
1/21/2008

As to how important history has come to be considered a legitimising factor of claims of nationhood can be seen in the frantic manner in which so many different communities are racing to “reconstruct” or in the jargon of many others, to “reclaim” their separate “histories”. All this is very well. The thirst for knowledge of roots is a natural instinct in everybody, and the very understanding of the term “roots” necessary has to involve an interrogation of the past. But the question is, must the “past” be treated as identical to “history”? Or more relevantly, must the past always be told in terms of “history”? Many seem to think so, and so this grand project of “reclaiming” history. The fact also is, since “history” in its essence is about written records, wherever there are no such written records, a lot of this reconstruction process will have to involve speculations and interpretations of available evidences, primary, secondary and even tertiary circumstances. Often, these interpretations degenerate into convenient inventions too. The problematic nature of this project is self-evident. But even written records need to be taken with a pinch of salt, for the record writers definitely would have picked and chosen according to their sensibilities, ideologies and not the least, vested interests. A royal chronicle for instance would not have recorded anything that would put the royalty concerned in unacceptably bad light. But here the challenge is much clearer, for at least “a pinch of salt” can balance out possible biases of the original compilers and editors to a good extent.

To re-emphasise a point, while there cannot be anybody without a past, must it always be treated as mandatory for this past to be told only in terms of “history” for it to be authentic? Surely there must be other ways different communities told of their pre-literate past before the notion of “history” dawned on them. What about the values of legends and myths in this endeavour? Why are all these being so recklessly sidelined? Take the case of the Meiteis, alongside the royal chronicles of the literate period that recorded events of the days as they rolled by from the vantage of the palace, there are also numerous other narratives from the pre-literate past. Could we for once say that the legend of Khamba Thoibi, or the enchanting poetry of the fable of Ingelei have less value in giving the modern times a peep into its own past than the prosaic record book Cheitharol Kumbaba. We certainly do not think so. They tell the same story, or different aspects of the same story, one in poetry and the other in prose. We would even go the extent of classifying the recorded period as “history” and the times beyond as “memory”.

These two categories are best left separate, both invaluable as they are as narratives of the past. Unfortunately, this is precisely what is not happening. So many are so keen to cram and straitjacket elements of collective memory preserved in legends and myths into so called unique “histories”, in the belief that only such a “history” can be the sanctifier of claims to nationhood. Perhaps “histories” are (or at least were) as alien to the non-European world as the “nation state” is (was). Histories are indeed records of the genesis of the “nation state” which scholars now tell us is a uniquely European experience and are now being mimicked by the rest of the world. Obsession with “nation state” hence must understandably be accompanied by an equally passionate obsession with the project of “inventing” history. In this sense, “history” and “nation state” are both “post-colonial blues” of formerly colonised worlds. The query that follows must therefore be: cannot there be a more appropriate imagining of the “community” – an imagining that is more truthful to the instinctual understanding of the self by the particular community? Cannot we acknowledge other narratives of the past other than “history”, as adequate or at least very important reflections of “national character”? Maybe it is too late to undo the notions of “history” and “nation state”, but at least the realisation that there can be alternate understandings of these ideas must become the moderating factors in the debate. “Past” and “history” do not necessarily have to be one and the same thing.

Resurrecting History
8/14/2007

The prospect of writing history, especially when it involved wars, must be so much the simpler for those who won. In fact, it is often said, and convincingly too, that in wars nothing else matters but winning. A powerful outlook, not easily refutable, but nevertheless one which is behind very mean approaches to life, such as the conviction held by so many that the end justifies the means, or everything is fair in love and war. So much has changed ever since wars were the primary determinants of the progress and status of nations, and now, even the vanquished are back on their feet, writing their own histories and providing perspectives which once were never given the place they deserve. The de-colonisation process of colonies established by conquests is complete at least physically and politically, and all former colonies are now liberated, although psychologically colonial legacies still remain as dark shadows. The abiding spirit in these modern democratised times is no longer one of “end justifies means” but of equality and empowerment as guarantors of justice. But if historiography of the conquerors was marked by a general arrogance, the prospect of history writing by the newly arisen vanquished, is beset with other problems.

The need of the latter is to resurrect a dead and defeated spirit. The effort must hence also be to overcome the trauma of defeat, and to re-discover lost pride in the self (or manhood for the want of a better term). The understandable resort is often to lionise almost unconditionally their heroes and with the same brush vehemently demonise their vanquishers. The danger is, this path to rediscovery of the self may not be always truthful. Not only can this leave gaping holes in scholarship trends, but also make the resurrected self still not enough in grip of reality, increasing in the process the complexes suffered by this new self. The manner in which any adverse criticism of Shivaji in Maharashtra can and has ended in lynching of the “heretics”, is just an example. Manipur’s re-writing of its own post colonial history has not been free of this inherent scholastic weakness too. A metaphorical journey to the past and a date with the subjects of today’s history, just as Ratan Thiyam does in his much acclaimed “Nine Hills One Valley”, awakening Manipur’s Maichous (scholars who wrote the puyas) from their graves for a discourse on the times, may be the kind of purging that is essential today.

Overcoming the trauma of a vanquished past is not by any means an easy task. For it to be successful, it must involve intense, even painful, internal discourses before the final liberation can happen. This liberation can come about only when the subject is able to face the truth without any camouflage and then build from that foundation. Few have argued this point more convincingly than Prof. Cathy Caruth of the John Hopkins University in her book “Unclaimed Experience: Trauma, Narrative, and History” (John Hopkins University Press 1996). In the chapter “Literature and the Enactment of Memory”, she does a critique of the documentary “Hiroshima Mon Amour” by Alain Resnais and Marguerite Duras. The story is about a French woman who went through an agonising experience during the German occupation of France, who comes to Hiroshima after the war to try and understand the horror the city went through, in a bid to quiet her own soul. She had during the German occupation, fallen in love with a German soldier, and the day France was liberated, her lover was lynched before her very eyes, so that the day France was liberated was also her day of personal agony. On the day her lover was killed, the news of the A-bomb dropped on Hiroshima was being celebrated in her country as another landmark of victory. The documentary revolves around her discourse with a Japanese lover in Hiroshima. All the while the memory of her previous agonising love affair remained a private memory, until at one point she narrates it to the Japanese lover. The experience was at once of relief at shedding a load from her chest, but also of an intense sense of betrayal to her past lover. The problematic question that Prof Caruth poses at this point is, just how do you tell a history of personal trauma truthfully without this sense of betrayal? It is a question relevant to all nations and communities whose histories have seen the trauma of defeat and humiliation.

Half-Baked Laws
8/15/2007

When the issue of governance in Manipur is not one of total lawlessness, it is of half-baked laws. The first puts everybody in trouble except those who have assumed to be law unto themselves, and in this category would belong not just challengers of the law but also various organs of the law itself. The second puts everybody in confusion, including the law itself. The former needs no example as the state has been exposed to this condition for far too long for anybody to miss the point. It is the second which needs some explanation. What better way to do this than by illustration through a very recent example, fresh in everybody’s mind. We refer here to the strictures clamped on the local media by the Manipur government through an order invoking certain provisions of the law, against publishing certain categories of news related to underground organisations as well as other NGOs, considered seditious and detrimental to the integrity of the nation. The objections to the very spirit of the order as such by the media fraternity is known and very well publicised in the local dailies. Nobody will however deny that the government too has taken the protest in good spirit and flexibility, even if not to the extent desired or expected, and after a series of meetings with representatives of the media it discussed the matter in a cabinet sitting and modified its various clauses.

In other words, the order still does seem to exist, although not in the original form. But for whatever the reason, a copy of the new order has still not been furnished to the media and hence the ambiguity about the whole affair begins here itself. A few journalists have seen the modified order courtesy their contacts in the government, and are of the opinion that this too is replete with ambiguities, leaving too much room for radically different interpretations. But leave that be as it is and let us give the benefit of the doubt to the government’s self-professed good intent in issuing the order, which it says is to give the media some respite by giving it an excuse to refuse publishing subversive literature by unlawful organisations. The questions now are: does the order really officially exist since it has not been formally communicated to the media? If it does exist, is it going to be implemented in letter and spirit? A greater section of the media is in the dark, with some continuing to publish underground statements after qualifying these as emanating from unlawful organisations, and others censuring the same news partly in deference of the government’s will and partly as an independent exercise of the liberty to edit as editors please whatever news which lands in the newsrooms.

Can the government then be specific? Is the order in force or no? Are the editors free to exercise their own judgment on what is news, and more importantly in the current circumstance, what editorial decisions would guarantee them security? Can the media deal with issue in the manner they have always been in so many years? Supposing tomorrow some newspapers are in trouble by antagonising the “unlawful organisations or NGOs” mentioned in the government order, precisely for respecting the order, and some other newspapers go free and unhindered because they disobeyed the government order, is the government ready to take all moral and material responsibilities? Or would it just find another excuse to shirk off guilt, leaving all the burdens on the victims? If the government has no intention of implementing the order why cannot it simply withdraw it just as the journalist community in the state and beyond have been demanding? On the other hand, if it intends to keep it, implement it uniformly and unambiguously. Or is it a case of the government keeping the order as a future arsenal to isolate and put the squeeze on sections of the media it thinks are hostile to it? In any case, half-baked laws encourage the ordinary citizenry to lose respect of the law. The trouble with this state, to underscore the point once again, precisely is that there are areas of law vacuums and wherever these vacuums are sought to be filled, it is with half-baked laws. Our advice to the government then is, either bake them full or else throw them away.

Leader as Statesman
11/14/2007

When the present is in such a mess, the task of envisioning the future becomes next only to impossible. While this truism must be acknowledged, what needs also to be taken cognizance of is the other fact that the challenge of taking on both the onerous responsibilities – that of setting the present in order as well as envisioning a future – is the only formula for the survival of any society under pressure. It goes without saying that at this very juncture, the prospect for Manipur’s survival hinges on its ability to outlive a similar baptism by fire. This is all the more reason why the state needs a strong leadership class who possess all the multiple qualities associated with true leadership, including the ability to be tough with the tough and soft with the soft, and at the same time to be visionaries of the future. In other words, the “Philosopher Kings” which the great Greek thinker of the classical period, Plato, described in his work of profound influence even on contemporary scholarship “The Republic”. Plato even prescribed systematically breeding this class of leaders through a regimented schooling system, where promising children are identified young and then kept in residential institutes where they are trained to be leaders – a notion which sounds draconian and militaristic, but nonetheless one which undoubtedly must have had plenty of articulation in the concept of the British Public Schools, where children are taught to relish the sprit of adventure and innovation, be good fighters and scholars, all at the same time, so much so that another great warrior, Lord Wellington, the admiral who defeated Napoleon at Waterloo was prompted to reflect and comment in retrospect that the Battle of Waterloo was actually won on the playing fields of Eton and Harrow, the two famous public schools in Britain, where many of India’s own leaders, including its first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru acquired some of his mettle in public leadership.

Plato’s “Philosopher King” is present in the Hindu casteist scheme of things, the only difference being, two of his most characteristic qualities are segregated into two different personas. Although in a different context and as a support for a totally different argument, a towering Indian intellectual, Sudhir Kakar in his celebrated book, Indian Identity (Penguin) describes these two characteristics as the “historical” Kshitriyas and the “a-historical” Brahmins who occupy the realm between divinity and temporal. The rest of the caste varna may roughly coincide with the plebeians of the Platonic order of citizenry, who Plato, and indeed the Hindu caste system, give little importance in matters of statecraft. In the days of democracy, the equations have altered dramatically and no section of the society can be justifiably sidelined anymore. But the principle of the “Philosopher King” should still apply, although the entire population and not just its upper echelons would now form the base from which the king material can emerge. Plato’s definition of the ideal ruler, in the Indian lexicon, thereby would be a person in whom is combined the qualities of the Kshitriya, the warrior-administrator, and the Brahmin, the seer-thinker.

Contemporary Manipur’s tragedy, as much as those of any other immature democracy, has been in the nature of an acute shortfall of men with these acknowledged qualities of a ruler. Or rather, the story is more about the society’s abject inability to groom and project men and women possessing these qualities as its rulers. In their place we have leaders, a majority of whom retain their position of leadership almost solely on the strength of the wealth they have amassed in their previous avatars as dishonest contractors and power-brokers, or else offered themselves as proxies of unlawful shadow governments. It should hardly come as a surprise to anybody that by and large, qualities such as courage, bravery, spirit of sacrifice etc, not to speak of the finer attributes of a leader such as statesmanship, political acumen, vision, are extremely rare to see in the state’s corridors of power. Instead, these corridors have been tirelessly witness to ravenous scrambles for official booty, and with it, the inevitable surrender of moral authority to rule. The consequences are the misery heaped endlessly on the entire people.

Federalism Concerns
11/9/2007

Some of the concerns raised during the recently concluded two and half day 4th International Workshop on Federalism, were thought provoking indeed. The first, second and third editions of these conferences were held in Canada, Switzerland and Belgium respectively, and the fifth will be held in Ethiopia). The problems and prospects of federalism as it unfolded during the workshop were at the same time reassuring as well as intimidating. From Manipur’s point of view it was reassuring for two reasons chiefly: One, because we can now rest assured that the challenge of forging unity amidst diversity is nearly a world wide phenomenon and not our alone. So many of the nations and regions we had imagined were homogenous in ethnicity and interest, including a country like Switzerland, it turned out were faced with this challenge. In fact, it does seem, there is practically no country or region free of this concern. It was the advent of democracy that freed multifarious aspirations exposing the fissures long hidden. The second reason why it came across as reassuring is for the fact that many of the older federations are immensely successful in resolving conflict situations within their countries. Again, Switzerland could be cited as an important example. Many younger federations, such as India and South Africa too are showing tremendous promise.

The prospect is also intimidating for the simple reason that forging a federation has invariably always been accompanied by tremendous pain and uncertainty – a birth pang should we say. The birth pang analogy is interesting as well as appropriate, for the emergence of a workable and mutually acceptable federation is indeed a question giving life to a new being altogether. This creative process also does not always fructify and it is a fact that federations have disintegrated. The USSR, is the most prominent example. Some African countries also continue to face this threat. Ethiopia for example had one of its federating units, Erithirea, breaking away from it. The divisions within the ethnic communities in Ethiopia is so distinct and impossible to patch up totally that the country’s constitution had to have a clause that said every federating ethnic unit had the right to secede from the union, and this right is exactly what Erithirea exercised. But this situation brought up the uncomfortable question of whether a country’s belief in a federal constitution can or should have a suicide pact embedded within it as the Ethiopian constitution has done. Does the provision of divorce make a marriage stronger or weaker?

Many young nations suffer a deep anxiety on the question of structuring itself on a true federal principle. And as Fali Nariman, arguably India’s finest lawyer and constitutional expert forcefully argued, federalism in India, although beginning to have a life of its own in the present time, still remains largely a euphemism, for in reality the nation is still unitary both in spirit and structure. The underlying philosophy has always been to have weak states and an overwhelmingly strong centre. This was an understandable answer by India to its anxiety for national integrity, especially in its formative decades where it had to yoke together as many as 600 princely states and forge a republic out of it, but he appealed that the time has come for India to think of drawing its strength from a truly federal polity. Interestingly for those of us in Manipur, he argued that one of the clauses that debunks any illusion of India as a federal nation is Article 3 of the constitution, which empowers the Centre to redraw the boundaries or even abolish any state without the consent of the concern state.

The general consensus at the end of the conference was that there were three most essential qualities that make a federation strong and successful. First of these is a belief in the idea of equality of all parts of the federation. The second is about trust in each other as well as a common loyalty to the federation they all belong to. The third and not any less important is the confidence in the competence of each federal unit to shoulder the responsibility of governance. Since it is a truism that no two individuals are, or can be, identical, in the end, forging a federation has also to be about discovering compromises acceptable to all parties concerned. Plenty of lessons for everybody in this, including the players in the smaller but much troubled political canvas of Manipur state.

Re-examining Federalism
11/2/2007

Come November 5 and a two and a half day international conference on federalism would have begun in New Delhi. This is the fourth in a triennial series, and the first time it is coming to India. A lot many heads of states would be participating, together with experts on the subject from their respective countries. Since India is the host this time, not only the head of the national government, but also those of the states would be participating. From Manipur, as reported in local newspapers, the Governor Dr. SS Sidhu, chief minister, Okram Ibobi and chief secretary, Jarnail Singh would be among the Delhi entourage. Beyond the fanfare, we do hope there will be valuable lessons for the nation and state on models of federal governance. It is true India is already a federation, qualified by the slogan, “federal in nature unitary in spirit”. But can this structure be improved further is a question on which an answer has been pending for a long time. This question is particularly relevant from the point of view of the northeast, for in the shaping of the Indian constitution, other than Assam, no other state was represented. Sixty years down the line, maybe the time has come for accommodation of new mechanisms to allow the northeast to be more actively a participant.

Sixty years ago, when the Indian constituent assembly was thrashing out and shaping the Indian republic, probably the dominant and dismissive notion was that everything east of Bengal was Assam. And so if Gopinath Bordoloi was part of the constitution drafting, probably the feeling was the entire region was represented. We all know how untrue this presumed reality always was. Even at the time, there were three states in the region, Assam, Tripura and Manipur, besides the North Eastern Frontier Agency, NEFA, now known as Arunachal Pradesh. While Arunachal Pradesh was treated virtually as a “frontier” and a no-man land, Tripura and Manipur were far from it. Maybe, their exclusion from the constituent Assembly was an unconscious acknowledgement that these two states, which were at the time still independent princely states, were not indeed part of India. It is well known now that the two states officially merged with India only in 1949, and in the case of Manipur, under controversial circumstances, the repercussions from which are still being felt to this day in the most violent manner. Assam too split up in later years with Nagaland, Mizoram and Meghalaya breaking away from it. The question then is, were the interest of these new states represented adequately in the constituent assembly?

These questions should gain further immediacy in the backdrop of the ongoing peace talks between the government of India and the two factions of the NSCN. Is a new model of federation the possible solution? The same question applies to the other vexing violent voices of dissent in the region. Is a deeper federation the answer to making Indian nationhood more participatory for the northeastern states? These are areas we hope will come up for exploration during the summit. We also hope our leaders would see it fit to actively initiate and steer the debates in this direction too. The fact also is, there will be participation from other regions of the world where acute problems of unresolved identity diversity exist. Many of these countries have been more successful in meeting their own internal challenges, while it must be admitted many others have done worst than in our own situation. The South Tyrol model, where Italy through grant of elaborate autonomy have prevented an insurgency by its German population is just one interesting model, but there are also Spain’s Basque country, the Irish question, the Samis in the Scandinavian countries and the Russian Federation etc. They would all definitely be interesting case studies. Closer home, it would also be of extreme relevance to be briefed on how China is handling its own internal dissents and ethnic nationalism question. These numerous federal models would shed light on not just the national canvas, but also within states. Manipur knows only too well what dissenting voices are and it too has not been able to evolve a model of governance that can satisfactorily elicit participation of sections of its population.

Security Concerns Re-look
10/30/2007

The sound logic extended by DoNER minister, Mani Shankar Aiyer, during a conference on India’s “Look East Policy”, organised by the external affairs ministry in Guwahati earlier this month needs a much more serious consideration. Commenting on the relevance of the “Look East Policy” he suggested that the story is also very much about India reassessing its security concerns vis-a-vis the northeast. There can be no better security guarantee for India than if the region were to prosper and shine much more than its immediate neighbourhood across the border. We totally agree. If this new paradigm were to be accepted, it would virtually mean turning the existing notion of security in the northeast region over its head. In the chicken and egg conundrum, security had always been placed ahead of development in much of the six decades of India’s independence, so much so that development was seen as a by-product of the country looking after its security needs. All this while, roads were made, airfields were developed, bridges were constructed, all with an eye to servicing security needs first. Even the NEC has a charter spelling out this in black and white, whereby it was made mandatory for all development work to be linked to security needs. There is ample proof of the physical manifestation of this outlook too. A comparison between the road network before and after the Indo-Chinese war in 1962 in Arunachal Pradesh should pronouncedly establish this. A lot has changed ever since, and today the chicken and egg cycle is beginning to turn, although, the old hangover still afflicts many neo-conservative policy makers.

