How is Manipur?

Manipur is the gateway of India to Southeast Asia. This geographic situation influenced the course of her history and cultural development. According to a Manipuri historical work, Sanamahi Laikan, it was in the early eighteenth century, during the reign of Hindduized Garinaniwaz, that the name Manipur was officially introduced. ‘Mekhale’ was another name of the kingdom, as indicated by a coin of the same king describing him as Makhaleswar, Lord of Mekhala, or Mekhale. This name did not occur in the pre-Hindu literature, especially the chronicles of the kingdom. The indigenous terms of Manipur are Kangleipak, Poireipak, and Meitrabak. In the legendary or proto-historical period, the principality centred at Kangla, the capital of the later Meitei Kingdom, was known by several names referred to in both historical and literary works.

Manipur has three major ethnic groups: The Meiteis of the valley, the Nagas, and the Kukis of the surrounding hills. The insurgency problem has infested Manipur state for the last 63 years, starting with the formation of the Naga National Council (NNC) in the Naga Hills district of Assam in 1956. Angami Zapu Phizo, the head of the Naga National Council, had declared the Naga Hills district of Assam’s independence on August 14, 1947. By 1955, the NNC had established contact with East Pakistan, obtained weapons, and been trained by the Pakistan Army. The Naga insurgency in the Naga Hills naturally spread to the Naga tribes in Manipur. There are four Naga hill districts in Manipur, namely Tamenglong, inhabited by four sub-tribes of Naga, like the Rongmei, Liangmei, Zemei, and Inpuimei; Ukhrul, inhabited by the Tangkhul; Senapati, occupied by Mao, Poumeis, and Maram; and Chandel, inhabited by the Anal and several small tribes.

The first year of Indian rule has badly alienated the people of Manipur. Firstly, there was a considerable increase in corruption after the elected State Assembly was dismissed, several top administrators were removed, and an Indian counterpart brought from Delhi replaced them. The main issue was the attitude of the new Government officials brought from outside the state of Manipur. The people of Manipur were ethnically and culturally very different from the plains people of India. The new Indian officials did not try to understand this ethnic and cultural divide. One of the reasons that led to the rise of the first insurgent group, UNLF, in the valley was how the Centre ignored the elected Assembly of Manipur when the Maharaja was forced to sign the instrument of accession in Shillong. Secondly, a host of unfeeling bureaucrats from Delhi were hoisted on the Manipur Government. Besides being insensitive to the local Meiteis people and the local administration, they were also corrupt. There was a group called the Revolutionary Government of Manipur. This group slipped into the Sylhet district and tried to meet the East Pakistan Government to ask for help, as the Naga National Council had done. About 200 Meitei youths have gone to East Pakistan, led by Oinam Sudhir, Nameireikpam Bisheshar, R.K. Sanatomba, and Dhaneshwar. Oinam Sudhir, the leader, had come first to contact the East Pakistan authorities to arrange for their cadres’ training.

Human rights are a recent phenomenon, but they have been the cardinal principle for engagement for the army for a long time when called in aid of civil authority, which demanded strict compliance with impartiality, minimum force, and good faith. When one looks at the record of human rights violations in the last century, it is appalling to find that in the face of emerging guerilla activity in the Boer campaign in South Africa, General Roberts ordered that houses in the vicinity of any railway lines, bridges, or telegraph lines that had been attacked should be burned down or blown up. Collective fines were also imposed, and Boer civilians were forced to ride on trains as a deterrent against attack. The Indian Army’s record was more humane and practical in a similar situation in Nagaland. To avoid ambushes of vehicle convoys, 50 metres on both sides of main roads were cleared of vegetation and undergrowth, which gave road opening parties a clear view and denied the insurgents ambush sites to hide. And yet, there were cases—fortunately a few—when ambushes resulted in death and injury; soldiers burned houses suspected to have sheltered the insurgents; beat up innocent bystanders; or used force that was not commensurate with the situation in the heat of the moment to avenge their dead comrades. By their very nature, counter-insurgency operations are restrictive, cause inconveniences to people, and interfere with their daily chores. There was no way vehicle searches, frisking of individuals, cordoning and searches of villages or a group of houses, roadblocks, and night curfews in a selected area could be avoided. It was possible to mitigate the inconveniences, but they could not be fully eliminated.

Meitei, Kuki, and Naga militias have for decades fought one another over conflicting homeland demands and religious differences, and all sides have clashed with India’s security forces. The latest flare-up, however, is almost entirely between the Meitei and the Kuki. The Meitei have roots in Manipur, Myanmar, and surrounding areas. The vast majority are Hindu, although some follow the Sanamahi religion. The Kukis, mostly Christians, have spread across the north-east of India, and many of those in Manipur can trace their roots back to Myanmar too.

Meiteis mostly live in the Imphal valley, while Kukis live in the surrounding hills and beyond. The attack in May came after fake reports that a Meitei woman had been raped by Kuki militiamen. This unleashed “a new, deadly cycle of reprisal violence on Kuki tribal women, allegedly by Meitei mobs.”

If Manipur wishes to experience sustainable peace and maintain its territorial integrity, it is incumbent on all the communities to step back from their belligerent and rigid positions and work towards a compromise. In fact, it is the Meitei-dominated state government that should lead the way by agreeing to give greater autonomy to the hill tribes in administering their own affairs. The Kuki community, for their part, should reconsider their demand for a separate state or an autonomous territorial council because such a council will not contain contiguous Kuki-Chin-Mizo inhabited areas. In fact, this could be the cause of future ethnic clashes between communities residing in these districts. In addition, the community also has substantial intra-tribal differences and rivalries, with the 1999 Kuki-Paite clash being a case in point. These differences could potentially aggravate further in the future, thus defeating the purpose of a separate territorial council for the community.

Each ethnic group strives to assert itself as the major stakeholder in power politics, ignoring the aspirations and interests of the other ethnic groups. This contesting political space gives birth to ethnic-based insurgent groups to safeguard, project, and propagate their own ethnic identity, interests, etc. The existence of one particular ethnic-based insurgent group threatens the interests and aspirations of other ethnic groups. This sense of insecurity and fear leads to the formation of other groups. Each ethnic group in Manipur now has its own insurgent group fighting for its ethnic cause. This phenomenon has led to the fragmentation of society based on ethnic lines. As the ethnic fault line widens and the trust deficit increases, Manipur’s state is completely polarised. This has created a situation that can hardly be undone.