Month: November 1999

IMPHAL, June 5: The Self Support Group and All Manipur Positive Women Network, Imphal East, Christian Net of Positive Women Manipur Branch, has strongly condemned the killing of 4 year old Thiyam Roberoy and the bomb blast at ADC office Khuman Lampak, wherein a mother and her two daughters were injured.A press conference was held in this connection at Hatta, Imphal East district. Speaking to media persons the representatives of the organizations urged the government to produce the culprit involved in the killing of the minor boy within June 10 failing which it warned to endorse any course of action taken by the JAC formed against the killing. The groups further condemned the act of a police officer who used his service pistol to threaten protestors yesterday who were staging a protest against the killing of the minor at Ningthoukhong.At the same time, the groups while condemning the blast at the ADC office which injured three women folk of a family has urged the perpetrator to avoid similar incidents in the future.Menawhile, the Poumai Students’ Union in a press release signed by its publicity secretary has decried the bomb blast which at the ADC complex, Khuman Lampak on May 28, which had left three members of a fmily injured. The release has stated that the responsible group behind the attack should come forward and claim responsibility of the incident. The Union also condoled the injured victims and their family members while mentioning that the public should joined in to condemn the barbaric act.

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/xuxpG-_rQlI/

IMPHAL, June 5: The Self Support Group and All Manipur Positive Women Network, Imphal East, Christian Net of Positive Women Manipur Branch, has strongly condemned the killing of 4 year old Thiyam Roberoy and the bomb blast at ADC office Khuman Lampak, wherein a mother and her two daughters were injured.A press conference was held in this connection at Hatta, Imphal East district. Speaking to media persons the representatives of the organizations urged the government to produce the culprit involved in the killing of the minor boy within June 10 failing which it warned to endorse any course of action taken by the JAC formed against the killing. The groups further condemned the act of a police officer who used his service pistol to threaten protestors yesterday who were staging a protest against the killing of the minor at Ningthoukhong.At the same time, the groups while condemning the blast at the ADC office which injured three women folk of a family has urged the perpetrator to avoid similar incidents in the future.Menawhile, the Poumai Students’ Union in a press release signed by its publicity secretary has decried the bomb blast which at the ADC complex, Khuman Lampak on May 28, which had left three members of a fmily injured. The release has stated that the responsible group behind the attack should come forward and claim responsibility of the incident. The Union also condoled the injured victims and their family members while mentioning that the public should joined in to condemn the barbaric act.

