"Life must be understood backwards, but. it must be live forwards."
- Soren Kierkegaard

The more we ponder over the issue of peace and development, the more we realize its complexities. The acrimonious relationship between various communities is not a new phenomenon in Manipur, but the area of contention changes from time to time.

In the early periods, the area of contention rested only to the tributes and exchange of safety, rudimentary in nature. But during the last five decades, it has shaped a new dimension which results in restraining ourselves within our own parochial communal interest rather than the interest of our society as a whole.

Manipur was not founded to witness such treachery, misery and humiliation. We are witnessing our own destruction and demise. We need to estimate the causes of our downfall.

The history of Manipur begins with the accession of King Pakhangba in 33 A.D. From the beginning the divisions were there between the hill people and the valley people. Among each group also they were further divided into various groups.

The sovereignty of the Meitei King was more or less accepted by those small groups (hill people and valley people) for the political, cultural and food security reasons. At that time the culture of the then kingdom was symmetry to all sections of the society.

As time passes the division between the valley and hill grows wider and wider. The valley people were succeeded in forming a common identity under the umbrella of 'Meitei' community, the same was failed on the side of the hill people. The once cultural symmetry can still be visible in the various rituals and ceremonies of pre-Hindu and pre-Christian of both Meitei and tribal traditions.

In comparison to Christianity, the advent of Hinduism has not affected much the relationship between the people of the hill and the valley.

Purity-pollution, one of the strong base of Hinduism (later a base on which hill people claim their justification of discrimination, against the Meitei people), was never succeeded, as conceived and alleged, in forming the relationships between the people in Manipur.

But it has made succeeded by Christianity in forming a counter-argument against the so called Meitei-Hindu. The struggle for a separate political entity by some sections of the hill people and its generation of political solidarity among its people has succeeded inspite of their failure in making claim of the cultural homogeneity.

Their alleged claim of historical oppressions, atrocities, subjugations, exploitations, etc. cannot be justified empirically. They have neglected the genuine correspond to the historical reality. The schisms which are regarded as wound and appropriate have demonstrated the bodies of concocted knowledge on particularly edited cultural and social circumstances.

The war and friendships were a part and parcel of the then society (these were the prevalent events among Meiteis also). None of the Meitei King and its people had done all these in a communal manner.

The adoption of Hinduism as society's religion by the then King Garibniwaz, against the will of the society, has affected the long established 1750 years of relationships with the hill people and also among the Meiteis (Lois and other ostracized segments).

The adoption of Christianity by the hill people also nurtured a separate identity. The situation was aggravated by the formation of Durbar in 1907 A.D. by the British Government, which has separated the administration of the valley and the hill as two distinct entities.

This was the first step of a separate political identity of the hill people, later enhances through the support of religion. And the worst was that of the application of a common tribal policy by the Indian constitution without doing much groundwork. All these factors enhance the divisions of the society into two major blocs (and also many others) in Manipur.

Many theories have cropped up to justify their separate identity and their demands. By omission the long established 1750 years pre-Hindu era of history, they are resorting the Hindu era that is 300 years old only to nurture their self interest, intensifying the incessant rage and hatred against Meitei community.

Hinduism has already faded away from the Meitei society, which is not digested by many hill communities. They have succeeded (only for themselves) in making Meitei as their main opponents in achieving their goals.

History has proved that only the Meitei King has protected Manipur this long 2000 years from any types of foreign aggression, and works for its people, both the valley and hill.

None of the Manipuri will tolerate the disintegration of its people and dissection of its geographical territory is a known fact to all, even with farsighted and calculated moves. There is much we need to intervene our history to explain our relationship in a proper manner.

And in the modern period Meitei have failed to play the distinguish role as a dominant community, keeping the interest of all sections of society intact. This has strengthened the suspicion of other community against the majority community and among each other at large.

Every community needed to be a sincere Manipuri community, in bringing peace and prosperity in the society. Instead of resorting to violence against each other, we need to concern the relationship allover again.

Besides its own grievances, the people of valley are facing communal brutalities which can culminate into conflict at any time. This has added a hindrance to peace and prosperity in addition to other exhausted problems.

In conflict no one is going to be the winner. Instead we can worship and celebrate our differences respectively. Meiteis are presumably anxious to avoid offending the susceptibilities of any communities and not to get on the wrong side, which can lead to any kind of conflict.

We need to regain and restore our social strength to fight social problems that concern the life of common people. Instead of revisiting the historical distortions and mistakes we are depending and preoccupied with fratricidal communal hostility. A common need should precede the myopic communal interest.

Otherwise we are at the threshold of our own destruction.