Pre-conditional talk needs differentiation of negotiation from appeasement

Yenning *

October 15 will always remain a special day. No other date has more profound impact on the political and socio-economic trajectory of Manipur. October 15 is perhaps the most significant day in the history of Manipur. Its significance is unlikely to diminish as long as the historical injustice done in 1949 is addressed satisfactorily.

On the contrary, the significance of October 15 will only become more pronounced corresponding to the growing threats to the territorial integrity of Manipur. October 15 will continue to exist as a day of utmost poignancy as long as the government of India sees the people of Manipur as sub-humans or second class citizens.

Political implications of October 15 will be visited and re-visited every single day if New Delhi sees Manipur as its frontier and nothing more. October 15 will always remain the most important date in the collective memory of the people if government of India continues to undermine the integrity of Manipur. In fact, October 15 will continue to stoke the people’s conscience as long as New Delhi patronizes or tend to patronize forces inimical to the integrity of Manipur.

Coincidence or otherwise, a top secret meeting among some selected legislators from Kuki, Naga and Meitei communities was hosted by the Intelligence Bureau, or IB in short, which comes under the government of India’s Ministry of Home Affairs at Delhi on October 15, 2024, purportedly to negotiate peace terms between the warring Kuki and Meitei communities.

Whereas the Kuki-Zo legislators who took part in the mysterious meeting have made it amply clear they were authorized to talk with their Meitei colleagues only on creation of Separate Administration for the Kuki-Zo people, the eight gentlemen who represented the Meitei community are tightlipped about the talk so far.

No doubt, they are people’s elected representatives. But are they mandated to negotiate peace terms on behalf of the Meitei community? Mind you, the issue is a very sensitive one fraught with huge political implications.

Undoubtedly, talk or negotiation is a highly commendable positive step, particularly when it comes after months of violent clashes, killings, mayhem and large scale displacement. But the talk is no longer an open or unconditional one with the Kuki-Zo legislators laying down a very rigid precondition.

When one group starts imposing conditions in any negotiation, the outcome will be far from desirable for the other party. The second party can either pull out from the talks or submit to the terms and conditions laid down by the first group. In case the talk goes ahead on the condition laid down by the Kuki-Zo legislators, we fear, the end result will be far from peaceful.

As for the negotiators, particularly those representing the Meitei community, without bothering to consult the people before and after the October 15 talk, it will be nothing short of playing with fire.

As discussed repeatedly earlier in this same column, nationalism can be broadly classified into civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism. Though these two types of nationalism have their own merits and demerits, it is the latter which is potentially dangerous, more particularly so in multi ethnic societies.

Centrality of nation and state is common in both the genres of nationalism but conceptually precedence and areas of stress are quite different to the point of contradiction. According to the general understanding of civic nationalism, nationhood is defined by having common citizenship. A civic nation consists of all those who subscribe to its political creed, regardless of ethnicity or race, color, religion, gender or language.

Again, a civic nation is in principle a community of equal, rights-bearing citizens united in patriotic attachment to a shared set of political practices and values. On the contrary, in ethnic nationalism, nationhood is defined by language, religion, customs and traditions. According to ethnic nationalists, it is not the state that creates the nation but the nation that creates the state.

According to them, the glue that holds people together is not shared political rights but pre-existing ethnic characteristics. Some of the contrasting points between these two fundamental concepts of nationalism are, civic nationalists put their faith in law, choice, rational attachment and unity by consent whereas ethnic nationalists are more fascinated by common roots or ancestry, inheritance, emotional attachment and unity by ascription.

By nature, civic nationalism is inclusive as opposed to ethnic nationalism which always tends to be exclusive. While the advocates of a united Manipur have been championing for a pluralistic society, the Kuki-Zo militants and their supporters including frontal organizations and elected legislators have been fighting for an exclusive political space for the Kuki-Zo at the cost of the integrity of millennia old geopolitical entity called Manipur.