It is in this context that Aiyer’s sketch of the new security paradigm is interesting. Rather than development being made to dovetail security concerns, in this new scheme, development would lead. The assumption is, this would quite naturally, without any need for further orchestration, take care of the security needs in the northeast. Right now, the northeast looks at its own state of stagnation and then at the pace of development that has happened in South East Asia and East Asia, and have little more to say by way of a reaction than to sigh in exasperation and frustration. The unfavourable contrast also feeds to the sense of alienation from the Indian mainstream setting off the familiar unhealthy cycle of discontent on the one side, and suspicion of disloyalty to nation on the other. Hopefully, if the liberal camp prevails over the neo-conservatives, the trend would be reversed. If all goes well, and the northeast region begins to shine, maybe there the mutually fattening senses of alienation and suspicion would become irrelevant. As the DoNER minister said, this indeed could be the circumstance where development becomes the best guarantee for India’s security concerns in the NE region.

On a much smaller canvas, this liberal paradigm should also have very profound applications in the vexed issue of Manipur’s territorial integrity. The insecurities that complicate the Indian state’s security concerns in the northeast, is very much at play in Manipur insecurity about a bifurcation of its territory. If the neighbours begin to shine and Manipur alone continues to stagnate, or even decelerate on the development scale as it does seem to be at the moment, its own insecurity about territorial as well as emotional integrity would be up against an ever growing challenge. The thrust of the Manipur government hence should be on decentralised and equitable development. If the hill districts feel neglected and alienated, the tendency will be for centrifugal forces to grow in magnitude with each passing day. Moreover, if the neighbours are marching ahead on the development hierarchy, they would become counter magnates adding to the sum total of this centrifugal pull. Let the policy makers in Manipur too reverse the security-development equation. Build roads, fan out government infrastructures away from Imphal to the districts, (the government can begin with the NIT), bring in all round development, let the whole state partake in availing the benefits of the system. Territorial and emotional integrity should follow automatically. Once this objective is achieved, a lot many other festering problems of the state too should begin seeing light at the end of the dark tunnel they have been in for all these decades.

Blurring Battle Lines
8/20/2007

Either swear by the constitution or else by the revolution. Otherwise maintain an academic detachment and be a critique of both with the objective of overseeing certain rules of humanitarian law is maintained even in the midst of bitter hostility, ensuring of course you remain a good law abiding citizen all along, just as ideally the role of the media anywhere in the world is supposed to. You cannot simply be both and be honest to both. Moreover such a liaison is what in common parlance is known as treason. It is a knife that can cut either way too, and most probably has been all the while. For the treachery can be to the constitution as much as to the revolution or to both. Although the final words is yet to be said, the high drama at the high security and strictly exclusive ministerial colony, Babupara, last weekend, in which a blitzkrieg launched by the Manipur police ended up with 12 underground activists nabbed from the official quarters of a number of legislators, is already promising to reveal completely blurred battle lines in the ding-dong game of insurgency and counterinsurgency. If it comes to be conclusively established, beyond any shade of doubt that the legislators indeed were fifth columnists to the constitution to which they solemnly swore allegiance at the time of their swearing in, nothing can spell out the moral decay that has taken over the political establishment and indeed our society as a whole. Let us be absolutely clear about this. You have a moral right to be a revolutionary or have sympathy for the revolution’s cause, and even if this was against the law. This would also be much more honourable than be a legislator and a double agent at the same time. What we want now is for the legislators in question to stand by their moral convictions whichever side these were leaning, and bravely be prepared to face the consequence. This will be for the sake of salvaging some of their own, the revolution’s and the government’s honour.

But the moral ambiguity demonstrated in last weekend’s drama is nothing new, although it has never reached such a flashpoint. Otherwise, the game on all sides of the conflict is increasingly getting reduced to a meaningless shadow boxing. Beyond the revolution and its cause, insurgency and so too counterinsurgency are coming to mean a lot more things to a lot many people. A gamut of activities are being sprung forth, which altogether form one cohesive set of activities in which all players fight each other at one level but scratch each others’ back at another, sometimes indirectly, but often directly too. Hence, politicians (not all though to be fair) who denounce insurgency in public have shown how in private they do just the opposite. Insurgents (again not all to be fair) who denounce the notion of the Indian Union, would still, either directly or indirectly, scramble for government contract works. Intellectuals (the same qualification of this not being a sweeping statement stands) who tear the establishment apart and see it as irredeemable and unacceptable, still hanker for service perks from the same establishment which is their employer. In fact today it is said that those who do materially well, are either those close to the corridors of political power or else to its challengers. A network of vested interest in the grinding, oppressive status quo of conflict stalemate has been thus created, ensuring it remains immovable. An amicable solution to the situation is increasingly becoming remote too.

For any honourable solution to remain a possibility, distinct battle lines must remain. Let the revolution remain pure and unadulterated just as those who profess by the establishment, reaping benefits legitimately from it, remain pure in their chosen destiny, so that the final negotiations for rights remain between the two ideological camps only, and not between shadowy denizens, with a foot in either camp perpetually scouting which side of the bread has more butter. The ultimate solution that all should look forward to must be about people’s issues and not end up as a business deal between quasi-contractors.


Empty Driver’s Seat
10/24/2007

Among so many others, what Manipur urgently needs today, is a sense that things are being looked after, and even if they are bad now the effort to get things better have not been abandoned. Nobody is so naive as to actually expect skyscrapers to begin sprouting, incomes to make any quantum leap, swank shopping malls to spring forth, autobahn highways and freeways to begin crisscrossing the state, for such things have receded into stuffs of daydreams and wild fantasies rather than popular perception of achievable goals in the foreseeable future. Indeed, one vital enterprise of the people of the state for which the obituary has been long written is a common ambition for a better society. Thanks to a phenomenal tradition of listless leadership in the decades of its modern era, all generous aspirations for a greater common good have shrunk into individual shells. And since anything as a social security system guaranteed by the establishment has vanished as a result of continued abuse of the system by its very guardians, every man is left unto himself to acquire for himself this sense of security. The obvious path is personal aggrandisement – heap up money regardless of how or where it is had from and buy your way to the future. The very top leadership does it so they can buy back and perpetuate their positions of power. So do the lowly clerks in the bureaucracy so as to be able to buy themselves their own mansions and sense of achievement. Since practically everybody in the government today thus lives in glass houses, nobody, from the top to the bottom of the government hierarchy, dares throw a stone at the other for his own house can get shattered by a return stone – a perfect condition for corruption to flourish. Those outside the government’s umbrella either are green with envy or else the bolder ones have found other means to power, albeit the coercive variety. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this primeval jungle called Manipur where the law of survival of only the most unscrupulous and amoral has been reintroduced.

One is at a loss to imagine where an inspiration strong enough to make this depressing state of affairs change can come. Perhaps some words from men of calibre from the not so distant past could be a beginning. Consider this much quoted statement by Mark Twain, the creator of one of literature’s most endearing fictional characters, Huckleberry Finn. “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn’t do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.” The question he implores every one of us with is, why be insecure, have the spirit of Huckleberry Finn, innocent, brave, free and instinctively considerate. There is only one life to live and one death to die. Every proud culture must be having its own wisdom that runs similarly. These were also the very words Khamba of the Meitei legend chanted before he set forth to tame the wild and murderous bull. Under the circumstance, we wonder what Manipur’s present generation would like to be remembered for (or as) by history? More immediately, what would the present set of leaders want to be remembered as in another decade? Maybe they will not be remembered at all, and we again wonder if this thought does not worry them.

Let us begin from the beginning. Forget any thought of transforming Imphal into New York or Bangkok immediately. Big, spectacular things do not happen overnight. They have to be built brick by brick. The best service that Manipur’s present leadership can contribute to history is simply to set about doing what they are supposed to be doing. They have a Herculean task before them, but let them demonstrate to the people they are taking on the challenge. If the effort is visible and convincing, even if they do not succeed totally, the people and history would be ready to forgive. Two simple show of commitment to duty should be a good starter. First, make and repair roads as they should be. The state’s roads are rotting, even in the heart of Imphal, and instead of constructing and reconstructing them, they are merely being whitewashed (or black-washed as it were). Second, have a garbage disposal system working, especially in the capital. As of today, Imphal is getting stifled to death in its own waste. Surely the government does not think living organisms and the cities they live in, can do without producing any waste, metabolic and otherwise.

Power of the Disempowered
10/22/2007

The statement by the chief minister Okram Ibobi on the incident of killing of three youths in Lamlai by unidentified gunmen (the gunmen are now known) that has caused a public uproar in the area, tells a story that goes beyond the apparent. He told the JAC spearheading the agitation against the killing that his government would pay compensation if the killing had nothing to do with insurgency and the victims were not themselves involved in militant activities. The mindset that the chief minister exposed is precisely also one shared by the hoi polloi, but he has nothing to be proud of this. Surely, between how the common man reacts to a situation and what a public figure makes of the same situation, there can be no common scale. This difference is what distinguishes a leader from his subjects. It is true that things have come to such a sorry pass in Manipur today that whenever somebody is shot dead by suspected underground militants, especially if he is a government officer, it is almost automatically presumed that the victim must have been guilty for some crime or the other. The danger in this public sense of adjudication is obvious, and yet the chief minister so unthinkingly endorsed it. It is even worse that this endorsement came at a time the public are making an effort to reassess and realign their vision on the matter, as the Lamlai outrage and many more earlier on, demonstrated. Again, the chief minister also seems to be saying the state is no longer responsible for killings amongst insurgents for they have ceased to be citizens deserving the protection of the state. This, in our opinion, is giving up the fight even before it is fought. This is no way to win hearts and minds, and it is universally acknowledged that fighting insurgency is more about winning hearts and minds than anything else.

Manipur’s story of militancy is also, among many others, increasingly about corruption and abuse of the established system by its guardians resulting in a more subtle, and in every sense, dangerous corruption of the mind of the common masses. It is a story of how the destitution of the larger masses because of the selfishness of their leadership and elites are recoiling on the society, and indeed its elites. The violence and mayhem that the state is witnessing is in this sense, a kind of poetic justice: “As you sow, so shall you reap”. A legitimate anger that sparked a revolution today has been allowed to mutate into a blood thirsty monster, and there is never a day anymore when no blood is shed. But the seeds for our harvest of violence and lawlessness were sown in the acts of subversion of the system over the decades by the society’s elites and the political leadership. If even a semblance of justice had always been the guiding principle in the ways of the elite and powerful, the lawlessness today would not have been so unmanageable. A larger section of the masses were allowed to be alienated so totally, so much so that in their eyes the establishment had almost begun to be seen as a mechanism to protect the interest of rich and powerful only, and perpetuate their privileged position.

But the lesson has not been learnt, and this abuse of the system continues to this day. The poor and the ordinary still are almost totally disempowered. The best benefits of the system remain out of their reach and exclusively with those who can either pay bribes, or else are cronies of those in power. While the cabal ensures it remains in position of power and in close proximity of filthy lucre, the mutant anger of the disempowered also grows unceasingly. One is reminded of the Hulk monster of the comic book – the good-hearted lovable scientist, whose anger and adrenaline transforms him into the explosively destructive green beast, blasting everything in sight indiscriminately. The cabal’s debauched plundering of the establishment may seem immune to retribution, but it is not. The only trouble is, it is not just them but everybody who ends up paying for their sins. A true initiative towards a conclusive end to the state of absolute lawlessness and the oppressive cycle of violence which have engulfed Manipur can come about only when this unholy party ends in the corridors of power and the state gets to see a leadership that is committed to lead from the front, and an intellectual elite which is honest, capable and responsible.

Absence as Law
10/16/2007

The media in Manipur were off the stands, and air as the case was, for four days following unhealthy strictures put on them by a certain armed organisation. The sorry episode is indicative of the jeopardy that nothing less than the very notion of freedom has been put under. While there can be no argument even freedom must be bound within certain parameters, the important question is, who must draw these parameters. And when this parameter is drawn, how must it be ensured that the new frontiers do not become another prison (Leonard Cohen’s often quoted song: The Frontiers are My Prison). At this moment, the problem is about everybody insisting only can decide where this line dividing freedom and license must be. In the process, the competition for pedagogical authority on the mater itself has become a licentious affair, with every player advancing their own frames within which freedom should be contained. As we have written in earlier commentaries in this same space, Manipur today reminds one of “Alice in Wonderland” where the “Queen of Heart” makes laws on the spot, coldly pronouncing in fits and starts, and for no logically intelligible reason: “off with his head.” Laws in this land have long ceased to be a result of evolution driven by intense discourses between the necessities of lived experiences and universal axioms of rectitude.

These are no trivial debates either that can be decided between any Tom, Dick and Harry, or any reporter, gunman and petty politician. These have been harrowing subjects of modern political philosophy, as yet to be fully resolved, and perhaps destined to remain as a process rather than have a conclusive verdict. In Manipur however, intricacies and nuances of the understanding of the concept have been damned, and it is down to the rectilinear whip made so famous by the American President, George W. Bush: “You are either with us or against us.” Indeed, Manipur lives in the tyranny of a world which has no alternatives other than those prescribed by overbearing “authorities”. This tyranny is even crueller because you are coerced into believing this essentially multicoloured world is actually monochromatic. Rights and wrongs hence are also no longer a matter of consensual norms, but of fiats and decrees. The media’s position is even more unenviable for its role and significance is directly correlated to the status freedom, or rather on whether the parameters of freedom are defined by the liberal paradigm of sharing responsibilities so that everybody can have freedom together.

Nature abhors vacuums, so says the exact science of physics. The same can be said of law, so much so that there can be nothing as a legal vacuum. If the legitimate guardians of the law and its institutions think they can do with a vacuum here and there, let them be under no illusion for the “absence” itself, in a mutant way, would then become a law. This “absence” can become the tool of authoritarian rule in the hands of either the guardians of the law themselves or else its challengers. Conflict torn Manipur is today living in the worst case of such a scenario. In this “absence” of the law, both the guardians of the law and their challengers are running riots, the first set manipulating the system for personal aggrandisement, and the second to establish their authoritarian sway over the minds of the people. While these are the very basic and crude manifestations of this “absence”, there are much more sophisticated arguments about more complex and nuanced situations. Italian political philosopher and a professor of aesthetics in the University of Verona, Georgio Agamben’s book: “State of Exception” is one such. The primary argument is, extraordinary laws made in supposedly extraordinary circumstances, by suspending laws that guarantee civil rights is not law, but precisely an “absence” of law. This “absence” has been used in history to devastating effects, as in the case of Hitler, who in 1933 suspended the Weimar Constitution of 1919 which made Germany a republic to declare a “state of exception”, or emergency in Indian lexicon. Agamben cautions that the post 9/11 world is increasingly leaning towards this “absence”. If nature abhors vacuums, those of us in Manipur know only too well why this “absence” must be abhorred equally vehemently.

Problems of Heterogeneity
9/14/2007

It is patently politically incorrect these days to talk of homogeneity when it comes to law making, but is heterogeneity the panacea for all politics-related social discontents? Although there is no denying there is a lot to be had from the heterogeneity proposition, it still needs to be treated sensitively and carefully, for at the end of the other spectrum sits the question of the clash of civilisations. Manipur knows how thin the ice under the issue is as well as, if not more than any other place. Too much of our most vexing problems are indeed on account of irreconcilable differences in the perception of what ideal public administration should be amongst the different communities in the state. The contradicting pulls and pushes between the hills and valley; the notions of territory and homeland which have resulted in some of the most bitter frictions amongst communities etc have shown us how frustrating the problem of heterogeneity can be. Take just two cases directly related to the question fashioning an administrative model in a heterogeneous situation – the demands for a full-fledged Sadar Hills and Jiribam districts. In the first case, the hurdle is precisely because it is seen as a move to carve out a district for an ethnically different community from another district, Senapati, where this community was a minority. In the second case, although extremely small in area and population, a separate administrative unit from the adjacent district, Tamenglong, was and is seen as prudent because of disparate land revenue systems followed amongst the tribal and non-tribal populations. While in the tribal areas (mostly hills), the land laws are governed by traditional laws, in the non-tribal areas, the modern land revenue system in which all land is deemed to ultimately belong to the state and citizens pay taxes for its use to the government, is in force. Manipur’s experience has been, any attempt to discover a meeting point on this point has met with a clash of civilisations situation.

How exactly must this issue be tackled, is a question that everybody with a stake in the common and larger good of the state must engage in seriously and urgently. While the answer cannot be to steamroll all differences and make a uniform administrative standard everywhere, we are of the opinion that there must have to be at least a minimal degree of commonality agreed upon in this onerous project of evolving a governable administrative mechanism from which everybody can benefit. We have heard so much about how all religions teach the commonness and equality of men. But it is not just the preaching of religions that point to this, for science also says very much the same thing. Even the consideration of homology will demonstrate that there is very little physiologically different between not just two homo sapiens, but also between say a man and a dog, both having a lot in common such as two eyes, two ears, one mouth.. etc. This commonality was also what Shakespeare’s famous literary character Shylock, in his famous outburst in the Venice court was asserting, although his impassionate speech was made to justify vengeance, when he said “If you prick us do we not bleed…. And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge.”

The point is, at the basic level, there must have to be a certain degree of standardisation of law and administrative approach. After all, to borrow Shylock’s words, all men who bleed red must share a lot of feelings, logics, rationales, desires, likes and dislikes. Once a common denominator has been agreed upon, the finer differences that distinguish every man from another, and every community from another, every ethnicity from another, can be explored. If the vegetarian and non-vegetarian man are different in their culinary habits, they both, we are sure would share many common social ambitions, beginning from the need to have their children educated and fit to face the world, to ensuring their families are free from poverty etc. The job of good laws and good administrative mechanisms hence, in our opinion, would be to simultaneously promote the common as well as the heterogeneous elements in a society, especially a multi-ethnic society such as ours. Drawing this fine line would not be easy by any chance, but it would have to be drawn. In making this project a success, the larger masses must also have to be willing partners of the government.

Failed State Fails to Awake
9/19/2007

No public indictment seems strong enough to shake Manipur awake to the reality surrounding it today. Reams after reams of newsprint must have been spent on reports and analysis as to why and how the state is rotting both physically and spiritually. It is almost becoming a matter of routine for neutral outside observers who come visiting to call Manipur a failed state in their writings, and the adjective is beginning to stick like a painful carbuncle not only because of its continual repetition but because of the increasing irrefutability of the description. Nothing about the state at this moment suggests all is well. Its roads are rotting, not just in remote districts, but in the heart of the capital city too; it must have been ages before garbage was ever cleared from the roadside dumps; when it rains even Imphal roads become un-navigable stretches of slush and mud; when it is not they come to be under a shroud of dust kicked up by motor-vehicles; safe piped drinking water is a distant memory, and today people have no other resort than to buy water from private parties. These are not scientifically treated water, but simply fetched from public ponds and rivers. Those who cannot afford these private services, fetch their water themselves from these same sources. These are only some evidences of the physical decay, but these visible signs are the metaphors of a much deeper spiritual erosion. As for instance, even as everybody is recovering from the startling, although not altogether unexpected news of police busting militant hideouts in the homes of ruling party legislators at the high security and exclusive ministerial colony of Babupara, some more militants were again apprehended in another police raid in the same colony yesterday. The brazen audacity and disregard of the law, not so much by the militants, but by the VIPs, is bewildering beyond words.

