eastern quarterly, a jounal published by manipur research forum ( delhi) vol 7, issue I&II spring and monsson 2011
________________
Lyrics of a
Conflict Song: Creating of the Stereotypes
NINGLUN HANGHAL
“Manipur
, a state equated in popular representation as conflict torn area has seen the
manifestation in armed insurgency and HIV – AIDS. While conflict has adversely
affected the social fabric, its representation has reduced the conflict into
simplistic hills – valley animosity and is steeped in stereotypes”.
Today the state of Manipur is notoriously equated with conflict.
Problems that the state of merely 2.2 millions population is faced with, is far
greater than what one would normally expect. Two major areas in which conflicts
get manifested are armed insurgency and HIV–AIDS. There are other related areas
of conflict like ethnic tension, religious animosity, hills-valley divide,
rural-urban divide, etc. All these have in fact wracked the social fabric of
the place and its people.
But more worrisome trend
amidst these forms of conflict is the way these conflicts have been represented
by people who are crafted with the art of representation, be it writing of
novels, scholarly books, print and electronic media, films and photographs.
Several stereotypes of the state, and also many other states of the region,
have been projected in the recent past. The documentary film titled Manipur Song by a well-known film maker,
Pankaj Butalia, is one such representation that depicts the region and the
people in a bad taste. The film was telecast on August 15, 2010 coinciding with
India’s independence day by NDTV Profit, a Delhi based national television
which focus on business and market. Certainly sensationalization beomes the mantra of such production houses and
film makers, for that will bring greater market avenues.
Butalia’s film picturizes
armed conflict, drug abuse and prostitution in a most blatant and sterotyped
form that is completely devoid of any effort to capture the nuanced human
conditions shaped by a violent culture of conflict. There is no denying the
fact that Manipur today is one of the most violent states in the world. With a
data of 369 insurgency related fatalities in 2009, the South Asia Terrorism
Portal (SATP) in its assessment year 2010, stated that Manipur is the most
violent state in India followed by Assam with 344 fatalities. But role of a
film maker is little more than merely presenting the facts. There is much to be
read about the intentions and politics behind making of such films.
Next comes the HIV–AIDS “epidemic,” a term
used by UNAIDS. Manipur has a record of being the highest percentage of adult
HIV prevalence state in India according to the 1998–2006 estimate of National
Aids Control Organization (NACO), where Manipur shows 1.67 per cent, while the
country’s overall estimate is 0.36 per cent. The HIV–AIDS data and statistics
are self explanatory in itself. Subsequently, Manipur was the first
state in India to have a State AIDS Policy; the Manipur
government adopted the State AIDS Policy on 3rd October, 1996. Later the
Manipur State AIDS Control Society (MACS) was formed and registered
in March, 1998. According to the society’s recorded data from 1986 till August, 2010, there are a total of 4589
AIDS cases, where 3316 are males and 1273 are females, with record of 645
deaths due to AIDS. It says Manipur contributes nearly 8 per cent of
India’s total HIV positive cases.
With such a back ground that
is alarming, many from within and outside the state have studied this land and
its people with a sense of “excitement.” But few try to understand the pain and
sufferings that the common people in the region have survived decades of
suppression and violence. While a study on aspects of conflict is likely to
open the “pandora’s box,” that is still a welcome step compared to those
narratives that remain in the peripheral level and merely sensationalizes.
Pankaj Butalia’s Manipur Song is one
such case in point.
The year 1947 has become
more or less a land mark in the history of Manipur and Northeast India at
large. The end of the colonial rule becomes a point of contention for the
people of the region on evolving new political processes. It brought tremendous
changes in terms of socio political life of the people. Manipur have had the
experience of resistance movements – of armed non state groups and pressure
groups with several claims starting from sovereignty, self determination,
autonomous administration, to recognition for schedule tribe status (ST), etc.
As stated above, besides the conflicts of state versus non state, numerous
inter and intra communal strifes have also been witnessed. In the face of all these,
there is also a perception by a large section of the people in Manipur (also of
the Northeast) that they do not (think to) belong to India. Though such a
perception is often seen as state of emotion, this certainly forms a strong
case for opposition against the “forced annexation” into India. Indeed Manipur
and communities of the Northeast India actually
comprise of independent and distinctive cultural identities. Oral histories,
folk tales passed on from one generation to another narrate stories of past
glory, self sufficiency, abundance of natural resources, self governance, distinctive
culture and tradition. This distinctiveness of a different entity called “Manipur”
or the “Northeast India at large,” fairly different from the mainland India.
