Pressuring the State: Upholding Accountability Over Taking Matters into Our Own Hands

The call to go to Jiribam amidst the troubling situation of ongoing violence and the lack of protection for the suffering people, especially those victimized by Kuki militants, underscores a deep-seated frustration with the state’s failure to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. Instances like Moreh and Churachandpur serve as stark reminders of the government’s inability to swiftly and effectively address such crises, leaving communities vulnerable and exposed.
In this context, it’s understandable why some may feel compelled to take matters into their own hands to protect themselves and their loved ones. The sense of urgency and desperation in the face of imminent danger often leads people to resort to whatever means necessary for survival. However, this path is fraught with risks and potential consequences.
While self-defense may seem like the only viable option in the absence of state protection, it’s crucial to recognize the long-term ramifications of such actions. Taking up arms independently not only escalates the cycle of violence but also exposes individuals to legal repercussions and further state intervention. The state’s track record of dealing harshly with those who resort to violence outside of official channels only exacerbates this dilemma.
Indeed, it’s a lose-lose situation. If people do nothing, they risk continued victimization and suffering at the hands of militants. If they take matters into their own hands, they face the possibility of being targeted by both the militants and the state apparatus. It’s a grim reality that highlights the failure of governance and the erosion of trust in state institutions.
However, amidst this bleak scenario, there must be avenues for constructive engagement and peaceful resolution. Dialogue, mediation, and community-led initiatives can offer alternatives to violence, providing a platform for grievances to be addressed and solutions to be sought. Civil society organizations, religious leaders, and grassroots movements can play a pivotal role in facilitating such processes and bridging the gap between the state and its citizens.
Ultimately, the onus lies on the state to fulfill its responsibility of ensuring the safety and security of all its citizens, regardless of their ethnicity or socio-economic status. This requires proactive measures to address the root causes of violence, promote inclusive development, and foster a culture of accountability and justice. Only then can Manipur move towards a future where the call to take up arms is replaced by a call for peace, unity, and reconciliation.