"If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional rights, in any moral point of view, justify revolution..."
Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, 1861.

Conflict is not only any prolonged arm struggles against a sovereign political state but also the dichotomies of interest; opinion; philosophy; economic status; social status; political status; etc. produced on the minority by the majority. The circle of conflict will roll on until the minority fights back against the majority to maintain either the pre-conflict state or again ‘trick’ the masses for superiority in the number game.

In this way conflict is being perpetuated the way it is inherited from the earlier experiences till both lost the game and subsequently merged to form another type of majority called ‘Mono-rity’, a system where everyone has their voice in everything and shares both economic and political power and material things as the need arises. This is nothing but co-existence based on mutual understanding and mutual co-operation for socio-economic and political development for all.

The following are conceptual frameworks for further analysis by anyone concerned. In the discussion below it will be shown, how situations in Manipur are in the very stage of where minority fights against majority and another form of majority in the nature of ‘Monority’ is in the making.

1. Conflict over imperialism

The recorded history of kingship in Manipur started from 33 AD. After one millennium, eight centuries and more than fifty decades of continuous self-governance based on, we may say, a set traditional pattern, the British Paramountcy came into the country where every community was living in freedom until 1891, the reckoning year. A sudden upsurge was observed in both the political set-up and administration of the state. Unlike this socio-political surge, the magnitude of changes or whatever had happened before the said political upheaval has borne little on the social and political lives of the people.

Even if there were transformations, it was rather time factor barely involving evolutionary process in the absence of haste and hassle incurred in 1891 and thereafter. Had the unnecessary help of a third party i.e. the British not sought, things would have remained quite different from the present ugly experiences. This is history in itself wherefrom a lesson of such a grave mistake in the past should be learnt. The lives and mentality of the then subjects were so much affected so that it left behind a legacy indigestible and something hard to-gobble-up the state of affairs. This situation had had its manifestations in the form of political and social unrest, protests of varying degree, and different forms of freedom struggles.

In this regard, one can bring about different reasons that can be reckoned with the great intensity of many-sided dissatisfaction and unwarranted socio-political upheavals both among the tribes and in the plain country. Here are some such opinions. Firstly, before the tagged ‘reckoning year 1891’, the hill tribes were largely left undisturbed in matter of administration.

The influence of the Maharajas' governance was so scanty in the hill country that the people there were considered as objects of uncivilized world so that the need of administering them did not arise then. If any or certain magnitude of the touch of the plain's administration was felt by the people, it is much undoubted that they would have reacted against it well before the advent of the British, as had happened in 1910s and 1930s. On the other hand, the tribal people were so much pacified by leaving them alone that they could not even think of having the slightest hesitation in helping the Maharajas in the hours of need.

Glaring example of such service was shown by the Thadous in protesting Maharaja Bodhchandra Singh from leaving his palace for Shillong to sign the merger accord. The contribution rendered by the Zaliengrong in this regard cannot be ruled off. Secondly, along with imperialism came modernity. The implied meaning of modernity is 'new and intended to be different from the traditional styles' of classification of society based on culture, language, economic, and political.

The post reckoning year witnessed introduction of inequality of status; division of tribes in much serious consideration; change of religion from traditional practices to new and more complex system. It also introduced new but never before-experienced type of administration that urged the simple tribal people to switch over to that system in quick succession without any preparedness. Closer relation with the plain people was also unfolded which are thought to be, it really appeared to be true, an invasion of their very purpose of being a being in human nature.

Thirdly, another form of modernity that was not taking place was the dispersal of development in the hill areas. The few development that took place among the tribes was rather the ones that were not suitable with their taste and tradition. What could have been initially introduced among them were things for their material development that would be the first step of modernising them without firstly affecting their intrinsic values, the invasion to which made them perplexed on the face of the desired development that was and is concentrated in the bowl of the hills.

These situations were indeed the ethical ideas of the imperialist then. As we are now in the era of supposed equality and justice, we have to redress our grievances in the light of the propositions said above. We are aware that when Mr. Jinnah wanted to share political power, economic development, and equal social status with the Hindus and his attempt failed, the Muslim demanded an independent, sovereign State of their own. They were indeed succeeded in their last resort that sprang up from complete frustration. The legacy of imperialism and the lingered sense of imperialism among ourselves must be done away with so that we all live in peace and satisfied.

Worse convolution was the merger of the state with the union of India in 1949. Some important po-ints relating to the merger remained unexplored. Manipur ‘had merged’ with the Union of India. So the question now is not about ‘the merger itself, but it would rather be good to ask - what is the position of the two hill tribes - the Nagas and the Kukis, over the merger as of now?

