A perspective on the present crisis in Manipur

Yenning *

Sea of protesters clashes with Army and RAF personnel at Phougakchao Mayai Leikai on August 03 2023 :: Pix - Khaba Kh

The unprovoked and unprecedented attack launched by Kuki-Zo militant groups, mostly headed by Burmese immigrants, along with their followers upon the indigenous Meitei population since May 3rd 2023 under the guise of the so called “Tribal Solidarity March” is a manifestation of acts of terrorism and crime against humanity. This act of terrorism has sinister design to balkanize Manipur on ethnic fault line.

In their pursuit to achieve this evil design and political ambition, many innocent civilians became victims, thousands wounded and thousands had been rendered homeless. The subsequent attack upon the unarmed Meitei/Meetei villagers settled in the foothills using sophisticated weapons like M-16, AK Rifles, sniper, local made bomb is a testimony to the fact that their action is terrorist act.

Meeteis/Meiteis were completely shocked and they found themselves helpless and unprepared, and compelled to run away from their homes and villages. Indigenous Meitei/Meetei became refugee in their own ancestral homeland.

When the survival of Meitei/Meetei as a community was threatened by the armed Kuki-Zo militants coupled with the failure of the State and its law enforcing apparatus to perform their constitutional duty of protecting life, liberty and property, Meetei/Meitei started invoking their right of self-defence.

It may be reminded that Union Home Minister, External Affairs Minister of India and the Governor of Manipur on various occasions hinted the role of infiltrators and illegal immigrants from Burma (Myanmar) in the present conflict in Manipur.

Interestingly most of the leaders of Kuki-Zo militant groups belong to that generation who had escaped from Burma following the military crackdown on pro-democracy movement also known as 8-8-88 movement and more interestingly these militant groups are under the tripartite Suspension of Operation (SoO) agreement with Government of India and Government of Manipur.

May 3rd incident was a pre-planned and well-coordinated move orchestrated by Kuki-Chin-Zo elites and SoO groups including their drug lords to achieve their nefarious political agenda of balkanization of Manipur.

Since they do not have any historical basis to claim a homeland in Manipur, the only suitable and viable option left was to attack the innocent Meetei/Meitei villages and villagers to separate the two communities which was followed by a massive campaign of victimhood, oppression and subjugation by the majority community Meetei/Meitei.

The false narrative surrounding the present conflict as conflict between tribal versus non-tribal and Christian versus Hindus are the construct of Kuki-Zo elites to achieve their ethno-exclusivist political ambition based on the invention of fake historical narratives.

A Perspective on the Present Ethnic Tension

Among the many causes, mentioned may be made of decades old ethno-exclusivist politics seeded, groomed and nurtured by some section of the Kuki-Zo population, influx of Burmese illegal immigrants, who share same ethno-linguistic lineage, subsequent settlement of these immigrant population in the strategic locations adjoining hill and valley districts; and along the national highways.

Massive deforestation to cultivate poppy and the State Government’s policy of driving out encroachers from the reserved and protected forest areas, and the war on drugs that involved massive destruction of poppy plantation were some other catalysts of Kuki-Zo aggression. Out of the many causes, in this column a humble attempt is made to focus on ethno-exclusivist or ethnic politics as one of the main causes.

A Brief Note on Growth of Ethno-Exclusivist Assertion

Tracing the historicity of this dangerous politics is necessary in the sense that it can open up several answers to the complex problems that are besieging Manipur today. Histories across the world are testimony to the fact that in the formation, development and preservation of a civilization or state or nation, majority community had always played a crucial major role.

Meetei/Meitei as a major community had played a major role in the formation and preservation of Manipur civilization or state. It has been a historically established fact that Manipur was an ancient Asiatic state. The kingdom of Manipur was recognised by several powers of the times. The status of Manipur as an independent geo-political entity was recognised by the British imperial power through various treaties and agreements.

However, two important events that marked the turning point in the weakening of the kingdom of Manipur; and that indirectly led to the emergence of ethno-centric political mobilization were the Burmese invasion and occupation of Manipur (1819-1826). This period is popularly known as the Seven Years Devastation in the history of Manipur. This period had a devastating effect upon the economy and population of Manipur.