It is rather ironic that the chief minister, Okram Ibobi, is thinking of touring Southeast Asia soon to woo investors and USA a little later, even as the state is stuck in this depressing state of decay. Shouldn’t he first think of straightening the home front, particularly because he also has reserved the home portfolio, among some other most lucrative ones, for himself? Quite obviously, nobody would want to do business with a place that has become so unstable in terms of basic governance, but in particular, law and order. The trend today is not of capital gravitating towards the state but of a reverse flight, all for the lack of governance. Even tourist traffic, both domestic and foreign, has trickled down to nearly nil. Who would want to come here and choke in the stench of filthy dust and garbage anyway? In the last decade or so, the image of Manipur before the world has become so shamefully negative, and yet our leaders and elites still seem only bothered about feathering their own nests by hook, but more familiarly by crook. They should realise, when Titanic sank, both rich and poor passengers drowned together.

So while poverty and unemployment ravage a growing percentage of the state’s population on the one hand, opulence far beyond known sources of income are evident in the surreal pictures of palaces that keep sprouting up from amidst expanding urban ghettos, to rub shoulders with mud hovels and ramshackle homes. If corruption has been reined as claimed, those holding the reins do not want it to end its avaricious gallop. Needless to say, the future is grim. Take just the case of the employment situation, undoubtedly one of the keys to many of the state’s ills. In the absence of a tangible employment generation programme, unemployment is spiralling. At last count, the government employed about ninety thousand directly, and even this was considered above its ceiling of need as well as affordability. At best, it can marginally expand this capacity artificially, but not without the financial blessing of New Delhi, unable as it has always been to generate enough of its own resources. As it stands today, the only sector which can absorb this extremely onerous burden is the private sector, but unfortunately this sector is increasingly condemned to remain weak and ailing in the absence of sustained and tangible policy props with the result that the crowding of job-seekers at the government employment exchange continues unabated. Considering all this, we appeal to the government once again to do some serious house cleaning first, so that the investment capitals it intends to invite can genuinely feel welcome and at home.

Wounded Civilisation
4/7/2008

The powerful image of India as a wounded civilisation sketched by Sir Vidia S Naipaul, comes to mind in reflecting on Manipur today – of course minus the Islam hatred evident in the Nobel laureate’s accounts. What is it that Manipur is unhappy about? The question needs a much deeper introspection than the usual and familiar escape into the familiar loss of sovereignty story. Would for instance things have been for the better had history took a different turn in 1949? Would the ethnic strife and mutual suspicions amongst communities been any different? Would many of the chronic problems, including that of the perennial fund crunch been any better? From the exchanges of letters and opinions between representatives of various ethnic groups even at the time of the drawing of the pre-merger Manipur constitution, the impression is Manipur’s problem is much more deeply embedded in its social structure than just the dissonance caused by a single major historical event. In other words, while the brash and coercive manner in which the Merger Agreement that made Manipur a part of the newly formed Indian Union was executed, may have opened up further a festering wound, the event in itself is not the sole cause of this wound. The present turmoil could have been as bad, or even worse. No doubt, for whatever its wisdom, the Indian state did do everything to add insult to injury by reducing the sovereign princely state of Manipur into a chief commissioner’s province after the merger by making it a Part-C state. Perhaps, the nascent Union, a major chunk of its territory having been formed by the merger of over 500 princely states, many of them rebellious and unwilling, wanted to ensure that they all felt very small and powerless. The scheming, wily, Chanakyan mindset at work, we suppose.

This notwithstanding, it would be wrong for any serious problem solving, peace making campaign to ignore Manipur’s own inherent weaknesses which have ensured that it lost sync with the times. Another familiar expression, often heard in business and corporate performance analysis is apt in describing this situation: “Who moved my cheese?” Well the fact is paradigms, be it in business, politics or social relations, do move, and the only guard against it to know where it has moved. Better still the remedy would be to be able to anticipate where it might move next so that preparations to take the best advantage under the new dispensation can begin early. Political vision is precisely about this. Those who fail in this project have often ended up in ruins. Those who refuse to accept the reality of the digital age for instance would ultimately be destined at best to a corner in a museum or archival library. We are witnessing how this prophesy is unfolding even Manipur in its cinema world. Likewise there has been democratisation of education, new awareness of rights, international peer groups demanding similar rights etc, enlarging visions, inducing reassessment of social predicaments, giving new colours and insights to old issues. Even the equation between power and politics has transformed unimaginably and both today have come inextricably linked to the notion of justice. This has in turn empowered previously disempowered sections. The indigenous people’s movement for instance is now a force to reckon with even at the UN level. A brutalised section of the world’s population, once slaughtered, enslaved, inhumanly discriminated against, still do not have either the military or economic might to match their former tormentors, but they now have a new source or power – the universal understanding and acknowledgement of rights and justice.

Coming to terms with this reality is where Manipur has failed, and the sad part of it is, there are little evidences that it is willing to change its vision. Hence the resonating lament continues to be about a lost glory of the past and consequently various attempts at rationalisation as to how this sorry predicament is solely the responsibility of forces external to itself. Old glory, “aeon” old relations, old values are all things of the past. The new mission must be to try and locate the new paradigms on which Manipur must base its new relations and politics. On the first day of Sajibu, the lunar New Year, celebrated by the Meiteis and so too many other communities, we wish such a healing process begins in this wounded civilisation of ours.

Desensitised Society
4/17/2008

Manipur today is ceasing to live. On an incremental basis, it is simply learning to be content with merely existing. Much like the state of the German army today as described by an article in the International Herald Tribune, which IFP reproduced two Sundays ago, where it is said the perceptions of the essence of grand values such as bravery and valour in war have been blunted to alarming extents. The once coveted Iron Cross, the country’s highest badge to honour an individual military man’s bravery, according to the article, has lost much of its significance and sheen, so much so that for the German soldier today, soldiering is devoid of all the romance of patriotism and courage, and is more about routine attendance and the salary that comes at the end of it. There is little motivation left to win honours in this army and as the article suggested, this is naturally worrying the nation’s leadership. A campaign to revive the lustre of the Iron Cross is nonetheless facing an uphill task, for it remains as a constant reminder of the fanatical Nazi Germany in the average German’s subconscious. The campaigners are even rethinking of redesigning the medal to take care of this problem. A collective war fatigue, tinged liberally with a sense of guilt at having been the cause of so much violence and bloodshed in the 20th Century has effectively deprived this army, once considered one of the most formidable fighting machine in the world, of its spirit. In a very profound way, this could be the demonstration of how even a nation can suffer from what is normally referred a post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, the kind that made Vietnam war veterans in America give up living and retreat deep into themselves as incorrigible recluses.

Manipur could be heading for a similar future. The mindless violence unleashed in the present times, and the almost absolute lack of governance which is making the situation even worse, is already beginning to have its toll on the psyche of the people by and large. Daily doses of intimidation, threats, humiliations, brutal assaults and even murders, have made the average man and woman cower, with their spirits battered beyond recognition. Their minds are no longer free, their sprits no longer free of fetters. Notions such as living life exuberantly as it should be lived have receded as distant dreams. The only option left for them is to recoil into themselves. When the conflict in this land ends, as it surely must one day or the other, we shudder to think of the possibility that it may be left facing a morally devastated human landscape – a people without drive or ambition, trudging along drearily on life’s long highway. A resilient people can handle physical devastation, but spiritual dwarfing is a different ball game altogether. The resurgence of Vietnam contrasted with the failure of many African countries brutalised not so much by outsiders but by themselves, are examples before us.

Too much of anything, even good things, is bad. Nobody will deny Manipur is having too much of directionless and mindless violence. Raping and murdering, even if the victim is a prostitute cannot be condoned by any sane mind. Silence against such atrocities cannot be a sign of respect of human rights either. Killing innocent officials and threatening to continue with such acts merely to pressurise the department they work in can only be described as the height of desperation and madness. Difficult to swallow it, but these are the nature of crimes unfolding daily in today’s Manipur. Let us learn to read the writings on the walls. Why even take the trouble of decoding and deciphering messages on the walls. Witness the rapidly changing profile of protests on the streets of Imphal. They talk less and less of state violence and more and more of the mayhem perpetrated by the ever mushrooming number of the state’s challengers. The inevitable consequence is, the ordinary citizens have been benumbed so much that today a day with no news of violence and bloodshed has come to be considered dull. We fear a time when they simply decide to fold up and become indifferent to life and living. That will also be the day when the sense of purpose of life which give meaning to grand themes such as honour, bravery, courage, mercy etc, would have sunk into obscurity – a traumatised trance from which it will take generations to recover.
________________________________________________________________________________



Manipur-The Search for Solutions
Pradip Phanjoubam (www.satp.org)

The problem of insurgency or peace has never been, and can never be perceived in black and white, as many have made it out to be. It is definitely not as simple as US President George Bush's defining line between friends and foes, in his nation's war on terrorism, or, in his words, that "you are either with us or against us…"1 This, presumably, is the kind of mindset that has thrown up theories like the 'Clash of Civilizations'2 and made them widely acceptable. The statement is particularly interesting in the context of the trap that the militaristic approach to counter-insurgency falls into. While, in an armed insurgency situation, it would be naïve not to expect an armed retaliation from the state, this retaliation must necessarily be accompanied by a longer political vision of peace that takes care of issues, rather than mere insurgent firepower. The problem often is one of an acute limitation of vision that fails to accommodate the fact that things are not so simple as to be answered within a binary paradigm that conceives of only two exclusive options – true or a false. Contrary to such a reductionist worldview, in any human problem – including a situation of insurgency – between the black and the white; between the friend and the foe; between those who are "with us" and those who are "against us"; there is a whole spectrum of colours and nuances of support, sympathy, indifference and opposition, with many of these sentiments and beliefs literally overlapping. The fact is, not all of the many who are not 'with us,' are necessarily 'against us'; and equally, many who are 'with us' may not be working in our best interest, even if unintentionally. Incompetence, insensitivity, corruption and political myopia on the part of those in charge of the establishment and in command of its resources, are at the root of many of our ills.

Hence, there is a need to identify the nuances, or at least acknowledge the existence of the spectrum of colours and shades, between the two poles of "with us" and "against us" in looking for a resolution to conflicts. Conflict resolution cannot be merely about eliminating all opposition or reducing the choices in negotiating the problem to two mutually exclusive sets of rights and wrongs. Rather, it must consist of labouring to bring everybody to accept reality and then to project a future with this understanding as the foundation.

More specifically, insurgency in India's Northeast has been very much a product, if not an outgrowth of the historical, economic and political circumstances of society in the region. It is the manifestation of unarticulated furies within this society and, indeed, Frantz Fanon's description of such insurrections as the "mailed fist" of a people with a sense of impotence at articulating the anger within, is apt. There is hence, even at points when the brutalities of insurgency have alienated it considerably from ordinary men and women, and even when it has become evident that insurgency is headed towards a dead end, always an unseen, even if distant, umbilical cord that preserves a fraternal feeling among those who have chosen the path of rebellion and the people at large. Even those who now believe that the causes of insurgency have lost their relevance on account of numerous shifts in the paradigms that define and give value to these causes, would recommend a political solution in which the prodigals are guaranteed a legitimate place in society, rather than the dominant extermination theory. This seemingly soft vision of insurgency does not, however, mean that society has cut its other umbilical cords, particularly the one with the establishment. For instance, no matter how much the actions of the security forces may be resented, there are traffic jams in the State capital of Imphal whenever there is a call for recruitment by any unit of the security forces, with young men scrambling for a chance to take part. It should be evident from this and many other similar examples that nothing, indeed, is in black and white.

Understanding Insurgency

An essay, "Insurgency and the Disintegration of Civil Society" by Samir Kumar Das, is interesting in understanding the nature of insurgency in the northeast.3 Das seeks to represent the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) as a political critique of Assam's historical experience, and indeed as also an articulation of an intense discourse within the Assamese civil society. His arguments throw light on the problem through both their strengths and their weaknesses. Das goes to the extent of saying that the ULFA's relevance as well as integrity depends on its ability to continue to be this critique. At the crux of this critique is the familiar identity question. ULFA, (and because it represents a vital part of the soul of the discourse within the Assamese society) the Assamese civil society, perceive their history and identity as fundamentally different from that of India. He cites the near parallel between the degeneration of the ULFA and that of the discourse within the Assamese civil society almost as if to say each is mutually the cause of the other. There is no denying that this is a powerful argument and if its strengths provide insights, its weaknesses obviously unintended, in my opinion, also show ways to negotiate this vexed problem.

Das looks at the ULFA as an intellectual construct, or at least as a phenomenon in which its intellectual architecture has primacy over its physical manifestation. Because of this, in my opinion, the theory is still heavily tilted towards intellectual romanticism, as the author's writings on the same issue in Bengali, on his own admission, were supposed to be. This characterization is akin to Hulk, the loveable comic strip monster, who is basically a materialization of excessive intellectual energy. Das' interpretation of the phenomenon of insurgency in the Northeast is not altogether new in Manipur, although it has never been argued out at such length. Here too, insurgency has been honestly intellectualized (as opposed to trivially propagandised) as an 'enterprise', at its inception, that rose out of the rubble of history. Insurgency in this interpretation represents the strong will of the people among whom it sprang up, determined to 're-people' and salvage lost dignity from a barren spiritual and moral landscape left behind by the devastations of unfavourable but powerful historical forces.

Although the symmetry of Das' theory is strongly manifest in the continued sympathy insurgency enjoys, sometimes unreserved and sometimes grudging, amongst a good section of the people, like many such intellectual constructs, it is exposed to the danger of being weakened by its tendency to forget the contextual background against which alone it can exist and have relevance. Adding to this vulnerability is the fact that the background in this case is not a constant, but in constant flux. As for instance, the very argument that the Assamese identity and history is different, presumes the rigidity of two entities – the Assamese identity itself and more importantly the bigger Indian identity. What if one or the other, or both, shift? Even if a shift in the Assamese identity, to align with the larger Indian identity, is seen to amount to a consequence of cultural imperialism in an 'internal colonialism' situation, and hence objectionable, the question remains, what if the bigger identity itself softens and transforms, and becomes more malleable and accommodative? More pointedly, hasn't such a shift taken place in the Indian identity over the past few decades, all during the lifespan of the ULFA and the other Northeastern insurgencies, thus far? The answer to this question must also take into consideration what is generally perceived to be a deepening of representative democracy during the same period. It cannot ignore for instance, the inevitable reality of coalition politics in India today, in which even a Government led by a Hindu nationalist party, despite its intent, is unable to force a ban on cow slaughter. It would be fruitful from this standpoint of a search for a solution, and not merely an intellectual exercise in despair, however profound, to explore and discover if there are no alternative 'sites' for this same discourse.

If on the other hand, there have been no shifts in the perception or understanding of the larger Indian identity, and there still exist many incompatible features between this identity and those of the societies where insurgencies have festered, then can the possibility of making this shift happen not provide hope for a solution? Should there not be a reassessment of the historical circumstances as well as of identity, by both the larger as well as the smaller identities, not so much out of any sense of political correctness, but out of the need to fine-tune these understandings to present realities? After all, nothing has remained what it was yesterday, and nothing will, in the future, presumably remain what it is today.

Das also rejects any cause and effect theory of the ULFA insurgency, arguing in the process that the ULFA is itself its cause and reason,4 a concept difficult to visualize, but one which gives it some kind of omnipotence and, more frustratingly, defies any answer by way of a solution to the problem. From this viewpoint, the widely held perception of insurgency as a response to other factors, such as poverty, underdevelopment, unemployment, etc., and the attribution of these conditions to externally imposed factors, is reduced to irrelevance and simplistic 'linear narratives'. But by the very obduracy with which the indestructibility and purity of the intellectual construct of the ULFA as a political critique is defended, Das' theory itself appears to exhibit this same quality of linearity. Insurgency is all that Das says it is, and more. It is true the critique perpetuates itself, but it also rests, and in fact has to rest on many other stilts and props, all of which are actionable, not necessarily militarily.

Media under Pressure

In such a scenario, the job before the media has never been easy. At one end, it has to come to terms with the immediate law and order fallouts, which include covert and sometimes overt intimidation from various insurgent groups to forgo the right to edit or criticize. On the other, despite these infringements, the need still remains to tread carefully so as not to end up being blind to the finer undercurrents and dynamics of society, which drive insurgency. There is also the other danger of the state coming down on the media if it is seen to have overstepped the limits of the law in walking this fine balance.

Examples of the misfortunes of media personnel and media organizations on this count abound. It is indeed a tightrope walk for journalists operating in regions of insurgency. The fact that, in the past few years, at least five journalists have lost their lives and many more suffered harassment from either side in the conflict, should give an idea of the occupational hazard in this extraordinary situation.

Having defined broadly the environment in which the media functions and also the basic outlook with which most media organizations meet the challenge, it is necessary to underline the immediate and grave dangers that confront those in the profession. The following paragraphs provide illustrations of how life threatening certain developments, which in Das' theory may only be symptoms of a deeper malaise, can be. As the critique deserts itself, ULFA (the insurgent) does not make itself felt any longer through the power of discourse. It is forced to clutch on to various non-discursive forms of power. The political critique per se has not lost its validity. It has only outlived one of its most powerful agents. Where does this leave the media, which by its very nature, has to tackle and report the problem – whether symptom or disease.

On October 13, 2002, Yambem Meghajit Singh, correspondent of Vision North East, was short dead by unidentified assailants.5 Unfortunately, the next day being a holiday on account of Durga Puja (a Hindu religious festival), the news did not receive the attention it deserved when it did finally appear on October 16 in the local dailies. Today, it is known that the assassination was related to a personal vendetta, and had nothing to do with his journalistic work – but this is hardly a consolation for journalists. The fact also is that the police case in the murder was more or less 'closed' even before it was 'opened', as has become customary in any death resulting from gun violence in Manipur. Insurgency has become a good cover for police lethargy and incompetence. The case was eventually resolved solely as a result of the dogged pursuit of justice by the family of the murdered journalist, who kept appealing to all who could help: both the State Government as well as the 'parallel governments' (insurgents). It does not speak well for the establishment that facts of the case were brought out, not by the Government's investigative agencies, but by others.

Earlier, on October 8, 2002, two other journalists, Iboyaima Laithangbam, correspondent of The Hindu, and Yumnam Arun, correspondent of Eastern Panorama were abducted by an insurgent group, the United Kuki Liberation Front (UKLF), near Saibon Sinam village, a few kilometres away from Pallel in the Chandel district. They were released unharmed on October 10, 2002, and the only reason given for their abduction was that the media had been giving scant coverage to the concerned group, the UKLF.6 There were also the cases of the murder of Lalrohu Hmar, editor of a Hmar newspaper Shan, in Churachandpur by a faction of the Hmar People's Convention (HPC)7 on October 10, 1999, and the murder of the Manipur News editor, Thounaojam Brajamani, by unidentified assailants.8 These are some of the many obvious cases of atrocities on the media in Manipur. The trend is that insurgent groups expect newspaper editors to treat every one of their press releases and actions as being extremely newsworthy, and to be printed with little or no editing. Non-compliance has resulted in summons, the threat of physical harm and even diktats warning of the closure of newspapers. Towards the end of 2000, on the call of the All Manipur Working Journalists Union (AMWJU), newspapers in the State even resorted to shutting down their offices for almost a fortnight to protest the unbearable censorship pressure from insurgent groups.