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/xuxpG-_rQlI/

By Nehginpao Kipgen John McCain, a U.S. senator from Arizona, has been one of the fiercest critics of the Burmese military junta, while lending unwavering support to Aung San Suu Kyi-led democracy movement. Why is a man who once called the Burmese military generals “thugs” have decided to visit Burma now? Perhaps equally surprising is that why did the Burmese government issue him visa?This week’s visit comes at a time when both the United States and the Burmese government are interested in improving bilateral ties between the two nations. The visit is more so important for the Burmese government than the senator’s own agenda. Even though McCain has not publicly spelled out the objectives of his mission, his past records have suggested what his intentions are. Although he is not an official envoy from the U.S. government, the nature of his important role in imposing sanctions on the Burmese government and his influential status in the U.S. senate makes the visit a significant one. The high-profile visit also comes at a time when Burma has once again captured headlines in international media. The country’s request for the 2014 chairmanship of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, two high-profile visits from the U.N. secretary general’s special envoy Vijay Nambiar and U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state Joseph Yun, and the visit to China by the Burmese president Thein Sein, all happened in May, have drawn the attention of the international community. Analyzing his past records on Burma, senator McCain has two primary objectives in his trip to Burma: assessing the ground reality of political developments in Burma after the 2010 election and listening to Aung San Suu Kyi’s view on the U.S. policy toward Burma. McCain in his July 2009 senate floor statement said, “I once had the great honor of meeting Aung San Suu Kyi. She is a woman of astonishing courage and incredible resolve.” The 2008 presidential candidate presumably has no high expectation of making a great stride in this trip. By meeting Suu Kyi, he wants to reiterate his admiration for her courage and dedication for the cause of democracy, and convey the U.S. strong support for democracy and human rights. With the formation of a new Burmese government, McCain plans to assess the ground reality of political developments inside the country. In doing so, he is expected to meet representatives from the government, which is dominated by the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party. Since there are over 2,000 political prisoners still languishing in different prisons across Burma, McCain is likely to push for their release and the implementation of more democratic reforms before the U.S. can consider lifting sanctions, the issue raised by deputy assistant secretary of state Joseph Yun in his May 18-20 trip. On the other hand, the Burmese government wants to take this opportunity to show the U.S. government that it has made progress in democratic reforms. The new Burmese government, former military generals in civilian clothes, wants to demonstrate its claim to the international community. This is an important reason why McCain was issued visa in the first place. Indeed, the government has something positive to present to the visiting senator and other critics. President Thein Sein recently reduced all prison sentences by one year and commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment. Thousands of prisoners were released, although only a small number of political prisoners were among the freed. Naypyidaw will argue that it has successfully conducted the first countrywide general election in two decades and has released thousands of prisoners. It will reiterate its demand for the U.S. government to lift sanctions which the Burmese government considers as the greatest hindrance for improving bilateral relationship. It has to be noted that the United States has a leverage to help genuine democratic transition in Burma for two important reasons. First is because of the U.S. unparalleled economic and military power and its pioneering role in championing democracy and human rights. Second is because of the widely acceptance of the U.S. engagement policy by the Burmese people. The senator’s visit should be viewed as a positive development. The U.S. government needs to continue its diplomatic pressure for genuine democratic reforms and protection and promotion of human rights. One effective way of engagement for the senator is to urge his colleagues to confirm the nomination of Derek Mitchell as a U.S. special envoy for Burma. The then-president Bush nominated Michael J. Green as U.S. special envoy for Burma in late 2008, which was never confirmed by the senate. Senator McCain and his senate colleagues should not let president Obama’s nomination slip away. The special envoy, with an ambassador rank, can work more effectively than some occasional visits. Burma decades-old problem is not entirely a question of democracy. The root cause is about denying rights to ethnic minority groups. In the process of engaging Burma, the U.S. government, either democratic or republican party, should involve more representatives and experts from ethnic minorities. After all, the Burmese people themselves best understand the political psychology of the Burmese military generals. Burmese native scholars should be consulted equally, if not more than the Western scholars, in formulating effective U.S. political strategy. The Burmese scholars have the advantage of in-depth empirical knowledge besides theoretical, which the Western scholars often lack. Nehginpao Kipgen is a researcher on the rise of political conflicts in modern Burma and general secretary of the U.S.-based Kuki International Forum (www.kukiforum.com) whose works have been widely published in five continents – Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America. He currently pursues a Ph.D. in political science at Northern Illinois University and can be reached at nkipgen1@niu.edu.