Subsequently as much as
Northeasterners do not feel a sense of belongingness, the geophysique further
alienate the region creating a psychological
distance. This differences also generate indifferences by the
“mainlanders,” while people inhabiting this region feels “foreign” to the
mainland India. These factors of “difference and indifference” manifest in
various forms, kinds and magnitude. While on one hand, people of the Northeast
feels discriminated and alienated for being different, manifest in the form of
violent resistance and demands for self determination, on the other hand, mainlanders’
indifference towards the region manifest in the form of misperception,
judgmental opinion, attitude and treatment particularly towards the women folk
of this region.
Manipur Song began with an
introductory note on the political history of Manipur. The introduction narrates
that the appropriation (merger) of Manipur into the Indian Union after the
British left India in 1947 leading to insurgency movement in Manipur, which was
quite understandably anti-Indian. The introduction rightly notes Manipur’s
sovereignty and its existence as an independent kingdom. Simultaneously it goes
into picturing the Laiharaoba dance
and a traditional Meitei marriage procession, showcasing Manipur’s socio
culture and tradition that is different from mainland India’s.
This is followed by a
generalised introduction stating that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act
(AFSPA), 1958, was introduced in the region because of the insurgency movement
in Manipur, further mentioning that over 20 such insurgent groups operate in the
state. The introduction also underlines the conflict between these insurgent
groups, underdevelopment, drugs, HIV–AIDS, stating that there are many irreconcilable problems. The introduction while underlining
Manipur’s different socio cultural and practices, noting its rich culture,
gives a generalised and negated version over the issue and problems facing the
state. It remains to be understood what irreconcilable problems the film maker
tries to tell about and why was it irreconcilable. This negative outlook sends
a de-motivating message for those who live their life with hope and for those
who believe that reconciliation is one possible
solution for conflict.
The narration says that the
film maker travels from Delhi, the national capital, in 2004, being provoked by
certain incidents. This was followed by video footage of the nude protest,
police firings, angry youth out in the streets with slogans. The narration does
not give any background information as to what it is all about, why those
incidents took place. It was left to the viewers to try to grapple with the
footage. As a viewer, a Manipuri residing in Delhi, I assume that what provoked
the film maker would be the heighten protest in aftermath of the alledged rape
and killing of Th. Manorama Devi in July 2004, more so the infamous “nude
protest” as the narration gives much emphasis over it stating that it had
caught national media attention. As for those who does not know much about
Manipur, or mainland Indians at large, it would appear just a groups of angry
young people, police firing protesters who defy the law or heartening nude
protest of elderly women. The pictures do not leave otherwise the desired
impact, definitely not to the mainland Indians. Or one wonders if the film
maker intentionally wants opacity to remain.
The documentary was segregated
into episodic parts; viz. Violence: the backyard of nationalism, The diaspora
as periphery, Living on the edge, and On the notion of collateral. The first
and foremost episode began with nationalism and separatist story. First
beginning with the United National Liberation Front, a Meitei group, describe
as a political movement and are fighting to regain self determination from the
India state, its Chairman Sana Yaima giving an interview to the camera. On
continuation the film narrated that the other millitant groups who were categorically
tribal groups “dislike” the Meitei group – viz. the Nagas, Kukis and the Zomis.
As per the description in the film, these Meitei groups are exclusively
supposed to be the people who inhabiting the then sovereign Manipur kingdom and
subsequently the territorial boundary of todays’ Manipur state. The background narrative
also states that these militant insurgent groups are fighting among themselves
in a structured hierarchal order of Meitei militants fighting the “Indian
State” for self determination, were in turn “fought” by the next larger group,
the Nagas, who in turn is targetted by the Kukis, who are then targetted to by
the Zomis. A chain of resistance by the smaller group upon the immediate bigger
group is what is being shown. The chain goes to include the Paites, other sub
group of the Zomi. This is rather simplistic and an over generalised statement.
