The social and political dimensions of ethnic conflicts in Manipur
- Part 1 -

Anshuman Behera *

Introduction

Beginning in May 2023, the outbreak of violence between the Meiteis and the Kukis in India’s North Eastern State of Manipur has once again brought the decades-long ethnic conflicts to the limelight. As peace in Manipur seems like a distant dream, there are competing narratives around the genesis of the current eruption. Most media reports point to the 3 May incident in the Kuki-majority district of Churachandpur, while others say it was the Meitei groups’ act of blocking the roads in the Imphal East District.

In the absence of a consensus about the beginnings of this current episode, today the reality is that the Kukis have been forced to flee the Meitei-dominated areas, and the Meiteis have also moved out from the Kuki-dominated areas; there is little chance that the situation will be reversed soon.

The extent and scale of violence has been massive, if not completely unprecedented in Manipur. Officially, as stated by the Inspector General of Police, IK Muivah, as of 14 September, 175 people have been killed across the State, and 5,000 cases of arson including the torching of more than 4,700 houses have been reported.

Moreover, 386 religious structures (254 Churches, mostly belonging to the Kukis, and 132 temples) have been vandalised. Other sources report different figures. According to the Kuki Student Organisation, for example, the Kukis have suffered 146 deaths; 7,000 houses and 360 Churches have been burnt down in their areas.

Amidst the continuing strife, the State Government, led by Chief Minister N Biren Singh, has faced harsh criticism, both from the Opposition and allies, for giving patronage to the Meitei groups and being “prejudiced against the Kukis.”

Opposition parties, calling the State Government to account, are demanding the imposition of ‘President’s rule’ in Manipur. The Union Government has rejected demands to remove the Chief Minister from office and declared confidence in how his Government has worked to control the situation.

The current episodes of ethnic violence, although not completely unprecedented, are the result of decades-long mistrust among the communities, the indifference of successive Governments towards people’s genuine grievances, the uneven distribution of resources, asymmetric political representation, and a massive governance deficit.

Against this backdrop, this brief analyses the socio-political issues at the root of the ethnic conflicts in Manipur—in particular, that between the Kukis and the Meiteis. The brief argues that the violent clashes are extreme manifestations of decades-long conflicts between the Kukis and the Meiteis, in turn induced by social mistrust, manufactured apprehension and anxiety, the State Government’s lack of political will to address the grievances, and the rigid positions of the competing ethnic groups against each other.

Further, the brief posits that looking for a legal solution to the conflict between the Meiteis and the Kukis would give limited results unless both communities open themselves to genuine dialogue. It outlines a set of policy recommendations to minimise the risks of ethnic conflict between the Meiteis and the Kukis.

The Socio-Political Roots of the Meitei-Kuki Conflict

Following the end of colonial rule, the erstwhile princely State of Manipur merged with the Union of India in October 1949. It was made a Union Territory in 1956, and a full-fledged State in 1972. The State of Manipur comprises three ethnic groups—i.e., the Meiteis, the Nagas, and the Kukis. The Meiteis constitute the majority, inhabiting mainly the Imphal valley and surrounding areas; the Scheduled Tribes, Nagas and Kukis, live in the hilly regions.

Since the 1960s, various militant groups have emerged in Manipur, claiming to represent the various demands and grievances of their respective ethnic communities; the Kukis and the Nagas, in particular, have been fighting for their separate homeland—a struggle that naturally conflicts with the aim of the Meiteis to defend the State’s territorial integrity.

Its long border with Myanmar—which is ungoverned territory—and the fraternal and other ties between the militant groups across the border, compounds the security threat on Manipur. Against this backdrop, the following paragraphs outline the most crucial issues that have birthed and fueled the ethnic conflicts in Manipur.

Contestation over ethnic indigeneity

The very idea of what is “Manipur” fundamentally varies across the different ethnic communities that call the State their home. While there is some consensus among the majority of Meiteis and the Nagas over their common roots, the Kukis are seen as outsiders. The Kukis, for their part, claim to be equally indigenous to Manipur—a claim that the Meiteis contest. The much-cited ‘Anglo-Kuki War’ by the Kukis to claim their indigeneity to Manipur is often contested by the Meiteis.

In August 2023, an FIR was filed against the author of the book, ‘The Anglo-Kuki War 1917-19’, Vijay Chenji; the petitioner, Federation of Haomee, a Meitei organisation, called the publication a “fictional war that was being falsely disseminated widely creating an environment which disturbed the peace of the State.”

Territorial integrity vs Demands for a separate homeland

The contestation over indigeneity has manifested itself in the decades-long clash between the fight for Manipur’s ‘territorial integrity’, as asserted by the Meiteis, and the demands for separate homeland by the Kukis and the Nagas. The NSCN-IM-led militancy, for one, demands the creation of Nagalim-Greater Nagaland that covers a substantial portion of the Naga-majority areas in Manipur.

In June 2001, the Government of India and the NSCN-IM signed the Bangkok Agreement that extended the three-year ceasefire including in the Naga-inhabited areas of Manipur; the agreement was not accepted by the Meitei groups, and violent clashes killed 13 people in one day alone. Similarly, the Kukis’ demand for a Kukiland-Zale’n-gam also causes apprehensions to the Meiteis.

Indeed, the Meiteis consider themselves the custodians of Manipur. The former Home Secretary of India, GK Pillai once argued that conferring Statehood to Nagaland before Manipur—[an extension of the provisions of the ceasefire agreement to the Naga-inhibited areas of Manipur—in many ways, legitimises the emergence and operations of the Meitei militant groups in the name of protecting the territorial integrity of Manipur.

To be sure, the Kuki organisations have recently started showing differences over the demands for a separate homeland, versus calls for separate administrative arrangements. The Kuki Innpi Manipur (KIM)—the apex body of the Kukis—along with the Indigenous Tribal Leaders’ Forum (ITLF) is pitching the demand for a separate State or a Union Territory whereas the Zomi Council and the Suspension of Operation (SoO) groups are demanding autonomy.

To be continued...