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/mTddMr9VXHk/

By Nehginpao Kipgen John McCain, a U.S. senator from Arizona, has been one of the fiercest critics of the Burmese military junta, while lending unwavering support to Aung San Suu Kyi-led democracy movement. Why is a man who once called the Burmese military generals “thugs” have decided to visit Burma now? Perhaps equally surprising is that why did the Burmese government issue him visa?This week’s visit comes at a time when both the United States and the Burmese government are interested in improving bilateral ties between the two nations. The visit is more so important for the Burmese government than the senator’s own agenda. Even though McCain has not publicly spelled out the objectives of his mission, his past records have suggested what his intentions are. Although he is not an official envoy from the U.S. government, the nature of his important role in imposing sanctions on the Burmese government and his influential status in the U.S. senate makes the visit a significant one. The high-profile visit also comes at a time when Burma has once again captured headlines in international media. The country’s request for the 2014 chairmanship of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, two high-profile visits from the U.N. secretary general’s special envoy Vijay Nambiar and U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state Joseph Yun, and the visit to China by the Burmese president Thein Sein, all happened in May, have drawn the attention of the international community. Analyzing his past records on Burma, senator McCain has two primary objectives in his trip to Burma: assessing the ground reality of political developments in Burma after the 2010 election and listening to Aung San Suu Kyi’s view on the U.S. policy toward Burma. McCain in his July 2009 senate floor statement said, “I once had the great honor of meeting Aung San Suu Kyi. She is a woman of astonishing courage and incredible resolve.” The 2008 presidential candidate presumably has no high expectation of making a great stride in this trip. By meeting Suu Kyi, he wants to reiterate his admiration for her courage and dedication for the cause of democracy, and convey the U.S. strong support for democracy and human rights. With the formation of a new Burmese government, McCain plans to assess the ground reality of political developments inside the country. In doing so, he is expected to meet representatives from the government, which is dominated by the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party. Since there are over 2,000 political prisoners still languishing in different prisons across Burma, McCain is likely to push for their release and the implementation of more democratic reforms before the U.S. can consider lifting sanctions, the issue raised by deputy assistant secretary of state Joseph Yun in his May 18-20 trip. On the other hand, the Burmese government wants to take this opportunity to show the U.S. government that it has made progress in democratic reforms. The new Burmese government, former military generals in civilian clothes, wants to demonstrate its claim to the international community. This is an important reason why McCain was issued visa in the first place. Indeed, the government has something positive to present to the visiting senator and other critics. President Thein Sein recently reduced all prison sentences by one year and commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment. Thousands of prisoners were released, although only a small number of political prisoners were among the freed. Naypyidaw will argue that it has successfully conducted the first countrywide general election in two decades and has released thousands of prisoners. It will reiterate its demand for the U.S. government to lift sanctions which the Burmese government considers as the greatest hindrance for improving bilateral relationship. It has to be noted that the United States has a leverage to help genuine democratic transition in Burma for two important reasons. First is because of the U.S. unparalleled economic and military power and its pioneering role in championing democracy and human rights. Second is because of the widely acceptance of the U.S. engagement policy by the Burmese people. The senator’s visit should be viewed as a positive development. The U.S. government needs to continue its diplomatic pressure for genuine democratic reforms and protection and promotion of human rights. One effective way of engagement for the senator is to urge his colleagues to confirm the nomination of Derek Mitchell as a U.S. special envoy for Burma. The then-president Bush nominated Michael J. Green as U.S. special envoy for Burma in late 2008, which was never confirmed by the senate. Senator McCain and his senate colleagues should not let president Obama’s nomination slip away. The special envoy, with an ambassador rank, can work more effectively than some occasional visits. Burma decades-old problem is not entirely a question of democracy. The root cause is about denying rights to ethnic minority groups. In the process of engaging Burma, the U.S. government, either democratic or republican party, should involve more representatives and experts from ethnic minorities. After all, the Burmese people themselves best understand the political psychology of the Burmese military generals. Burmese native scholars should be consulted equally, if not more than the Western scholars, in formulating effective U.S. political strategy. The Burmese scholars have the advantage of in-depth empirical knowledge besides theoretical, which the Western scholars often lack. Nehginpao Kipgen is a researcher on the rise of political conflicts in modern Burma and general secretary of the U.S.-based Kuki International Forum (www.kukiforum.com) whose works have been widely published in five continents – Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America. He currently pursues a Ph.D. in political science at Northern Illinois University and can be reached at nkipgen1@niu.edu.

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/mTddMr9VXHk/

By Nehginpao Kipgen John McCain, a U.S. senator from Arizona, has been one of the fiercest critics of the Burmese military junta, while lending unwavering support to Aung San Suu Kyi-led democracy movement. Why is a man who once called the Burmese military generals “thugs” have decided to visit Burma now? Perhaps equally surprising is that why did the Burmese government issue him visa?This week’s visit comes at a time when both the United States and the Burmese government are interested in improving bilateral ties between the two nations. The visit is more so important for the Burmese government than the senator’s own agenda. Even though McCain has not publicly spelled out the objectives of his mission, his past records have suggested what his intentions are. Although he is not an official envoy from the U.S. government, the nature of his important role in imposing sanctions on the Burmese government and his influential status in the U.S. senate makes the visit a significant one. The high-profile visit also comes at a time when Burma has once again captured headlines in international media. The country’s request for the 2014 chairmanship of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, two high-profile visits from the U.N. secretary general’s special envoy Vijay Nambiar and U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state Joseph Yun, and the visit to China by the Burmese president Thein Sein, all happened in May, have drawn the attention of the international community. Analyzing his past records on Burma, senator McCain has two primary objectives in his trip to Burma: assessing the ground reality of political developments in Burma after the 2010 election and listening to Aung San Suu Kyi’s view on the U.S. policy toward Burma. McCain in his July 2009 senate floor statement said, “I once had the great honor of meeting Aung San Suu Kyi. She is a woman of astonishing courage and incredible resolve.” The 2008 presidential candidate presumably has no high expectation of making a great stride in this trip. By meeting Suu Kyi, he wants to reiterate his admiration for her courage and dedication for the cause of democracy, and convey the U.S. strong support for democracy and human rights. With the formation of a new Burmese government, McCain plans to assess the ground reality of political developments inside the country. In doing so, he is expected to meet representatives from the government, which is dominated by the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party. Since there are over 2,000 political prisoners still languishing in different prisons across Burma, McCain is likely to push for their release and the implementation of more democratic reforms before the U.S. can consider lifting sanctions, the issue raised by deputy assistant secretary of state Joseph Yun in his May 18-20 trip. On the other hand, the Burmese government wants to take this opportunity to show the U.S. government that it has made progress in democratic reforms. The new Burmese government, former military generals in civilian clothes, wants to demonstrate its claim to the international community. This is an important reason why McCain was issued visa in the first place. Indeed, the government has something positive to present to the visiting senator and other critics. President Thein Sein recently reduced all prison sentences by one year and commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment. Thousands of prisoners were released, although only a small number of political prisoners were among the freed. Naypyidaw will argue that it has successfully conducted the first countrywide general election in two decades and has released thousands of prisoners. It will reiterate its demand for the U.S. government to lift sanctions which the Burmese government considers as the greatest hindrance for improving bilateral relationship. It has to be noted that the United States has a leverage to help genuine democratic transition in Burma for two important reasons. First is because of the U.S. unparalleled economic and military power and its pioneering role in championing democracy and human rights. Second is because of the widely acceptance of the U.S. engagement policy by the Burmese people. The senator’s visit should be viewed as a positive development. The U.S. government needs to continue its diplomatic pressure for genuine democratic reforms and protection and promotion of human rights. One effective way of engagement for the senator is to urge his colleagues to confirm the nomination of Derek Mitchell as a U.S. special envoy for Burma. The then-president Bush nominated Michael J. Green as U.S. special envoy for Burma in late 2008, which was never confirmed by the senate. Senator McCain and his senate colleagues should not let president Obama’s nomination slip away. The special envoy, with an ambassador rank, can work more effectively than some occasional visits. Burma decades-old problem is not entirely a question of democracy. The root cause is about denying rights to ethnic minority groups. In the process of engaging Burma, the U.S. government, either democratic or republican party, should involve more representatives and experts from ethnic minorities. After all, the Burmese people themselves best understand the political psychology of the Burmese military generals. Burmese native scholars should be consulted equally, if not more than the Western scholars, in formulating effective U.S. political strategy. The Burmese scholars have the advantage of in-depth empirical knowledge besides theoretical, which the Western scholars often lack. Nehginpao Kipgen is a researcher on the rise of political conflicts in modern Burma and general secretary of the U.S.-based Kuki International Forum (www.kukiforum.com) whose works have been widely published in five continents – Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America. He currently pursues a Ph.D. in political science at Northern Illinois University and can be reached at nkipgen1@niu.edu.

