The Politics of land and Territorial Absolute in Manipur

Jubilee Shangrei *

The politics of contesting territorial space is one of the most undying and bloodiest phenomena in the history of human civilization. Theories of power-sharing and negotiation often assume that all interests can be negotiated, that parties who enter negotiations are willing to share or compromise, on the basis of win-win situation issues like social, economic and political aspects between the parties involved.

But politics of negotiation or talks on land and territorial conflict or dispute are enduring and resilient in the process of resolving the problem as the conflicting parties' interests are identical, and at the same time positive-sum solutions may not be possible. Instead it is inherently a zero-sum phenomenon and unless one side wins all, the other side is likely to keep fighting.

The politics of land absolute and territorial absolute in North east (areas of the Nagas in the states of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur) in general and Manipur in particular is reified by Th. Muivah's homecoming to his native village Somdal after 47 years and its conundrum.

Concepts: Land and Territory

The term land is a territorial space that exists prior to power or state centric encounters like colonialism or post­colonial state where people have exclusive historical, political, social, cultural and economic rights on it. Such territorial space as land are mostly found in indigenous peoples and indigenous communities like Schedule Tribes in India, Natives in America, Aboriginals in Australia where human, nature, culture, polity and spirituality are presented as one continuum.

For the Nagas, the institution of land is the gravity that holds other institutions and rights that emanates subsequently from it, whether it political, social, cultural, economic or even ecology. The Nagas have a constituted commitment attached to their land or expensively imagined of their land as a landed belonging community or landed political community.

As Kenneth Maddock has cogently put, it would be as correct to speak of land possessing men as of men possessing land. The Nagas have a thick conception on their land both extensively and intensively because of which they don't have land dispute or conflict before the colonial and post­colonial encounters among themselves or with their neighbouring communities.

The land belong to the people in all the Naga communities and not to the one who administered the land whether, it be in chieftainship political system of Konyak, Sumi or Mao, republican of the Ao, extreme democracy of the Angami, or chieftainship-in­council of the Tangkhul.

As such to the Nagas "the land belongs to the people as private property and people are the owners of the land and not the state as 'in most other countries." (Nagaland: A Strange Country in Asia, published by Nagaland National Council (p.1-4).

With this foundation for the Nagas, to be divided on administrative territorial units means to either belonging to a community without any sense of shared space(s), or to share neither a sense of space nor a sense of community, that is, to be completely objectified and estranged from the world in which an entity lives.

The term territory is a power or state centric territorial space usually created through colonial or post-colonial encounters, and in most cases both these two encounters shaped the 'territorialization' processes as the case in Manipur vis-a-vis the Nagas. The territorializarion processes are usually carried out through military might and unsystematic cartographical official mapping.

The cartographical official mapping of the colonial, post-colonial Indian nation state is power driven, arbitrary and coercive representation in many cases, toward the Nagas and the nature within the represented territory. The Angs - Konyak chiefs house is a classic example where his own kitchen is divided into two countries India and Burma as the international boundary cut through in the middle.

The processes of territorialization in the Naga areas was initiated when Meitei Maharaja fled to Cachar to escape Burmese invasion and later came back with British troops to drive out Burmese occupation. With the support of the British military might and weapon the Manipuris started the so called territorialization into the Naga areas and other hill areas of the present Manipur state.

The Politics of Two Absolutes

The territorial space in conflict between land and territory claims are absolute because both the conflicting parties intrinsically identify their group's identity with the conflicting land and that it can only be treated as an indivisible "whole."

Or by attaching esoteric or symbolic value to a materially divisible object, parties can guarantee that compromise or concessions on that object become impossible. Absolute is simply understood as something that cannot be compromised and it's not fungible; they cannot be exchanged for something else. The idiom of absolute stand of the Nagas on their land is vividly reflected in Muivah's statement when Karan Thapar interviewed Muivah (BBC Hard Talk on 29th April, 2005) on the issue of Greater Nagalim/Nagaland.

Muivah replied "there is no greater, or smaller Nagalim, we have just the land called Nagalim, nothing more, nothing less than that". In the same way' the Meities have claimed on the territorial integrity of Manipur by various leaders of political parties, Civil societies etc. Now this whole problem is reified with Muivah's proposed home coming, bloody Thursday in Mao Gate, and the conundrum of whether Muivah will roll back his entourage or not.

Sensing the complexities of the conflict Meities or Manipuris' civil societies, political parties, intellectuals or Ibobi's Government have invoked the idea of multiculturalism towards the minority hill ethnic groups in order to save Manipur from disintegration territorially. The idea of multiculturalism is founded on the principles that diversity does not necessarily divides but can unite.

And more importantly, unity can only be achieved from diversity only when differences of diversity between the majority and minority ethnic groups, dominant and marginalized groups are officially recognized. And through this recognition comes rights especially for the minority-marginalized ethnic groups. But what is clearly understood of the Meities/Manipuri's relations in practice, with the Hills's ethnic groups is domination and marginalization through the state institutions and its apparatus.

The third amendment of the Manipur (Hills) Autonomous District Council Act, 1971, where tribal lands right in Manipur Hills are at jeopardy is a clear indication of domination and marginalization towards the hill ethnic groups despite; their loud and extensive talk on multiculturalism.

A critical analysis of their project of Manipur territorial integrity in the guise of multiculturalism is 'territorial integrity' per se without the (hills) people with land and its rights. They want our land not the people who owned it. The territorialization by Meities/Manipuris' into the Hill Districts' territorial space through Joint Forest Management is also a classic example of how they territorialized the tribal land.

In relation to the politics of these two absolutes Muivah has been labelled as 'terrorist' 'wanted criminal' and so on. But NSCN is not enlisted on the list Of Organisations Declared As Terrorist Organisations Under The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, GoI.

One reality one needs to consider is that a revolutionary in one state may be labeled terrorist but the same leader is a nationalist in the other state. Bhagat Singh, in the Indian eyes is a nationalist while Tikendrajit and Thangal General in Manipur are martyrs. But all these persons are terrorists in the eyes of the Britishers. The role of the Central government and various political parties both national and regional vis-a-vis the politics of these two absolutes needs attention to be analysed.

All these actors considered the issue as an electoral issue rather than political or territorial issues. This is one of the main defect or drawback of Indian multi-party parliamentary democracy where issues like social, political, economic, cultural, rights, livelihood, and globalization are screen from the perspective of electoral gain in order to capture or return to power.

In such exercise the spirit of constitutionalism of Indian democracy is neglected. The question of Manipur territorial integrity has to be looked from the perspective of Indian Constitution rather than on electoral gains.

If one looks at the Constitutionality of these two politics of absolute, there is no article in the Indian Constitution supporting the validity and vitality of Manipur territorial integrity. And if power is to solve problems such as this Central Government, political parties need to act on the spirit of constitutionalism and not on electoral angle.