The social and political dimensions of ethnic conflicts in Manipur
|
Anshuman Behera (Observer Research Foundation)
Contd from previous issue
Data from the State Government belie these views, however: Of some 2,518 arrests made under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act between 2017 and 2023, 1,083 were Muslims, 381 were Meiteis, 873 Kuki-Chins, and 181 were from other communities. Moreover, during the same period, the Kuki-Chin community cultivated around 13,121 acres of land for growing poppies while the Naga community cultivated around 2,340 acres.
Along with the Government’s measures to crack down on poppy cultivation and drug trade, the surveys conducted through the MSPC to identify the illegal immigrants induced by the demands from the Meiteis for the implementation of the NRC in Manipur has created fear and anxiety among the Kukis. Moreover, the implementation drives to protect the forests, since October 2022, is perceived to be biased against the Kukis. The eviction of villages, mostly belonging to the Kuki-Z-Chin communities, the demolition of Kuki Churches and of the tribal colonies in Imphal Valley, have all fuelled perceptions among the Kukis that they were being persecuted. The Government rejects any alleged bias against the Kukis. Official figures say that the eviction drive between October 2015 and April 2023 has evicted 413 households from the reserved forests of Manipur. Of these, 280 households were Meiteis (143 Meitei Hindus and 137 Meitei Pangal-Muslims); 59 were Kukis; 38 Nagas; and 36 were Nepalis.
It is around these claims by the Kukis being targeted, and the counterclaims by the Meiteis that the Kukis are shifting the demography by providing a safe haven to the illegal Chin migrants from Myanmar and engaging in poppy cultivation—that the ethnic conflict has worsened since erupting in early May. The ongoing violence has caused heavy losses in lives and property, to both the communities. The failure of the Government in containing violence puts into question its political will in minimising the risks of ethnic conflicts in Manipur through an effective policy framework.
A Way Forward
There is an urgent need for meaningful dialogue among the conflicting communities that could precede confidence-building measures among the ethnic groups. In turn, the only way that such confidence-building measure could be initiated is to bring an end to the violence. The political will of the State Government would be key.
Earlier attempts to engage the ethnic communities in dialogue have offered little in terms of positive outcomes. The deep-rooted hostile sentiments that the communities harbour against one another have hardly left any platform for meaningful dialogue that would at least bring them to a consensus on the issues over which they are battling. Unfortunately, community-based organisations are keeping ethnic sentiments hostile against each other. In such a situation, academics and well-meaning individuals need to step forward to initiate dialogues between ethnic communities. It is important to mention that conflicts resolved through social platforms have more far-reaching positive results than the ones that are managed politically.
Disarming the militant groups (both those that are active and others who have suspended operations) and the civilians engaged in violent activities is of paramount importance, and the onus is on the State and the Union Government to act swiftly. Conflicts of this nature often provide fertile ground for militant groups to operate, recruit, ensure finance, and legitimise their existence and operations. The State of Manipur has been reeling under the massive ramifications of violence for decades and it can no longer afford to have its communities armed against each other. The Governments need to check the illegal flow of arms across the border and their availability within the State.
The issues of competing ethnic sentiments over traditional ownership of land require a critical interrogation. Debates and discussions are required on the rationale of ethnic communities’ assertion of customary ownership on land that necessarily functions around principles of ‘othering’. The position of the Kukis and Nagas to limit the Meiteis, constituting more than 50 percent of the State population, to a mere 10 percent of the land makes little sense. Similarly, the patterns of State-led development benefits being concentrated among the Meiteis need to be reversed. Accordingly, the available land and other resources, socio-political status, and the benefits of development need to be equitably distributed and democratised.
A step forward would be to revisit and restructure the existing political representation, which has long been asymmetric in favour of the Meiteis. The State mechanism must streamline and bring uniformity to the Legislative Assembly Consti- tuencies—this would help bridge the wide gap between the hills and the valley. Thereafter, the issues of decentralised governance and demands for autonomy could rightfully be addressed, as the focus can shift to addressing the legitimate issues of governance without getting compounded by ethnic-specific sentiments.
Infusing a sense of fraternity among the ethnic groups to defeat the existing anarchy of ethnic majoritarianism needs to be prioritised. In doing so, the political will of the State mechanism and the consensus at the social level need to converge. It is important to highlight that the demands for ethnic homeland or separate territorial arrangements are necessarily driven by majoritarian principles. Entertaining the demands for a separate homeland or the assertions of a community as the sole guardian of the territorial integrity of a State defeats the democratic ethos of India. The power elites, across the ethnic communities, should understand that there would hardly be any end to such group-based demands.
Lastly, in an ethnically fragile State such as Manipur, policymaking should rise above the electoral interests of incumbent regimes. Policies around short-term electoral interests have had negative implications on the Nation-building endeavour.
Dr. Anshuman Behera is Associate Professor at the Conflict Resolution and Peace Research Programme, National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS), Bengaluru.
