Criticism and intellectual debate are essential components of any democratic society, yet criticism alone cannot become a substitute for action.
By Yaiphaba Khumanthem
In the past few days, some scholars in Manipur have been circulating articles that appear to project themselves as the sole saviors of the masses and the only ones capable of making a critical analysis of the issues and challenges facing the state. However, their writings often reflect an “all-knowing attitude” and a certain intellectual stubbornness.
These scholars frequently fail to acknowledge any argument that does not align with their own line of thought. For them, those who disagree are labeled opportunists, while those who attempt to explore alternative ways of addressing the problems are dismissed as irrational, power-hungry elites attempting to mislead the masses and the youth.
In recent months, the debate around the emergence of a strong regional political force capable of carrying the voice of the people has resurfaced. This revival is largely due to two important reasons: first, the perceived inability of political leadership of the state to act independently of central leadership; and second, the growing need to expand political space within the federal structure of the Indian state.
In this context, academia, activists, and retired bureaucrats have come forward to initiate a discussion on the need for a strong regional party that can properly represent the people of the state. This marks the first time since the 1970s that such groups have collectively reignited an academic and political debate on regionalism in this manner.
These same scholars, however, often critique this development by arguing that academia, activists, and retired bureaucrats represent an elite section of a particular community attempting to revive regional or electoral politics despite its repeated failures, ultimately seeking formal political influence. Another argument they advance is that this group lacks popular support and that there is no genuine mass demand for a regional party. While this may appear reasonable on the surface, it often lacks deeper understanding of the prevailing situation in Manipur.
Firstly, it is widely understood that it is politically risky, even politically suicidal, to openly oppose the ruling establishment at the centre, and its proxies in the state, in the present context, where dominant political forces are perceived to suppress dissenting voices. Secondly, the concern of these individuals who are now engaged in regional politics is not merely academic debate but also to engage and respond to the existing political structure in a more direct and meaningful way.
Moreover, even in a scenario where a regional party comes to power, critics argue that such groups would not necessarily gain political spoils or economic benefits, as seen in other states governed by regional parties. In order to participate in formal politics, it is often suggested that one must either align with the ideology of the ruling national party or negotiate within its framework. So, there is nothing much one can gain by advancing regional party politics. Hence, it will be wrong to say that an elite section of Manipur will amass significant political power through regional party politics in the state even if their party comes to power magically. Even if they do so, will it not be tactically useful for the larger struggle for the identity and future of the state? In this context, one must understand that nuances of the strategy and tactics involved in the struggle of Manipur.
In their enthusiasm to present themselves as the conscious voice of the working class, these scholars often fail to seriously examine why regional political parties have historically failed. They provide multiple explanations, but often overlook the structural pressures exerted by the central leadership of the national parties, particularly during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, when regional parties were significantly constrained. The situation, however, has changed considerably in the post-2000 era, marking a new political phase.
Another argument they make is that this group lacks public support and that there is no mass demand for a regional party. This claim also appears to be superficial, as it does not adequately engage with the ground realities or the subjective and objective conditions that have emerged in recent months.
While they do advise youth engaged in electoral politics to understand that electoral participation is not the ultimate goal, this criticism remains incomplete without offering any viable alternative. For many years, such scholars have focused primarily on dissecting problems and movements without presenting concrete solutions. Their analyses of social and political movements may be insightful, but they often avoid the fundamental question: what is the actual outcome of these movements, and have they truly benefited the masses? If not, and if the problem is structural in nature, then why is there no attempt to explore alternative approaches to address it? No one is suggesting a compromise of core principles—especially the welfare of the masses—but there is a need for constructive direction.
Instead of doing nothing, something must be done. Endless theoretical debates, without practical engagement, cannot be a solution. Whether any experiment succeeds or fails depends on the effort and energy invested. However, continuously discussing problems without attempting to address them risks creating a sense of intellectual stagnation.
Scholars and academics must also acknowledge that we are no longer in the Cold War era, and the world has moved on. If the entire argument rests on the claim that problems are purely structural and therefore have no solutions, then it ceases to be a meaningful debate. Every problem must, in principle, have a potential solution. Within Marxist thought as well, Antonio Gramsci supports the idea of engaging with parliamentary processes as a means of capturing power, unlike certain other Marxist traditions.
The question before Manipur today is not whether every proposed solution is perfect, but whether society is willing to engage in meaningful efforts to address its challenges. Criticism and intellectual debate are essential components of any democratic society, yet criticism alone cannot become a substitute for action. If individuals, academics, activists, and concerned citizens are attempting to explore new political possibilities through democratic means, their efforts should be evaluated on the basis of their outcomes and intentions rather than dismissed outright. Political experiments may succeed or fail, but the willingness to engage with the realities of the people remains a necessary step toward change.
Ultimately, the responsibility of scholars is not only to identify contradictions and expose structural limitations but also to contribute constructively to the search for solutions. The masses do not benefit from endless theoretical disputes detached from practical realities. As circumstances evolve, political strategies must also adapt to changing conditions. The future of Manipur will depend not on who can offer the sharpest critique, but on who can bridge ideas with action and transform public aspirations into meaningful political and social progress. Lastly, these scholars remind us of the phrase ‘infantile disorder,’ a childishness of thought and practice, which Lenin uses to describe young scholars who refuses to grow up to understand that we do not need to oppose parliamentary politics every time.
(Yaiphaba Khumanthem is a PhD Scholar at DMU, Manipur)
The post Criticizing Regional Party Politics among Youths in Manipur: Is it a Case of What Lenin calls Infantile Disorder? first appeared on The Frontier Manipur.
Read more / Original news source: https://thefrontiermanipur.com/criticizing-regional-party-politics-among-youths-in-manipur-is-it-a-case-of-what-lenin-calls-infantile-disorder/