The social and political dimensions of ethnic conflicts in Manipur

Anshuman Behera (Observer Research Foundation)
Contd from previous issue
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.
Uneven distribution of resources
The violent clashes between the Kukis and the Meiteis that erupted on 3 May are often attributed to the High Court’s order to the Manipur State Government to submit its recommendations on the Scheduled Tribe (ST) status demand of the Meiteis.
The ST status would legally allow the Meiteis to have ownership over the land resources that, at present, are mostly under the control of the Nagas and the Kukis. For their part, the Nagas and the Kukis fear that granting ST status to the Meiteis would give the latter monopoly over the land, which in turn would further strengthen their dominance over political and economic resources. Moreover, Manipur’s geographical makeup—ie, Meiteis living in the valley and the Kukis and the Nagas living in the hills—sustains the narratives of marginalisation by the non-Meitei communities.
Demographically, the Meiteis constitute more than 50 percent of the State’s total population and fall either under the unreserved or Other Backward Class (OBC) category; the Kukis and the Nagas (who are Christians), meanwhile, are STs. The Meiteis inhabit only 10 percent of the total land cover of Manipur, whereas the Nagas and the Kukis (together constituting close to 40 percent of the population) live in the remaining 90 percent of the land.
The Meiteis are not legally permitted to buy land in and around the Kuki-and Naga-inhabited areas. Ever since Manipur joined the Union of India in 1949, the collective grievances of the Meiteis have been around their lack of rights to protect their customs, land, beliefs, and livelihoods.
The Meiteis, under the banner of the Scheduled Tribe Demand Committee of Manipur (STDCM), have been demanding ST status since 2012.
The Government of India, on 29 May 2013, asked the Manipur State Government to submit a recommendation as to whether the Meiteis should be included in the ST list. The State Government has failed to respond at the time of writing this brief. Once again, on 31 May 2022, the Union Government asked for a recommendation.
Mutum Churamani, a Meitei, petitioned the High Court to direct the State Government to submit its recommendations. A one-member bench of the High Court issued an order on 4 April 2023, directing the State Government to file its response within four weeks. Any response from the State Government has since been overshadowed by the eruption of clashes.
The Hill-Valley Divide: Uneven development and Asymmetric political representation
The Hill-Valley divide in Manipur—seen in issues such as the demand of the Meiteis for ST status and the opposition to it—is deeply rooted. Among the multiple factors that have historically wedged this divide is asymmetric development and political representation. Economic development and political power has been valley-centric, leaving the Kukis and the Nagas bereft of the benefits.
Over the years, whatever infrastructure development has been recorded in Manipur has largely been in the Valley. The unevenness is stark in the budget allocations: Between 2017 and 2020, for example, the total budget allocation for the Imphal valley was INR 21,481 crore whereas for the hills, it was a far lower INR 419 crores.
At present, the Nagas, Kukis, and other tribal populations living in the hills (~40 percent of the State’s population) have only 19 seats in the Manipur State Legislative Assembly, whereas the Meiteis (50 percent of the population) have 40 seats.
With such disproportionate representation, the Kukis and the Nagas are left dependent on a State Assembly that is controlled by Meitei lawmakers, irrespective of party affiliation. Existing literature produced by the Kukis asserts that since the laws and the policies are mere instruments of the Meitei assertion into the tribal areas, the former cannot see any solution to the ongoing conflict under the current arrangement.
Scholars have also reflected on the uneven development in Manipur; they argue that the marginalisation of the Kukis and Nagas is not merely because of their limited political representation but also related to their locality, ethnic status, and history.
Governance deficit and Demands for autonomy
The issues of asymmetric political representation and development are worsened by a persisting governance deficit. As mentioned briefly earlier, insurgency movements belonging to each of the ethnic communities have established governance mechanisms parallel to the formal governance structures in Manipur. In the absence of a perceived or real governance, the informal governance structures play important roles.
Arguably, the governance deficit can be directly attributed to the faulty and ineffective decentralisation of power in Manipur, where the populations in the hill districts are often unable to obtain justice for their grievances. As scholars have argued, the linkages between identity and discrimination in governance have driven ethnic polarisation in Manipur.
The key issues related to decentralisation in Manipur are the formation, and the functions, of the Hill Areas Committee (HAC) and Autonomous District Councils (ADCs), as well as the demands for the Sixth Schedule status for the Hill districts. The HAC, formed under Article 371C with the legislation of the Manipur State Assembly (Hill Areas Committee Order, 1972) and the ADC through the District Council Act-1971 (enforced in 1973) aimed at protecting the rights, entitlements, and interests of the tribal populations in the hill districts. Accordingly, the six ADCs were constituted to ensure decentralised governance for the State’s tribal people. However, the ADCs of Manipur are often toothless; with their limited legislative and judiciary powers, they remain dependent on the State Government for policies to be implemented. They are reduced to being mere administrative and executive bodies, creating resentment and grievances.
Yet, such conflicts are not always limited between the valley-based majority and the hill-based minorities. Even among the tribal groups—i.e., the Nagas and the Kukis—there is no consensus on the extension of Sixth Schedule provisions in the ADC areas. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, in its report of March 2002, recommended the extension of the Sixth Schedule in the Hill areas of Manipur.
(To be contd)