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/mTddMr9VXHk/

By Khuraijam Jibankumar Singh, FLS Founder and Managing Trustee,North East Centre for Environmental Education and Research, ImphalEvery year colleges in different Universities across the country are increasing their cut off marks for admission to under graduate courses. Students of states like ours are facing difficulty in getting admissions in good colleges like St. Stephen College, Sri Ram College of Commerce due to low aggregate in their marks in Board Exams. Only a few get admissions in reputed colleges and the remaining had to settle for correspondence courses or had to go for some certificate or diploma courses. Students of our state are very good in studies, extra –curricular activities and are well aware of the happening across the country or globe. In spite of all the turmoil in the state as the result of the prevailing situation in the state, students are still not losing their hope to achieve their dreams. We need to give them support, encouragements, appreciation and proper guidance. Not only these, our teachers and education system should change their approach in giving marks or grading system. Our students are second to none but are still facing problems in getting admission after XIIth. Manipur Education Board and Council should encourage teachers to give marks according to what the students deserves. Every year thousands of Manipuri students couldn’t get admission due to low grade in Board/Council Exams. However, the situation is different for students studying in other boards like CBSE, ICSE. Does it mean that students studying in CBSE, ICSE are better than students of Manipur Board/Council? Take example of Manipuri students (not only Manipuri students) studying in Assam Valley School (CBSE) in Assam get admission in colleges easily as compare to students studying in schools of Manipur Board. The only difference is marks/percentage. Every year Manipuri students topped in colleges and university somewhere or the other across the country. We have several Gold medallists and toppers in every field of sciences, arts, engineering, medical and commerce. However, the number could be increased if all the talented students get proper education and this can be achieved if they get admission in good colleges and universities. Manipur Government/Education Departments should hold regular meetings and interaction programmes with teachers, officials of Board/Council and principals to address the situation and problems faced by the students of the state in getting admission for higher education. Encourage students to pursue higher education for better Manipur. Education will bring peace and development to the state.