These developments have been painful for conscientious journalists, who believe that the primary worth and legitimacy of their profession lies in its guarantee of the freedom of thought and expression. The pain is not only physical, but also spiritual, for what is being demanded is a surrender of the very independence that this profession values most. It also means a depletion of the moral authority to criticise and bring to account institutional violations of fundamental rights, which has been the media's duty and privilege. If somebody were to ask if the media in Manipur today was free, an honest answer would be 'no'. The media in Manipur is more in the nature of a tightrope walk, having to balance between the demands and pressures of many parallel 'governments' besides the constitutionally elected one headed by Chief Minister, Okram Ibobi. It is also to be noted that, not all these parallel governments are run by insurgent groups. The frequency of bandhs (shutdown), blockades of highways, "public curfews", imposed by any and every sundry organization bears evidence to the political pressures under which the system operates. Each such organisation, incidentally, can cause journalists physical harm or force newspapers to shut down.

An Orwellian Nightmare and the Search for Peace

While the media is not a holy cow, the difficulties it is facing today are only its legitimate share of the burden that has fallen on society, and what Manipuri society confronts today is nothing less than an Orwellian nightmare of totalitarian politics. Many of the terms and phrases George Orwell coined in his 1984 like "Thought Police", "Double Speak" "Hate Session", "Big Brother", are uncannily apt in describing the present social circumstances in Manipur. Freedom of thought and expression and other valued individual liberties that distinguish civilization from the lack of it are being replaced by tough diktats from numerous 'parallel governments' in operation in the State, even as the legitimate one slumbers on in slothful and corrupt complacency.

The need of the hour is peace. Of course, what should constitute this peace is a matter that must be thoroughly discussed between all those who have a stake in it. This is what we think the central message is. However, Manipuri society, at this moment in history, seems to be suffering from a multiple split personality, with each part deliriously and myopically obsessed with only its own private agenda, never realising that each of these agendas will be in vain if the larger theme that concerns the whole State is not taken cognisance of. All these private concerns have to converge somewhere otherwise our common or mutual destiny cannot be anything but anarchy. The shutdowns, blockades, strikes, threats, the mindless bloodshed, the bans, the boycotts, the ministry troubles, the reshuffles… all these point to this one conclusion: the engines which should ideally be contributing their mites to take the State forward are all pulling in different directions, taking it nowhere.

When will all this end? When can the ordinary citizen's primary worry be restricted to providing his or her children a good education and a future and not when or where the next trouble spot will be? When will the Government's primary concern become the general health of society and not the hypertension resulting out of the perpetual vigil on internal dissension? These are questions asked a thousand times before and have now become hollow because nobody seems really interested in the answers, not even those who continually ask them. Perhaps it is a matter of being intimidated by the immensity of the problems staring at us. Despite the yearning for peace, nothing seems to be falling into place and all the numerous private agendas remain unsublimated and unreconciled. Manipur is already in the midst of a deep crisis. The administration's writ has faded gradually and there is neither law nor order. Anybody and everybody hold the State to ransom any and every time they want. A melange of violent insurgent groups continues to further their insidious agenda without any hindrance. The highways are infested with brigands and are unsafe. Above all, the disturbing thought that haunts the State is that it no longer has a vision of the future to inspire its present.

Moral Authority Needed

One of the first conditions for good governance to return is for politicians to begin treating politics seriously and to accord it the respect and reverence it deserves. Only when they make an effort to do this, will the people they lead also follow. This will be one giant step towards ensuring political stability, a condition Manipur has been starved of for much too long. The onus of restoring the dignity and moral authority of politics rests solely on the shoulders of the elected leaders. The continued deficit of legitimacy in politics as a people's process has done great harm to the moral authority of the state.

The most basic building block of any successful government is, first and foremost, a moral authority over the people it leads. This is precisely what has been lacking in Manipur's politics all these years. It has, indeed, been a case of the state losing control over its citizens. The result has been predictable – a free-for-all ensues, and the law becomes an irrelevant commodity. Witness the number of strikes, shutdowns and blockades Manipur has been plagued with. Witness also the fact that most of these strikes and boycotts were against Government decrees. This is an indication of the scant respect the establishment commands. For instance, during the strike for employees salary hike on the pattern of the 5th Pay Commission's recommendations for Central Government employees, an important argument by the employees against the Government's plea of no funds was that the latter was not setting a consistent example.9 The State Legislative Assembly had, not long before, unanimously resolved to hike the salaries of legislators,10 and could hardly argue against extending the same benefit to the Government's employees. When the Government made moves to downsize its work force, the same counter argument applied. The heads put on the chopping blocks did not include those of the top rung employees during President's Rule, and during the last popular ministry, there had been no move at all to down-size the jumbo ministry.11

The Naga Imbroglio

The National Socialist Council of Nagalim – Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM) leaders, Thuingaleng Muivah and Isak Chisi Swu, were in Delhi in January 2003 to negotiate a solution to the seemingly intractable Naga conflict, an issue that has a huge bearing on peace in Manipur. There is much speculation that a new dawn of peace is in the horizon ending half a century of conflict in Nagaland. But for this to materialise, either both the parties to the negotiations, or one of them, will have to be move away from their stated positions. The two most important as well as difficult issues to negotiate will be 'sovereignty' and 'Greater Nagaland.'12 On the issue of sovereignty, one of the sides will have to make a compromise. But, within the current negotiating ensemble, both the Union Government and NSCN-IM have stated that the issue is not negotiable. Swu explicitly stated that the NSCN-IM had not abandoned its demand for 'self-determination', and reiterated the position that 'there is no greater or smaller Nagaland', and that Nagaland is 'the place of their (Nagas') natural habitation and they are asking for nothing more and nothing less.'13 This position is irreconcilable with that of the other States of the Northeast that share boundaries with Nagaland, and who reject the redrawing of maps in the region, and any transfer of Naga majority areas to a Nagalim.14 The simple conclusion is that, if either thinks its position is not negotiable, there will be no negotiations. The other major issue to be tackled is the question of an integrated Naga homeland. The Government of India's objection to the demand has been, at best, half-hearted, and its mood so far has been determined by the winds of electoral politics. However, the real objections to the idea will come from those different peoples whose own notions of homeland overlap with that of the Nagas. Within this context, it is necessary to ensure that developments in the Naga peace process do not lead to a further polarisation of communities in the region. Unless this happens, the present peace gambit can result in previously unforeseen wars.

On this latter question, it has long been maintained that only an acknowledgement of the inevitability of a shared homeland can solve the problem. To the notion of homeland, we would like to add the much-related notion of Lebensraum, or the natural living space that a people or community need, to feel that its peace and security are not threatened. Lebensraum does not necessarily mean the immediate area of settlement, but extends into the spheres with which the people in question feel their well being is vitally linked. Hence, a landlocked people will feel the right of way is vital, (objections have been raised against shutdowns along the Tiddim Road that puts the Churachandpur district in difficulties on this count), just as communities living in the lower reaches of a river basin will feel their right to water is vital. Similarly, a valley will feel the surrounding hills are part of its lebensraum.

The disarming and disbanding of all insurgent groups is another issue that assumes importance in the light of any proposed negotiated settlement. The ongoing peace process in the northeast, with the NSCN-IM as the principal non-state actor, must also keep this in mind. But, for a stable settlement, it is necessary that everybody must agree to disarm at the same time. The need then is to try and bring in all the militant organisations operating in the region on the same negotiating platform, if peace is to be comprehensive. Peace is not just a matter of the absence of violence. It is also necessarily about removing the potential for violence – namely the uncontrolled possession of weapons. It would be naïve to believe that anybody can be at ease when it is known that a potential opponent is stockpiling arms, even if the latter swears on whatever he or she believes, that the weapons will not be used. Weapons are meant to be used and pretexts will eventually be found for their use at some point or the other. Unless this understanding is clearly understood and acknowledged, Leon Trotsky's dark prophesy will remain a reality: You may not like to go to war, but war will come to you.

Defining Terror and Solving Problems

For a lasting solution to any problem, the solution will have to be defined through a two-way discourse. The quest for peace must necessarily be synonymous with a genuine attempt towards creating a just order of things. This necessitates honest introspection and retrospection. We need to widen the vision of the past, present and the future considerably, and see things within a consensual and democratic perspective. One man's delicacy can very well be another's sacrilege. A middle ground where even these directly opposing points of view can meet has to be created. For violence to end permanently, the residual sense of anger and outrage among all communities, big or small, must first be put to rest. This cannot mean that the onus of settling these conflicts rests solely on the shoulders of only those on one side of these conflicts. All parties to the conflict will have to engage in a process of give and take. Only such a solution can be honourable for all. Only such a solution can be just and lasting.

One fascinating question posed by philosopher Karl Popper in All Life is Problem Solving, opens up interesting new insights in the discussions on the many problems of India's Northeast. It is not a rhetorical question, and Popper himself embarks on a convincing answer in the course of his first essay in the book.15 If all life is, indeed, about problem solving, what is it that distinguishes the problem-solving mechanism of a rudimentary life form, such as the single cell amoeba and that of, say, Albert Einstein? Filtered down to its very basics, problem solving, as Popper explains, involves, first, the identification of the problem; then the attempts at solving it; and finally arriving at the right answer through a series of eliminations of failed (or false) solutions. As with all who do not believe in a finite world, Popper, of course, adds that the new solution (or theory) will always pose new problems and the cycle of problem solving will continue endlessly. So, to the original question: How does the amoeba differ from Einstein in solving problems? The basic difference says Popper, is that while the amoeba is unable to distance itself from its problem solving strategy, higher primates, to which category Einstein belongs, can and most often do. The result is that the amoeba is part and parcel of its own problem solving strategy so that, if the strategy fails, it perishes with it. Einstein, like other evolved primates, is able to externalise his problem solving theories so that, even if his theories perish, he does not. In fact, Popper's definition of progress and scientific enquiry is the constant attempt to falsify existing theories. Consequently, the belief in the infallibility of theories always results in dogmatism.

The proposition is interesting because we identify a certain strain of thought in the indigenous people's movement in the Northeast region as well as elsewhere in the country and the world, which, if viewed against Popper's definition of problem solving, exhibits a syndrome similar to the one the amoeba suffers from. This school of thought, upheld by many home-grown activists and intellectuals, as well as many non-indigenous champions of the Northeast, argues and seeks to authenticate the supposed non-alienability of the indigenous peoples from their subjective world. The argument (undoubtedly powerful and, more often than not, sentimental) is that the identity of the indigenous man is non objectifiable, as it is deeply rooted in his subjective realm of culture, land, mythology, history, etc. Advocates of this position also discard the Western reductionist, analytical method of approaching problems – a method to which we suppose Popper would adhere – as non-applicable to the indigenous situation, and claiming that the incompatibility exemplifies a clash of cultures. It is, of course, necessary not to oversimplify the problem of identity, but the stubborn refusal to accept a scientific definition of progress and scientific enquiry not only amounts to obscuring reality, but is also dangerous, as the line that divides the subject and the object tends to become confused. The end result can very well be, as in the case of the amoeba that those who set out to solve a problem may themselves become part of the experiment, unaware, so that, in the event that the experiment fails, their own well being is put in jeopardy – or they may even perish.

• Pradip Phanjoubam is editor of the Manipur-based Imphal Free Press. He has written extensively on the problems of the Northeast, especially on issues relating to Manipur and Nagaland. This paper is based on the author's presentation at a seminar on "Manipur: Untying the Bind, Analysing Conflict & Development in the Frontier State," organised on March 28-29, 2003, at Imphal, Manipur, by the Institute for Conflict Management.

1. President George W. Bush quoted during a joint news conference with French President Jacques Chirac in Washington on November 6, 2001.
2. Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.
3. Samir Kumar Das, "Assam: Insurgency and the Disintegration of Civil Society", Faultlines: Writings on Conflict and Resolution, Delhi, vol. 13, pp. 95-116.
4. Ibid.
5. Singh, who was the vice president of the Manipur Electronic Media Journalists' Union, was killed after reportedly being tortured. He had reportedly criticised insurgent groups and local politicians on his programme and had also said that he was going to investigate corruption in Manipur. See Annual Report (2002) of the Reporters without Borders, www.rsf.org/artkilled_2002.php3?id_article=4148.
6.UKLF 'commander', Mingthang was later quoted by Laithangbam as saying that the abduction was to protest the 'poor coverage' of the UKLF activities. The local newspapers which were not publishing its handouts "properly" might be banned and further, any journalist "captured" in future would face the music, said the 'commander'. See "Militants release journalists", The Hindu, Chennai, October 11, 2002. Also see "Kidnapping, a thriving business in Manipur", Hindu, April 10, 2003.
7. See www.cpj.org/attacks99/asia99/India.html.
8.Brajamani Singh was killed on August 20, 2000, by two unidentified assailants in the Sagolband area of the State capital, Imphal. Prior to his death, he had received a number of anonymous death threats. In an editorial published the day before the murder, Singh had urged the people who had made the threats to either stop or identify themselves. See "India: Editor murdered in Manipur", www.cpj.org/protests/00ltrs/India21august00pl.html.
9. Pradip Phanjoubam, "Financial Mismanagement in Manipur", Dialogue, Delhi, July - September, 2002 , vol. 4 no. 1.
10. Ibid.
11. Wahengham Nipamacha Singh of the Manipur State Congress Party (MSCP), who led a coalition Government between March 2, 2000, and February 14, 2001, had 34 ministers in the 60 member house. 22 of the 23 MSCP legislators and five of the six legislators of the Federal Party of Manipur with whose support MSCP had formed the Government were given ministerial berths. Three of the four breakaway Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) legislators, two of the three breakaway Manipur People's Party (MPP) legislators, a Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) legislator and a woman independent member who supported the coalition ministry were also inducted. It was the biggest ever ministry in the State. See T K Rajalakshmi and Kalyan Chaudhuri, "New governments, old faces", Frontline, Chennai, vol. 17, no. 6, March 18 - 31, 2000.
12.The purported objective of the NSCN-IM is the establishment of a Nagalim ('Greater Nagaland'), consisting of all the Naga-inhabited areas of the neighbouring States of Assam, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and some portions of Myanmar, which it considers to be the rightful homeland of the Nagas. Slated to be an independent State, Nagalim lies in the Patkai range between 930 and 970 East longitude and 23.50 and 28.30 North latitude at the trijunction of China, India and Myanmar. The proposed Nagalim spreads over approximately 1, 20, 000 sq. km. See www.satp.org/India/nagaland/Nagalim.htm.
13.Ajai Sahni, "Nagaland: A Very Long War Ends?", South Asia Intelligence Review, vol. 1 no. 26, January 13, 2003, South Asia Terrorism Portal. www.satp.org.
14. Ibid.
15. Karl Popper, All Life Is Problem Solving, New York: Routledge, January 2001.
__________________________________________________________________________________




The following write-up is an extract from the article “ Widening the Human Rights Debate” by P. Phanjoubam, which had featured in Eastern Quarterly, Vol 3 Issue I.



As much as the state is being urged to shed excessive militarization in tackling the issue of terrorism, ‘insurgent groups’ must also be urged to reorient their vision of ‘a healthy society’, and most particularly ‘to respect individual liberties and human rights’.

One of the major concerns expressed in private among the civil population these days in Manipur is about atrocities committed by non-state actors in the bloody conflict situation, a category of offences on a steep rise. Kidnapping for ransom, extortion, intimidation, killing for not honouring extortion demands and such other offences have become the state’s staple news today. Is the ‘revolution’ over or has it been hijacked and made petulant by whimsical, self-centred interpretations of it? These are some very pertinent questions, but one that people dare not ask openly.

One thing is very certain: The ‘revolution’ has ceased to inspire awe, as it once used to. Nobody rushes out any more to pick up underground pamphlets thrown out of speeding vehicles. Instead, the dread is that one or other of the dozen or two underground organisations would ask the media to reproduce verbatim long treatises on their philosophy of the ‘revolution’. Refusal to follow these instructions has had unhealthy consequences. Too much blood has flowed down the rivers and streams of Manipur and the people are fatigued beyond limits.

When the state forces act beyond their official briefs and commit atrocities on the civil population, the public stance is clear, as indeed it should be. All executive organ of the state, including law-enforcing apparatus, are expected to keep by the parameters of the law. If and when they transgress this expectation, public outrage is perfectly legitimate. There can also be no dispute as to the violation of basic human rights by such behaviour when the state commits atrocities on the civil population. But when insurgents commit the same offences, the argument has been that these will have to be treated as a law and order problem for the law keepers to handle. Unlike the law keepers, who are expected not to violate the law, the same cannot be said of those challenging the law of the land.

The limitation of this argument is also becoming increasingly obvious. For one, all insurgent groups claim to be governments with their own laws, courts, administration and army. Under the circumstance, they too cannot be exempted of responsibility of governance and ensuring public order and security. Moreover, when we refer to the law in matters of human rights, we refer not just to the law of the land, or even to international law. At the core, we also mean the law of nature, whereby every human being is entitled to certain fundamental rights—the right to dignified living, for example.

These are the kinds of rights that are being trampled upon in Manipur today by both the law-enforcers as well as the law-breakers. The question then is: Shouldn’t every trespass on this sacred and private territory of the individual citizen be equally treated as human rights violations, regardless of who the violator is—state or non-state actors? By such a yardstick, the guilt of human rights violation will most likely have to be shared equally by the state and the non-state players.

Military in Nature

In Manipur, because of the crassness of issues thrown up by the prevalent conflict situation, discussions on the question of human rights too have not gone much beyond the most obvious exercise of finger-pointing. Understanding human rights violation has been generally concentrated in the area of physical harm and culpable threats to life. Indeed, in these tumultuous times of multifaceted insurrections, we are faced with an emergency; and nobody immersed in such a situation can be expected to look much farther than the immediate. But the onerous responsibility before all, especially our leaders and planners, is to do precisely the opposite and look farther.

It is an unenviable situation. The militaristic nature of the turmoil in Manipur has very naturally evoked very militaristic responses. As a result, it is not just the state that is padding itself up with tough militaristic laws that increasingly takes its toll on civil liberties. A parallel development is happening amongst the non-state players in conflict. Yes, we have a surfeit of draconian laws like the Disturbed Area Act, Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and National Security Act. But the underground organisations too have been meting out very militaristic decrees and edicts, which are enforced equally brutally, if not more, as the state’s draconian laws.

Hence, the story today is of custodial torture and killings, arrests without memo, and mass scale atrocities in search operations, on the part of the state forces. On the other hand, summary executions after summary trials by underground military courts where the judge and jury are also the prosecutors, extortions as if by right, thought and moral policing, enforcement of dress codes, bans and banishments, intimidation and attacks on the media etc. To make matter worse, even student organisations have assumed the mantle of moral policemen, imposing their own bits of bans and banishments. They have also begun dictating what school curriculum should be and what textbooks school children should be taught.

As expected, the worst casualty has been individual freedom of choice and action. Ironically, it is also the case of turning on its head the pivotal axiom of a democratic society: the inherent superiority of civilian rule and mandate over the military. As a result, nobody can honestly say in Manipur today that the land’s ultimate sovereigns are its civil population, and not the wielders of the guns. This overall sense of civilian insecurity is the emerging reality. But, because it is a cumulative effect of so many aberrations happening at the same time, it is difficult to index it. It is also unlikely to be named specifically as a human right violation. But if this is not an infringement on the individual’s sense of dignified living, it is difficult to see what else can be.

