New Delhi's silence over the Manipur crisis
An analysis of Professor Bimol's Parliament speech

Dr L Malem Mangal *

Dr Angomcha Bimol Akoijam at his residence at Keishamthong Top Leirak on June 08 2024 :: Pix - TSE

Whether one likes it or not, Professor Bimol Akoijam’s speech in the Parliament had sent strong and clear message to the legislators across the country in particular and to the mainstream Indian society in general of the nature of relationship between the Union Government of India and its North Eastern region.

The speech at best can be described as a prelude to the perceptions and policy responses of New Delhi towards crucial issues faced by the people of this region. It tried to re-establish a linkage between the people of the region with the rest of India. It reflected popular voices from the conflict ridden State of Manipur with an appeal to the Union Government to intervene and bring an end to the crisis which had erupted on 3rd May, 2023.

The theme of the speech was focused on certain geo-political realities that hitherto have defined the nature of association between the North Eastern region and the rest of India. The apathetic attitude of the Government of India towards situations that threaten peaceful co-existence of people of the region is a point to kick off a debate.

And as Professor Bimol Akoijam recounted on 1st July, 2024 the feelings of hurt, anguish and pain of the homeless 60,000 people and near and dear ones and family members of the 200 plus of those who died in the ongoing crisis resonated inside the four walls of the Indian Parliament.

For the first time ever since the crisis broke out, the failure of the State as an institution in handling the violence and the enduring plight of helpless victims have been made heard before the whole country.

Its implications upon the ruling class from the Prime Minister to the President in their addresses is one aspect. However, leaving that aside, the speech indeed forced Indian policy-makers to notice the plight of the people of the region due to systemic negligence and step-motherly treatment.

Three crucial issues put forth by the speech before the law-makers across the country can be briefly discussed here for their societal importance.

Call for a Separate Time Zone for North Eastern States

The base of the speech was Manipur but it went beyond that by drawing the attention of the Parliamentarians to geo-political realities and socio-economic challenges faced by the people of the region. With the exception of the State of Sikkim, the seven sister States, though not a homogenous identity but sharing certain existential conditions in terms of the presence of ethnic based politics, captive market, extractive economy, armed violence, corruption and the absence of crucial infrastructure, skilled human resources, etc. may develop a common agenda for collective pursuit.

The demand for a separate time zone for the North East region espoused by a group of eminent personalities from the region finds justification on many counts and even endorsed by expert bodies.

According to the Dual Time Zones Bill, 2020 introduced in the Parliament by Shri Pradyut Bordoloi, MP from Nawgong, Assam having two separate Time Zones, one for the rest of the country and the other for the eight North Eastern States including the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands will provide more practical and inclusive administration.

In terms of geography, there is a difference of almost 30 degrees of longitude as India stretches from 97.4 East in Arunachal Pradesh to 68 East in Gujarat which gives a time difference of two hours across the breadth of India. The Bill reasoned that “[T]he people from our North-East are genetically attuned and practically accustomed to waking up very early, finishing dinner early in the evening and other similar such lifestyle habits, in sync with their geographical and societal norms.”

It continues to state that “[T]he current setup completely ignores the specific regional and cultural context for such a large chunk of our citizens and it is rather wasteful and inconveniencing”.

Renowned filmmaker and former ISRO scientist Jahnu Barua stated “...When a country functions on one single standard based on its mean longitude, the people on its west are always in an advantageous position so far as the utilisation of daylight is concerned. The people living in the western part get to start their day either on time or earlier depending on where in the west a particular area is situated.

As a result, they can utilise daylight hours effectively for productivity compared to those in the east. This is one major reason why in any time zone people living in the west of their time meridian are more productive, progressive and prosperous than the people living in its east” (Guwahati, 2010).

In October 2018 the CSIR-National Physical Laboratory (CSIR-NPL) and the National Measurement Institute (NMI) of India explored the possibility and also proposed an implementable solution. A study done by Bengaluru based National Institute of Advanced Studies concluded that a separate time zone for the North Eastern region could help in saving more than 2.7 billion units (around 4.5 to 5 billion units today) of electricity every year.