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/-2AMePq16R4/

By Khuraijam Jibankumar Singh, FLS Founder and Managing Trustee,North East Centre for Environmental Education and Research, ImphalEvery year colleges in different Universities across the country are increasing their cut off marks for admission to under graduate courses. Students of states like ours are facing difficulty in getting admissions in good colleges like St. Stephen College, Sri Ram College of Commerce due to low aggregate in their marks in Board Exams. Only a few get admissions in reputed colleges and the remaining had to settle for correspondence courses or had to go for some certificate or diploma courses. Students of our state are very good in studies, extra –curricular activities and are well aware of the happening across the country or globe. In spite of all the turmoil in the state as the result of the prevailing situation in the state, students are still not losing their hope to achieve their dreams. We need to give them support, encouragements, appreciation and proper guidance. Not only these, our teachers and education system should change their approach in giving marks or grading system. Our students are second to none but are still facing problems in getting admission after XIIth. Manipur Education Board and Council should encourage teachers to give marks according to what the students deserves. Every year thousands of Manipuri students couldn’t get admission due to low grade in Board/Council Exams. However, the situation is different for students studying in other boards like CBSE, ICSE. Does it mean that students studying in CBSE, ICSE are better than students of Manipur Board/Council? Take example of Manipuri students (not only Manipuri students) studying in Assam Valley School (CBSE) in Assam get admission in colleges easily as compare to students studying in schools of Manipur Board. The only difference is marks/percentage. Every year Manipuri students topped in colleges and university somewhere or the other across the country. We have several Gold medallists and toppers in every field of sciences, arts, engineering, medical and commerce. However, the number could be increased if all the talented students get proper education and this can be achieved if they get admission in good colleges and universities. Manipur Government/Education Departments should hold regular meetings and interaction programmes with teachers, officials of Board/Council and principals to address the situation and problems faced by the students of the state in getting admission for higher education. Encourage students to pursue higher education for better Manipur. Education will bring peace and development to the state.

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/-2AMePq16R4/

DIMAPUR, June 5 (Newmai News Network): Inspite of the ongoing Naga reconciliation process engaged among the Naga underground organisations, one NNC/FGN (Non-Accordist group) has killed one NSCN-IM cadre in Nagaland yesterday.According to the NSCN-IM one Nechizo, “Naga Army” (NSCN-IM`s armed wing) hailing from Thehephu village falling under Phek district,Chakhesang Region was killed by the NNC (Non Accordist) on Saturday.”This is certainty not a good precedent set by the NNC and NSCN will not take things lying down if this is an open provocation,” the NSCN-IM statement said. “Nevertheless,for the short service rendered by Nechizo the Naga nation and NSCN will ever remember him.The fact his service to the nation was nibbed at the bud at the hands of the unrully organization is a matter of regret.But in his death let meny more young Nagas like the national service.We condoles his dead and expresses out deepest sorrow to the bereaved family members. May God whom we trust and sustain us comfort them at this hour of grief and sorrow,” the NSCN-IM said tonight. Saturday`s killing had come after the Naga leaders had conglomerated in Kohima from May 13 to participate in the 3-day prayer programme for the Naga reconciliation.Organised by Naga Shisha Hoho Prayer Group, leaders of the Naga Hoho, the United Naga Council (UNC), Naga Students` Federation (NSF), Naga Motherrs Association (NMA), Naga Women Union Manipur (NWUM), Eastern Naga People`s Organisation (ENPO), Eastern Naga Students` Federation (ENSF), Naga People`s Movement for Human Rights (NPMHR) and of course, Forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR) participated in the 3-day event.The Naga underground leaders had also attended that programme. The programme under theme, `call for the Nagas to pray for redemption` was held at Naga Shisha Hoho Prayer Centre Pruzie, Kohima.This programme had come at a time when the Naga reconciliation process initiated by Forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR) has been a blow-hot-blow-cold state of affairs.As recent as last month, there had been media war and occasional clashes between NSCN-K and NSCN-IM.In the month of March, NSCN-IM leaders Th Muivah and Isak Chisi Swu had arrived in Dimapur for the `highest level meeting`. However, the meeting of Naga top leaders involving Th Muivah, Isak Chisi Swu and S S Khaplang and also leaders from NNC could not take place due to some `technical` problem. After camping in Dimapur for about two weeks, Muivah and Swu went back to New Delhi. However, inspite of these developments the Forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR) does not lose its patience. The Forum for Naga Reconciliation is instrumental in halting the three Naga underground groups from the fierce factional clashes that were witnessed in Naga areas until the early part of 2008. The Dr Wati Aier led FNR after its formation had engaged numerous football matches involving the three warring Naga underground groups and Naga civil society bodies. Several conclaves convened by FNR had also been held both in Nagaland and abroad.

