To assume that the fault resides only on one side of the warring factions in ongoing conflicts is completely partisan, convenient and dangerous

As the Manipur tensions linger, news of violence from France posits a similar conundrum and lessons. Globally, local societies are predicated on tense ‘arrangement’ amongst its diversities which can suddenly flare up with deep-rooted and subliminal perceptions, whenever a trigger disrupts and re-ignites the status quo of that ‘arrangement’, in the tinderbox.Consequential societal dissonance and polarisation are invaluable to three elements i.e., amoral politicians who seek to sharpen their polarising agendas with the selective blame game, secondly, the loyal partisan cadres (social media savvy but distant from the place of actual tension) who connect the unrelated dots to contextualise the situation towards even more polarisation, and lastly, the opportunistic rioters who simply take situational advantage to loot and plunder.

It happened in Manipur, and now it is happening in France.Truth is never black-or-white but cherry-picking of facts by all three participating elements ensures that the situation rarely heals. Those in primary position to thaw the situation i.e., politicians or leadership of conflicting groups, do not do so for fear of losing their legitimacy in the eyes of their constituents – instead, optics of make-believe bravado, irreconcilability and inflammatory allusions tend to strengthen their hold. Therefore, nuance is the first and foremost casualty.In Manipur, it was the single-bench order that fractured the existing ‘arrangement’ amongst the restive groups, and soon the situation exploded. There were equal merits of arguments on both sides of the conflicting parties, except the politicians and their loyal cadres fronted only those faultlines that built their case and chose to ignore the other parties’ grievances. Soon the worst happened, and the local narrative evolved that the dispensation of the day was batting for one side of the ‘divide’. This is a dangerous evolution as it even taints the actions of apolitical and unbiased Armed Forces who were requisitioned towards the situation as the Police had capitulated. Besides the hate and trolling that has now become the norm on social media, dog whistling and innuendoes by senior functionaries of the neighbouring states kept the unnecessary passions, alive. It took the Supreme Court to step in and state the obvious that, “It is a completely wrong order” as the issue was beyond the remit of the High Court. An important lesson in maintaining (or even changing) the existing ‘arrangement’ with due sensitivity and demonstrated impartiality in a cauldron like Manipur, was forgotten. One cannot appeal for calm and throw oil on fire, simultaneously. Governance failed in Manipur, as in France.The lay of the land in France is similarly tense with contrasting issues of integration or racism (as perceived by opposite sides) of immigrants, with the native French. There has been a history of unrest and polarisation that requires any incident to flare up into full-fledged riots, as now. Like any democracy, there are genuine grievances for both sides of the ‘divide’ to complain about, affording various competing political parties and ideologies to selectively prey upon the same and for the looters to ultimately exploit. To assume that the fault resides only on one side of the ‘divide’ is completely partisan, convenient and dangerously escalatory. Such vulnerable situations and times necessitate the primary forces i.e., ruling politicians, to shed their partisan positions and assume neutrality, even at the cost of defying their earlier stances. This is exactly where politicians invariably fail the situation.In France, a 17-year-old immigrant boy was shot dead during a traffic stop. One side of the argument alluded to an obvious wrong (driving without a license) and violating the rules by attempting to escape the police, whilst the other side spoke about the disproportionate reaction from the police owing to discriminatory and racist tendencies towards the immigrants. Both sides of the argument were valid, and it is the application of a binary or selective lens that inflamed the situation. This specific situation also brought in the importance of questioning the officialese, as the French Police were made to retract its initial position that it had acted in self-defence. Last year, 13 instances (entailing mainly immigrants) of occupants of cars in similar situations were killed and not one conviction of police took place – it is highly unlikely that had this incident not been recorded, the police would not have accepted its overreaction. Importantly, the French President led the situation by immediately describing the incident as ‘inexplicable and inexcusable’ (to the consternation of the Police), therefore nothing justifies the continuing riots.

Perhaps the sanest voice came from the mother of the victim who said, “I don't blame the police, I blame one person: the one who took the life of my son” and that he, “saw an Arab face, a little kid, and wanted to take his life”. But as it always happens, the voice of the real victims takes a backseat as the politicians stick to their guns and the looters take to the streets in the name of the victims.

 The finger(trigger) happy on social media are content to peddle their preferred versions that practically disallow the politicians to be restrained and rise above partisan agendas. A nation that revels each time Zidane or Mbappe score a goal, can regress into its baser instinct just as quickly, just as some immigrants refuse to accept French ways, without conditions – reality is always more complicated, politics always simplistic and unhinged.

(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry. The views expressed are personal)