No Rational Discourses

No rational discourse is possible in such an atmosphere of insecurity and lawlessness and indeed very little honest intellectual discourses are happening on any forum. In any discussion on Manipur’s future at this juncture—be it development, culture, capital investment, ethnic tensions, education, trade and commerce, youth unrest or any other area of activity in the state, including the fine art of statecraft—one overwhelming question remains the common denominator: the law and order situation. This question looms over every other issue and, more often than not, its very presence freezes all other discussions, making them redundant.

The rather cynical little parable from the kindergarten books, of the mice community making big plans about their future and suddenly realizing that, before any of their plans can be executed, the cat in the house will have to be belled, comes to mind. As in the case of the mice, discussants on lofty and weighty issues in Manipur today too invariably pass through a similar trauma at the conclusion of every such discussion. All jaws drop, expressions go blank, and the overwhelming question that eliminates the relevance of all other questions becomes, who will bell the cat? The question itself then becomes the answer, and the awful realization is articulated eloquently in just one unspoken word—nobody. Such is the magnitude of the problem, and its effect can be felt and understood fully only by those who live in the state under the shadow of this awesome question.

Casual onlookers and armchair highbrows in distant Delhi and elsewhere, often misunderstand this general silence on the question, and misinterpret it variously, including as a public complicity in the tumult, or vested interest in perpetuating the problem in the land etc. Nothing can be further from the truth. People here yearn more than ever for peace and normalcy, but these are qualities of life that had gone beyond their control for a long time now. The recent spate of kidnapping and killings has made matters worse, and it does seem that a critical point has been reached. The civil society (read as Meira Paibis, the rest being silent spectators) in Manipur is becoming more and more assertive in speaking out its minds even if it means daring to suggest methods of belling the omnipresent cat in their house. But this is not surprising at all, after all, who wouldn’t be tired of living in a perpetual state of chaos? And chaos has been in Manipur for the last couple of decades.

The insurgency movement in Manipur is moving into a new phase and it is tiring out the people. And this fatigue has come about because of a growing alienation from the causes that insurgency represents. Hastening the process is also the mushrooming of insurgent organisations, as well as the openly fascistic leanings of many of them. Authoritarianism may be able to ensure a regimented, military discipline, but when such discipline is allowed to spill outside the boundaries of military organisations, the casualty is the spirit of freedom, which has been the fountainhead of human creativity in free societies through history. Authoritarian diktats, however well intended, also totally undermine the civil society’s intelligence and ability to judge for themselves. While institutional law seeks to arbitrate between different and often overlapping guarantees of freedoms, a diktat is a straitjacket. Having been subjected routinely to these straitjackets, the value of democratic law is growing in the esteem of the people of Manipur.

Undeniably, there was a time when people identified the roots of insurgency in their own anger at a dysfunctional establishment, and the frustration in searching for a foothold in a radically new historical predicament. Insurgency then was indeed to a significant extent their own ‘mailed fist’, in the words of Frantz Fanon, to deliver their anger at the establishment. This is increasingly ceasing to be the case today, primarily caused by the numerous shifts that have occurred even in the very definitions of the most fundamental paradigms of identity, freedom and even nationhood. The writing on the wall today tells of an unmistakable thirst for peace and reconciliation. Those who think and feel for the people cannot ignore this pulse in the arteries of Manipur.

Terrible Beauty

The Irish poet, Y.B. Yeats, who saw some of the worst periods of Irish insurrection, described insurgency as a ‘terrible beauty’. He watched with alarm and awe as young men and women, many of whom he had personally known to be extremely ordinary people, transform into heroes overnight, offering to give up their lives for a cause far from personal. The manner in which historical circumstances can transport ordinary people living in total obscurity on to the pedestal of immortality overnight was demonstrated before our very eyes on June 18, 2001, and its aftermath in which eighteen young people made the supreme sacrifice. Despite its appeal, because of its essentially militaristic nature of organisation and execution, insurgencies demonstrate a strong tendency towards authoritarianism and fascism.

Hence, much as the state must be urged to shed excessive militarization in tackling this issue, insurgent groups must also be prevailed upon to reorganise and reorient their vision of a healthy society, and most particularly to respect individual liberties and human rights.

One other issue needs urgent consideration. With ground shifts in the paradigms of development and even nationhood, there is a need to introspect and redefine the causes of insurgency in the land. It is not a call for passivity; instead it is an advocacy for reassessing the adequacy of our response to present reality. The ethnic churnings in our immediate neighbourhood will definitely have a bearing on our well being, even if we renounce the path of violence and embrace peace. Hence, the more gainful approach would be to look for a comprehensive peace in the entire area on a consensual understanding of the futility of conflict.

Wider Issues

As stated earlier, discussions on human rights in Manipur always tend to get cloistered as an offshoot of the conflict situation. But there are more to the issue than just this. Apart from these blatant, extremely savage violations of human rights, there are other concerns that run deeper, although they do not command the necessary sense of urgency. For instance, there is nothing as dehumanizing or as big an enemy of dignified living as poverty. And the issue brooks no delay as Manipur’s economy is on the verge of collapse. We still have not seen starvation deaths, but the excruciating pains of poverty are beginning to be felt by an ever-increasing number of people each year.

The bounden duty of a government is to give everything it has to make sure that poverty is alleviated. There is a vital and inalienable link between the management of economy (of a state/region) and the question of human rights. A government’s primary objective must be to create avenues for income generating activities and to bridge the income gaps between different sections of its citizenry to the extent possible. Inability to make the economy regenerative and self-sustaining is ultimately the mother of all rights violations. The crime would be darker if the failure results out of willful neglect by those who are given the responsibility to run the state. There ought to be no doubt that, in the final analysis, it is a government’s ability (or otherwise) to uphold this right, which will spell redemption or damnation for Manipur. Let our own government not forget this either, ever.
____________________________________________________________________________________









Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime.
Aristotle

Eager souls, mystics and revolutionaries, may propose to refashion the world in accordance with their dreams; but evil remains, and so long as it lurks in the secret places of the heart, utopia is only the shadow of a dream.
Nathaniel Hawthorne

Government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit and security of the people, nation or community; whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, indefeasible right, to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public Weal.
George Mason

There are but three ways for the populace to escape its wretched lot. The first two are by the routes of the wine-shop or the church; the third is by that of the social revolution.
M.A. Bakunin

The bigger a state becomes the more liberty diminishes.
Jean Jacques Rousseau

When all other rights are taken away, the right of rebellion is made perfect.
Thomas Paine

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights… namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Virginia bill of Rights, 1776

Why does the guerrilla fighter fight? We must come to the inevitable conclusion that the guerrilla fighter is a social reformer, that he takes up arms responding to the angry protest of the people against their oppressors, and that he fights in order to change the social system that keeps all his unarmed brothers in ignominy and misery. He launches himself against the conditions of the reigning institutions at a particular moment and dedicates himself with all the vigor that circumstances permit to breaking the mold of these institutions.
Ernesto 'Che' Guevara

Emanicipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds.
Bob Marley

A revolution is not a bed of roses. A revolution is a struggle to death between the future and the past.
Fidel Castro

On Revolution

I have come to the conclusion that politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politician
-Charles de Gaulle




Revolution is not something that is created by political elites, but rather by ordinary people when they change the way they think and live.

"When enough people lose faith in an institution and begin to act as if it did not exist, that institution disappears."


When the old institutions crumble, there is no guarantee that more human-centered structures will replace them. In fact, conservatives have their own ideas about how the new world should be organized, and it's not pretty.

That is why we all must participate in the transformation of society—to ensure that human values replace the values of the old elite. Because destruction is also creation, the methods we use to pull down the ruins will determine what kind of world arises from the rubble. Our struggle should not be completely political because political revolutions simply deliver concentrated power into new hands, rather than dispersing it. Furthermore, political thought is rarely innovative: political change usually originates from social conditions, rather than the other way around.

Instead of political revolution, our goal should be social revolution. Social revolution is nothing more than a change in the way we live our lives. It springs from changes in the way we think.

Of Life, A Short Compilation

Life is a wonderful gift bestowed upon us to maintain the essence of our existence in the Cosmo. There could be a thousand definitions of life; the sole purpose is to seek out ourselves for an identity. Lord Mahavira professed that one who maintains equilibrium in profit or loss; fortune or misery; life or death; admiration or condemnation is the one who is always happy. This is true happiness attained by awakening in real identity. It creates Right Belief in life.

It is our human desire to be somebody, yet the process may subtly reduce us to nobody. Once the prominent American poetess Emily Dickinson explains:

How dreary to be somebody!

How public, like a frog

To tell your name the livelong day

To an admiring bog!

As long as there is life on earth, there will also be suffering; only the degrees vary. Suffering is both a reminder and a guide. It stimulates us better to adapt ourselves to our environmental conditions, and thus leads the way to self-improvement. Besides the search for happiness is one of the chief sources of unhappiness.

When we learn how millions of diverse human think and feel about their lives, we get a perspective of our own. We become less prone to irrational negative thoughts. It’s good to learn that its human nature to be dissatisfied. Bertrand Russell said that the most enviable man is the man who feels no envy. The paradox of living is that those who are more confused themselves and who lack real purpose in their lives, often are the very people who burden others with their unrealistic expectations.

The world troubles us not because there is something wrong with the world but because we don’t know how to contact it. Some Vedantic principles on how to contact the world include unselfishness, non-attachment, intellect rules, goal, solitude and study. The suffering of each depends, not upon the factual happenings, but upon the texture of each one’s mind. Indeed suffering is a relative term. Pain, happiness, joy, and struggle are the experiences of the mind. Instead of trying to suppress our pain we should accept it and experience it fully, it would go away.

Man’s inner self is the spring that feeds all his knowing, all that he enjoy on earth. If he neglects it, all his perception must wither and die. If one neglects a spring, it may clog up and stop flowing. We decide things based on perceived reality. The aberration between the soul and the body produces worldly attachment and relationship. The body is not the real man; neither is the mind for the mind waxes and wanes. It is the spirit beyond, which alone can live forever. The body and mind are continually changing and are, in fact, only names of series of changeful phenomena, like rivers whose water is in a constant state of flux, yet represent the appearance of unbroken streams.

Rene Descartes once remarked that we ought to give all of our attention to the most insignificant and most easily mastered facts, and remain a long time in contemplation of them until we are accustomed to behold the truth clearly and distinctly. Only mature minds can grasp the simple truth in all its nakedness. The only sense that is common in the long run is the sense of change- and we all instinctively avoid it.

The human’s prospects of survival were considerably better when we were defenseless against tigers than they are today when we have become defenseless against ourselves. Spirituality essentially reiterates Universal Oneness. In the meantime technological progress is also necessary for our overall development. However, more than material development it is our spiritual progress that allows us to make a better decision on choices and gives us the direction and mechanism to live a sustainable and happy life.

On Anarchism

Anarchists often talk of the 'Social Revolution' as the event which will destroy hierarchical and exploitative institutions, thus opening the way to living our lives according to our desires.

It'll be a time when freedom will be more than a word used in advertising campaigns, where justice shall be true, when economic equality shall exist, and where democracy will be direct -i.e. people who are affected by those decisions shall be the ones making them in the first place. Anarchists talk about the social revolution because we recognise that there will be a time when we will have to make a definitive break with what has gone before.

For the social revolution to succeed anarchist ideas need to win the battle for the hearts and minds of working people before the morning of the day itself dawns. These ideas, in a nutshell, are the principles of freedom and equality, and no repression. The revolution will be a moment when people, their confidence built up by smaller actions, finally seize power over society, and then construct a new society where no one ever gets into a position of power again.

Means to Ends

What comes after a revolution is very much dependent on how that change is carried out. People often refer to the means being justified by the ends, but really the means deter mine the end. Society will be changed by the majority of people destroying the state system and replacing it with directly democratic workers' and neighbourhood councils. While this can be difficult to envisage given the present widespread apathy, anarchists are confident that involvement in the struggle itself transforms people just as it transforms society. If, instead, we leave it up to a group of leaders to take control of a revolution, you can be sure that they will install themselves as the new elite even if they start off with the best of intentions. The road to hell is paved with such good intentions, Ceausescu's Romania was founded on them, and it ended up looking like hell by the time justice caught up with him.

There are two types of factors which, although linked, can be useful to consider separately: the objective and the subjective. The objective ones are the ones that we have little control over, like the weather, the economy, whether or not we go to war with another country, minor details like that. The subjective factors, such as the ideas we hold, like the idea that working people can collectively effect change, are the ones that we have some control over. At certain moments in time, the two have conspired to get people into a position where they push against the existing system with all their might until it ceases to function.

Spain in 1936 is such an example of one of those moments when large amounts of Industry and Agriculture were collectivised voluntarily, and where people tried to build a new way of life from the ashes of the old.

Defence Of the Revolution

Spain showed that the ruling class, facing their extinction as a class, will fight desperately to regain their power. This means, unfortunately, that armed defence of the revolution will probably be necessary. If we don't organise for its defence, we will be condemning not only ourselves to slavery, but also the generations that follow. For libertarians, the military aspect of the revolution must be no different than any other: it should be voluntary and organised democratically, with elected and recallable officers who receive the same privileges as everyone.

Workers' Councils

And the workers' militia must be under the control of the workers. In general, anarchists see Workers' and Neighbourhood Councils as the means by which the people will organise their daily life during and after the revolution. From producing goods and services to organising street cleaning and community protection, anarchists advocate direct administration of all [public] aspects of life. We envisage that these Councils will federate with each other, first locally, then nationally ,and then across the globe. Rather than electing professional leaders to decide our fate, it is essential that people have a say in making decisions that affect them. Having an equal say in how things are run will not only help prevent the re-emergence of a controlling elite, it will ensure more commitment to the new society. As will the inherent justice of anarchist-communism -where people give according to ability and receive according to need. But to get to the anarchist society, we have to pass through the gateway of social revolution: we have to rise up and get rid of the monster that's been created, where terrorists, war criminals, and gangsters in suits decide whether they are going to let people live or die. That can't be done for us. We have to do it ourselves.

My father, my hero...

A tribute to the departed soul



Would you know my name
If I saw you in heaven
Will it be the same
If I saw you in heaven
I must be strong, and carry on
Cause I know I don't belong
Here in heaven

Would you hold my hand
If I saw you in heaven
Would you help me stand
If I saw you in heaven
I'll find my way, through night and day
Cause I know I just can't stay
Here in heaven

Time can bring you down
Time can bend your knee
Time can break your heart
Have you begging please
Begging please


Beyond the door
There's peace I'm sure.
And I know there'll be no more...
Tears in heaven

Would you know my name
If I saw you in heaven
Will it be the same
If I saw you in heaven
I must be strong, and carry on
Cause I know I don't belong
Here in heaven

Cause I know I don't belong
Here in heaven


Eric Clapton penned this lyric for his beloved son who had expired in a shocking manner; which brought catastrophe and further heartaches. I would like to dedicate this song to my dear father who had left us for his heavenly abode... Today, its'nt any memorable day but the thought of despair and melancholy has always been lingering inside me... the pangs of seperation can be felt only by those who have experienced the moments of loneliness, desolation...Its been 9 years baba had gone away...and i m here with nothin...but tears in my eyes...

Beyond the door
There's peace I'm sure.
And I know there'll be no more...
Tears in heaven



.

United National Liberation Front (UNLF)

United National Liberation Front (UNLF)



History


The United National Liberation Front
(UNLF), the oldest Meitei insurgent
group in the State was formed under the
leadership of Arambam Samarendra
Singh on November 24, 1964 to achieve
independence and a socialist society. It
was a secessionist organisation and was
the culmination of several movements
like the shadowy Pan-Mongoloid
movement and the Revolutionary Nationalist
Party (RNP), which raised the banner of
independence in 1953. Later, differences
within the outfit surfaced over the issue
of strategies to be adopted. While
Samarendra Singh sought to spread
ideological consciousness before
launching an armed struggle, the more
radical leader Oinam Sudhir Kumar
established Revolutionary Government of
Manipur (RGM) in December 1968.


UNLF remained a social
organisation for a decade after this, and
took to arms again only in the early
nineties. By mid-1990, the front decided
to launch an armed struggle for the
liberation of Manipur from India. In
the same year, it formed an armed wing
called Manipur Peopleís Army (MPA). Soon
after its formation, UNLF launched its
first armed action against Indian security
force in Loktak hydel project area, 30 km
from Imphal in December 1991. In that
ambush five Central Reserve Police
Force (CRPF) personnel were killed by
MPA militants. In 1990, a faction led by
Namoijam Oken left UNLF and formed
the UNLF (Oken group). This led to
bloody factional clashes between the two
groups, which claimed more than one
hundred deaths. Later, UNLF Oken
group merged with splinter groups of
the Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP)
and the Peopleís Revolutionary Party of
Kangleipak (PREPAK) and formed the
Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL).


In the nineties, the front undertook
a social reformation campaign against
rampant alcoholism, gambling, drug
peddling and drug abuse. The front even
helped in solving private and petty
disputes. UNLF has claimed to have shot
death more than 50 rapists. UNLF has
been on war with NSCN- (IM) since
1991. The ongoing conflict has claimed
many cadres on both sides. The main
reason for this conflict is attributed to
the NSCNIMís demand to include four
districts of Manipur in creating a ìGreater
Nagalandî which UNLF firmly opposed
to and has been challenging the Naga
militant group to protect the territorial
integrity of Manipur. UNLF has accused
NSCN- (IM) of anti-Manipur policies
and charged that NSCN- (IM) is trying
to destroy the communal harmony by
instigating, first, the Naga-Kuki bloodbath
of 1993 against the Kukis as part of their
ìethnic cleansingî plan, then initiating
the Paite-Kuki bloodshed.


Arambam Samarendra, the founder and first
General Secretary of UNLF was killed
by suspected Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup
(KYKL) militants while attending a
seminar in Imphal on June 10, 2001.
From 1993 UNLF started observing
October 15 as National Resolve Day.
From September 21 to October 15 every
year, UNLF observed the period as
Oppose Indian Annexation Month.


Objectives


The UNLF aims to establish an
independent socialist Manipur. The front
also aims at establishing a revolutionary
front by uniting all the militant groups
operating in Northeast. Its ideology is to
create a society based on equality -
equality among different groups of
people living in the Northeast region.


Leaders


In 2003, the structure of UNLF Central
Committee has been changed following
a decision at its General Assembly
Session. The structure of the new Central
Committee are as follows:

Chairman - Rajkumar Meghen aka Sana
Yaima
Vice-Chairman - Vacant
General Secretary - Kh. Pambei
Secretary of Defence - A. Wangpa
Secretary of Organisation - M. Nongyai
Secretary of Publicity - N. Thabal
Associate Member - N.C. Koireng



Command Structure


The Central Committee of UNLF is the
highest decision making body. Its armed
wing - MPA operates under different
district commands. A District command
is headed by a district commander and
it is further divided into units. The frontís
armed wing MPA has three well-trained
mobile task forces - Wangbran Task
Force, Siroy Task Force and Maril Task
Force. The front also maintains an
organizational cell, which takes up
developmental and welfare measures for
the people.


Department of Publicity and
Propaganda is the publicity wing of the
front and all press releases and
propaganda work is done by it. The front
also has a womenís wing. The Chief of
the womenís wing is Nganbi and Banti is the Deputy Chief. These three task
forces are there.


Strength


There is no accurate source regarding
the total strength of UNLF. Government
sources put the total cadre strength of
the front at 1,500. However, it is estimated
by some UNLF analysts that the front
has around 3000 to 3500 cadres. The
strength of the front has seen a sharp
increase in recent years. The front enrolls
roughly 200 to 300 new cadres every year
in the last few years. A large chunk of
its MPA fights are concentrated in
Chandel and Churachandpur districts.