The Chikim people are demanding ‘Homeland’ of their own base on the logic that they were tree-people before the ‘reckoning year’ and even after. This explicates that they negate the merger agreement. However, to whom do they route their demand for 'Homeland'? To the Indian Government! Why? On the other side, the Nagas demand Independent state from India thereby endorsed the merger agreement at their own capacity.

Along with their invented cognate tribes in neighbouring states and especially in Manipur, the Nagas of Manipur wanted to be a separate 'entity' from Manipur's. Whereas, the Kukis remains with the larger Manipuri entity. They are neither a threat to the pre-1891 princely state nor to the post merger state within the Union of India. But their deprivation on almost all fronts and how they are seen by both the two emerging entities, i.e. Nagas and Meiteis and the present democratic government at the Centre and the State Government annoyed them thereby making them to possess a greater threat. This is not of their fault!

We have to address the issue of conflict, real or imagined, and ask about the implications of our loyalty to divergent priorities and differentiated affinities.

The hegemonic ascendancy of British crown in Manipur and the latter's unprovoked merger with the union of India has become two greatest epochs in the annals of Manipur's history. No permanent solutions have been positioned thereof It leaves nothing but political chaos and social confusions. Ever since then, this has been creating the problems of lingering propagation of discontentment, suppression and then oppression in the hands of the British crown and secondly, the Indian democracy. This may be considered the first conceptual framework for analysis in the context of conflict between once sovereign state, Manipur, and democratic wielding India. The conflict so aroused affected the tribes in no lesser degree.

2. Assertion of the Tribal people

The uprising of the tribal people against the exploiter groups is not a new phenomenon. This is discontentment with the exploiter(s) exhibited in the form of 'Tribal Movements', which are now gaining momentum more vigorously than ever. The objectives of these movements, in the words of N. Joy Kumar Singh in Social Movements in Manipur are - ‘to preserve their political and social identity for the revival of their traditional religious system and some are for the safeguard of their economic interest against the encroachers. (p.15)’ Truly, after the British had changed her policy toward the hill people with the clear intention of controlling or manipulating, a serious type of conflict arouse between the 'intruder and the protector'.

Notable are the Kuki Rebellion of 1917-1919 and the Zaliengrong Movement, 1930-1932. Since then a spontaneous sentiment of discontentment and the experience of being meted out a hegemonic treatment remains embedded in the minds and ethos of the tribal people. It is worth to underscore here that both the movements were clearly directed against their common enemy - the British colonial interference into their land and culture. The Kuki Rebellion had particularly left a great impact in the administrative set up of the state, more so in the hill regions of Manipur.

Unfortunately, the Kukis themselves got a very little benefit from that war of independence. They fought against imperialism side by side or in contemporary with the rest of the ruled peoples the moment it was pressed into their country mainly to protect their ancestral land from the encroacher; to protect their cultural identity; and their rights.

It is politically a malignant especially for them because when all nations, nations on the making, linguistic, and cultural groups have benefited from their fights against imperialism or for freedom by granting them a political status each under the UN and under the union of India respectively, the Kukis' fights with heavy lost of lives and in greater magnitude are left unrecognised, unacknowledged, and un-written. However, no rebellions ever matched that of the Kuki Rebellion of 1917-1919.

Thus, the war that was initially directed against the British hegemonic attitude and subsequently against any such attitude is taken to be an unconcluded war. In other word, it is a 'living war'. The reason being that they have not noticed for themselves any fair treaty being reached in between the British suzerainty during its hay day in power or Indian Government, after the lapsed of British colonialism, on one hand and the Kukis on the other that could have been considered a 'logical conclusion' of the war, as conventionally required.

They had not received at least an iota of justice in the hands of the past colonial system and now they are foreseeing the day to realising their dream from the present democratic system under India. However, days of their genuine pleadings through democratic means are numbering out and their disappointments led them to the present state of affair.

Another interesting point is that before the British invasion the hill overflowed neither plain nor vice versa. The hill people were more or less independent of the plain people and vice versa. Even more interesting is the fact that the Kukis had better terms of relationship with their neighbouring Nagas until the latter's political awakening in the 1940s. Nevertheless, since then they remained to withstand the blunts of the Nagas during their political yearning for statehood of the present Nagaland; and again in the worst form, in the process for formation of a political entity as southern Nagaland.

