Manipur solution lies in reconcile, reform, disarm. Not in dramatics

The civil war-like situation needs to be curtailed through strong administrative measures and military operations. The core issue of land rights must also be addressed and resolved.

File photo of a car burning in the aftermath of clashes at NH 102 between Imphal and Moreh | Praveen Jain | ThePrint

The ethnic conflict that erupted in Manipur on May 3 last year continues, with occasional flare-ups marked by brutality and violence of the worst kind. However, unlike the historical neglect of northeastern issues, this conflict has remained in the spotlight—ironically due to the relative silence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the dramatised eloquence of the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi. The silence and dramatics apart, the issue requires the concerted efforts of all stakeholders for resolution, as it hinders the progress of the people of the Northeast. Their integration with India, once considered a distant fantasy by those who ruled us for over 300 years, has become a reality in the 77 years since Independence, thanks to the persistent political, economic, and military measures pursued by successive governments.

Those of us who have served in these remote regions know the deep-seated nature of blood feuds in tribal societies, where past conflicts have sown seeds of vengeance nurtured by memories of war. The sense of alienation caused by vast distances and poor communication has further complicated efforts to integrate these communities into the national mainstream.

Despite these challenges, the hill peoples of the region possess valuable qualities: a sense of adventure, resilience, and a straightforward approach to life’s challenges, which could significantly contribute to the creation of a composite Indian civilisation—diverse in its origins but united in its ideals and aspirations.

The relative peace that had prevailed in the Northeast in recent years was a significant relief to Indian security forces, who were already deeply embroiled in the fight against terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and left-wing extremism in the Red Corridor. The last thing our country can afford as it stands on the brink of a quantum leap in its economic and political status is to keep its frontiers vulnerable to conflict.

To resolve the conflict, we must first acknowledge its core issues—land rights, ethnic tensions, and historical grievances.

 

Deep-rooted resentment

The roots of the current conflict in Manipur can be traced to the legacy of medieval geopolitics, along with the history, demography, and geography of the state. However, the immediate trigger for the clash between the state’s two major communities was a now-revoked directive from the Manipur High Court, urging the state to initiate the process of classifying the Meiteis as Scheduled Tribes (ST).

The Meiteis, who make up 53 per cent of the state’s population, are largely confined to just 10 per cent of the state’s geographical area—the Imphal Valley, surrounded by hills. The remaining 90 per cent of the land, primarily hilly terrain, is protected for the 47 per ent of the population, of which the Kukis and Nagas are prominent. Article 371(c) of the Constitution grants these tribes certain exclusive rights.

While Kukis from Myanmar and Nagas from Nagaland have been settling in the already crowded valley rather than the hills, Meiteis are denied access to the hills because they are not classified as ST. The Meiteis view this restriction on settling anywhere in their own state as unfair and unjust. To enable free settlement across the state, they seek ST status, which would also entitle them to reservations in jobs and other concessions—a prospect the Kukis fear would allow the already politically, economically, and administratively dominant Meiteis to further marginalise them. Forty out of 60 MLAs in the state assembly are from the Imphal Valley. And those living in this region have gained better access to education, healthcare, and other opportunities for upward mobility. This has led to a deep trust deficit between the two warring communities. Although the Meiteis are predominantly Hindu and the Kukis Christian, ethnic identity plays a far more significant role in this conflict than religious identity.

Historically, the Meiteis followed the Sanamahi religion until about two centuries ago when they adopted Hinduism. They have since sought to project a pan ethno-cultural identity, even attempting to revive their old Sanamahi faith. Several insurgent groups, such as the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), were formed to assert Meitei ethnic identity and autonomy. However, over time, the situation has improved and mainstreaming has become more complete. Yet, the fact that the BJP is in power in the state has added to the lingering mistrust among the Kukis, particularly concerning religious matters.

 

Reconciliation and reform

Both communities must be guided toward reconciliation. The civil war-like situation needs to be curtailed through strong administrative measures and military operations. Both sides should be compelled to disband their “volunteer forces” and village defence mechanisms, and all weapons acquired through looting or other means must be surrendered.

The Central forces, still largely respected by both communities, could play a crucial role in building confidence through increased deployment. Ensuring the safe return of displaced people to their villages, along with allocating funds and deploying peacekeeping elements of the armed forces to repair and rebuild damaged infrastructure—including roads, bridges, houses, and places of worship—would provide a much-needed healing touch. Given the fact that most of these structures are relatively low-cost, the task may not be as daunting as it would be in other parts of the country, but it can definitely create a conducive atmosphere for a political or legal solution to the conflict.

Finally, the core issue of land rights must be addressed and resolved. While granting ST status to the Meiteis could lead to them monopolising opportunities, especially in jobs, their right to buy land within their state should be recognised without granting them other typical ST concessions. Relevant laws and rules may need to be revised to reflect this.

If administrative solutions prove inadequate, the matter could be referred to the higher judiciary, as a follow-up to the High Court’s decision. This approach could help resolve the issue—similar to how the Supreme Court settled the contentious Ram Janmabhoomi dispute.

KV Madhusudhanan is former Inspector General and Chief of the Northeastern Sector of the CRPF. He retired in 2012. Views are personal. 

(Edited by Asavari Singh)