Conflict Discussions
- Hypocrisy, opportunism or plain stupidity -

Amar Yumnam *

Something unusual, but positive, had happened in Manipur very recently. The army had organised a seminar on conflict resolution. Since the army happens to be the weapon the state (what we may call militarisation) has been using to resolve the conflict situation, it is wonderful to observe the weapon itself starting application of mind. Whether it is state-induced or self-introspection, the significance of the occasion should not be lost sight of.

The Issues: The issues we should be concerned are many. First, since the organisers had invited a cross-section of people, we need to examine what we had achieved out of the seminar. Secondly, since the paper-presenters cut across professionals, we should be re-examining their analyses with a view to move ahead.

This would call of us to evaluate the relevance of the views, insights and above all the sincerity of the observations. This has become all the more necessary for, consequent upon the long years of militarisation and the necessary collateral impacts, the army has emerged as a force to reckon with in the society and as one which can provide favours or inflict injuries with impunity.

Except in the case of one presenter, all the presenters viewed the conflict in the context of Manipur as ethnic conflict/s. In the post-World War II, there has emerged a large literature on wars, civil wars, ethnic cleansing, fragile states, ethno-political rebellion, etc. This growth has multiplied particularly in the period post 9/11.

Since political-hawkism can be a paying preoccupation in the kind of democracy we have and particularly so in a context where grievances of the past are perceived in the present, the predominant concern with ethnic relationships while discussing conflict in Manipur has multiple implications.

In this context, we may briefly recall here what is being described and accepted as ethnic conflict in the global literature of conflict, both theory and empirics. One explanation is that ethnic diversity becomes such problematic that state militarisation becomes the necessary means to control the situation and address the security concerns.

In this context, we may ask: is the militarisation in Manipur the result of such a process? If the answer is in the positive, the preoccupation with ethnic conflict in Manipur by the paper-presenters in the seminar would be right. But if the answer turns out to be in the negative, the behaviour could be a reflection of pure political-hawkism, or hypocrisy, or plain ignorance of the vast literature on conflict already in full existence.

Secondly, poverty and geographic determinants could be factors inducing ethnic diversity. This could result ultimately into conflict for resources where there would be capability as well as actual killings of each other over an elongated period of time. This could lead to the collapse of the state.

We may ask at this point as to whether the situation in Manipur corresponds to this. Once again, if the answer is yes, the paper-presenters were absolutely rationale. In the otherwise case, it would be nothing more than pure political-hawkism, or hypocrisy, or plain ignorance of the vast literature on conflict already in existence.

Thirdly, there is the non-strategic or structuralist explanation that ethnic conflicts would arise when an ethnic group finds the incentives, capability and opportunity for attacking another, presumably the dominant group. Is the situation in Manipur and the accompanying worries of the people are a result of such kinds of rebellion?

Was the militarisation of the land by the state a response to such events? Well, as in the previous two explanations, the yes and no answers would have similar implications. Without going into the other explanations, we may straightway ask ourselves: Is the situation in Manipur like the genocides in Rwanda, ethnic wars in Bosnia-Herzegovina or state failure in Somalia? Well, I am afraid it is none of these.

The pressing conflict issue needing our attention – sincere, committed and devoid of hypocrisy – is the one involving the state wherein the army is the instrument applied by the state to counter any force questioning the existing state, and the resultant social consequences of the prolongation of this. State is an institution very different from the institutions of family, clan, tribe, community or the market.

Besides, it exercises dominance over all the other institutions. Naturally, when this institution becomes contested, the understanding, analyses and solutions have to be different from parochial analyses of inter-ethnic relationships. We should not be wasting rare opportunities for advancement of understanding of our major problems collectively into occasions for projecting past grievances into the present, and thus attempt to command short-sighted sympathy.

Well, whatever the case, we should now be taking the debate on the conflict situation in Manipur further forward. In doing this, it demands from us greater efforts to learn lessons from the existing rich theory and empirics of conflict around the world, and not endeavor to make a fool of ourselves by pressing for parochial agenda in this highly networked world.