Barua continued “If we consider a minimum of six hours of productive input is put in per day, the North East has then lost over 25 years in terms of productivity since Independence by following the IST. If the single time zone continues, the NE would be 54 years behind in 100 years”. Policy-makers at New Delhi should come out of the black hole of insecurities informed by concerns of geo-strategic security which this region holds. Given this reality, people of the entire North Eastern States shall consider to push for a separate time zone for the region collectively.

North East as the “Other” and Indian Mainstream Thinking

As one can read the strongest protest was against the silence of the Government of India towards the turmoil going on in the State of Manipur. It may be noted that ever since the outbreak of violence the political class at New Delhi have not taken up any concrete steps to effectively intervene into and end the violence for once except for the appointment of a Security Advisor to the Government of Manipur who practically stripped off the Unified Command leadership attached to the office of the Chief Minister of the State and sending in more functionless Central Armed Police Forces whose spectacular presence only made them witnesses of a category of non-performing uniformed armed men to the bloody conflict.

60000 homeless people are taking refuge in make-shift relief camps which are inhuman in all respects while New Delhi conveniently chose to remain silent. This silence is intriguing to the people of Manipur. It seems that the comparison of the present state of uprooting of peoples from both communities to that of the exodus which took place in the sub-continent during 1946-47 partition is because millions of helpless people cutting across religion or community were killed and had been rendered homeless.

Law disappeared, State is stateless and the fear of violent death prevails. The analogy lies in the state of peoples fending off themselves against one another or what Thomas Hobbes called the ‘state of nature – a state of lawlessness and chaos’.

In the partition of the Indian sub-continent in 1946-47 there were clear policy arrangements though contested amongst the then political leaderships to divide the country on the basis of religious identity. However, in the present case which Manipur is facing there has not been any issue of such a partition or division of territory between the communities.

The Meiteis and Kukis or for that matter any of the communities co-existing in the State have never had an agreement to partition the territory of Manipur on the basis of ethnicity. New Delhi needs to understand this fact. For the people of this multi-cultural State, conceiving such an idea only stands to destroy the social, economic, cultural, historic and political fabric which have been developed throughout centuries of peaceful co-existence by overcoming numerous ordeals that sought to exterminate our existence and such an imagination has high propensity to obliterate Manipur’s identity as a civilisation.

Independent India is yet to free its thinking from the vestiges of colonial mindset. New Delhi’s structural discrimination against the North Eastern States and ill-informed policy-decisions are one of the primary reasons for the region’s under-development. As per the Home Affairs Ministry, the eight North East States of India share 5484 long kilometres of international border with the neighbouring countries of Bangladesh (1,880 km), Myanmar (1,643 km), China (1,346 km), Bhutan (516 km) and Nepal (99 km).

British India administered the region as a buffer zone to secure its interests from hostile colonial forces such as the French and Dutch who struggled for domination in South East Asia including Myanmar. Post-independent India continues to follow the same administrative outlook towards the North East region. Importance of North East region did not enter into the policy priorities of New Delhi before 1991.

India’s policy of exceptionalism–the decades long negligence, policies of suspicion and militaristic responses made the region more hostile towards the Union of India and more than any other considerations this policy informs India’s concern for security rather insecurity of the region which it calls as “an integral part of the Union”. Nehru’s infamous speech of 1962 at the fall of Bomdila to the invading Chinese adds more clarity to this ideology.

The earlier name given to the present State of Arunachal Pradesh – North East Frontier Agency (NEFA) is evidence to this frontier ideology. This legacy of the colonial administration is what makes the post-colonial writer Ashish Nandy (The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism, 1983) say there is continuity of colonialism in post-colonial India.

India even after 75 years of independence is still unable to accept and embrace the people of the region as its own citizens, their history, society and culture as part of India’s own history, society and culture. India as a Union of States as defined under Article 1 of its constitution and her slogan of unity in diversity fails here. The failure to include North Eastern region as a subject of History confirms this deficiency.

Civil War-Like Situation or a Normalised Militarisation

What is more antagonising is that the State of Manipur has been one of the most heavily militarised zones in Asia as well as in the Indian sub-continent after it had been annexed by the Government of India in 1949. Hundreds and thousands of para-military and military personnel have been stationed in the State and as the violence broke out last May their numbers only increased in addition to the State police.

