The Myth of Ethnic Conflict in Manipur :: Part 2

Sanatomba Kangujam *

Levels of Elite Conflict

The prevailing conflict among the elites of the three conflicting communities is crystallized at two different levels viz. (1) Insurgent Group Level and (2) Civil Society Organization Level. But there is no conflict at people to people level as the conflict is basically an elite phenomenon. The ethnic clashes that had occurred in the Hills of Manipur were the machinations of few Hill elites and politicians.

The so-called Naga-Kuki ethnic clash and the Kuki-Paite ethnic clash were engineered by the Hill elites to consolidate their own position and ensure their political survival. Ethnic clash serves dual purposes. First, it redirects the discontent and frustration of the people from their own leaders to other communities. Second, it strengthens the hold of the elites over their respective ethnic groups.

That is primarily the reason why the so-called ethnic clashes have been reduced to the clashes between the armed groups (and also between the so-called civil society organizations who claim to represent specific communities) while there has been steady normalization of relationship between the people of the apparently belligerent ethnic communities.

It is pertinent to point out that the common people were directly involved in the act of unleashing violence against the belligerent community. However, the common people did not commit the act of violence on their own will, but under strict compulsion. One who does not comply with the directive from above would invite the wrath of the power wielders.

The common people are sermonized that they would be attacked by the (perceived) enemies unless they attack first. The other community is projected as stern enemy; a thorn in the flesh, that deserves to be exterminated. Hatred and fear are instilled in the mind of the common people by invoking selected social memories.

Dehumanization and demonization are practiced by the contesting elites to orchestrate ethnic violence. Systematic indoctrination coupled with intimidation resulted into internalization of the conflict. The people of two friendly neighbouring villages (belonging to two different ethnic groups) became arch enemies overnight.

Thus, ethnic conflict is a top down phenomenon engineered by the contesting elites of the concerned ethnic groups. Therefore, the conflict which is seemingly ethnic in character is, in fact, an elite conflict and the "Ethnic Triangle" is nothing more than "Elite Triangle". There is no ethnic conflict in Manipur or for that matter, in the entire Northeast. Ethnic conflict is a myth projected by the opportunist elites to achieve their political ends.

Nature of Elites

Elite may be defined as an operational "collectivity" comprising a network of organised relationship that seeks to take control of "political space" by constituting and reconstituting it through production and reproduction of a particular form of knowledge. Here, in my formulation, elite is not an individual or a group of individuals; rather it is a collectivity that emerged out of the interaction of a network of relationship.

The elites may be classified as competing elites and contesting elites depending on the sites of their operation. The elites who compete to take hold of power within a particular ethnic community may be conceptualized as competing elites. Whereas, the elites of different ethnic communities whose interests happen to be diametrically opposed and incompatible that often presents various points of intersection may be termed as contesting elites.

Further, elites in every community may be classified into at least two types, which I would like to term as the opportunistic elites and the progressive elites.

Opportunistic elites are those who strive to enhance their interests by engaging in exclusivist politics that often play up ethnic card or any other narrow "ism" solely on the basis of political expediency. Progressive elites, on the other hand, are those who try to build an inclusive politics on the basis of harmonious co-existence and equitable development by transcending exclusivist politics. On the basis of this understanding, we may identify which political movement or mobilisation is exclusivist and which is inclusivist.

The Naga political mobilisation is inclusive in so far as it encompasses different ethnic groups who hitherto had remained outside the Naga fold. The steady increase in the number of the constituent tribes of the Nagas bears testimony to the fact that the Naga identity formation is relatively inclusive although it can also be branded as expansionist at the same time. But the fact is that all forms of political mobilisation based on ethnicity are exclusivists. From the other end, the Naga political mobilisation can be termed as exclusivist in a sense that it left out many other fraternal ethnic groups who also belong to the mongoloid race. The Naga elites have already drawn an exclusive cultural map of Nagalim. They are now simply struggling to transform this cultural boundary into a political boundary.

In their effort to carve out an exclusive political space for themselves, the Naga elites have committed a serious historical blunder for abandoning the path of collective struggle. At one point of time, the armed opposition groups of the region looked towards the undivided NSCN for leadership. But the moment the Naga insurgent groups decided to seek an exclusive solution to the Naga political issue, many struggling communities of the Northeast were left in the lurch. Without a major community like the Nagas and without a lofty personality like Uncle Muivah, it became increasingly difficult for many groups to sustain the liberation struggle. In this context, many nationalist leaders began to ask; "Can we stage 'Hamlet: the prince of Denmark' without Hamlet?"

As a result, many resistance groups who were disillusioned with the liberation struggle became the camp followers of the NSCN-IM by entering into ceasefire pact with the GoI. Very few continue to wage the struggle. Incidentally, the post 1997 period witnessed ruptures in the operational pattern of various insurgent groups that incites various points of polarisation at different levels.