The film maker’s perceived notion that the smaller groups or the other
communities inhabiting the “Meitei land” have no political standing are highly
bias at several levels of the articulation. It shows lack of proper
understanding of the complexity of identity claims and armed resistance
movement associated with the same. All the armed militants or insurgents groups
mentioned by Butalia have their own political ideologies and should be clubbed
under a larger basket of the “non state.” In spite of the fact that inter –
intra community rivalry may emerge in course of their political struggles,
which is not so strange considering the multiplicity of ethnic groups and their
aspirations, yet these should not be the “background introduction” of the “non
state” movements which is primarily a political struggle, at least theoretically and ideologically.
This episode also tells
about how youths are lured into the life of militants or militancy. This is a
typical narrative of the statist discourse. There is nothing new in this
representation, thus showing a case of old wine in new bottle. This episode
also shows the “romantic” daily lives of the young militants. But the real life
is quite different from the reel life, another form of stereotype
representation. To this extent it shows some parallel with Bollywood films.
While living underground in jungles with a gun is never a peaceful life, only a
Bollywood film throws some excitement into the audience. Not only the militants
suffer hardship, even their family members do face hardship in everyday life.
Another level of suffering
is the sense of fear and tormant faced by the former (surrendered in fewcases)
militants, their wives, and widows of the militants killed. They face
discrimination at different levels. The fake encounter killing of Sanjit , a
surrendered militant, at Imphal’s B.T. Road in July 2009 tell us that a
militant is always a militant, an identity of no return. Emergence of
organizations like Extrajudicial Execution Victims Association Manipur (EEVAM),
Manipuri Women Gun Survivor Network, etc. say a lot about the life faced by the
people associate with the movement. There is nothing extraordinarily exciting
about their so called “romantic life.” This is yet again an attempt (perhaps
deliberate) to reduce the entire politics of armed struggle into triviality of
romance. Similar is the case where representation of child soldiers is made as
victims. This in a way is to deny them as political actors.[i]
An interview of a “meira paibi”
activist, Ima[ii]
Taruni, was shown synchronised with several footages of violent incidents and protests,
well crafted to delegitimise the movements. Ima Taruni speaks about one such
incident before the camera where hundreds of women came out for a protest
rally. This is followed by pictures of the incident she was supposedly speaking
about. There was no background narration. The Ima said “at Thangmeiband THAU
ground, we took out a protest rally… the police fired at us... many were killed….
Many injured... we ran helter skelter… many people jump into the river…. There
were chaos and commotion… chappal (slippers) and clothes were scattered
everywhere....” In the subtitle transcribed in English were these lines “… women left their clothes. They lost control
of what they were wearing.” Connect this narrative with Kangla nude
protest. The film maker seems to be delibeately planting this idea to the
viewers that Manipuri women have very
little sense of dressing, as if dresses are easily thrown out or pulled out in
an incident. So, protesting without
clothes is an extension of their “casualness” about their dress. The film has done violence on
sexuality of women by this projection of a stereotype image about Manipuri
women. The meira paibis (torch
bearers) women’s groups, widely acclaimed for their courage and roles in
socio-political lives, were not even asked to give their opinion or views, but
only recollections of an event like a protest or a violent incident. The film
maker does all the interpretation. This is yet again a violence to the
political sensibility of these women activists, giving the impression as if
they are incapable of thinking and organising praxis.
The issue of migation is
also touched upon by the film maker. Migration of youth leaving home states, or
for that matter home country, for greener pastures is nothing new. Migration
from rural to urban centres (towns and city) is an all India phenomenon. Migration
also takes place in non-conflict zones as well. For instance, migration of
people from Bihar and Utter Pradesh to Mumbai is a case in point. In fact,
migrations from non-conflict zones would be at times higher than migrations
from conflict zones. This is an universal phenomenon. So migration of youths
from a conflict zone like Manipur for higher studies and employment should not
be seen only due to the push factor, but there are pull factors like job oportunities,
wider facilities. Today migration from rural India to urban India is taking
place cutting across region, ethnicity and violence. Migration phenomenon
should be studied much more seriously.
