Eco Park Maning Ching- a name in disguise??

Religious and cultural significance of what Angan Ching has apart, conservation of the green space the hill and its surrounding area have, and a planed re-greenification of the area are very much necessary for Kakching's health of the body and the mind.

Why Angan Ching specifically? Not any other place?

Well, greenification is to be practiced everywhere possible, and now that we have started doing it where they now call it Eco-Park (which is a well-chosen spot), it would be more sensible for investment (in all senses it can have, be it financial, mental and physical efforts) to be made further than directing our energy to another location, if not for a purpose altogether different. Despite scarcity of land, and particularly at an appropriate location which is the common denominator of any/all major land-demanding public projects in Kakching, any interested individual or group can take all the liberty and trouble of implementing their plans anywhere practically possible or that can be made possible. While that's theoretically the case, we have only Angan Ching Eco-Park project only (besides the Uyok Ching one, which is substantially funded, and supported and protected well with political connections so far), and therefore we cannot expect anything green to pop up from any other parts of Kakching, other than fall at the swing of our development axe, espcially when our umanglai laikons are parched bare in the sun.

Most of us are not environmentally conscious. We are more concerned with easing our immediate pains and gratifying our immediate urges than our safety in future present moments. (Unlike many other animal species, we have fully operational subconscious and unconscious besides the conscious mind, allowing us long term memory which makes cultures and civilizations possible.) Most of the problems we face now are due to humans' (our) animalistic disposition to attend only immediate needs and urges, unconcerned about them beyond that flitting moment of conscious experience. At the same time, even good and fairly good people, who rationally don't want a bad natural environment for themselves and their children, are not always available for many good things they know they should do. It's because people live in various different fields, and not all of them are physically and even mentally absent where they are not, though it does not mean that they don't like the good things people are doing where they are absent. That's why many people often finds themselves alone when they do good things. Tamo Surjit Kshetrimayum's solo-like dance is the result of there being both unconcerned people and good but unavailable people. This is not something unusual. Nearly every one who does good walk alone, most of the time. And those who are doing good individually, all by singular selves, meet very rarely, unlike the good-for-nothing (though may not be bad) guys meeting nearly every evening at some local wine vendor's. Bad people meet often, even regularly, without any arrangement--they have time for that, and they feel a stronger solidarity among themselves than the good guys have among themselves. Though being alone is not unusual, I quietly appreciate tamo Surjit for what he has been doing. Not many people have the courage and moral strength to work consistently for selfless causes for a long time. I appreciate his wife (as well as other members of his family) for allowing him out--tamo Surjit's presence is made possible by his wife (though not seen publicly). If she says "NO", tamo Surjit's selfless spirit will not last long, and in no time Eco-Park will disappear from Kakching's surface.

As there are good people, though no quality tag is attached on their forehead, we always have the option to be hopeful. The only thing we have to do is to keep looking out and talking with people in search of interested and fairly practically available people. But we cannot expect every person we approach and talk with to be interested. In this regard, I would draw tamo Surjit's (as well as ADAM's) attention to the fact that people's worths/values are of various kinds. You cannot count only people with money, or those who can give their physical labor. There are people who can give ideas also, or ideas alone and nothing more. We should take A's idea, B's money and C's labor, and we do the mixing. The communities/nations with better mixers prove better communities/nations. If we remember correctly, this is how modern America was built. Different people have different worths.

I'm interested in an eco-park's genuinely ecological aspects. ADAM is not mistaken in believing the pre-Eco-Park attributes of Angan Ching--the point of the mythological daybreak, and a Mahadeva temple "installed" from nowhere on top of the hill very recently in the 20th century--may attract some more additional attention; however, if Eco-Park (if it is meant to be genuinely an ecological park/garden) meshes up with non-secular things, I can't quite imagine a clear picture of the project's fruition. ADAM can let alone the mythology and the Mahadeva with his temple, for it to be taken care of by an autonomous interested party/group whose management has nothing to do with the ecological park's management, while they may have some understanding or agreement regarding the non-secular group's legal use of the Park's land. Yes, in the absence of an interested party, ADAM can keep the temple and whatever cultural heritage element (if any) there intact quite like some museum pieces, to add some feeling of "cultural authenticity" which a purely ecological garden can do well without, as long as no sizable amount of fund is diverted toward their upkeep beyond the park's primary concerns.

As regards manpower, I heard about Sanatomba, his contributions. If you were associated with the park's ground in some way or the other, you would have heard his name being mentioned. That tells you about his contribution, formally acknowledged or not. But he should be recognized. Every single person who has contributed considerably, and consistently should be acknowledged. That's a fair thing to do. Some people have more important worth than money.

Once I visited a caretaker of the park who was there more than 10 years ago. He was some kind of artist--I don't know much about him, I did not know. He was frustrated at how much he was receiving as his monthly salary. He was right--he lived a life, and he had his family and associated cares. At the same time, I knew that it must have been difficult for the ADAM to pay him more than that. (Forget about his having agreed to work/be there--somebody has to agree to stay there, and if somebody accepted a very small monthly salary, then some worse circumstances must have forced him into accepting that, but that does not make the little he was drawing BIG.) The ADAM needs fund, and it's nothing profound to say this, for everybody is aware of this. Yet, clearly, the ADAM should do something about this, if the eco-park should be there, cared for, looked after, every hour of the day, every day of the week, every week of the month, and every month of the year, not remembering it when you are in mood, and forgetting all about it when your mood is off! Then, you win the public's confidence--which is social capital--when there is regularity in your service/dedication, and for there to be regularity, if you yourself are not going to be the person physically at the park taking care of the things physically, then somebody should be there, and for this somebody to be there constantly, professionally, he should be paid enough to make his home. Otherwise anybody in his position will leave. As kkelvins said above, I will leave, you will leave, he/she will leave. None of us will stay there where it does not support life, but does the opposite, though unintentionally, unwittingly.

Thus, we may be aware of it or not, the Eco-Park's welfare depends pretty much on a strong, active, vibrant life on the ground at the park site--some people should be physically present there, always. The Eco-Park's welfare. Let me use this term, because it's quite like dying there, and we recently heard about some youth having inadvertently burnt a good part of the park--I suspect the park looked to him like uncared for, unlooked after, abandoned, and probably he mistakenly believed nobody was going to take all the troubles. If he felt a vibrant presence of some people who continually look after the park, every single blade if its grass, every single leaf of its trees--it's perceptible from the looks--I don't quite think he would have been that unconcerned as to strike the match and turn ADAM's home into cinders.

What I've said is perhaps all redundant. ADAM knows it all. But sometimes we need to know people know things we want them to be aware of. Communication provides this necessary service.