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/VKzzsx245ao/

At its crux, there are only two known ways of resolving a conflict of interest. One is to crush the weaker of the two with brute force and the other to reach a democratic consensus. The civilized norm of the modern world being the latter option, the need is to explore its possibilities, wherever conflict has come to stay, at least until a more perfected mechanism is evolved. For the moment, we can only foresee all putative future conflict resolution mechanisms as derivatives of the democratic system, the latter being known for its resilience and almost infinite accommodative capacity. But it must be acknowledged that often the most vocal advocates of democracy have regressed into the logic of an atavistic past where only force mattered. The objectionable interventions in the Middle East and West Asian have said this eloquently. It is a matter of pessimism that war still seems unavoidable even in the days of democracy. A qualification needs however to be added here. In the UNDP Human Development Report, HDR, 2002 with the theme “deepening democracy in a fragmented world”, one of the many interesting patterns of national behaviors that evolved from empirical data on wars in the second half of the 20th Century is, no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other. Quite obviously, these nations have discovered an alternative ground on which to thrash out vexed issues. The indication is also, democracy is a versatile medium for this meeting of minds and resolution of conflicts.Even in our situation, there have been very strong tendencies on very many occasions to return to the former method of conflict resolution, which basically has a one-line philosophy made famous by Joseph Conrad’s fictional character, Kurtz in Heart of Darkness – exterminate the brute. But, as in this story, the scale to decide which is the “civilized” and which the “brute” between the exterminator and exterminated, becomes extremely blurred. But the values of democracy, with its insistence on giving each and every one a say, regardless of numerical or physical strength, have generally managed to keep this tendency in check. There have been occasions when this inner moderation snapped, as in the case of the Naga-Kuki feud, Meitei-Meitei Pangal mayhem, and Kuki-Paite fratricide, but it would be reasonable to presume that many more would have been prevented by this inner cord. For indeed although our society seemed at certain junctures to have reached points of explosive of ethnic violence, nothing so catastrophic have happened so far. This however does not mean the dark forces of violence have been successfully subdued for all times. We still continue to sit on a dormant volcano which can with provocation come alive again. And provocations there have been and there will be by those who either do not understand or believe in the healing power of accommodation and mutual respect that democracy recommends.There have also been plenty of talks of a dialogue between the civil societies of the different communities that are at loggerheads. This is welcome, but a dialogue devoid of a willingness to accommodate can possibly lead nowhere. A dialogue or a discourse is not simply about convincing the opposing party to surrender to the will of the other party, but of discovering, or rediscovering as the case may be, of common grounds on which to build the foundation of the future together. This spirit has never been conspicuous in all the vociferous claims for the need for understanding and good neighbourliness. By democracy we do not necessarily mean only the number game. This is a necessary ingredient, but it is far from being a sufficient condition. Equally important, it is also about justice, and in evolving this understanding of justice, the premium must be on reason and creative insights into what is common good. Here concept of freedom is also important. Without individual freedom, the aggregate of which is what constitutes freedom of larger social grouping, including the nation, there can be no democracy. But again, as philosopher Isaiah Berlin said, freedom cannot be without any conditions. Absolute freedom for the wolves translates into death for the lambs. Freedom then can make meaning only if it is moderated by reason and a commonly legislated rational law.