3. From Development to Conflict

Then we may also construe conflict in relation to developmental inefficiency. Discussion on how the practical understanding of the term 'development' is a misnomer amongst the people of Manipur should go deeper into its social inference. One will therefore, ascribe to 'development' as widely defined by anthropologists and not merely in terms of economic transformation, or in its technical aspect. In order to put the term 'development' in a proper perspective, one also needs to address conditions that allowed the change of Manipur from it been once a 'peaceful and prosperous princely state' to situation of chaos and confusions. The need, hence, arise to address development as multi-directional as well as multi-dimensional that refers to all aspect of human development.

The focus on north East Indian states began only when the Chinese invaded India in 1962. Since then, security, and security-means-solutions of problems in North Eastern States, prominently in Manipur has been mainly considered while dealing with these states. Development thus became a casualty when the overriding concern remained to be security.

Someway, Governments at the Centre and at the State level now are convinced to the idea of mixing ‘development’ with security as a means of doing away insurgencies and conflicts of different nature. Some social scientists are also of the view that conflicts and insurgency problems are primarily because of lack of development. Both the State and Centre Governments give the impression of being trying on this facade of development. But, any success on this count will be of little certain unless the vast portion of the developmental allocations that actually find their last destination to insurgency and anti-state groups are completely checked, meant it!

Although it will amount to a very serious suggestion to include the 'State' itself and the 'Government' as 'anti-state', because of academic exercise we are tempted to do so. It is now without much doubt that the working of any Government at any given period, political cohorts, and their administrative machineries are largely depended on the whims and fancy of insurgent groups. The few individuals who formed the so-called 'Government' are the very, very people who work hand in glove with their own coteries known as 'anti-state' elements.

Creating and re-constructions of even more identity base on any inventible nomenclature or severer assertion of distinct and several identities for safeguard and protection of one's interests that is un-doing the territorial integrity of a 'political state' (Manipur) is but a manifestation of developmental miss spelling. Those interests so asserted range from economic, political, and social and subsequently sprouting out from such interest-conflicts of various natures. There is also a need to frame our concept of socio-economic transformation based on socio-political background. The future of Manipur on her socio-politico-economic fronts should have its grounding upon the background so addressed, as mentioned earlier, if one anticipates better days ahead.

The theory as we said, looks upon the ethnic insurgencies as a transient phenomenon that is bound to decline with every dose of modernisation (development). However, it is now beyond any doubt that the actual process of modernisation could hardly take on the course that was expected of it.

4. Inter-Communities Relationship & Intra-Problems

Ethnicity should fairly be defined ordinarily, i.e. as ‘an ethnic identity ordained and given’ and not in its non-active construction where the process has no visible end in sight and is unlikely to come to a grinding halt not only because there is ‘an insurmountable gap between what a community attempts to achieve and its ability to succeed in such attempts’ but also because communities by virtue of their being imagining subjects are never tired of re-constructing what they wish to become or erasing and replacing them with never ones.

In its broad division, two communities live in Manipur. The plain people composed one and the hill inhabitants on the other hand. The first composition is again divided into two main cultural groups - the Meiteis and the Meitei-Pangal. Similarly, the second community is also divided into two main ethnic groups - the Kukis (Chikim) and the Nagas.

The first broad division is due to topographical factor while the second distinction is based on cultural identity. The former group, i.e. plain people, shares two common identities. First, they live in the fertile plain and secondly they speak the same language. The tribal people too share two things. One is their place of settlement and the other - their religion, Christianity. Hinduism and Sana- mahi are the religions practice by the Meiteis.

However, they do not share these religions with their counterpart, the Meitei-Pangal, whose religion is one that is quite apart and incongruent from that of the Meiteis’. A question as to why not a single individual from the tribes follow any of the religions practice in the plain can be a point substantiating the gaps that were between the plain brethrens and the hill people. It also radiates the little connection they have or on the other hand, the freedom the tribal people enjoyed before the advent of outsiders.

The tribal people who were initially grouped based on their origin, their cultural identity, and shared ethos into Kuki-Chin-Mizo (Chikim) and Naga, later on experienced disintegration, especially so amongst the former group. Although the root of this experience is not too far to seek, social scientists are mostly considering the same on the non-active aspect rather than discoursing for pragmatism.

Tracing their terms of relationship on matters of social, economic, and political setting from far past till today will provides the conceptual framework upon which one can build the desire conclusion.

It is now pertinent to poise these queries:

1) What terms of relationship bind the different communities who live in Manipur since time immemorial?
2) How were their relations before the colonial period?
3) What types of urgently required relationships are available in their hands that can bridge the gap between them?
4) Have social scientists, academicians, and the so called social leaders any clear cut analysis on what gaps divide them that are posing as the impediment(s) toward building a political society of peaceful co-existence?

