16/07/2025
Bimol Akoijam: When representation crosses the line
DR. DAMUDOR ARAMBAM
T The insurgent movements in Northeast India, partic-ularly in Manipur, cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader canvas of colonial his tory, structural neglect, and the politics of identity. These move ments are products of layered historical grievances and thus deserve more than just secu rity-centric responses. They demand rigorous academic in quiry. Understanding insurgency through this lens is not about legitimising violence, but about recognising the complexities that underlie political resistance-and how these continue to shape electoral politics in Manipur. For the past year, it appears to many that the Bimol Akoijam is the only parliamentarian from the state resembles more a na tionalist waging a liberation struggle in the halls of the In-dian Parliament-ironically from within the very institution that has long denied the legitimacy of the region's more than five decade-old movement. In doing so, his position risks blurring the lines between the region's historical struggle for self-deter-mination and the parliamentary nationalism that often seeks to subsume it.
There is a troubling trend in the public sphere where intellectuals shy away from engaging with the long-standing movements that have shaped this region's ry. Often, they cite the presence of state surveillance-suggesting that the state is always watching and listening. At other times, the
blame is deflected by citing secu rity concerns around insurgent groups, as if public discussion or writing would expose sen sitive operational details. Yet, the reality is that intelligence agencies based in Delhi often appear more informed about our lived experiences than the very people affected on the ground. This erasure of local knowledge, combined with silence from our own thinkers, only deepens the alienation and misunderstand ing. We must reject this paral ysis-whether caused by fear, convenience, or complicity. It is not only an academic duty but a moral obligation for scholars, writers, and public intellectu als to interrogate the political conditions we live under. To shy away from such inquiry is to allow others often far removed from our realities to define our truths for us.
As Gunnar Myrdal reminds us in Objectivity in Social Research, the social sciences are never free of bias; rather, acknowledging our moral and political stand points strengthens the depth and relevance of our analysis. In that spirit, I write from a position shaped by my own commitments to justice, democracy, and the right to political expression. Pro-fessor Naorem Sanajaoba once wrote in a local paper that re-jecting electoral politics does not disqualify someone from commenting on its function histo-ing an assertion that continues to echo during every election cycle. In Manipur, the Delhi's role has been more direct, often bypassing or undermining the
elected state government, and in some cases even appearing complicit in the deepening of the crisis. This asymmetry reveals not only a geographical distance but also a hierarchy of concern where some citizens are more equal than others in the eyes of the Republic. Amid a history of resistance spanning over five decades, shaped by demands for justice and dignity, the former academic-turned-parliamentar jan Akoijam dismissed the spirit of that struggle by declaring he would not follow Delhi's in-structions if made Chief Minister. His response to a senior Meitei journalist in an event celebrat ing one year of his journey as parliamentarian reflects not just defiance of central authority, but a troubling disregard for the political memory and collective sacrifices that have long defined the region's struggle..
When democratic institutions appear to falter, insurgent voices often derive legitimacy by de-fault. Yet, it is crucial to distin guish between insurgency as an armed manifestation of political frustration and parliamentary democracy as an institution alised avenue for dissent. Bimol Akoijam appears to straddle this delicate intersection, but in do-ing so, he risks crossing a line blurring the roles of an elected representative and a movement that has existed for decades. However committed he may be, the burden of a long-standing political struggle is not his alone to claim or represent. Parliamen tary dissent must be exercised with restraint and clarity-not
by absorbing a movement that belongs to a wider historical and collective struggle. For instance, Akoijam's acknowledging former Chief Minister Okram Ibobi, in reference to a news clip where Ibobi is quoted saying that if the Centre fails to intervene in the Gwaltabi incident, then the people should rule themselves free from India, is nothing more than political satire-and one that does not deserve celebra tion. A chief minister who held power for the longest period and played a central role in coun terinsurgency operations that led to the killing of thousands making such a statement and Akoijam endorsing it as an act of defiance is a mockery of the historical grievances that once led many youths to take up arms. Yes, Akoijam has crossed the line.
The youth of Manipur today are navigating a difficult and deeply complex landscape, marked by a continuous cycle of ethnic vio-lence driven by identity politics and years of political neglect. For decades, generations have sought to use electoral politics to achieve human dignity and meaningful change, yet these efforts have often failed to deliver. In this context, figures like Akoijam risk misleading the youth by offering hollow promises and shifting loyalties that prioritize personal ambition over collective progress. Akoijam's foray into electoral politics invites reflec-tion on the blurred boundaries between academic engagement and political ambition. For some time, Akoijam maintained a visi-ble presence in public discourse,
often positioning himself as a critical voice on the Northeast in the national media. However, his interventions during the on-going ethnic conflict in Manipur seemed increasingly shaped by a desire to enter the political mainstream, rather than a sus-tained academic commitment to unpacking the structural roots of the crisis. This shift was subtly reflected in the nature of his pub-lic commentary, which at times appeared more performative and chauvinistic than analytical. This pattern risks perpetuating the same political maneuvering that has long hindered the region's quest for dignity, peace, and real progress. The youth of today de-serve leaders who truly embody their struggles and hopes-not those who treat politics as a plat-form for personal advancement.
Akoijam's entry into Parlia-ment may carry symbolic weight. but resolving the decades long political conflict in Manipur requires more than individu-al representation or rhetorical gestures. It demands a collec-tive and sustained engagement that goes beyond the scope of parliamentary politics. Placing the burden of resolution on a lone parliamentarian not only misreads the depth of the con-flict but also sidelines the role of civil society, intellectuals, and the communities most affected. If we are serious about peace and natural justice, we must move beyond personalities and invest in deeper, more inclusive dialogues. (Damudor Arambam is an independent researcher with a Ph.D. from the Centre for the Study of Law and Governance, JNU.)
