Indo–Manipur political dialogue : How feasible is it ?
- Part 1 -

Sanatomba Kangujam *

(Political solution to the Indo-Manipur armed conflict calls for complete restructuring of the Indian Constitution and the Indian Union)

Persistence of armed conflict in Manipur and the rising instances of collateral damage have assumed significant dimension mainly in view of different interested quarters expressing their concernto resolve the outstanding conflict through political dialogue. Here, the basic question that needs to be addressed is whether or not the present situation is appropriate for holding political dialogue.

Such a concern has arisen mainly because of the prevailing understanding that holds any kind of political dialogue between the insurgents and the Government at the present situation as a path towards capitulation. This write-up is an attempt to undertake a close scrutiny of a number of factors that seem to justify such political disposition.

The existence of numerous insurgent groups is one of the major stumbling blocks towards finding a political solution to the highly protracted conflict in Manipur. Holding talks with one or two groups without the participation of the other remaining stakeholders will render the entire exercise a great farce. It will be practically difficult to reach a political consensus between the Government and the insurgent groups in a situation characterised by proliferation of insurgent groups.

Because, as long as the mandate of the people remains divided, there can be no solution. Government should, therefore, hold talk only with a body which carries the full mandate of the people. It logically implies that the Government should refrain from encouraging split and factionalism within an insurgent organisation simply to gain short term advantage. For, such a strategy will only prolong the conflict. Establishment of a strong 'United Front' of all the insurgent groups is the foremost pre-requisite for any project of conflict transformation in Manipur. A meaningful dialogue can never be held in the absence of such a common platform of the insurgent groups.

Avibrant civil society movement is a necessary condition for any project of conflict transformation. The civil society groups of Manipur are very vocal as far as the issues of territorial integrity and AFSPA are concerned. But they are not vocal when it comes to the issue of political conflict in Manipur. This may be due to two factors.

First, the stiff political stand of the insurgent groups not to hold talk with the Government is an important deterrent factor for the civil societies to raise their voice in favour of holding political dialogue. Second, the repression of the state is another factor that prevents the civil societies to freely air their views and initiate major steps towards peace making. But a wholesome political engagement will not be possible in the absence of strong and responsible civil society organisations. In this regard, the civil societies can perform many roles.

First, they can mediate between the state and the non-state actors, between the state and the people, and also between the non-state actors and the people. Second, in the event of any political dialogue, their roles can be facilitatory as well as participatory. But the civil society movement in Manipur is highly fragmented and dispersed.

Besides, civil society organisations are squeezed between the twin vices of the state and non-state actors. It is also not clear how many genuine civil society organisations are operating in Manipur since there is a need to draw a line of distinction between the frontal organisations and the civil society organisations.

Another factor that needs to be taken into account is the absence of strong international lobby. The support of the international community is highly essential for any movement. To engage in political talk without internationalising the issue is meaningless. The struggle must be able to attract the attention of the international community for any meaningful dialogue to take place.

The inability to take the struggle to relevant international fora even after three or four decades indicates that something is very seriously wrong with the struggle. The people have been contributing everything for the movement willingly or unwillingly. And they have borne the brunt of the conflict physically as well as emotionally. Now it is time for the armed groups to present a progress report to the people.

Any sort of political engagement without the participation of the people is not going to be productive. The people are the key stakeholders in any conflict since the basic issue involved in the conflict is the future of the people. Therefore, people should always be consulted in the process of resolving the conflict. Concerning people's participation, the people of Manipur are far ahead of the armed movement. The August 4 Rally of 1997, the September 28 Rally of 2000, the Great June 18 Uprising of 2001, the Great July Movement of 2004 etc. are clear indications of the readiness or willingness on the part of the masses to face any eventuality.

Over and above, unprecedented people's response to the plebiscite proposal floated by the UNLF is a reflection of the preparedness of the Manipuri people. People's movements in Manipur are highly advanced. But the insurgent groups have not been able to catch up with the people's movements or capitalise on the prevailing situation and transform the armed struggle into a people's movement.

The inability on the part of the insurgent groups to transform the armed struggle into a people's movement is the greatest shortcoming of the entire liberation project. Worse still, they have not been even successful to demonstrate that there has been an armed conflict in Manipur apart from some political rhetoricwhich they managed to generate with the help of the mass media.

The prospect of holding a political dialogue between the insurgent groupsof Manipur and the Government of India is seriously undermined by the challenges posed by parallel political projects of Nagalim and Zalengam. The existence of the political demands for the integration of the claimed Naga areas of Manipur into the Nagaland state or demand for creation of South Nagalim state in the form of Alternative Arrangement and the demand for the formation of a Kuki state within the territorial space of Manipur are the challenges confronting the Manipuri nation building project.

In this context, it is necessary to clarify that the demand for Naga integration or Alternative Arrangement and the demand for an autonomous Kuki state or full-fledged Sadar Hills district are partial manifestations of the movements for Nagalim and Zalengam respectively.

A serious perusal of the above observations points to the fact that holding of political dialogue under the present circumstances is not advisable. For any successful conduct of political dialogue, both the objective and subjective conditions must be ripe. To engage in a political dialogue with the Government before both the internal and external conditions turn favorable would tantamount to adventurism.

The prevailing conflict needs to be intensified to the highest level before the commencement of any political dialogue because power relation in any conflict situation is always asymmetrical in character. This understanding is based on the proposition that the basic incompatibility of a conflict can be resolved only after the intensification of the conflict to the optimum level. Otherwise, conflict will re-emerge periodically if the basic incompatibility remains unresolved.

To be continued....