Imphal, March 7: The Okram Ibobi Singh government in Manipur is facing a crisis over the issue of reconstructing the foundation stone of the Bir Tikendrajit flyover, with the two groups advocating different sets of Meitei scripts refusing to budge from their positions.
Both groups are demanding reconstruction of the stone with the inscription in their respective script.
The foundation stone for the Rs 25-crore flyover, laid by the chief minister on February 14, was completely destroyed by members of organisations advocating the 27-character Meitei script on Tuesday.
The demonstrators were protesting the use of the 36-character script in the inscription when the government had reportedly already recognised the 27-character script.
The All-Manipur Meitei Mayek Sandokpa and Hinghanba Lup, which were part of the group that smashed the stone, have volunteered to reconstruct the stone if the 27-character script is used.
However, following the row over the issue, both Ibobi Singh and municipal affairs, housing and urban development minister L. Nandakumar Singh are now unwilling to reconstruct the stone as they have been severely criticised for the fiasco.
Scholar and Padmashree N. Khelchandra Singh, on whose suggestion the 36-character script was used in the first place, has threatened to sue the government if the 27-character script is used on the reconstructed stone.
Terming the government’s statement that the 36-character script is wrong as “sub-judice” Khelchandra pointed out that the matter was still pending in court.
Khelchandra has already faced a fair share of the public outrage, with his rival camp burning his effigy for his role in the issue.
The Meitei Mayek Research and Training Board, which is supporting the 27-character script, has vowed to fight against its rival camp’s movement.
On the other hand, the supporters of the 36-character script have warned of an agitation if their demands are not met immediately.
Stating that the controversy was “unfortunate”, Ibobi Singh has decided to play it safe and is insisting that his name should not inscribed on the reconstructed stone.