The other evening, I was participating in a panel discussion hosted by Vinod Dua on Zee Television News, as the election results were coming in from Bihar, Haryana, Manipur and Orissa. The major surprise that day - at least for the political pundits and the English-speaking, writing journalists, was the manner in which Laloo Prasad Yadav and his Rashtriya Janata Dal team made such a strong showing in Bihar.

As we talked, I stressed the need to also understand the significance of the verdict in Manipur - it was not in favour of any single party and that ethnic considerations played a critical role in shaping the politics of that state and other parts of the Northeast. To which, the Congress representative, Mrs Ambika Soni and a Bharatiya Janata Party leader declared that this was true even for Bihar and other parts of the country.

Because of the shortage of time, I was unable to press forward with my viewpoint that there are a few basic differences between Manipur and Bihar and why the former cannot become the latter. Of course, these remarks only go to show the ignorance of "mainland" politicians about the Northeast, including those who have been placed in charge of their respective party campaigns! The principal difference is that there are two major insurgency movements in the state - one in the hills and the other in the plains - and at least four major insurgent groups operating whose distinct aim was secession from India. I doubt whether there are any groups in Bihar who was to secede from India and who command substantial followings as do the Naga and Manipuri insurgents.

In Bihar, the conflict is clearly caste-based and those fighting for one side or the other are little better than feudal gangs out to crush the other side. In addition, they use country-made weapons, whether they are crude bombs, guns or a mixture of lathis, spears and knives. In Manipur and other parts of the Northeast, they use Ak-57s.

By the time this appears in print, a new coalition government may have been installed in Imphal. governor Ved Marwah has the difficult task of balancing different claims and counter-claims since no party or alliance has won an absolute majority on its own.

But clearly the incumbent Manipur state Congress Party and its ally the Federal Party have an advantage as they are far ahead of the competitors. Who joins what looks like the winning side, is a matter of manipulation and political skill. And Manipur is not lacking in either.

There is much experience of political management in Manipur. This can be gauged from the fact that all the elections in the state since its constitutional status was upgraded from that of a Union Territory in 1972 have produced alliances and coalitions. No single party has ever won an absolute majority on its own in Manipur! The closest was in 1984 when the Congress Party won 30 seats, still one short in the 60-member legislature.

This is an extraordinary circumstance and Manipur must be credited with pioneering coalition politics in India. In the process, there have been many charges of horse-trading, bribery and corruption levelled against different parties and individuals. Much of this is probably true - but the fact of the matter is that well before Prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee tried to first stitch his coalition quilt of over a dozen partners, Manipur had gained considerable experience in doing so. Perhaps, Vajpayee could learn a few lessons from our politicians in the Northeast, whether it is Nipamacha Singh of the MSCP in Manipur or B.B. Lyngdoh of Meghalaya.

Another point which came up in the television discussion a few days ago was the high turnout in the Manipur elections. This had come, it was pointed out by the politicians in the panel, despite a boycott call by the main insurgent group in the hills, the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (I-M). Well, again an oversimplification. The NSCN (I-M) realised by mid-January that people wanted to participate in the vote in the hills. So it virtually withdrew its boycott call because it would have been seen as counter-productive.

In the Imphal Valley, where a majority of the state's population lives and where the inhabitants are predominantly Vaishnavite Manipuris (in the hills the population is largely Christian, both Naga and other ethnic groups like the Kukis) the insurgent groups did not call for a boycott. To make things more complicated, dear readers, the insurgent groups in the valley are not Naga! And although both groups want independence, neither is prepared to countenance the dominance of the other.

In fact, the insurgents of the valley are bitterly opposed to NSCN (I-M) demands to carve out the hill districts of Manipur and join them to a greater Nagaland. And while Nagas in Nagaland may not be averse to the idea of a large homeland, they do not want to be dominated by Manipuri Nagas, who are in turn dominated by the Tankhul community of Thiuengelang Muivah of the NSCN (I-M). Ethnic and even tribal realities control politics, even among the so-called insurgents.

One could say, therefore that while the politics of Manipur may be as confusing and difficult as in Bihar, other comparisons may not hold! Let me add another ingredient to this complex brew: the high turnout in the elections, both in the hills and plains (over 75 per cent) does not mean that the people of the state are against the aims of the militants and are followers of the "mainstream." In Manipur and in Nagaland especially, one must make a distinction between voting on local issues such as the Assembly elections (and bringing a party or alliance to power) and the greater questions of territorial integrity and sovereignty.

The Indian state often makes the mistake of feeling that high turnouts in places such as these two states mean that all is well and that people have finally "seen the light" and changed their loyalties. This is an inappropriate view.

But what is true of Manipur and Nagaland is not valid for Assam. A high turnout here in the last elections, in the face of a boycott call by the United Liberation Front of Asom, aided by good security management showed what people thought of the group and the boycott. Assam's commitment to India has never been in doubt, no matter what the likes of Ulfa say and do. The question that asks itself is India's commitment to Assam.

Finally, a small point about journalists and checking facts. The other day (February 20), a front page dispatch in this newspaper claimed that some former members of the National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) which completed its term last December were lobbying desperately for a berth in the new board. Several people were named in this article, including myself and C.R. Raja Mohan of the Hindu, both former members of the NSAB. It also talked about the National Security Council without even defining what this was, giving the impression that the NSAB and the NSC were one and the same.

The NSAB is an advisory body comprising former officials, analysts and specialists. The NSC is headed by the Prime minister and includes the defence, home, external affairs and finance ministers.

Neither I nor Raja Mohan were contacted for the article; yet it gave the impression that we were lobbying for slots and that we had been "advising the government on foreign policy and national security." I am afraid that I have never advised the government on these matters unless our role in the NSAB is seen as such. But then the NSAB comprised 27 members - so perhaps all of us were "advising the government on foreign policy and security matters"! As far as lobbying is concerned, I have not even contacted the NSAB Secretariat after completing my tenure; we do have other things to do. Journalists do neither themselves or their profession any credit by publishing stories full of half-truths and inaccuracies.