Beyond the experiences of ethnic exclusivity in Manipur

Yengkhom Jilangamba *

The repercussions of exclusive, chauvinistic and intolerant polity have come to haunt, once again. The dangers loom large. The basic necessities of livelihood, big political ideals and dreams get infected. It is definitely not the first time and, perhaps, will not be the last. Conceivably, the problem is rooted in some histories or deeply felt experiences.

In the controversy over the recent purported visit of Th. Muivah to his home in Manipur, there are two opposing positions being put forward. Those who oppose his visit have reinstated that the present territorial integrity of Manipur cannot be compromised. The supporters of the movement that Muivah leads see this as a proof of the continuation of Meitei’s historical domination over other communities.

On the other hand, those who oppose his visit voice concerns of the dangers of the politics that Muivah espouses and the threat to the historically founded territory of Manipur. Whichever way one looks at, each of the parties see the other as advocating a politics based on exclusive ethnicity. Both of them mobilise histories to substantiate their respective points. But these two positions have been locked in mutually exclusive political goals.

There are only two possibilities to come out of this conundrum. There can neither be a middle ground nor a provisional and momentary solution.

The first possibility is to let this process continue by actively participating or passively surrendering to reach its own logical fait accompli. To a future marked by deep-seated hatred, senseless violence and chaos, a process that has already begun. The other possibility is to assert our own agencies and begin to imagine a new collective – a fundamentally democratic, just and tolerant society.

The stress, here, is not merely on the constitutive and organizing principles of the ideals of this new collective but also on the imagining. Part of the reason for this emphasis is the scarcity of progressive collective principles that identify political processes in Manipur.

But more significant in this context, we cannot go back to a real or imagined historical or remembered past. For history may be one of the fundamental roots of the problem that has landed us here or its interpretations may be the very terrain of contestations. It does not serve even as a good allegory any more.

Within that domain of exclusivist politics, history serves either as a resource for domination, legitimation or as a source of blame depending on whether it is a majoritarian or minoritarian formation. However, the call is not to abandon and flee from history. History will be needed to locate the genesis of the problem.

But we may not find all the models of solutions in those histories. An engagement with history will still be crucial to know the configurations of those structures and relations that need transformation. History will be necessary to the extent of identifying the problems but more fundamentally, a new conceptualization and practice of politics will be needed for a real transformation.

History is now dressed up to serve the purpose of laying the ground for these exclusivist collective formation on the basis of community(/ethnicity). The problem may not so much be with history per se but with the politics that dominates the public discourse. Any history is replete with processes of domination, erasure, and conflict.

But moments of accommodation, mutual co-existence exist alongside hegemonisation, persecution. Within those complex phenomena it is the politics that we choose which will decide the history we endorse. Majority of the people seem to have fallen for a politics which does not even address their main concerns.

It is indeed important that there needs to be recognition of the existence of plural ethnicity of diverse cultures. But what about the oppression and domination that cut across ethnic lines? The history of those who have lived on the margins – socially, politically and economically – may not be the same as those who have been at the helm of the powers that be. Often, the experiences of women are not the same as those of men within the same ethnic community.

The majority of the people in Manipur, without ethnic limits, have experienced the same system of a farcical democracy. With draconian laws like AFSPA, they have suffered for more than half a century. Why should that not be a common cause?

Interestingly, the Indian state from being a party to the conflict have self-described its role to being a mediator. The reported claim of the Indian state’s negotiating the return of Mr. Muivah to his base in Hebron from Viswema and the withdrawal of Manipur Police from Mao gate to be replaced by the Central paramilitary forces to control the tense situation best exemplifies this transition.

Now, the primary conflict is between the two leaders of the opposite camps – Muivah leading the NSCN (IM) versus Ibobi leading the Manipur Government. As a result, we are made to choose between two simplistic but dangerous positions of support or opposition to Muivah’s visit. The same applies to the territorial integrity of Manipur. This native and one-dimensional choice encourages not merely ethnic tensions but also limits our political expressions only to ethnic-based articulations.

Those groups, which are fighting against the Indian state instead of showing solidarity towards each other, have fought amongst themselves. Therein lies the role of ethnicity. There is an over representation as well as over determination of ethnic/communitarian politics. Nobody seems interested in locating the cause(s) of this ethnic politics. The role of the Indian state in promoting ethnicity as the sole vocabulary of social, cultural and political articulation remains silent.

The constructed – socially, culturally, politically – nature of ethnicity is hardly talked about. The role of modernity in the form of colonialism in creating rigid and neat boundaries of ethnicity and territoriality is too essential to be left only to the academics and intellectuals to discuss and debate. There is no denying that ethnic-based community may give a sense of security and comfort.

As a consequence of the various institutional mechanisms and electoral politics, ethnicity has been given the only legitimate identity. But politics based on ethnicity and communitarian mobilization have not been able to (and it is unlikely that it ever will) address the issues of class, economic impoverishment, gender, democracy, etc.

It will definitely be a real challenge to fight against these structures of violence and oppression. It is time we begin to identify the general problems and find common grounds to fight for a radical transformation of the existing orders.