Ethnic separatism : The Kuki-Chin insurgency of Indo-Myanmar/Burma
- Part 5 -

Telsing Letkhosei Haokip *

Kuki National Front (KNF) arms deposition to GOI under SOO on Sept 15 2010 :: Pix - Leivon Jimmy Lamkang

Follow-up on the Agreement and Conclusions

The North East of India has been going through political instability and ethnic insurgencies for decades and the whole region, inhabited by a mosaic of peoples and cultures, has experienced much ethnic conflict (Haokip, 2013; Kipgen, 2013). Since the independence of India and Burma in 1947 and 1948, various ethnic minorities have been struggling for more autonomy, with more or less success. Some groups have even been seeking independence, causing alarm in the concerned nation states, while challenging regional authorities to contain these ethnic insurgencies and to counter emerging genocidal trends. India seems to have resorted to separate peace agreements with insurgent groups, prominently Nagas and Kukis (Unnithan & Deka, 2012).

This article demonstrates how the creation of a number of states in north-east India, specifially Mizoram in 1987, still left most of the 44 minor Kuki-Chin tribal groups groping in the dark, searching for a common platform or even a common nomenclature to bind them together, not only within India, but across international boundaries. So far, for many Kuki-Chin people, most efforts to obtain better representation have been in vain.

While agreed political solutions remained elusive, the earlier sprouting of many Kuki-Chin insurgent groups since the 1980s reflected the simmering frustrations. Certainly by the 1990s, the urgent need for self-protection became prominent. At some stage, altogether 19 officially recognised Kuki insurgent outfits were operating, mainly within Manipur state and particularly in the district of Churachandpur.

However, from 2005 onwards, rays of hope re-surfaced among the Kuki people when the Indian government seemed to listen to their cries for help. When the Government of India, the Government of Manipur and Kuki militants under the KNO/UPF umbrella signed a tripartite Suspension of Operation Agreement in 2008, an important step seemed to be taken for holding tri-lateral talks.

Since 2010, many meetings among the three major parties and various other stakeholders have indeed taken place. However, the agenda of the Joint Monitoring Group seem to focus on wider security issues, involving global, national and regional concerns. These meetings have so far failed to address the more immediate worries of local people about interethnic violence and lack of minority representation. Meanwhile, more money has been spent on construction of camps for the various insurgent groups and more young people seem to be joining the bandwagon of accepting handouts that are too tempting to reject but insufficient for building a better future. It is significant that arguments for a raising of the monthly payments are heard, but few suggestions are made about how to bring lasting peace.

The author's recent fieldwork confirms reports by journalists who visited the insurgents and have pointed to unsatisfactory conditions, boredom of those confined to the remote camps, and widespread dissatisfaction with the stipends paid (Unnithan & Deka, 2012: 22). If the newly elected BJP Government of India does not manage to hold constructive discussions over the various claims and interests of the various ethnic groups that compete over the same space and resources, more serious trouble can be predicted. Paying insurgents money to keep them pacified can at best be a short-term, stop gap measure.

Particularly since the historical memory of atrocities remains so strong, as the current article and much of the material the author used clearly confirms, the volatile present offers not much hope even for physical safety of the Kuki people.

Kuki writers and leaders remain skeptical and demanding, if not aggressive. Haokip (1998: 259) concludes that the British handed the Kuki territory over to the three postcolonial countries which are, in his words, 'merely in constructive possession of the traditional land of the Kukis'.

The same author, while laying out his vision more recently (Haokip, 2008: 407-24), claims that 'the Kukis have yet to realize self-rule, the postcolonial mantra. We continue to be victims of sub-colonial imperialism…' (Haokip, 2008: 408). Most of this speech is devoted to the memory of discriminations, old and new. Naga efforts aimed at ethnic cleansing, which went as far as Kuki villagers being served quit notices in the second half of 1992 by UNC (Haokip, 2008: 411), should have rung alarm bells for the Indian Republic as the home of many different people and in view of the guiding principle of 'unity in diversity'.

Locally and even regionally, the ultimate demand remains restoration of territorial integrity, when Haokip (2008: 422) asks his fellow Kukis 'to come and join this march to carve a place for ourselves on the face of the earth by resurrecting Zale'ngam, our God-given ancestral land and its rich heritage, and to take it forward to become a respected member in the comity of nations'. Such exclusionary claims for self-determination continue to be made in various fora and environments. They represent to some extent defensive reactions to ethnic violence targeting a minority group that lacks proper representation.

It is now perhaps high time for ethnic Kuki and Naga people to use a 'give and take' policy to resolve their competing claims over land holdings, to obtain a political solution, and to do so speedily. Apart from that, the state government of Manipur has a specific obligation not to pose any hindrances, keeping in mind the historical records and boundaries of 'Proper Manipur' and 'Outer Manipur' in a democratic manner.

All stakeholders have to give and take, probably, and cannot hide behind the others. The present Central government policy of making agreements with different communities looks like 'divide and rule' and effectively delays justice, through prolonged silence regarding the bones of contention between Kukis and Nagas. On the other hand, the recent construction of border fencing which actually cedes landholdings of Kukis to appease Myanmar does not bode well. This kind of policy may create more political unrest in future.

Urgent questions need to be asked about the procrastinating role of the Manipur Government and the central Indian Government, about democracy and the unfulfilled promises of the Indian constitution for local minority people such as the Kuki. They suffered not only during the seven years of terror unleashed upon innocent unarmed civilians during the 1990s by the secessionist NSCN-IM, but are also tormented in the current phase of uneasy truces.

If ethnic violence were to be repeated, the carefully crafted pack of cards in the form of various government-led agreements to stop military operations in this region will just collapse. It might be more sustainable, and cheaper in the long run, to work a little harder on more lasting political solutions that may secure better minority representation.

Maybe the story of Indian state creation in India's Northeast is not yet complete. Or perhaps there is still hope that the various people of India will simply learn to co-exist together peacefully, and live and let live. While efforts to create a new Kuki nation state seem illusory, and more designed as a bargaining tool, it is evident that the Indian state cannot turn a blind eye to developments in this region.

Constructive negotiations, it seems, are the need of the hour. While that is what the young and increasingly impatient insurgents clearly convey as well, the future remains uncertain. One thing is certain, though: A resurgence of genocide directed at Kuki people by Nagas and the majority Meitei community would clearly overstep limits and be completely intolerable.

It remains a matter of urgency for the government of that vast state called India to sincerely look into the issue from every angle based on custom and tradition, history and landholding and to give justice to all three contending parties, Nagas, Kukis and Manipuri-Meiteis, as enshrined and within the purview and framework of the Indian constitution. However, evidently that is easier said than done.

Concluded...