A student supposedly studying in Delhi gave
analysis of conflict, its impact and explanations of daily struggle in a metro
city that does not welcome her. Her analysis and explanations appear to be based
on the video footage from the same documentary film Manipur song, with some of
the same words and phrases from the film. She is also shown to watch the same
footages. The choice of charcter as respondent is pathetic.
An episode on the life of an
ex militant turned drug users is shown to explain connection of militancy to
drugs. This is but badly done. Though the interviews of the male addicts are
shown under a “capacity building” workshop of an NGO, the focus is on family
stories, their ignorance of joining miltancy, and hopelessness that led to drug
abuse. This is a neat but poor script narating interconnection between militany
and druge abuse – all that the film says is that militants engage with druge
smuggling and in turn are victims themselves. Though there might be greater
connection between the two, militant organizations’ drug trading has to do
largely with procuring money to buy arms. And there are much larger issues
involved in drug use and HIV–AIDS, the case of broken family, social unrest, and role of family.
Factors behind everything connected to drug abuse cannot be zeroed down to
armed militancy. That is too simplistic a story.
The episodes also tell the
story of women commercial sex workers (CSW) cum drugs users living in shabby
shelters in Imphal town ( the state capital) . While there is no officially notified “red light” areas in Manipur,
nor CSW a visible population, the tailor made self confessional “bare show” of
the life of sex workers and demonstration of their skills in drug use was
strikingly odd. Suggestively, the names of the selected CSW women who confessed
were called “lalli and heting” these
names were not suffixed with “name changed” in the subtitle. Even if the names
were changed, why not a Sunita or a Priyanka?
The incorrect translation of
some of their dialogue do indicate the film maker’s presumption of what a CSW
should be feeling or narrate before the camera. One of them said in native
language “… when I look back, I feel nostalgic, or rather so to say… let down.”
This is translated as “I now regret all that I have done in all my life.” This
shows lack of sincerity and moral concern.
In as much
prostitution is considered the oldest profession in the world, though forced
into the trade, CSW does not necessarily regret their lives. Munni, CSW from Sonagachi, a red-light district in
Kolkata in her interview with United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
when asked whether she would like to
leave the brothel, she said “… ‘Ma’ will never let me go and she is good to me
and this is my home. She has promised to send me to Mumbai someday. I am here
of my own will. Even if I leave this place where will I go? I have a secret
lover and he used to be one of my regular customers. He is a taxi driver and we
are planning to marry.”[iii]
A comparative look at the
two episodes shows a gendered segregated treatment by the film maker. The
militant turned drug addicts, all of them men, were at a rehabilitation camp,
receiving treatment and training. While the women CSW comprised only of their
personal or past lives, origin and background, dependency on drugs and their
daily struggles. One of the men drug addict, identified as Kalachand, even went
to the extent of pushing his mother to tell before the camera that without
knowing the consequences she had paved the way for his sons’ addiction. Wife of one of the ex
militant turned drug addict was also made to “talk” about the HIV–AIDS “status” of her
addict husband.
The two episode interviews
appeared more like a “confession” and a scripted dialogue. The male drug users
spoke on issues they faced, first as militants then as surrendered militants
and eventually as drug addict. The women sex workers cum drug addicts spoke
before the camera about their life history, sex and drugs. They even
demonstrated for the viewers on “intravenous drug use!”
The HIV–AIDS scenario in
Manipur is certainly disturbing. But it is simplistic and abrupt to just
conclude a narrative with the story of a drug addict, commercial sex worker and
story of HIV children. Jackindia,[iv] an organization working
on HIV–AIDS publishes that
AIDS was first diagnosed in the United States in early ’80s, but many still look to Africa for its origin,
blaming African monkeys and African sexual behaviours. As per research the High
Risk Group comprises of tribals, truck drivers and sex workers. As such Africa
and India were labelled as the epicentre of AIDS and the world’s AIDS capital
respectively. The publication also quoted the identification of High Risk Group
in Kerala in 1996 by the British
Overseas Development Administration, now DfiD listing tribals, street children
and sex workers.