Areas of Operation


In the eighties, the frontís primary area
of operation was confined to the three
Valley districts - Imphal, Thoubal and
Bishenpur. However from the early 90s,
it began to mobilise in the hilly areas of
the state. Presently, the front is active in
Churchandpur and some parts of
Chandel districts. It is also reported that
there is a strong presence of UNLF
cadres in the Jiribam sub-division. In
these hilly areas, the MPA strikes at will
and neutralized army operations against
them on various occasions. The five daylong
encounter between MPA and Indian
security forces in Sajik Tampak area in
January 2003 is a clear indication of the
spreading influence of UNLF in the hilly
district of Chandel. Of late, the front has
spread its tentacles to some parts of
Cachar district (Assam). In July 2002, a
group of MPA cadres ambushed a
column of Indian Army and killed three
soldiers.


Funding


Extortion

The funding for the front mainly comes
from extortion from government
employees, businessmen, contractors etc.
The front used to collect some percentage
from the monthly salaries of all the
employees of the state until it formally
declared in January 2002 that the front
would not anymore collect monthly
salaries. It is believed that UNLF also
receive money from its sympathisers.

Supply of Arms


Highly placed official sources said that
UNLF has been procuring large stocks
of weapons from black markets in
Thailand, Singapore and Cambodia and
started selling arms and ammunition to
several Northeast underground
organisations. There are reports that the
front has, of late sold weapons to United
National Liberation Front (ULFA) and
National Democratic Front of Bodoland
(NDFB). It has also supplied arms and
ammunition to Tripuraís insurgent groups
like All Tripura Tribal Force (ATTF).
Income Generating Projects
Although there is no official source
indicating UNLFís income generating
business establishments, one can
speculate from the seizure of a large
stock of arms and ammunition and gem
stones worth crores from its hideout in
the Tamu area of India and Myanmar
border by the Myanmarese Junta in
December 2002 that the front has
involved in gems and gold smuggling to
finance its activities.

Training Camps


UNLF has training camps in Myanmar
and Bangladesh. It also maintains close
association with the NSCN-(K). UNLF
cadres received military training in the
areas controlled by National Socialist
Council of Nagaland (Khaplang group) in
Upper Myanmar bordering Nagaland
and Myanmar till the mid-nineties. But
its training camps have come down in
recent years and UNLF cadres are now
mainly receiving training in Manipurís
southern hilly areas. Its General
Headquarters (GHQs) is located in Sajik
Tampak areas of Chandel district and it
is reported that there are many camps in
this area. Besides, the front has established
mobile training camps in Churachandpur
district.


Courtesy: Peace and Conflict
Vol. 7 No. 11 NOVEMBER 2004

Assorted by Kapil Arambam

Guitar Chords Theory

C H O R D S T H E O R Y

In this music tutorial you'll learn the theory behind guitar chords. Spending a little time on guitar music theory and harmony will save you a lot of time learning how to play guitar chords and will deepen your understanding of the guitar. Music theory provides you the means to communicate better with your fellow musicians. You'll learn songs faster because you actually now what you are playing. So do yourself a favor and go through this free music theory tutorial.

The topics covered:

* the difference between major, minor, dominant, diminished, ...
* how to name chords
* how to find the notes of a chord
* how to construct your own guitar chords

It's best to go through this tutorial in chronological order, but in case you're looking for something specific here's a brief description of the pages to come:

* 1: constructing triads
* 2: constructing seventh chords
* 3: tensions
* 4: guitar chord list & shortcut
* 5: applying music theory on guitar

The starting point in many music theory tutorials is the C major scale:

C Major Scale C D E F G A B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The C major scale (also called the Ionian scale) is the foundation on which the most of Western music is built.

The letters in the scale are the note names: C is do, D is re, E is mi, F is fa, G is sol, A is la and B is si. The numbers are what we call the function of the note in the scale or chord. The 1 is also known as the 'root'.

There are 5 more notes: the sharps and flats.
A sharp (written like #) is a note raised by a half note.
A flat (written like b) is a note lowered by a half step. So between C and D comes the C# or Db. C# and Db are the same note named differently. Between D and E lies the D# or Eb. Between E and F is nothing because E and F are only a half note apart. Between F and G comes the F# or Gb. Between G and A the G# or Ab. And between A and B comes the A# or Bb. B and C are also only one half note apart.

The first type of chord we'll have a look at is the triad. A triad is a chord that has 3 different notes. Triads are built by stacking thirds. A third (also written like 3) is a particular interval between two notes.

There are 2 kinds of thirds:

minor third interval of 3 half notes notation: b3
major third interval of 4 half notes notation: 3

We'll construct our first chord by stacking 2 thirds on the first note (C or 1) of the C major scale. First we count 4 half notes beginning from the first note: from C to C# to D to D# to E. Then we count 3 half notes from the E: from E to F to F# to G.

C E G
1 3 5

This results in a C major triad or C. C to E makes a major third and E to G a minor third : this structure is typical for every major chord and can be written in a chord formula.
Chord formula for major chords: 1 3 5

Let's do the same for the 2 of the C major scale:

D F A
1 b3 5

This results in a D minor triad or Dm. D to F makes a minor third and F to A a major third: this structure is typical for every minor chord.
chord formula for minor chords : 1 b3 5

I'm not going to repeat this for every note in the scale, I think you got the picture by now.
Let's do one more together, let's built a chord on the 7th note of the scale:

B D F
1 b3 b5

This result in a B diminished triad (Bdim). B to D makes a minor third and D to F also a minor third: this structure is typical for diminished triads.
Chord formula for diminished chords: 1 b3 b5

Here's a list with all triads made on the C major scale:

Notes Formula Name Symbol
1 C E G 1 3 5 C major C
2 D F A 1 b3 5 D minor Dm or D- or Dmin
3 E G B 1 b3 5 E minor Em or E- or Emin
4 F A C 1 3 5 F major F
5 G B D 1 3 5 G major G
6 A C E 1 b3 5 A minor Am or A- or Amin
7 B D F 1 b3 b5 B diminished Bdim or B°

This music theory tutorial will teach you 2 systems to construct guitar chords

1. The first system starts from the major scale.

* Construct the major scale with the same root as the chord you want to construct (how to construct major scales).
For example: when you want to create an Am chord, construct the A major scale : A B C# D E F# G#
* Find the notes of the major chord : 1 3 5
In our example in the key of A this would be : A C# E
* Apply the chord formula on the major chord.
The minor chord formula is 1 b3 5, so the 3rd of the major chord has to be lowered with a half note : A C E

2. The second system involves some memorization and will be explained later in the tutorial.

Now we know how to make chords with 3 different notes, but what about chords with 4 or more notes? Chords with 4 different notes are called seventh chords and are used a lot in jazz and some kinds of pop music. Let's have a look at how to construct seventh chords:

We'll begin with the C major scale again:

C Major Scale C D E F G A B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Seventh chords are made the same way as triads : by stacking 3rds on top of the root.
Triads were constructed by stacking 2 thirds, seventh chords are constructed with 3 thirds.

Let's try to construct a chord on the 1 of the C major scale :

C E G B
1 3 5 7

This results in a C major 7 chord (Cmaj7). C to E makes a major third, E to G a minor third and G to B a major third : this structure is typical for major 7 chords.
Chord formula for major 7 chords: 1 3 5 7

The 2nd note of the C major scale :

D F A C
1 b3 5 b7

This results in a D minor chord (Dmin7). D to F makes a minor third, F to A a major third and A to C a minor third : this structure is typical for minor 7 chords.
Chord formula for minor 7 chords: 1 b3 5 b7

Let's jump to the 5th note of the C major scale :

G B D F
1 3 5 b7

This results in a G dominant 7 chord (G7). G to B makes a major third, B to D a minor third and D to F a minor third: this structure is typical for dominant 7 chords.
chord formula for dominant 7 chords: 1 3 5 b7

Let's do it on the 7th note of the scale:

B D F A
1 b3 b5 b7

This results in a B half diminished chord (Bm7b5). B to D makes a minor third, D to F a minor third and F to A a major third: this structure is typical for half diminished chords.
Chord formula for half diminished 7 chords: 1 b3 b5 b7

Here's the list with all the seventh chords of the C major scale: :

Notes Formula Chord Name Symbol
1 C E G B 1 3 5 7 C major 7 Cmaj7
2 D F A C 1 b3 5 b7 D minor 7 Dm7 or D-7 or Dmin7
3 E G B D 1 b3 5 b7 E minor 7 Em7 or E-7 or Emin7
4 F A C E 1 3 5 7 F major 7 Fmaj7
5 G B D F 1 3 5 b7 G dominant G7
6 A C E G 1 b3 5 b7 A minor 7 Am7 or A-7 or Amin7
7 B D F A 1 b3 b5 b7 B half diminished Bm7b5 or Bmin7b5

Until now we constructed chords by stacking thirds on top of each other. The resulting triads or seventh chords form the basis. Other notes can be added to these basic chords, notes that we call tensions.

The C major scale (again):

C Major Scale C D E F G A B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Construct a chord on C --> Cmaj7:

C E G B
1 3 5 7

We use 4 notes in this chord, what means that there are 3 notes left from the C major scale: 2, 4, 6.If one or more of these notes become part of the chord, we call them tensions or chord tensions.

Usually tensions are played one octave higher compared to the chord tones. This benefits the clarity of the chord.

Let's add an octave to the tensions:

* 2 becomes 9 (2+7(one octave)=9)
* 4 becomes 11
* 6 becomes 13

Let's apply this to Cmaj7: Add 2 to Cmaj7 and we get Cmaj9

C E G B D
1 3 5 7 9

Maybe major chords are not a very good example to explain tensions because the two other tensions that are left, 4 and 6, behave in a special way in combination with major chords.

The first thing we have to look at are avoid notes : tensions that are a half note above a chord note. These notes sound very disharmonic in the chord so they are almost never used, only in case the disharmonic sound is wanted as an effect.
The 4 of the C major scale is a half note above the 3 (chord tone) of that chord (f is a half note above e) --> the 4 is an avoid note for major chords.
A possible way to deal with this is raising the 4 half a note : f turns into f# and is no longer an avoid note. The basic scale is no longer C major (C Ionian) though, but C Lydian (a kind of guitar scale or mode). We call this chord a Cmaj7(#11).

The 6 also behaves differently in combination with major chords. When we add the 6 to a major chord we don't play the 7 and there is no octave added to the 6. This is because the 6 and 7 sound too close to each other.

Add 6 to C major and we get a C6 :

C E G A
1 3 5 6

The same happens to the 6 in combination with minor chords : the 7 is not played.
Add the 6 to Dm7 and we get Dm6 (watch out : the 6 is no longer the note a because the root of the chord changed to D. The six of D is B (D E F# G A B C#) :

D F A B
1 b3 5 6

The 4 is not an avoid note for minor chords because it is two half notes away from the b3 and not one half like it is with major chords.
So we can safely add the 4 to Dm7 and we get Dm11:

D F A C G
1 b3 5 b7 11

The 4 added to a dominant chord is also a special case.
When a 4 is combined with a dominant chord, the 3 of the chord is not played. We call chords like this sus4 chords.
As a guitar chord sus4 chords are often combined with a 9:

G C D F A
1 4 5 b7 9


Here's a list of all common chords and their formula's:
Chord Type Chord Formula
Major Triad 1 3 5
Minor Triad 1 b3 5
Diminished Triad 1 b3 b5
Augmented Triad 1 3 #5
Major 7 1 3 5 7
Minor 7 1 b3 5 b7
Dominant 7 1 3 5 b7
Half Diminished 7 1 b3 b5 b7
Diminished 7 1 b3 b5 bb7
Augmented 7 1 3 #5 b7
Suspended 4 1 4 5 b7
minor/major 7 1 b3 5 7


On guitar music theory page 2 we learned the first system to construct chords.
Here's the second system:

1. Memorize the chord names, chord notes and chord formula's of all the chords (7) in the C major scale:

Cmaj7 C E G B
Dm7 D F A C
Em7 E G B D
Fmaj7 F A C E
G7 G B D F
Am7 A C E G
Bm7b5 B D F A

2. Once you know the chords of C major it's easy to find other chords.

Example 1: how to find the chord tones of Emaj7:

1. You already know the chord tones of Em7 : E G B D
2. You know the chord formula of minor chords: 1 b3 5 b7
3. You know the chord formula of major chords : 1 3 5 7
4. Adapt the chord tones of Em7 to the chord formula of major chords: bring the 3 and the 7 a half note up
5. The chord tones of Emaj7 are : E G# B D#

Example 2: Adim7:

1. You already know the chord tones of Am7 : A C E G
2. You know the formula of minor chords: 1 b3 5 b7
3. You know the formula of diminished chords : 1 b3 b5 bb7
4. Adapt the chord tones of Am7 to the chord formula of diminished chords : bring the 5 and the 7 a half note down
5. The chord tones of Adim7 are : A C Eb Gb

Example 3: C#7:

1. You already know the chord tones of Cmaj7 : C E G B
2. Now we have to add a step: we have to find the chord tones of C#maj7. To find these we just have to raise each chord tone with a half note: C# E# G# B#
3. You already know the formula of major chords : 1 3 5 7
4. You know the formula of dominant chords : 1 3 5 b7
5. Adapt the chord tones of C#maj7 to the chord formula of dominant chords : bring the 7 a half note down
6. The chord tones of C#7 are : C# E# G# B

Now you know the most important parts about guitar music theory and harmony, but how do we bring this knowledge in action, how can it help us becoming a better guitar player? Read on...

The first thing you need to know: not every chord tone is equally important :

* 3 and 7 are the most important notes of a chord because they make a chord major, minor or dominant.
* The 1 is the least important note, because it's the bass player's job the play the 1 (amongst other notes luckily for him)..
* The 5 is the second least important note and doesn't sound very good most of the times.
* Tensions add interest and color, so it's better to use tensions instead of the 1 and 5

The second thing you need to know: 1 half note equals one fret on the guitar neck.

Let's have a look at some guitar diagrams:

* Take a C chord: C E G (1 3 5)
Here's the guitar chord diagram:

Guitar Chord Chart : C

X15135

Let me explain the symbols you see under the chord diagram. Read from left to right (from low E string to high E string) and we have:

o X : don' play the low E string
o 1 : the 1 is played on the A string
o 5 : the 5 is played on the D string
o 1 : the 1 again, now on the G string
o 3 : the 3 is played on the B string
o 5 : the 5 again, this time on the high E string

It's ok to use a note more then one time, like the 1 and 5 in this example, but this can sound a bit harsh.

Let's spice this chord up a bit:

Guitar Chord Chart : Cmaj7

X15735

Instead of playing the 1 again on the G string, we changed it to the 7.

Let's add some color :

Guitar Chord Chart : Cmaj9

X1379X

We exchanged the 5 on the D string for the 3 and we changed the 3 on the B string to a 9.

If you play in a band and you don't want to get in the way of the bass player you better leave the 1 out of your chords. Another good idea when playing in a band is to voice your guitar chords on the higher (4) strings.

Guitar Chord Chart : Cmaj9/E

XX3795

We exchanged the 1 on the A string for the 5 on the high E string.

This chord is what we call a chord inversion : a chord voicing that has a note other then the 1 as it's lowest note. There are three types of chord inversions : 3 is the lowest note (first inversion), 5 is the lowest note (second inversion) or 7 is the lowest note (third inversion).

Our example is a Cmaj9 chord and the 3 is the lowest note, so this is the first inversion of Cmaj9.

How can we make this major chord a dominant chord?
Easy: bring the 7 half a note down (major 1 3 5 7, dominant 1 3 5 b7).
The chord diagram:

Guitar Chord Chart : C9/E


XX3b795
How can we make this chord minor?
We have to lower the 3 from the dominant chord half a note (dominant 1 3 5 b7, minor 1 b3 5 b7)
The guitar chord diagram: Cm9/E


XXb3b795

Another system to construct your own guitar chords is by using the guitar chord finder. Select the root and the type of chord you're looking for and the guitar chord finder displays all the notes of your chord on the guitar neck. Now it's up to you to pick out the notes you want in the position you want.

Edited by: Kapil Arambam
9 March 2008.
kupelderanged@gmail.com
tribkapil@yahoo.com
cup_eel@rediffmail.com
karambam@expresskcs.com

+91- 9818- 605161
Homepage:
http://www.kapilarambam.blogspot.com

Ideology : the Left, the Right and the Centrist

Ideology

An ideology is an organized collection of ideas. The word ideology was coined by Count Antoine Destutt de Tracy in the late 18th century to define a "science of ideas." An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare Weltanschauung), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society. The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society through a normative thought process. Ideologies are systems of abstract thought (as opposed to mere ideation) applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought.

Ideology in everyday society

In public discussions, certain ideas arise more commonly than others. Often people with diverse backgrounds and interests may find themselves thinking alike in startling ways. For social scientists, one way of explaining such instances of common opinion is the presence of an ideology.

Dominant ideologies appear as "neutral", holding to assumptions that are largely unchallenged. Meanwhile, all other ideologies that differ from the dominant ideology are seen as radical, no matter what the content of their actual vision may be. The philosopher Michel Foucault wrote about the concept of apparent ideological neutrality. Ideology is not the same thing as philosophy. Philosophy is a way of living life, while ideology is an almost ideal way of life for society. Some attribute to ideology positive characteristics like vigor and fervor, or negative features like excessive certitude and fundamentalist rigor.

Organizations that strive for power will try to influence the ideology of a society to become closer to what they want it to be. Political organizations (governments included) and other groups (e.g. lobbyists) try to influence people by broadcasting their opinions.

When most people in a society think alike about certain matters, or even forget that there are alternatives to the status quo, we arrive at the concept of Hegemony, about which the philosopher Antonio Gramsci wrote. Modern linguists study the mechanism of conceptual metaphor, by which this 'thinking alike' is thought to be transmitted.

History of the concept of ideology

Perhaps the most accessible source for the original meaning of "ideology" is Hippolyte Taine's work on the Ancien Regime (first volume of "Origins of Contemporary France"). He describes ideology as rather like teaching philosophy by the Socratic method, but without extending the vocabulary beyond what the general reader already possessed, and without the examples from observation that practical science would require. Taine identifies it not just with Destutt de Tracy, but also with his milieu, and includes Condillac as one of its precursors.

The word "ideology" was coined long before the Russians coined "intelligentsia", or before the adjective "intellectual" referred to a sort of person (see substantive), i.e. an intellectual. Thus these words were not around when the hard-headed, driven Napoleon Bonaparte took the word "ideologues" to ridicule his intellectual opponents. Gradually, however, the term "ideology" has dropped some of its pejorative sting, and has become a neutral term in the analysis of differing political opinions. Ideological references are important to many people throughout the world. Karl Marx used the term in his own context often throughout his works.
Analysis of ideology

Meta-ideology is the study of the structure, form, and manifestation of ideologies. Meta-ideology posits that ideology is a coherent system of ideas, relying upon a few basic assumptions about reality that may or may not have any factual basis, but are subjective choices that serve as the seed around which further thought grows. According to this perspective, ideologies are neither right nor wrong, but only a relativistic intellectual strategy for categorizing the world. The pluses and minuses of ideology range from the vigor and fervor of true believers to ideological infallibility. Excessive need for certitude lurks at fundamentalist levels in politics, religions, and elsewhere. It is not only the Catholic pope or other believers who consider themselves in some ways infallible.

The works of George Walford and Harold Walsby, done under the heading of systematic ideology, are attempts to explore the relationships between ideology and social systems.

David W. Minar describes six different ways in which the word "ideology" has been used:

1. As a collection of certain ideas with certain kinds of content, usually normative;
2. As the form or internal logical structure that ideas have within a set;
3. By the role in which ideas play in human-social interaction;
4. By the role that ideas play in the structure of an organization;
5. As meaning, whose purpose is persuasion; and
6. As the locus of social interaction, possibly.