Contd from previous issue
Data from the State Government belie these views, however: Of some 2,518 arrests made under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act between 2017 and 2023, 1,083 were Muslims, 381 were Meiteis, 873 Kuki-Chins, and 181 were from other communities. Moreover, during the same period, the Kuki-Chin community cultivated around 13,121 acres of land for growing poppies while the Naga community cultivated around 2,340 acres.
Along with the Government’s measures to crack down on poppy cultivation and drug trade, the surveys conducted through the MSPC to identify the illegal immigrants induced by the demands from the Meiteis for the implementation of the NRC in Manipur has created fear and anxiety among the Kukis. Moreover, the implementation drives to protect the forests, since October 2022, is perceived to be biased against the Kukis. The eviction of villages, mostly belonging to the Kuki-Z-Chin communities, the demolition of Kuki Churches and of the tribal colonies in Imphal Valley, have all fuelled perceptions among the Kukis that they were being persecuted. The Government rejects any alleged bias against the Kukis. Official figures say that the eviction drive between October 2015 and April 2023 has evicted 413 households from the reserved forests of Manipur. Of these, 280 households were Meiteis (143 Meitei Hindus and 137 Meitei Pangal-Muslims); 59 were Kukis; 38 Nagas; and 36 were Nepalis.
It is around these claims by the Kukis being targeted, and the counterclaims by the Meiteis that the Kukis are shifting the demography by providing a safe haven to the illegal Chin migrants from Myanmar and engaging in poppy cultivation—that the ethnic conflict has worsened since erupting in early May. The ongoing violence has caused heavy losses in lives and property, to both the communities. The failure of the Government in containing violence puts into question its political will in minimising the risks of ethnic conflicts in Manipur through an effective policy framework.
A Way Forward
There is an urgent need for meaningful dialogue among the conflicting communities that could precede confidence-building measures among the ethnic groups. In turn, the only way that such confidence-building measure could be initiated is to bring an end to the violence. The political will of the State Government would be key.
Earlier attempts to engage the ethnic communities in dialogue have offered little in terms of positive outcomes. The deep-rooted hostile sentiments that the communities harbour against one another have hardly left any platform for meaningful dialogue that would at least bring them to a consensus on the issues over which they are battling. Unfortunately, community-based organisations are keeping ethnic sentiments hostile against each other. In such a situation, academics and well-meaning individuals need to step forward to initiate dialogues between ethnic communities. It is important to mention that conflicts resolved through social platforms have more far-reaching positive results than the ones that are managed politically.
Disarming the militant groups (both those that are active and others who have suspended operations) and the civilians engaged in violent activities is of paramount importance, and the onus is on the State and the Union Government to act swiftly. Conflicts of this nature often provide fertile ground for militant groups to operate, recruit, ensure finance, and legitimise their existence and operations. The State of Manipur has been reeling under the massive ramifications of violence for decades and it can no longer afford to have its communities armed against each other. The Governments need to check the illegal flow of arms across the border and their availability within the State.
The issues of competing ethnic sentiments over traditional ownership of land require a critical interrogation. Debates and discussions are required on the rationale of ethnic communities’ assertion of customary ownership on land that necessarily functions around principles of ‘othering’. The position of the Kukis and Nagas to limit the Meiteis, constituting more than 50 percent of the State population, to a mere 10 percent of the land makes little sense. Similarly, the patterns of State-led development benefits being concentrated among the Meiteis need to be reversed. Accordingly, the available land and other resources, socio-political status, and the benefits of development need to be equitably distributed and democratised.
A step forward would be to revisit and restructure the existing political representation, which has long been asymmetric in favour of the Meiteis. The State mechanism must streamline and bring uniformity to the Legislative Assembly Consti- tuencies—this would help bridge the wide gap between the hills and the valley. Thereafter, the issues of decentralised governance and demands for autonomy could rightfully be addressed, as the focus can shift to addressing the legitimate issues of governance without getting compounded by ethnic-specific sentiments.
Infusing a sense of fraternity among the ethnic groups to defeat the existing anarchy of ethnic majoritarianism needs to be prioritised. In doing so, the political will of the State mechanism and the consensus at the social level need to converge. It is important to highlight that the demands for ethnic homeland or separate territorial arrangements are necessarily driven by majoritarian principles. Entertaining the demands for a separate homeland or the assertions of a community as the sole guardian of the territorial integrity of a State defeats the democratic ethos of India. The power elites, across the ethnic communities, should understand that there would hardly be any end to such group-based demands.
Lastly, in an ethnically fragile State such as Manipur, policymaking should rise above the electoral interests of incumbent regimes. Policies around short-term electoral interests have had negative implications on the Nation-building endeavour.
Dr. Anshuman Behera is Associate Professor at the Conflict Resolution and Peace Research Programme, National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS), Bengaluru.