In the days ahead, in the wake of the despicable life attempt on a well known journalist and the secretary of the All Manipur Working Journalists Union, there is bound to be plenty of dirty linen washing. Sadly for the journalistic profession, some of the mud thrown around is bound to stick and tarnish its image. After all, in today’s Manipur, the conditioning of public sensibility has been such that if somebody gets shot by unknown gunmen, the needle of suspicion does not fail to point at least partially at the victim. The blame for this must be shared by the lawlessness all around as much as by the manner in which the moral authority of the social order has been hijacked and eroded so thoroughly by the contagion called corruption. It is unfortunate but nevertheless an inevitable reality of our times that if today a perfectly innocent man, particularly a government official, is shot dead, even by hired guns, there will always be a section that believes the victim must have got what he deserved. The emerging tradition has also been for the public to tolerate the logic of the gun doing the talking before the mouth does. And so death sentences often are awarded after the victims have been shot. How much so ever the law abiding and justice conscious may be revolted by this, they will also have to simply swallow the fact that this public sentiment tragically will probably be the final obituary for the victim, considering crime investigation has come to be only a remote and fading memory in the general consciousness. In all past such cases, the government have also kept mum, pretending it has nothing to do with monitoring the law and order agenda in the state.
This public mind-set is extremely dangerous and must be overcome. It betrays a certain inability, individually or collectively, to decide what must constitute justice. It also is a demonstration of how they have lost the faculty to balance out the proportionality of retribution for any particular crime, accepting as they have been, the gun as the dispenser of justice for practically any offence. They have of course been quick to respond to institutional violence, but what they do not seem to realize is that the challengers to these institutions too are as institutionalized today and needs their good judgement to put a check. What we need today then is a radical brand of citizenship that can ensure what Prof. Douglas Lummis called "Radical Democracy". This will entail a citizenry that does not passively accept anything lying down, but questions fairly and fearlessly the logic and justification of every act that has a bearing on their lives, regardless of who is behind them. Every act, especially those that have to do with the award of the black warrant, must be put through a rigorous screen of truth before they accept it. Only then would life cease to be such a cheap commodity as it has become in our state.
It is only now we all realize how vulnerable those in the journalistic profession are. By the very nature of their job that requires them to stand in the middle of any conflict they are to report, they are always exposed to the danger of getting hit from either side of the conflict, and events in Manipur over the past decade or so should testify this contention. Four journalists, including editors have lost their lives, and many more have suffered injuries or else have been objects of humiliating violent assaults. It could be some of those who were targeted were indeed complicit in the politics that boomeranged on them, but those who thought it fit to hit at them ought to at least have shown some basic respect for the public profession that journalism is and announced their verdicts and reasons before action against them. A second awakening of the public is what is essential today. They must strive to be well-informed radical citizens, blessed with the courage to call a spade a spade, as well as stamp their feet down authoritatively to say no to any nonsense fed to them by whomsoever.