For Willard A. Mullins, an ideology is composed of four basic characteristics:

1. it must have power over cognitions;
2. it must be capable of guiding one's evaluations;
3. it must provide guidance towards action;
4. and, as stated above, must be logically coherent.

Mullins emphasizes that an ideology should be contrasted with the related (but different) issues of utopia and historical myth.

The German philosopher Christian Duncker called for a "critical reflection of the ideology concept" (2006). In his work, he strove to bring the concept of ideology into the foreground, as well as the closely connected concerns of epistemology and history. In this work, the term ideology is defined in terms of a system of presentations that explicitly or implicitly claim to absolute truth.

Though the word "ideology" is most often found in political discourse, there are many different kinds of ideology: political, social, epistemological, ethical, and so on.
Ideology as an instrument of social reproduction

Karl Marx proposed a base/superstructure model of society. The base refers to the means of production of society. The superstructure is formed on top of the base, and comprises that society's ideology, as well as its legal system, political system, and religions. For Marx, the base determines the superstructure. Because the ruling class controls the society's means of production, the superstructure of society, including its ideology, will be determined according to what is in the ruling class's best interests. Therefore the ideology of a society is of enormous importance since it confuses the alienated groups and can create 'false consciousness' such as the fetishism of commodities. Critics of the Marxist approach feel that it attributes too much importance to economic factors in influencing society.

The ideologies of the dominant class of a society (dominant ideology) are proposed to all members of that society in order to make the ruling class' interests appear to be the interests of all. György Lukács describes this as a projection of the class consciousness of the ruling class, while Antonio Gramsci advances the theory of cultural hegemony to explain why people in the working-class can have a false conception of their own interests.

The dominant forms of ideology in capitalism are (in chronological order):

1. Classical liberalism
2. Social democracy
3. Neo-liberalism

and they correspond to the stages of development of capitalism:

1. Extensive stage
2. Intensive stage
3. Contemporary capitalism (or late capitalism, or current crisis)

The Marxist view of ideology as an instrument of social reproduction has been an important touchstone for the sociology of knowledge and theorists such as Karl Mannheim, Daniel Bell, and Jürgen Habermas, amongst many others. However, Mannheim attempted to move beyond what he saw as the 'total' but 'special' Marxist conception of ideology to a 'general' and 'total' conception which acknowledged that all ideologies resulted from social life (including Marxism). Pierre Bourdieu extensively developed this idea.
Louis Althusser's Ideological State Apparatuses

Louis Althusser proposed a materialistic conception of ideology, which made use of a special type of discourse: the lacunar discourse. A number of propositions, which are never untrue, suggest a number of other propositions, which are. In this way, the essence of the lacunar discourse is what is not told (but is suggested).

For example, the statement 'All are equal before the law', which is a theoretical groundwork of current legal systems, suggests that all people may be of equal worth or have equal 'opportunities'. This is not true, for the concept of private property over the means of production results in some people being able to own more (much more) than others, and their property brings power and influence (the rich can afford better lawyers, among other things, and this puts in question the principle of equality before the law).

Althusser also invented the concept of Ideological State Apparatuses to explain his theory of ideology. His first thesis was that "Ideology has no history": since the epistemological break is a continuous process (and not a determined event), science and philosophy must always struggle against ideology, which is, according to Marx, defined as the reproduction of the possibilities of production. His second thesis, "Ideas are material", explains his materialistic attitude, which he illustrated with the "scandalous advice" of Pascal toward unbelievers: "kneel and pray, and then you will believe", thus reversing the primacy of idealism toward materialism. However, this mustn't be misunderstood as simple behaviorism, as there may be, as Pierre Macherey put it, a "subjectivity without subject"; in other words, a form of non-personal liberty, as in Deleuze's conception of becoming-other.
Feminism as critique of ideology

Naturalizing socially constructed patterns of behavior has always been an important mechanism in the production and reproduction of ideologies. Feminist theorists have paid close attention to these mechanisms. Adrienne Rich e.g. has shown how to understand motherhood as a social institution. However, 'feminism' is not a homogenous whole, and some corners of feminist thought criticise the critique of social constructionism, by advocating that it disregards too much of human nature and natural tendencies. The debate, they say, is about the normative/naturalistic fallacy - the idea that just something 'being' natural does not necessarily mean it 'ought' to be the case.

Political ideologies

Many political parties base their political action and programme on an ideology. In social studies, a political ideology is a certain ethical set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order. A political ideology largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it should be used. Some parties follow a certain ideology very closely, while others may take broad inspiration from a group of related ideologies without specifically embracing any one of them.

Political ideologies have two dimensions:

1. Goals: How society should work (or be arranged).
2. Methods: The most appropriate ways to achieve the ideal arrangement.

An ideology is a collection of ideas. Typically, each ideology contains certain ideas on what it considers to be the best form of government (e.g. democracy, theocracy, etc), and the best economic system (e.g. capitalism, socialism, etc). Sometimes the same word is used to identify both an ideology and one of its main ideas. For instance, "socialism" may refer to an economic system, or it may refer to an ideology which supports that economic system.

Ideologies also identify themselves by their position on the political spectrum (such as the left, the center or the right), though this is very often controversial. Finally, ideologies can be distinguished from political strategies (e.g. populism) and from single issues that a party may be built around (e.g. opposition to European integration or the legalisation of marijuana).

Studies of the concept of ideology itself (rather than specific ideologies) have been carried out under the name of systematic ideology.

Political ideologies are concerned with many different aspects of a society, some of which are: the economy, education, health care, labor law, criminal law, the justice system, the provision of social security and social welfare, trade, the environment, minors, immigration, race, use of the military, patriotism and established religion.

There are many proposed methods for the classification of political ideologies. See the political spectrum article for a more in-depth discussion of these different methods (each of whom generates a specific political spectrum).
Epistemological ideologies

Even when the challenging of existing beliefs is encouraged, as in science, the dominant paradigm or mindset can prevent certain challenges, theories or experiments from being advanced.

There are critics who view science as an ideology in itself, or being an effective ideology, called scientism. Some scientists respond that, while the scientific method is itself an ideology, as it is a collection of ideas, there is nothing particularly wrong or bad about it.

Other critics point out that while science itself is not a misleading ideology, there are some fields of study within science that are misleading. Two examples discussed here are in the fields of ecology and economics.

A special case of science adopted as ideology is that of ecology, which studies the relationships between living things on Earth. Perceptual psychologist J. J. Gibson believed that human perception of ecological relationships was the basis of self-awareness and cognition itself. Linguist George Lakoff has proposed a cognitive science of mathematics wherein even the most fundamental ideas of arithmetic would be seen as consequences or products of human perception - which is itself necessarily evolved within an ecology.

Deep ecology and the modern ecology movement (and, to a lesser degree, Green parties) appear to have adopted ecological sciences as a positive ideology.

Some accuse ecological economics of likewise turning scientific theory into political economy, although theses in that science can often be tested. The modern practice of green economics fuses both approaches and seems to be part science, part ideology.

This is far from the only theory of economics to be raised to ideology status - some notable economically-based ideologies include mercantilism, social Darwinism, communism, laissez-faire economics, and free trade. There are also current theories of safe trade and fair trade which can be seen as ideologies.

Left-wing politics

In politics, the left refers to those who prioritize social equality as a political end, in opposition to the right wing, which view egalitarianism as a threat to civil liberties, and traditional values.

The term is most often associated with social democracy and social liberalism (but not classical liberalism), and (especially in Western Europe) with the welfare state and democratic socialism. In Eastern Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa the term is frequently associated with Marxist-Leninism and/or Maoism, and issues such as Anti-Colonialism and land redistribution.

In general, the left advocates a secular, multicultural society, with a prominent role for the State. It is also linked with some forms of Popularism and Communitarianism, Syndicalism and Trade Unionism, and Anarchism and Left-Libertarianism. The term is also sometimes applied to those who campaign on behalf of Sexual Equality, Anti-Racism, Gay Rights and Green issues.
Definition
From the 18th to 20th Centuries, the "Old Left" argued that differences in social class determined the nature of a society. During the 1960s, this perspective was broadened by the "New Left" to include an egalitarian approach to cultural politics, including "New Social Movements" based on anti-racism, feminism, environmentalism and LGBT rights.

Center left, left of center, and left liberal refer to the left side of mainstream politics in liberal democracies. These support liberal democracy, representative democracy, some private property rights and free markets, in combination with spending on social welfare, extensive regulation of the economy, and some public ownership. Examples include the UK Labour Party, the US Democratic Party, and the Social Democratic Party of Germany.

There are also many Nationalist parties who describe themselves as being on the left. For example in the United Kingdom in Scotland there is the Scottish National Party (SNP), in Wales there is Plaid Cymru (Party of Wales), and in Northern Ireland there is Sinn Fein.

In some countries (especially the UK), "soft left" refers to reformist, democratic and/or parliamentary forms of socialism, whereas "hard left" refers to socialists who advocate more radical change in society. Organizations described as far left adopt more radical versions of left-wing politics and remain rooted in the politics of the "Old Left." Ultra-left organizations are those deemed to be on the extreme left of the political spectrum, such as autonomism and anarchism.

Although the left is generally thought of as being secular, in some Roman Catholic countries there is a tradition of Liberation theology which focuses upon "social justice", and in some Protestant countries there is a tradition of Christian Socialism. Some historians and philosophers, such as Eric Voegelin and Jacob Talmon, argue that the left is a utopian secular political religion.
Origins and history of the term

See the Left-Right politics article for more detailed discussion of the history and development of the term

The term originates from the French Revolution, when liberal deputies from the Third Estate generally sat to the left of the president's chair, a habit which began in the Estates General of 1789. The nobility, members of the Second Estate, generally sat to the right. It is still the tradition in the French Assemblée Nationale for the representatives to be seated left-to-right (relative to the Assemblée president) according to their political alignment.

In contemporary Western political discourse, the term is most often used to describe forms of socialism, social democracy, or, in the sense in which the term is understood in the United States and Canada, liberalism.

Some deny that green politics is inherently "on the left" arguing (with reference to damage to the environment which occurred in communist regimes such as the USSR, that conservatism is the natural home of conservation. Others link conservatism with the free market exploitation of natural resources. Libertarians argue that people with property rights are more likely to take care of property they own than they are of property held in common. But when Green politicians have formed political coalitions (most notably in Germany, but also in local governments elsewhere), it has almost always been with groups that classify themselves as on the left. Notable exceptions include Green Parties participating in center-right governments in Mexico, with the National Action Party (PAN); in the 4-party "green-blue" coalition in Finland; and, on March 9, 2004, Indulis Emsis of Latvia's Union of Greens and Farmers became the first Green Prime Minister in the world, at the head of a minority center-right coalition.

Left-wing issues

The left has traditionally identified with the lower classes and with combating oppression. Thus the industrial revolution saw left-wing politics become associated with the conditions and worker's rights in the new industries. This led to movements advocating social democracy, socialism and trade unionism. More recently, the left has criticized what it perceives as the exploitative nature of current forms of globalization, e.g. the rise of sweatshops and the "race to the bottom", and either has sought to promote more just forms of globalization, such as fair trade, or has sought to allow nation-states to "delink" or break free of the global economy.

Although specific means of achieving these ends are not agreed upon by different left-wing groups, almost all those on the left agree that some form of government or social intervention in economics is necessary, ranging from Keynesian economics and the welfare state through industrial democracy or the social market to nationalization of the economy and central planning.

As civil and human rights gained more attention during the twentieth century, the left has allied itself with advocates of racial and gender equality and cultural tolerance.

Advocacy of government or social intervention in the market puts some of those on the left at odds with advocates of the free market.

War and revolution

Historically, the left have been opponents of imperialist and colonial wars, and have championed anti-colonial rebellions.

While some segments of the left are inspired by a strict adherence to pacifism, much left-wing opposition to war arises primarily from anti-capitalist sentiment. Left-wing opposition to war is also often characterised by the internationalist belief that world's workers share common interests with one another, rather than with the powers governing their respective countries.

First and Second World Wars

The First World War triggered fierce debate among socialist groups as to the right response to take, with the leaderships of most socialist parties of the Second International supporting their governments, and a minority of socialists, such as Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin opposing the war as imperialist. Left-wing opponents to the war came together at the Zimmerwald Conference. The Bolsheviks responded to a revolt by soldiers against the First World War with promises of "bread, land and peace." These promises proved to be misleading however, because once the Bolsheviks seized power there was famine due to enforced collectivisation. This took place under economic blockade, and at a time when the Soviets put all their resources into efforts to defend their country from invasion, a period known as "War Communism."

As a result of the Nazi-Soviet pact supporters of the Soviet Union were instructed by Stalin to describe those who advocated military attacks upon Nazi Germany as capitalist warmongers, but when Hitler turned on Stalin by invading the Soviet Union the majority of those on the left who had opposed the war became supporters of military action against Germany.
Spanish Civil War
The Spanish Civil War, in which a democratically elected government was opposed by a military coup, was seen by many on the left as an important fight against fascism. In response to the outbreak of war, many joined the International Brigades or other left-wing militias organized by trade unions or political parties. Others campaigned for arms embargoes and advocated intervention by the League of Nations.

Vietnam and Iraq anti-war movements

The biggest anti-war movement that involved the western left was that against military involvement by the USA and Australia in South Vietnam when it was faced with an insurgency by the Vietcong, who were supported militarily by North Vietnam. The protests were directed primarily against the American military intervention and eventually received considerable mainstream support. Some critics argue that the widespread support for these protests amongst those of military age was motivated largely by a desire to avoid military service, and once President Richard Nixon abolished the draft and began to withdraw American troops from Southeast Asia there were no widespread protests by young people about the subsequent suppression of liberty in Vietnam and Cambodia.

The American-led war in Iraq led to revived support for anti-war movements. The governments of some social democratic political parties (such as Tony Blair's Labour Party) sent their countries' troops to participate in this war. A Left justification for this policy is supplied by, for example, Oliver Kamm Anti-Totalitarianism: The Left-wing Case for a so-called "Neo-Conservative" foreign policy. However, most of the left has opposed the war in Iraq. Some on the left claim that the war in Iraq is imperialist, that control of the Middle East with its strategic oilfields, and not the removal of regime of Saddam Hussain, was the actual goals. Others argue that some of the justification for the war was inaccurate, specifically the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Some criticism has been leveled at some left-wing groups for forming anti-war coalitions with libertarian organisations (such as the paleolibertarian Antiwar.com) or with groups led by fundamentalist Islamists (such as the Muslim Association of Britain). Some on the French left (especially within ATTAC) argue that antiwar protests distract from the economic arguments advocated by the anti-globalisation movement. In the U.S., much left-wing activism was channelled into Anybody but Bush campaigns, which effectively meant supporting the centrist Democratic Party. In the U.K, anti-war feeling may have been a factor in a drop in support for the pro-war Labour Party government, and the cause of gains for the Liberal Democrats.

The Left and global justice/anti-corporate globalization

The Global Justice Movement movement, also known as the anti-globalisation or alter-globalization movement, are protesters against global trade agreements and the negative consequences they perceive them to have for the poor and the environment. This movement is generally characterised as left-wing, though some activists within it reject association with the traditional left. There are also those on the right, Pat Buchanan for example, who oppose globalization on nationalistic grounds. The Global Justice Movement does not oppose globalisation per se, on the contrary, it supports some forms of internationalism). The main themes of the movement are the reforms of international institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and the creation of an international social justice movement. It rejects the leadership of any political party, defining itself as a "movement of movements."

The left and feminism

Early feminism in the nineteenth century was often, although not always, connected to radical politics. Today, socialist feminists, Marxist feminists and liberal feminists position themselves as on the left of the political spectrum. Radical feminists however reject the entire left/right distinction.
The left and the developing world

Left-wing political ideas and groups were involved in many of the anti-colonial movements in Africa, Asia and South America. After the collapse of the Soviet Union many developing world governments sought funding from the World Bank. A contemporary exception is Venezuela, which relies on the income generated by its oil reserves.

Some left-wing groups in the developing world, such as the Zapatista Army of National Liberation in Mexico, argue that the Western left takes a racist and paternalistic attitude towards developing countries. There is particular criticism of the role played by NGOs.

The anti-globalization movement around the world is one of the main generators of support for left-wing social causes of all types. This seems to many to be a new rallying call in an effort to find justification for their existence in the modern era, along with the new left environmental movement. There has. however. been a decline in support for Stalinist or Maoist politics Anti-Stalinist left-wing movements in developing countries during the Cold War were often marginalized by the power of the pro-Stalinist movements funded by the Soviet Union.
The left and postmodernism

Left-wing Post-modernist theories reject attempts at universal explanatory theories such as Marxism, deriding them as grand narratives. They argue for an embrace of culture as the battle grounds for change, rejecting traditional ways of organising such as political parties and trade unions, focusing instead on critiquing or deconstruction. Left-wing critics of Post-modernism view it as a reaction to the economic failure of State Socialism (both in Europe and Latin America and the USA) and disillusionment with authoritarian Communist regimes. They assert that cultural studies courses inflate the importance of culture through denying the existence of an independent reality.

The most famous critique of post-modernism from within the left came in the form of a 1996 prank by physicist and self-described leftist Alan Sokal. Concerned about what he saw as the increasing prevalence on the left of "a particular kind of nonsense and sloppy thinking… that denies the existence of objective realities, or…downplays their practical relevance…", Sokal composed a nonsensical article entitled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity , in which a mix of mis-stated and mis-used terms from physics, postmodernism, literary analysis, and political theory are used to claim that physical reality, and especially gravitation, do not objectively exist, but are psychologically and politically constructed.

The journal Social Text published the paper in its Spring/Summer 1996 issue, whereupon Sokal publicly revealed his hoax. While some saw Sokal as attacking leftism in general, he was very clear that this was intended as a critique from within:

Politically, I'm angered because most (though not all) of this silliness is emanating from the self-proclaimed Left. We're witnessing here a profound historical volte-face. For most of the past two centuries, the Left has been identified with science and against obscurantism… epistemic relativism betrays this worthy heritage and undermines the already fragile prospects for progressive social critique. Theorizing about “the social construction of reality” won't help us find an effective treatment for AIDS or devise strategies for preventing global warming. Nor can we combat false ideas in history, sociology, economics and politics if we reject the notions of truth and falsity.… The results of my little experiment demonstrate, at the very least, that some fashionable sectors of the American academic Left have been getting intellectually lazy.

Traditionist thinkers (conservative) scholar/critics view post-modernism as nihilistic. Gary Jason claims that "The failure of socialism, both empirically and theoretically, ... brought about a crisis of faith among socialists, and Post-modernism is their response.

Some conservative opponents, such as writer David Horowitz, claim that post-modernists seek to deride the very concept of truth gathering, while at the same time engaging in politically motivated witch hunts of anybody deemed to deviate from politically correct views, whether those views are based on any objective view of truth or not.
The Left and Darwinism
The Left's relationship with Darwinism has generally been congenial (Stalin typically excepting himself by supporting Trofim Lysenko's Lamarckian views). Around the turn of the 20th century, Socialists of the Progressive era explicitly opposed the Spencerian concept of the "survival of the fittest", and its extension to Social Darwinism (a cause which Darwin himself opposed).

In 1875, Friedrich Engels wrote a letter to Pyotr Lavrov, saying:

"I accept the theory of evolution, but Darwin’s method of proof (struggle for life, natural selection) I consider only a first, provisional, imperfect expression of a newly discovered fact. ... The interaction of bodies in nature — inanimate as well as animate — includes both harmony and collision, struggle and cooperation. When therefore a self-styled natural scientist takes the liberty of reducing the whole of historical development with all its wealth and variety to the one-sided and meager phrase "struggle for existence", a phrase which even in the sphere of nature can be accepted only cum grano salis, such a procedure really contains its own condemnation.