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/vqa7n6XT0eE/

At its crux, there are only two known ways of resolving a conflict of interest. One is to crush the weaker of the two with brute force and the other to reach a democratic consensus. The civilized norm of the modern world being the latter option, the need is to explore its possibilities, wherever conflict has come to stay, at least until a more perfected mechanism is evolved. For the moment, we can only foresee all putative future conflict resolution mechanisms as derivatives of the democratic system, the latter being known for its resilience and almost infinite accommodative capacity. But it must be acknowledged that often the most vocal advocates of democracy have regressed into the logic of an atavistic past where only force mattered. The objectionable interventions in the Middle East and West Asian have said this eloquently. It is a matter of pessimism that war still seems unavoidable even in the days of democracy. A qualification needs however to be added here. In the UNDP Human Development Report, HDR, 2002 with the theme “deepening democracy in a fragmented world”, one of the many interesting patterns of national behaviors that evolved from empirical data on wars in the second half of the 20th Century is, no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other. Quite obviously, these nations have discovered an alternative ground on which to thrash out vexed issues. The indication is also, democracy is a versatile medium for this meeting of minds and resolution of conflicts.Even in our situation, there have been very strong tendencies on very many occasions to return to the former method of conflict resolution, which basically has a one-line philosophy made famous by Joseph Conrad’s fictional character, Kurtz in Heart of Darkness – exterminate the brute. But, as in this story, the scale to decide which is the “civilized” and which the “brute” between the exterminator and exterminated, becomes extremely blurred. But the values of democracy, with its insistence on giving each and every one a say, regardless of numerical or physical strength, have generally managed to keep this tendency in check. There have been occasions when this inner moderation snapped, as in the case of the Naga-Kuki feud, Meitei-Meitei Pangal mayhem, and Kuki-Paite fratricide, but it would be reasonable to presume that many more would have been prevented by this inner cord. For indeed although our society seemed at certain junctures to have reached points of explosive of ethnic violence, nothing so catastrophic have happened so far. This however does not mean the dark forces of violence have been successfully subdued for all times. We still continue to sit on a dormant volcano which can with provocation come alive again. And provocations there have been and there will be by those who either do not understand or believe in the healing power of accommodation and mutual respect that democracy recommends.There have also been plenty of talks of a dialogue between the civil societies of the different communities that are at loggerheads. This is welcome, but a dialogue devoid of a willingness to accommodate can possibly lead nowhere. A dialogue or a discourse is not simply about convincing the opposing party to surrender to the will of the other party, but of discovering, or rediscovering as the case may be, of common grounds on which to build the foundation of the future together. This spirit has never been conspicuous in all the vociferous claims for the need for understanding and good neighbourliness. By democracy we do not necessarily mean only the number game. This is a necessary ingredient, but it is far from being a sufficient condition. Equally important, it is also about justice, and in evolving this understanding of justice, the premium must be on reason and creative insights into what is common good. Here concept of freedom is also important. Without individual freedom, the aggregate of which is what constitutes freedom of larger social grouping, including the nation, there can be no democracy. But again, as philosopher Isaiah Berlin said, freedom cannot be without any conditions. Absolute freedom for the wolves translates into death for the lambs. Freedom then can make meaning only if it is moderated by reason and a commonly legislated rational law.

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/vqa7n6XT0eE/

At its crux, there are only two known ways of resolving a conflict of interest. One is to crush the weaker of the two with brute force and the other to reach a democratic consensus. The civilized norm of the modern world being the latter option, the need is to explore its possibilities, wherever conflict has come to stay, at least until a more perfected mechanism is evolved. For the moment, we can only foresee all putative future conflict resolution mechanisms as derivatives of the democratic system, the latter being known for its resilience and almost infinite accommodative capacity. But it must be acknowledged that often the most vocal advocates of democracy have regressed into the logic of an atavistic past where only force mattered. The objectionable interventions in the Middle East and West Asian have said this eloquently. It is a matter of pessimism that war still seems unavoidable even in the days of democracy. A qualification needs however to be added here. In the UNDP Human Development Report, HDR, 2002 with the theme “deepening democracy in a fragmented world”, one of the many interesting patterns of national behaviors that evolved from empirical data on wars in the second half of the 20th Century is, no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other. Quite obviously, these nations have discovered an alternative ground on which to thrash out vexed issues. The indication is also, democracy is a versatile medium for this meeting of minds and resolution of conflicts.Even in our situation, there have been very strong tendencies on very many occasions to return to the former method of conflict resolution, which basically has a one-line philosophy made famous by Joseph Conrad’s fictional character, Kurtz in Heart of Darkness – exterminate the brute. But, as in this story, the scale to decide which is the “civilized” and which the “brute” between the exterminator and exterminated, becomes extremely blurred. But the values of democracy, with its insistence on giving each and every one a say, regardless of numerical or physical strength, have generally managed to keep this tendency in check. There have been occasions when this inner moderation snapped, as in the case of the Naga-Kuki feud, Meitei-Meitei Pangal mayhem, and Kuki-Paite fratricide, but it would be reasonable to presume that many more would have been prevented by this inner cord. For indeed although our society seemed at certain junctures to have reached points of explosive of ethnic violence, nothing so catastrophic have happened so far. This however does not mean the dark forces of violence have been successfully subdued for all times. We still continue to sit on a dormant volcano which can with provocation come alive again. And provocations there have been and there will be by those who either do not understand or believe in the healing power of accommodation and mutual respect that democracy recommends.There have also been plenty of talks of a dialogue between the civil societies of the different communities that are at loggerheads. This is welcome, but a dialogue devoid of a willingness to accommodate can possibly lead nowhere. A dialogue or a discourse is not simply about convincing the opposing party to surrender to the will of the other party, but of discovering, or rediscovering as the case may be, of common grounds on which to build the foundation of the future together. This spirit has never been conspicuous in all the vociferous claims for the need for understanding and good neighbourliness. By democracy we do not necessarily mean only the number game. This is a necessary ingredient, but it is far from being a sufficient condition. Equally important, it is also about justice, and in evolving this understanding of justice, the premium must be on reason and creative insights into what is common good. Here concept of freedom is also important. Without individual freedom, the aggregate of which is what constitutes freedom of larger social grouping, including the nation, there can be no democracy. But again, as philosopher Isaiah Berlin said, freedom cannot be without any conditions. Absolute freedom for the wolves translates into death for the lambs. Freedom then can make meaning only if it is moderated by reason and a commonly legislated rational law.