Interestingly, Jackindia further states that in Kerala
there were no street children per se
and that sex workers were not a visible group. It also says that this process
of identification of High Risk group is a creation
of new untouchables. The publication strongly brings out the linkages of
the statistics, research, health policies, intervention strategy of HIV–AIDS and concludes that
the whole business was a new mechanism of
colonization. The dirty and ugly looking drug addicts or women sex workers
are not mere collateral victims of conflict but are probable agencies of the
new mechanism for colonization. Rather than sensitization or awareness, stories
of children (all of them girls) who were staying at Sneha Bhawan would generate
the formation of future generation of “untouchables.”
UNAIDS and NACO had listed
three most important legal entities in regard to HIV scenario: (i) Right to Informed Consent/Privacy – a legal and ethical concept related to access
and use of data/personal information; (ii) Right to Confidentiality – right to
protection and unauthorized use of data; and (iii) Right against Discrimination
– regarding fundamental rights and entitlements.
In a discussion on films and
film making, award winning filmmaker Sunzu Bachaspatimayum told this writer “… if
you are showing CSW or HIV persons, HIV children, traffic victims, you need to
have a signed consent from the person.” Explaining further the making of his national
award winning film Shingnaba,
a film on HIV–AIDS, Bachaspatimayum
further said “… in one of the scene where the HIV person was to be shown with
his girlfriend, the girlfriend agreed to come before the camera, but I shot her
below the neck till the feet without showing her face. Again after the filming
I showed her how it would look like. Later she asked me to delete her part from
the film; so I deleted it.” Even in cases of informed consent he said “we blur
it.” On receiving a national award for his film AFSPA 1958, Bachaspatimayum had reportedly said that “for a non feature film or a documentary
it requires in-depth understanding as well as sensitivity of the issue by the
film maker.”[v]
Beside the bad boys, the dirty and ugly looking
drug users, and shameless sex workers, presentation
of Irom Sharmila was ironic. In the whole episode on “The passion of Sharmila,”
the contents were only of emotions and personal moments. Sharmila’s role in the
film looked scripted for the “crying scene.” A woman read her poem and cried.
Sharmila herself was at the end in tears. Compare this with Gandhi and his
determined and hardened soul. Often described as the icon of democracy and
non-violence, Irom Sharmila was on the contrary asked to speak on “humanity,
emotions, dreams,” none of her political thoughts came into the scene. This looks
like a subtle and well crafted design of showing softer side ( rather the
“feminine”) of Sharmila, a lady in tears. This in a way mallows down, if not
delegitimise, fourteen years long fast for repeal of AFSPA and her political struggle
of non-violence.
Stating that the government is taking no
initiative for dialogue with Sharmila while many violent resistant movements
are invited for “peace talks,” Civic Chandran, who
scripted a one act play Meira Paibi, questioned,
“… is
it because Sharmila is an ordinary woman and from Northeast? Or is non-violence
unromantic?”[vi]
The Manipur
Song as a whole seems to be trying to sensitize “mainland India” on the
whole range of issues that engulf Manipur. For a distant spectator, the 60
minute documentary appears to be mere collection of incidents, social evils,
the “bad” and the “ugly.” Presentation of women particularly scenes in the
“Notion of collateral” makes an uncomfortable viewing, provoking viewers to
question ethical and sensitive dimensions. The introduction rightly states that
“the nature of the conflict is so complex that it is difficult to portray a
clear cause and effect relatonship.” Neither a clear message for the audience nor
an insightful analysis of the issues in question, one wonders whose interest
the film is going to serve. The episodes lack interconnections and linkages. The
documentary film affirms mainland India’s patriarchal indifference to the stories
of the margins.
Notes
& References
[i]
This is from
Meha Dixit’s writing “Dirty looking stones,” Hard News, September 2010.
[ii]
The term “Ima” meaning “mother” is usually used to address the women activists
with a sense of respect.
[iii]
Sonagachi, the largest legal red light district in Kolkata shot to fame after a documentary Born into
Brothels: Calcutta’s Red Light Kids won the Academy Award
in 2004. Source: UNODC website,
accessed
during September 2010.
[iv]
See Jackindia, “HIV–AIDS Industry,” 2002.
[v]
As stated in The Sangai Express, March 19, 2010.
[vi] The questions were raised by Civic Chandran at a performance of the play Meira Paibi based on the life of
Sharmila in Delhi in May 2010. For
details see, The North East Sun,
June 16–30, 2010.