In 1902 the anarchist philosopher and scientist Peter Kropotkin published the book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, which discussed additional means for the natural selection and evolution of species, beyond "Survival of the Fittest". Written partly as a response to Social Darwinism and in particular to Thomas H. Huxley's essay, "The Struggle for Existence", published in the magazine Nineteenth Century, Kropotkin drew on his experiences in scientific expeditions during his time in Siberia to illustrate the phenomenon of cooperation in animal and human communities. After examining the evidence of cooperation among the animals, the "savages", the "barbarians", in the medieval city, and in modern times, he concluded that cooperation and mutual aid are as important in the evolution of the species as competition and mutual strife, if not more important.


Right-wing politics

In politics, right-wing, the political right, and the right are terms used in the spectrum of left-right politics, and much like the opposite appellation of left-wing, it has a broad variety of definitions. However, it is generally used to refer to the segments of the political spectrum often associated with any of several strains of Conservatism, Traditionalism, Monarchism, Right-libertarianism, Corporatism, the Religious Right, Nationalism (which can also be left wing), Militarism, Producerism, Nativism, Reactionism or Far right positions such as National Socialism and Fascism.
History
The term originates from the French Revolution, when liberal deputies from the Third Estate generally sat to the left of the president's chair, a habit which began in the Estates General of 1789. The nobility, members of the Second Estate, generally sat to the right. In the successive legislative assemblies, monarchists who supported the Ancien Régime were commonly referred to as rightists because they sat on the right side. It is still the tradition in the French National Assembly for the representatives to be seated left-to-right (relative to the Assembly president) according to their political alignment.

As this original reference became obsolete, the meaning of the term has changed as appropriate to the spectrum of ideas and stances being compared, and the point of view of the speaker. See political spectrum and left-right politics for further discussion of this kind of classification.

As new social issues arose, right wing views continued to be concerned with keeping "traditional" values (often religious values) and the preservation of individual and corporate rights through constraints on government power. However, the values and policy concerns of the right vary in different countries and eras. Also, individual right wing politicians and thinkers often have individual priorities. There are no universally accepted objective criteria to determine which of two sets of beliefs or policies is more right-wing.(See political spectrum)
Contemporary usage
Strands of right wing thought come in many forms, and individuals who support some of the objectives of one of the above stands will not necessarily support all of the others. At the practical political policy level there are endless variations in the means that right wing thinkers advocate to achieve their basic aims.

In recent times, the term almost always includes some forms of conservatism. Some consider the political Right to include those forms of liberalism that emphasize the free market more than egalitarianism in wealth, but some free-market advocates, including some libertarians, conceive of a two-dimensional political spectrum that they say more accurately portrays their political position. (See Nolan chart, Pournelle Chart, Political Compass). Many anarchists (including libertarian socialists) also avoid placing themselves on the classic political spectrum.

Outside the United States and Canada (where capitalism is supported by major politicians and people from both the left and right), the most notable distinction between left and right is in economic policy. The right advances capitalism, whereas the left advocates socialism (including democratic socialism) or communism. Some on the right advocate laissez faire capitalism, tending toward minarchism, with little government intervention in the economy other than to control the money supply and little taxation except to support military and police functions. At the other extreme within what is usually considered right of centre, the centre-right Gaullists in post-World War II France advocated considerable social spending on education and infrastructure development, as well as extensive economic regulation and even a limited amount of the wealth redistribution measures more characteristic of social democracy.

A more obscure strand of contemporary right wing thought, often associated with the original right wing from the times of monarchy, supports the preservation of wealth and power in the hands that have traditionally held them, social stability, and national solidarity and ambition.
Left-Right politics

As noted above, the political use of the terms "left" and "right" has evolved across linguistic, societal, and national boundaries, sometimes taking on meanings in one time and place that contrast sharply with those in another.

Two prominent political ideologies, very different from one another, are widely considered "right-wing", but in each case, for different reasons, the classification is controversial.

Libertarianism has focused on the preservation of individual and corporate rights through constraints on government power, while not necessarily favoring "traditional" values. Some on the right, especially outside of the United States and Canada, reject the rights-based assumptions of this philosophy. Conversely some, but by no means all, libertarians do not consider themselves to be right wing and reject the traditional one-dimensional political spectrum, preferring to think in terms of liberty vs. authority rather than socialism vs. capitalism.

Fascism is usually described as right-wing, although there have been scholars (such as Ludwig von Mises) that have disputed that classification. Others argue that there are elements of both left and right ideology in the philosophy underlying the development of Fascism.

Centrism

In politics, centrism usually refers to the political ideal of promoting moderate policies which land in the middle ground between different political extremes. Most commonly, this is visualized as part of the one-dimensional political spectrum of Left-Right politics, with centrism landing in the middle between left-wing politics and right-wing politics. However, there is arguably more than one dimension to politics, so even the centre has its own radicals as exemplified by radical centrist politics.

Definitions

An alternate definition is to assume that the two poles in question (e.g., Left/Right) are well-defined, and then (i) define as 'centrist' any position which the Left considers too far Right and the Right considers too far Left, and (ii) define as a 'Centrist' any person who self-identifies more with those positions than either the Left or the Right. The weakness in this argument is that it is difficult to unambiguously and objectively define both poles at once, but that difficulty affects all political definitions, not just centrists.

In practice, the two poles can only be well-defined in a specific place at a specific time, since they differ from place to place and change over time. Thus, "centrism" itself means different things in different places (depending on the local political spectrum) and changes over time. For example, ideas that were considered extremist 200 years ago (such as democracy and universal suffrage) are considered centrist today - while other ideas that were considered centrist 200 years ago (such as slavery and racism) are considered extremist today.

Centrism in the Marxist movement

"Centrism" has a specific meaning within the Marxist political movement. It usually reflects an ideologically held position between a revolutionary and reformist position. For instance, the Independent Labour Party was seen as centrist because they oscillated between advocating reaching socialism through reforms and advocating revolution. The members of the so-called Two-and-a-half International, who could not choose between the reformism of the democratic socialist Second International and the revolutionary politics of the Communist Third International are exemplary of centrism in this sense (examples are the POUM and Poale Zion). Marxists often describe centrism in this sense as opportunistic, since it argues for a revolution at some point in the future but urges reformist practices in the mean time.

On a related note, the term "Centrism" also denotes positions held by some of the Bolsheviks during the 1920s. In this context, "Centrism" refers to a position between the Right Opposition (which supported the New Economic Policy and friendly relations with capitalist countries) and the Left Opposition (which supported a planned economy and world revolution). By the end of the 1920s, all three factions had been outmanœuvred by Joseph Stalin who, while casually aligning with each of them in turn, built his own power bloc and had the leaders of the three factions removed from their positions, imprisoned and eventually executed during the Great Purge. At the same time, he implemented policies that drew some ideas from each of the factions, combined with his own characteristic ruthlessness.

Centrism in Nordic Countries

In most of the Nordic countries there are centrist parties, these share in addition to the a centrist position on the socio-economic left-right scale, a clear separate ideology. This is based around decentralisation, a commitment to small business and environmental protection. They have aligned themselves with the Liberal International and European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party. Historically all these parties were farmers' parties committed to maintaining rural life. In the 1960s these parties broadened their scope to include non-farmer related issues and renamed themselves Centre Party.

The Centre Democrats and the New Alliance in Denmark are not rooted in agrarianism.

Centrism in the Republic of Ireland

In Ireland, the two main political parties Fianna Fail and Fine Gael are both centrist parties and share broadly similar policies with their main division being Civil War politics.

Third Way (centrism)

The Third Way, or Radical center, is a centrist political philosophy of governance that embraces a mix of market and interventionist philosophies. The Third Way rejects both socialism and laissez-faire approaches to economic governance, but chiefly stresses technological development, education, and competitive mechanisms to pursue economic progress and governmental objectives.[1] Third way philosophies have been described as a synthesis of capitalism and socialism by its proponents.[2]

Past invocations of a political 'third way' have included the Fabian Socialism, Distributism, Keynesian economics, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, and Harold Macmillan's 1950s One Nation Conservatism.[3] A "Third Way" approach has been adopted by some social democrats and social liberals in many Western liberal democracies.[4] While it was pioneered in the 1980s in Australia by the Hawke/Keating Labor governments,[5] the most recent prominent examples are the Clinton Administration in the United States as well as presidential candidates Hillary Clinton[6] and Barack Obama,[7] the Liberal Party government of Canada under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, the Labour Party governments of the United Kingdom under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and the Australian Labor Party under Kevin Rudd.

The third way has been criticized by some conservatives and libertarians who advocate laissez-faire capitalism.[8] It has also been heavily criticized by many social democrats and democratic socialists in particular as a betrayal of left-wing values.

* 1 Origins
* 2 Modern usage
* 3 Examples
o 3.1 Australia
o 3.2 United Kingdom
o 3.3 United States
o 3.4 Canada
o 3.5 Other
* 4 Criticism

Origins

The term Third Way has been used to explain a variety of political policies and ideology in the last few centuries. The term itself extends back at least a century, to when Pope Pius XI called for a Third Way between Socialism and Capitalism at the end of the 1800s.[9] These ideas were implemented by both progressives and fascists in the early 20th Century.[10] The Third Way philosophy was extended in the 1950s by German ordoliberal economists such as Wilhelm Röpke, resulting in the development of the concept of the social market economy.

Modern usage

The term was later used by politicians in the 1990s who wished to incorporate Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan's projects of economic deregulation, privatization, and globalization into the mainstream centre-left political parties (following the crisis of socialism after the fall of the Berlin Wall).

In the last decade the Third Way can be defined as:

"something different and distinct from liberal capitalism with its unswerving belief in the merits of the free market and democratic socialism with its demand management and obsession with the state. The Third Way is in favour of growth, entrepeneurship, enterprise and wealth creation but it is also in favour of greater social justice and it sees the state playing a major role in bringing this about. So in the words of... Anthony Giddens of the LSE the Third Way rejects top down socialism as it rejects traditional neo liberalism."

– Report from the BBC, 1999[11]

A leading defender of the spread of Third Way influence in modern democracies has been British sociologist Anthony Giddens. Giddens regularly expounds on Third Way philosophy through contributions to progressive policy think tank Policy Network. Robert Putnam, Ian Winter (Latham cites Winter's "Social Capital and Public Policy in Australia" on p. 13 of the Latham diaries), and Mark Lyon are amongst a range of academics who have recently contributed key academic theory on the subject.

Examples

Australia

Under the centre-left Australian Labor Party from 1983 to 1996, the Bob Hawke and Paul Keating governments pursued many economic policies associated with economic rationalism, such as floating the Australian Dollar in 1983, reductions in trade tariffs, taxation reforms, changing from centralised wage-fixing to enterprise bargaining, the privatisation of Qantas and Commonwealth Bank, and deregulating the banking system. Keating also proposed a GST in 1985, however due to its unpopularity amongst Labor as well as the electorate, was scrapped. The party also desisted from other reforms, such as wholesale labour market deregulation (eg WorkChoices), the eventual GST, the privatisation of Telstra and welfare reform including "work for the dole", which John Howard and the Liberal Party of Australia were to initiate after winning office in 1996.

Various ideological beliefs were factionalised under reforms to the ALP under Gough Whitlam, resulting in what is now known as the Socialist Left who tend to favour a more interventionist economic policy and more socially progressive ideals, and Labor Right, the now dominant faction that tends to be more economically liberal and focus to a lesser extent on social issues. The Whitlam government was first to use the term economic rationalism.[12] The Gough Whitlam Labor government from 1972 to 1975 changed from a democratic socialism platform to social democracy, their precursor to the party's "Third Way" policies. Under the Whitlam government, tariffs across the board were cut by 25 percent after 23 years of Labor being in opposition.[13]

Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's first speech to parliament in 1998 stated:

Competitive markets are massive and generally efficient generators of economic wealth. They must therefore have a central place in the management of the economy. But markets sometimes fail, requiring direct government intervention through instruments such as industry policy. There are also areas where the public good dictates that there should be no market at all. We are not afraid of a vision in the Labor Party, but nor are we afraid of doing the hard policy yards necessary to turn that vision into reality. Parties of the Centre Left around the world are wrestling with a similar challenge—the creation of a competitive economy while advancing the overriding imperative of a just society. Some call this the `third way'. The nomenclature is unimportant. What is important is that it is a repudiation of Thatcherism and its Australian derivatives represented opposite. It is in fact a new formulation of the nation's economic and social imperatives.[14]

Rudd is critical of free market economists such as Friedrich Hayek,[15] although Rudd describes himself as "basically a conservative when it comes to questions of public financial management", pointing to his slashing of public service jobs as a Queensland governmental advisor.[16]

United Kingdom

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom is cited as a Third Way politician.[17][18] According to a former Tony Blair staffer, UK Labour and Blair learnt from, and owe a debt to the Australian Bob Hawke government in the 1980s on how to govern as a 'third way' party when they took power in the 1990s.[19] Blair is a particular follower of the ideas of Anthony Giddens.[20]. and Current UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown also is considered to be.

Harold Macmillan's book The Middle Way, first published in 1938, is also written from broadly this centrist position.

United States

In the United States, Third Way adherents emphasize fiscal conservatism, some replacement of welfare with workfare, and a stronger preference for market solutions to traditional problems (as in pollution markets), while rejecting pure laissez-faire economics and other libertarian positions. The Third Way style of governing was firmly adopted and partly redefined during the Administration of President Bill Clinton.[21]

After Tony Blair came to power in the UK, Clinton, Blair and other leading Third Way adherents organized conferences to promote the Third Way in 1997 at Chequers in England.[22][23] The Democratic Leadership Council are adherents of Third Way politics.[24]

In 2004, several veteran U.S. Democrats founded a new Washington, DC organization entitled Third Way, which bills itself as a "strategy center for progressives."[25] John Kerry of 2004 U.S. Democrats Presidential candidate is also considered to be third way politician, as are 2008 U.S. Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton[26] and Barack Obama.[27]

Canada

In Canada following the election of Jean Chrétien and the Liberal Party of Canada in 1993 the new government became focused on debt and defecit reduction, leading to a fiscally conservative agenda cutting billions of dollars from provincial transfer payments and other areas of government funding. The Liberals managed to eliminate a 42 billion dollar deficit and pay down 36 billion dollars in debt. However, these steep funding cuts led to a massive decline in the quality of healthcare services, a lack of resources for the Canadian military, and charges by the provinces and municipalities of federal downloading.

Unlike previous Liberal governments in the late 20th century, the Chretien government pursued corporate tax cuts and the expansion of "free trade", leading to the negotiation of NAFTA in 1994. As of 2007 the Liberal Party of Canada still advocates a social liberal agenda based on balanced budgets, support for globalization and fiscal "moderation".

Canada's largest leftwing party, the New Democratic Party has also experimented with the so called "Third Way" at various times. During the government of Roy Romanow in the province of Saskatchewan from 1991 - 2003 the Saskatchewan NDP broke with its socialist past and followed a very conservative agenda with the goal of reducing the province's debt. This was charecterized by a program of hospital closures, program cuts and privatization. Romanow would later claim to be a "disciple" of the "Third Way" ideology of Tony Blair.

The Province of Ontario's only NDP premier Bob Rae also followed a very fiscally conservative agenda during his government (1990-1995). Ontario was experiencing its worst recession since the Great Depression when Bob Rae was elected into office. After 1991 the government introduced budget cutbacks, reopened collective bargaining agreements with the public sector unions (the "Social Contract") and put a cap on enrollment into medical schools [2] The Social Contract which imposed a wage freeze on public sector workers and forced them to take ten days off per year without pay (Rae Days) led to a split between the Ontario NDP and their historic allies, the labour unions (the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Canadian Auto Workers) [3].

Bob Rae also failed to deliver on one of his key campaign promises of introducing public auto insurance drawing intense criticism from the leftwing of his own party. In 1995 the NDP went down to an historic defeat at the hands of the province's Progressive Conservatives led by Mike Harris. In spite of the improving electoral fortunates of the federal NDP in the province of Ontario, the Ontario NDP has yet to make any significant gains. In 2002 Bob Rae wrote a piece to one of Canada's most rightwing newspapers, the National Post entitled "Parting Company with the NDP" where he criticized the party for rejecting the "third way" of Tony Blair and opposing globalization. The Ontario NDP has also thoroughly washed its hands of Bob Rae and recommitted itself to social democracy, with leader Howard Hampton citing the policies of the Swedish Social Democrats as reflecting his own beliefs. In 2006 Bob Rae joined the Liberal Party of Canada and ran for the party's leadership, coming in third. He has announced however that he will run as a Liberal in the next federal election.

After declining fortunes in the early 1990's the federal NDP also followed a more centrist agenda under leader Alexa McDonough leading NDP members and supporters including CAW president Buzz Hargrove to call for her resignation. After two modest election results the NDP chose Jack Layton as its leader in 2003 [4]. Layton vowed never to move the NDP into the "mushy middle". As of the 2006 election the NDP won 29 seats and 17.5% of the popular vote (their highest number of votes since 1988). This has been largely at the expense of the Liberals.

Other

Other leaders who have adopted elements of the Third Way style of governance include Marianne Jelved of Denmark, François Bayrou of France, Gerhard Schröder of Germany,[28] Ferenc Gyurcsány of Hungary, Wim Kok of the Netherlands and Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali of Pakistan, whose book's preface was written by Anthony Giddens.

Criticism

In the 1920s, Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian School economist and classical liberal thinker, accused the "middle way" of mixing capitalism and socialism. In his book Liberalism Mises wrote, "There is simply no other choice than this: either to abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way."[29] Advocates of laissez-faire capitalism continue to be staunch opponents of a mixed economy, the "third way." In 1990, after the fall of his country's communist government, Czechoslovakia's finance minister, Václav Klaus, declared, "We want a market economy without any adjectives. Any compromises with that will only fuzzy up the problems we have. To pursue a so-called Third Way is foolish. We had our experience with this in the 1960s when we looked for a socialism with a human face. It did not work, and we must be explicit that we are not aiming for a more efficient version of a system that has failed. The market is indivisible; it cannot be an instrument the hands of central planners."[30] More recently, a critic of capitalist-socialist hybridization wrote, "Third-Way economics is merely another political trial balloon. The politicians are still simply trying to twist fattened, round socialism into a lean, square, free-market hole, mainly to solicit our vote."[31]

Third way is sometimes described as an idea of former social-democrats which replaces socialism with capitalism and a minimum of socialism, and a strategy to bring the social-democratic parties back to power where they have lost elections. For example, Slavoj Zizek argues that the notion of the Third Way emerged as the only alternative to the victorious global capitalism and its notion of liberal democracy when the Second Way crumbled.[32] Critics argue that third way politicians are in favour of ideas and policies that ultimately serve the interests of corporate power and the wealthy at the expense of the working class and the poor. Some also classify the Third Way as neosocialism or "neoliberalism with a social touch".[33][34] In many western nations where social democratic or "socialist" parties have adopted centrist or third way policies or have been seen by some as doing so, many new leftwing parties have been able to attract voters disillusioned with the traditional left. These include The Left Party of Germany (formerly the Party of Democratic Socialism), the Left Party of Sweden, the Socialist Party of Ireland and Sinn Fein, The Respect Party of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Socialist Party, the Citizen and Republican Movement and the Communist Party of France and the United Left of Spain to name a few.


Concluded

kupelderanged@gmail.com