The valley area was completely devastated, bereft of population. Majority Meetei/Meitei population were devastated and hundreds of thousands were displaced. Had this occupation not taken place, the population and our settlement pattern could have been different; and history of Manipur could have taken a different direction. This period of Burmese occupation and subsequent devastation was the first visible beginning of weakening and containment of Meetei/Meitei.

The next serious episode towards this direction was the defeat of Manipur in the 1891 Anglo-Manipur war; and subordinate status that Manipur enjoyed in the aftermath of the war.

The British did not annex Manipur completely rather it was kept as a princely state. One landmark event that has direct link with the present ethno-exclusivist idea and political mobilization that we find among the hill tribes today was the repercussion of British division of hill and valley administration.

It may be recalled that responsibility of hill administration was assigned to the President Manipur State Durbar (PMSD), who was a British ICS (Indian Civil Service) officer and the responsibility of administration of the valley was given to the Maharajah of Manipur. The legacy of hill-valley division was implanted by the British without knowing the organic and symbiotic relationship between the two.

The geographical and topographical feature of Manipur forms an organic ecology, its division is absolutely arbitrary and illogical. British, however, did not give any restriction to the settlement of Meetei/Meitei in the hills.

The division was only for administrative purpose. The division, however, had created a psychological wall and helped in ingraining an idea of ownership of the hill in the minds of the tribal people, which became the foundation for ethnic assertion and political mobilization in the later stage.

After Manipur merged to the Dominion of India on 15 October, 1949 on the basis of the Merger Agreement signed between the then constitutional Monarch, Maharajah Bodhchandra and Union of India on 21st September 1949, the political status of Manipur was degraded to a Part C state and it further aggravated ethnic polarisation.

The Government of India not only sustained the British policy of hill-valley division but also reinforced or strengthened it by incorporating article 371C and passing of the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972 issued by the President of India. The Hill Areas Committee order of 1972 helped, to a great extent, in the ethnicization of land and space.

It was due to this order along with MLR 1960, Meetei/Meitei and Meitei-Pangals were contained and confined to 10 percent of the total area of Manipur. This order not only reaffirmed but also reinforced British colonial rulers’ arbitrary and artificial division of hill and valley.

This order has given a false sense of ownership of hill areas of Manipur as their and valley for Meetei/Meitei but the fact is that, minuscule valley area is not reserved but open to all the ethnic groups of Manipur. The roots of ethno-exclusivist assertion and political mobilization on the basis of imagined territorial space can be traced back to such haphazard policy of British and Union Government of India.

It is puzzling to think where on earth majority community is contained and confined to such a minuscule of space; and where on earth there is division between hill and valley, as two geographic entities when the former constitutes the 90 percent and later only 10 percent. This is grave injustice and height of discrimination.

Way Forward

Unless the roots and policies that encourage ethnic polarization, ethno-centric assertion and political mobilization are eradicated, Manipur will never be free of ethnic tension. It is, therefore, pertinent that collective efforts should be made to understand the policies that encourage ethno-centric assertion; and discourage the shared democratic peaceful co-existence.

When we look back at the pages of history, the idea of Manipur is based on the unity and integrity in the holistic sense; peaceful co-existence with plural and democratic ethos. The future of Manipur lies in the peaceful co-existence and co-development of indigenous people of Manipur on the basis of our shared legacy of plural democratic ethos and values.

To ensure peaceful co-existence and lasting peace in Manipur the following may be discussed and steps may be taken up:

1. In order to protect the rights of the genuine citizens of India and to prevent demographic imbalance and pressure upon land and forest, the National Registrar of Citizens (NRC) should be implemented according to the law of the land.

2. It is well known that the small valley which comprises just 10 percent is home to all the indigenous ethnic groups and other citizens of India, there is tremendous pressure upon land; and the valley also consists of reserved forests, many wetlands, Loktak Lake and large agricultural land that need to be protected. A uniform land law giving equal land rights to all the indigenous communities of Manipur is need of the hour.

3. The existing district boundary is a product of colonial legacy; and it does not reflect the ground reality so district boundary commission should be appointed by the competent authority and reorganise the district boundary based on the population and administrative convenience.