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/vqa7n6XT0eE/

NEW DELHI, June 4 (MIC): The Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh called a high-level meeting with Manipur Chief Minister O. Ibobi Singh and senior central ministers and top officials today at 10.30 am at his official residence, Race Course here to review implementation of national projects, besides several critical infrastructure and health and education ventures. The Chief Minister was accompanied by the chief secretary, Manipur and special secretary, Planning.After detailed discussions lasting over one hour, it was agreed that the JN Institute of Medical Sciences should be supported for completion within 2014-15. Pending approval of the revised Detailed Project Report (DPR) of Rs. 867 crores, the Planning Commission agreed to release allocated SPA funds of Rs132crores for this project. Approval to the revised DPR would be expedited. The state government was advised to submit the revised DPR for the Capital Project. The progress made in respect of the State Assembly and High Court Complexes was appreciated. The Planning Commission also agreed to consider favourably the revised DPR estimated at Rs. 841.83 crores. The Chief Minister of Manipur expressed concern regarding the slow pace of implementation of the Railway Line project Jiribam- Tupul-Imphal. Noting that the target date for completion of the Railway Line upto Tupul had already been re-scheduled to 2012, the Chief Minister requested the Railways authoruties to induct additional manpower and equipments for ensuring that there would be no further slippages. On the suggestion of the Member (Engg) of Railway Board, the Border Road Organisation was advised to strengthen all weak bridges on NH-53 by December 2011, so that the Railways could bring in all required heavy equipments required for the tunneling work. The Railways also agreed to supplement equipment and manpower and assured that the Railwayline upto Tupul would be completed by 2014, and upto Imphal by 2016. The Chief Minister also re-iterated the importance of expediting upgradation of NH-53 as it was the second lifeline of Manipur. The union minister of Defence A.K.Antony, on behalf of the BRO, assured that the ongoing work for double-laning and black-topping of NH-53 would be completed by 2013. It was also decided that the ministry of Defence would advise the BRO to outsource the critical portions of NH-53 to reputed engineering companies for expediting completion and ensuring quality work. The Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asked the ministry of Road Transport & Highways to clear pending DPRs submitted by BRO in the coming week, and also develop a new proposal for converting NH-53 to a world class road, befitting a road leading to international borders.The state government’s proposal to have an alternative alignment of NH-39 to by-pass sinking areas and link Manipur to Assam through Peren, Nagaland was appreciated. The secretary, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways informed that both proposals were proposed to be included in ‘Phase A’ of the Special Accelerated Road Development Programme, and approval of the Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure was being obtained. The Prime Minister advised the ministry to bring the two issues to the Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure within June 2011 for approval. As regards the proposal to seek Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) assistance for Augmentation of Water Supply for Imphal city, by drawing water from the Thoubal Multi-Purpose project, the Planning Commission reported that it had given in-principle approval to the project which estimated at Rs. 687 crores, for funding as an Externally Aided Project. It was agreed that besides posing it to JICA, Planning Commission would also consider funding the project through plan financing. The state government’s proposals seeking support of the ministry of Human Resource Development for establishing Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas in all nine districts was considered favourably. The union minister of Human Resource Development Kapil Sibal agreed to bring up a Note for consideration and approval of the Central Cabinet to relax the existing guidelines and assist Manipur to set up additional KGBVs. He also informed that the ministry had approved setting up of four additional KGBVs (residential schools for poor and vulnerable girls) in educationally backward blocks of the state, taking the total to five KGBVs. Similarly, the Ministry would bring up another Note for the Union Cabinet to approve setting up of new Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas at Ukhrul and Kangpokpi.The Union Minister of Development of North Eastern Region(DoNER) B.K.Handique agreed to expedite approval to NLCPR support for Construction of 300 school buildings in the five Hill districts at an estimated cost of Rs.137.77 crores. In connection with the request of the State Government for release of Special Advance Plan Assistance of Rs. 300 crores, the Chief Minister O. Ibobi Singh called on Pranab Mukherjee, union finance minister separately. After brief discussion, it was agreed that issue of cash reserve would be cross-checked and State Finance department would separately meet the secretary, Expenditure to work out the details.

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/zVr6IkaS8_w/