Manipur being a border State, marked by a political history of insurgency, social movements, disturbed areas and the AFSPA, etc. informs that apart from the State Government and its agencies, several Union Government Ministries and agencies such as the Ministries of Home Affairs and External Affairs, RAW and IB keep a strict vigil over the law and order developments taking place in the region.

Indian military officials have acknowledged existence of low intensity armed conflict in Manipur. The violence that ensued as a result of the armed conflict between Indian military and political armed opposition groups and the human rights violations perpetrated by security agencies had sufficiently registered a state of unusual normalcy for decades.

The reign of AFSPA since 1980 under perpetual disturb areas declarations and extensions is not a symptom of any peace and tranquillity. It can be noted that the Union Government appointed Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee in its report while stating that “...AFSPA...has become a symbol of oppression...”, indicated that Manipur is a conflict ridden society due to violence from both the State and non-State actors.

Armed violence since late 1950s has been normalised in the society. It is not a state of exception in Manipur. We recall here that legal actions for 1528 cases of extra-judicial executions were registered and filed before the Supreme Court of India in the EEVFAM v. Union of India (Writ Petition, Criminal No. 129, 2012).

In the context of the ongoing crisis and armed violence that began last May, vigilante armed groups emerged out of the lawlessness and state of chaos. The State as defined under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution at all levels of governance is solely responsible for the emergence of these vigilante groups and their actions.

As per the Constitutional scheme of things and universally accepted standards incorporated into numerous United Nations treaties and conventions on human rights, the enforcement of human rights and providing security to life, liberty and property is the primary responsibility of the established State.

When the State abdicates its primary responsibility of containing incidences of armed violence, a state of civil-war like situation is bound to arise naturally. When the State police and Central Armed Police Forces cannot protect civilian lives and their property, vigilante groups emerge to fill in the void. The unwillingness or inability of the Indian State and its agencies to bring an end to the crisis led to this civil-war like situation in Manipur.

Similar is also the case of the bloody Naga-Kuki conflict of 1990s. The Indian State and its military apparatus always chose to remain a mute spectator conveniently. This is precisely the reason why the Prime Minister projected Manipur as a society having a history of protracted inter-ethnic conflicts. But projecting Manipuri people as blood thirsty is entirely wrong and misleading.

New Delhi should read and understand history, politics and culture of the people of the region. Should the Central Armed Police Forces or the Indian military rein in to stop the crisis, it will not take 2 days to bring both the sides to the negotiating table. However Prime Minister Modi had missed to mention that Central armed forces and para-military forces deployed in the State are not doing anything on the ground to stop the mayhem.

Researchers such as Bertil Litner (Great Game East: India, China and the Struggle for Asia’s Most Volatile Frontier, 2015), Renaud Egreteau (Instability at the Gate: India's Troubled Northeast and its External Connections, February 2008), etc. had pointed out in their studies that Indian agencies were involved in the establishment of ethnic armed groups along the Indo-Myanmar border including Kuki armed groups.

Along the lines of such findings, it seems that one of the reasons why the Naga-Kuki conflict was protracted was due to the involvement of Indian military favouring one side. Amidst civil society and women organisations criticism against the Assam Rifles for providing assistance to armed Kuki rebel groups, PK Mishra, former Additional Director General of the BSF had in an interview given to the Guwahati based News9 in mid July, 2024 stated that Kuki rebel groups are both aided by forces from Mynamar and also by forces within.

These revelations all the way try to make the apprehension clear that certain Indian security forces are providing uninterrupted assistance thereby emboldening Kuki rebel groups to prolong their offensive against the Meiteis.

Given the effectiveness of the Indian Armed Forces including the Central Armed Police Forces in containing riots and instances of armed violence in mainland States such as Maharashtra, West Bengal, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, etc it is quite disturbing that India has chosen for more than a year to be a mute spectator in the ongoing Manipur crisis leaving everything to the people to protect their own lives. Indian State is the state of exception especially in Manipur.


( views are personal )