Boundary disputes : Reflections of communal politics
- The Sangai Express Editorial :: April 25 , 2014 -

All district demands whether it is for Sadar Hills, Jiribam or Tengnoupal are tinged with communal overtones.

A long drawn out battle was fought for Sadar Hills district in 2011and even a sort of boundary commission was set up to demarcate the exact boundary of the proposed district.

After several rounds of hearing were held inviting all stake holders, the movement died a silent dead and the Government went into deep slumber.

In the process, the whole population of the State was plunged into a sea of misery as the National Highways connecting Manipur to the outside world were closed with violent force for almost three months.

Every time any demand for new district was raised, it was like stirring a hornets’ nest.

District demands per se cannot be communal and it can be vindicated in the name of better administration, more opportunities for socio-economic growth, et al.

What is intriguing is the strong current of communal or ethno-centric politics which is propelling all these demands for creation of new districts.

The main stumbling block to creation of new districts is the boundary disputes and indistinct boundary lines.

For instance, a Naga village located within the proposed Sadar Hills district openly voiced its desire to be placed under the jurisdiction of either Ukhrul or Senapati.

Many villages of Tamenglong district adjoining Jiribam sub-division do not wish to join the proposed Jiribam sub-division.

If we must accept the truth, there are three imagined zones, one for the Nagas, one for the Kukis and one for the Meiteis.

The third zone encompasses the first two zones as manifested in the rigid stance taken by the protagonists of Manipur’s territorial integrity.

The first two zones are exclusive ones as articulated in the forms of Kuki State and Alternative Arrangement for Nagas in Manipur outside the Government of Manipur pending solution to the Indo-Naga political issue.

Indeed, the rigid stand to preserve status quo of Manipur’s integrity runs against the demands for Kuki State and Alternative Arrangement for Nagas.

The two demands invariably characterized by ethno-exclusivity do not complement each other. Rather they oppose and undermine each other for neither Kuki settlements nor Naga settlements are contiguous in Manipur.

Our concern at the moment is whether the demands for creation of new districts and concomitant objections hinge on the larger politics of carving out ethno-exclusive political spaces.

If this is the case, the turmoil seen at Jiribam presently should be tackled most tactfully. The Government should not drag its feet in such sensitive issues.

The Government should keep in mind that the turmoil seen at Jiribam presents a fertile ground for vested interest groups to further polarize indigenous communities of the State.

To be frank, we have little idea at the moment if there is any possibility of upgrading Jiribam sub-division into a full fledged district in the near future but many Zeliangrong bodies and Tamenglong villages have time and again expressed in no uncertain terms their stiff opposition to inclusion of Zeliangrong villages in the proposed Jiribam district.

Such is the level of trust deficit and degree of ethnic polarization.

This is one area which demands immediate attention of civil society organisations as well as the Government.

The State must accept that it committed a grievous fait accompli when it divided Manipur into different districts and demarcated their administrative boundaries based on topography and ethnicity of population.

Inclusion of hillocks located in the heart of Imphal valley though inhabited by tribal people in one or another hill district indicates sheer political immaturity and lack of vision.

So is the case with Jiribam sub-division of Imphal East district which is located more than 200 Kms away from district headquarters.

The onus of undoing this blunder should be the collective responsibility of the Government and the public.