Moreover, the new tendency of social problem enveloping every group of people in Manipur is the worse form of problem culminating into no less than a conflict. These problems within a community, or a tribe, or between tribes, or ethnic groups are clearly pictured as conflict, especially so in a conflict and insurgency problem. This set-up is also discussed in the following sub-head.

5. Arm-conflict and the problem of insurgencies

Insurgencies are believed to occur in a vacuums created by inadequacy of administrative and political institutions; and in the absence of equal share of economic development among the various sections of the society. They, thereby, espouse the local demands, take advantages of the prevalent dissatisfaction and injustice among the exploited segments of the population, and seek to offer an alternative system of governance that promises emancipation of these segments from the clutches of the exploiter class through the barrel of a gun.

Initially, these insurgent groups would share some common features like unconformity with the existing system of governance and economic distribution. They also shared a common goal of offering an alternative system. As long as they are within the purview of these common goals, they are fighting their common enemy, i.e. the existing system of governance and distributive system of economic reforms.

Later on, as they voyage on the path of heighten struggle or under the situations of demoralisation, they themselves slowly but surely became victims of monopolisation of the struggle itself in the hands of the dominating class within that struggle. They also became victims of the preferential attitudes and lost of integrity on the part of the higher ranks in the group. From the points discussed above, we may attribute such consequences to two reasons:

1. Support of the general populace within the influence of the struggle may not have been won over thereby weakening the method, wherein the habit of showing preferential attitude towards even a smaller groups like a tribe, community and clan consideration has crept into their working as they became very much unsure of success in the ultimate goal of attaining an alternative system.

2. The point opined above conditioned both their socio-economic and political position in the society to the extend of considering that they may ultimately be left out to be the victims of such unfounded political ideologies and therefore wanted to switch over to a surviving alternative. This idea contributed to the growth of their interest in the present systems that they had earlier negated and fought against. In this connection, some may argue that it is a means to their goal end, but to which it may be said that it is the very situation where they express their frustrations. Yet, they are not ever ready wholly to give up but on the contrary, starts working for their personal gains using the materials they have built up in the earlier stages. In this way, they make themselves involved in almost all the exercises of the present political arrangement. Take instances from the recently held 9th state election where the involvement of almost every insurgent groups was reported.

This takes them onto the chair of another form of political and economic power. This development in the circle of struggle for political and economic power begat a more alarming and dangerous conflicts of interests, firstly among the power hungry insurgencies and secondly, conflicts between communities, tribes and lately between clans. Thus, conflicts became the bi-product of insurgencies. The victims of this unsolicited development are the larger chunks of the society who have ‘nothing to do with both as the means and as the end.

They are now the exploited segments that also would wish to get their freedom by using the same circle of struggle discussed. This is not the end. The conflicts of interests among various insurgent groups on the basis of preferential attitude toward certain smaller groups would still compel, under this circumstance, yet another exploited segment who remained optimistic and pacified to rise to assert or protect their political and economic interest at any cost. This is how another forms of conflict is brought up that conversely caused and affect us so much.

Hegemonic nature of the ruling/dominating classes in any given society and the incorporating modernity of colonial era have introduced inequality in social distributive system; and recognising social identities including ethnicity and cultures radiates disaster and the cultures of insurgency and counter hegemonic in the fights for liberating from the core of unending bondage.

It also appears that such ideology of insurgence and counter hegemonic become more or less a method of dehumanising and subjugating the weaker cultures and identities thereby asserting and promoting the identity and culture of the choicest.

In this connection, one is again reminded of the enigmatic claim Oscar Wilde had once made that: “Most people are other people.” True to this astounding remark, the multi-cultured society of Manipur is much closer to the idea of forced identification based on economic status, political status and on privileges pertaining to education and employ- ments which are implacably blotted out from economic-political division following ignorance on the part of Government and civil organisations.

This sense of economic-political identity would naturally pave the way for the formation of more formidable and indomitable identity. This type of identity will even more alarmingly take the idea of forging stronger group identities based on the dictum of Mao Tse Tung that ‘if there is to be revolution (change), there must be revolutionary party’. This exactly is what bothers us today, a poignant situation to the social nerves and economic veins of our less little paradise on earth.

This emphasized concept may also be explored with what Amartya Sen has perceptibly said in Identity and violence (p.2) thus: ‘The sense of identity can make an important contribution to the strength and the warmth of our relations with others, such as neighbours, or members of the same community, or fellow citizens, or followers of the same religion. Our focus on particular identities can enrich our bonds and make us do many things for each other and can help to take us beyond our self-centred lives’.