Ethnic nationalism has literally reached its zenith in Manipur with the Kuki-Zo people waging a sustained and premeditated war against the Meitei people and the government of Manipur in pursuit of their demand for a separate state of their own. It is quite obvious why the Kuki-Zo people have been deliberately waging war against the Meitei community, not any other community.

The Meitei community holds the territorial integrity of Manipur as the most sacrosanct, something untouchable under any circumstances and they are always prepared to fight to the last man to protect the integrity of Manipur.

The Meitei legislators as well as their Kuki-Zo colleagues know very well about this resolute stand of the Meitei people. Yet, the Kuki-Zo legislators started dictating terms from the first day of the talk by imposing a very rigid condition. The talk is indeed a very positive step but the way how it began was far from desirable. Rather, it was ominous.

There is no denying the fact that the need of the hour is dialogue but definitely not the ones riddled with preconditions or conditions. The negotiators must do their homework thoroughly. They must have a clear understanding of how far Manipur is ready to negotiate on capitals such as land and resources.

Does awarding autonomy and giving in to political demands necessitate giving away control over land, resources, forest, rivers etc? In other words, what should be the limit and scope of negotiation? The very foundation of the Kuki-Zo people’s demand for Separate Administration is exclusive control over land and resources.

Ethnic cleansing of Meiteis from Churachandpur, Kangpokpi, Moreh and other areas dominated by Kuki-Zo people is an unmistakable manifestation of their single-minded intention to lay exclusive claim over land and resources. Even before the full scale aggression was launched on the fateful day of May 3, 2023, the Kuki-Zo people were following an aggressive policy of land grab.

They have the audacity of claiming ownership over Koubru Hills, the abode of Lord Koubru. In April 2021, the Kuki-Zo people blocked all entry points and prevented Meitei people from taking their annual pilgrimage to the abode of Lord Koubru. This was a direct affront to the religious sentiment and cultural ethos of the Meitei people.

Again, in May 2022, Kukis prevented tree-plantation drives by the Forest Department and volunteers on Thanging Hills, another sacred site and deeply revered by the Meitei community. The Kukis as well as all other communities of Manipur are aware of the fact that the Meiteis regard Koubru Hills and Thanging Hills as sacred places and the birthplace of their civilization.

Every year, large groups of Meiteis go on pilgrimages to both Koubru Hills and Thangjing Hills but it has been some years since Kuki-Zo people started disturbing and even blocking the pilgrimages. Thus the Kuki-Zo people have been provoking Meitei people every now and then on the most sensitive areas of land, resources and religious sentiment.

During the Lushai Expedition in January-February 1872, 649 Khongjais were rescued from the captivity of Lushai Chiefs and Maharaja Chandrakirti Singh allowed them and 2112 other Kuki refugees to settle on Thangjing Hills and the king even arranged their food till the harvesting season (Dr R Brown, p-56).

Even though, Meitei maintained neutrality during the Naga-Kuki clash, Meitei provided humanitarian aid to the Kukis and let the fleeing Kukis settle at foothills and the hills adjoining the valley. There are tales of Meitei and other communities physically clearing jungles and helping Kukis build new houses at Moreh. Such generosity and kindness of Meitei people have been paid back in full with the same Kuki-Zo people who came as refugees now waging a war and demanding what they call Separate Administration.

All these facts must be taken into account while negotiating any sort of solution to the violent aggression launched by Kuki-Zo militants and their supporters. The negotiators must draw a distinct line between negotiation and appeasement, and take into account how far Manipur is ready to give, and in return what does it get.

The government of India and their representatives who are sitting on the judgment throne may or may not have intentions to appease the Kuki-Zo warmongers but Meitei and all other indigenous communities of Manipur have no intention to appease any one at the cost of the state’s integrity and territory.

Unconditional negotiations can bring a win-win solution for both the parties but conditional talks can only end with one party surrendering a part or the whole of its interest. At the end, we do not believe sacrificing the territorial integrity of Manipur to fulfill the quests driven by ethnic nationalism will ever bring any durable peace.