The ceasefire between the GoI and the NSCN-IM has produced an immense effect that often presents splitting of groups as anti-talk and pro-talk factions. The emergence of factionalism and splits has only increased the number of political stakeholders that renders it highly complicated to work out political consensus among the insurgent groups as well as between the Government and the insurgents. Besides, the politics of ceasefire and peace talk has only led to intensification of ethnic cold war amongst various struggling communities of the Northeast. In this way, the political sojourn undertaken by the Naga elites in 1997 has turned out to be "a march against history".

As far as the Kuki-Zomi identity formation is concerned, it is inclusive as well as exclusive at the same time. It is inclusive in a sense that both the Kuki and Zomi identity formations encompass many smaller ethnic groups or sub-groups. It even includes some of the ethnic groups who have already affiliated to and identified themselves as the Nagas.

There are also no basic differences between the Kuki identity formation and the Zomi identity formation except on the issue of nomenclature. Otherwise, both are inclusive of each other. The only major hitch is the struggle for power and domination between the Thadou elites and the Paite elites. But in spite of its inclusive pattern of political mobilisation, the Kuki-Zomi identity formation is also equally exclusive on account of the fact that it excludes all those communities which lie outside the fold of the Chin-Kuki-Zomi group.

The Manipuri identity formation both at the socio-cultural level and the geo-political level has both the elements of inclusiveness and exclusiveness. It is inclusive in that it seeks to encompass all the 38 or so indigenous communities including all the Nagas and Kukis/Zomis living in Manipur. Another point of inclusive-ness is that the Manipuri insurgent groups though dominated by the Meiteis have launched the armed struggle not exclusively for the Meiteis but for the people of Manipur as a whole. Nevertheless, the political mobilisation and nation building process initiated by the Meiteis are not free from exclusivist elements.

Revisiting the Manipuri Nation Building Project

The Meitei elites are progressive in so far as they strive to construct a composite Manipuri identity by promoting civic nationalism amongst all the communities living in Manipur. The Meitei elites imagined a united and sovereign Manipur in which all the communities shall peacefully co-exist and develop; in which no particular community shall have the political leverage to dominate others; in which there shall be autonomy at all levels. They envisioned an egalitarian society free from feudal oppression, colonial subjugation and class exploitation. That far, the Meitei elites are progressive and inclusive.

But the political project of Manipuri nation building is a complete failure. 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 clear indicators of the failure of the Manipuri nation building project.

The Nagas and the Kukis (or Zomis) of Manipur are not willing to identify themselves as Manipuris. For them, the Manipuris are the Meiteis and the Meiteis are the Manipuris. The element of reciprocity is absent in the act of imagining a monolithic Manipuri nationhood. Such realities strongly question how inclusive is the process of Manipuri nation building process.

Another exclusivist character of the Manipuri nation building process is the limitation set by the idea of Manipur itself. The idea of Manipur arbitrarily excludes many kindred tribes of the Nagas and the Kukis which exist beyond the present boundary of Manipur. That is why the notion of Manipur which is only about 22327 sq. km. is highly problematic.

Why can't we imagine a Manipur or a Greater Manipur which encompasses all the tribes of the Nagas and the Kukis/Zomis? After all, the idea of Manipur is a colonial construct. Before the advent of the British, the idea of Manipur was yet to take proper shape. It was only with the conclusion of the Treaty of Yandaboo in 1826 that Manipur as we understand today had taken firm roots.

Almost all the civil society organizations (CSOs) who claim to represent Manipur are dominated by the Meiteis. Few tribals may be holding key positions in these organizations. But their involvement with the valley based CSOs are in their own individual capacity and, therefore, do not carry the mandate of the tribe or the community they belong to. Their representation remains a case of mere tokenism.

The same logic applies to the insurgent organizations of Manipur as well. In spite of the claim to represent all the communities of Manipur, insurgency movement largely led by the Meiteis run short of a wholesome representation of all the communities. This arises from the fact that the leaders and cadres of the valley based insurgent groups are pre-dominantly drawn from the Meitei community. Despite the miniscule presence of tribal elements in these armed organizations, they still are yet to acquire a pan Manipuri character.

One of the major factors largely responsible for the failure of Manipuri nation building project is the operation of feudal consciousness in our society that crystallised in the attempt by few dominant groups to make Meitei identity as the defining criterion of Manipuri identity. Imposition of Meitei identity upon the Hill Manipuris has been strongly resisted.

Under the circumstances, any effort to transform Meitei identity into Manipuri identity is doomed to be a failure. Meitei chauvinism will not contribute even an inch forward towards the realisation of a composite Manipur. Manipuri identity must evolve naturally as a result of interaction between different groups living in Manipur in due course of time.

Meiteilon or Manipuri has evolved into the lingua franca of all the people living in Manipur not due to any conscious design but due to necessity generated by social conditions. Social engineering is necessary but should not be carried out in such a manner as to tear apart the delicate fabrics of the age-old relationship between the Hills and the Valley.

To be continued.....