Jinnah of Pakistan wanted to share power with the Hindus. The idea was to secure a fifty per cent share of power for the Muslims. When this attempt failed, the Muslims demanded an independent sovereign state of their own. They were subsequently successful in their last resort that actually sprung up from complete frustration.

It is now clear that our revolutionary organisations, insurgency and conflict of interest subscribed and perpetuated by many interest groups would not and cannot give us any alternative system that would abound with prosperity, peace, and stability. We would force ourselves to work with the democracy we have despite how much “demon-crazy” it looks and it is.

We need to strengthen the voices of the exploited masses more reasonably. One person should not make decisions on important matters alone. They should be discussing with many. Mao Tse- Tung was moulded in a culture where the father ruled with heavy hand. He did the same thing at the time of Chinese revolutionary periods.

Concluding Remarks

The social system we have cannot surely take us to somewhere a place about which we are so passionate. With the fleeting of time, ranges of judgments followed by actions at one’s own urge are coming more rigid in our society than before.

Several individuals, without exception to social groups, non-governmental organisations including revolutionary organisations and political party are taking courses of actions at their own whims and impulse, which are short sighted, self-seeking without being aware of neither of the common interest or welfare of others. This is so much so that they become much unworthy than people of the past are.

Non-tribal and tribal organisations, student bodies, women organisations and the so-called revolutionary organisations, etc. are all fighting for better lives, socio-economic equality, and political justice or in short, alternative system. These are battles to increasing humane values in society and nothing else.

It is filling up the vacuum of inadequacy of governance, bringing around of justice system, and to do away with inequality. But the painful fact is that we are rather retrogressing very badly towards a situation, situation even more degenerating than the past when things were even better than today.

Therefore, instead of creating a novel order, both in the society and in the governance, more harms, insecurity, hatred between - hills and valley - tribe and tribe - clan and clan, village and village - and organisation and organisation is let loose amongst all sections of the society.

Under these prevailing conditions of presumably inching toward better share or total share of power - may be political power or economic power, or may be combination of the duo, such assertions and claims become further away from being socially and politically viable. All endeavours appear to be more fantasy for any foreseeable well being of all than being truly someone/something we may or might have claimed to be.

The small but the loving and caring attitude we have towards each of the members of societies and to our respective identities is the moral of the past that is handed down to us as a gift. We are rather more disproving of the undisputed fact of social theory that man is a social being.

What social belonging-ness is with us today. We need to purify the egocentric inherent nature that will put us into a day of doom but also condense them suitable to be used to the present fast changing world. When we do so, it can certainly build a kind of invaluable social pattern good to be used in the course of our social inter-relationship. Moreover, it would be better than fighting alone.

While cherishing a part of our great traditional ways, we chilled away from re-christening the whole or at least certain valued practises that may reasonably have much to do with our onward journey to social perfection. We love to show-off what is called cultural identity and love to show-cast dresses of what went before generations. The generations and the identities that we are now glorifying or trying to protect at any cause were the times of exclusive hunt for mere survival from hunger and starvation on a day-to-day basis. It had little scope to accommodate the required social standard that we are called to act with at the present socio-political scenario. The survival of men of the food-gathering stage largely depended on the sacrifices each individual member made to the general welfare.

Nevertheless, with the world becoming smaller in terms of its market economy, in its socio-political aspect, and thus the continued existence of nations and nationals and even ethnic groups largely depends on how much sacrifices we can make of our petty individualistic ambitions at the anticipated welfare of all. We actually fail to negotiate with the doctrines and struggles we hold fast, for these will bring no better time as expected unless we do not break down ourselves to surrender for a common cause.

To grow up in a properly laid social foundation is what we require most as a long-term step towards building mutual social harmony that would also lead us to social stability. Social foundation thus, should thrust its forces upon the future when things would go right but not merely on individuality or on a particular group’s gains that are immediate and short-lived. It should also inculcate a standing personality that is expected by parents of their children.

The society itself requires it too. Every society is in need of social relationship between indivi-duals of various groups and between different communities in spite of our varied personalities, culture and customs, which could bring about a harmonious relationships.

This nature of relationship will do away many social ills that prevent us to shade away from our claimed identities based on place of living, ethnicity, and or community. In Manipur context, it may be said that we have one of the easiest ways of cementing a bond of oneness by exploring our sociological and cultural cognateness.

The present self-centredness in respecting our respective past cultures, history and ways of life in an exclusive manner shall even be proved disastrous in future particularly to that very group who owned it up. It shall also impose a big obstacle on the way to forming and forging a one common culture. A social system that can encompass the general welfare of all shall also be banned.