The changing contours of the Manipur conflict reveal contrasting realities. On the one hand, schools reopened in the Imphal Valley after a two-month hiatus, while on the other, more than 2,000 defence volunteers in Churachandpur protested the beheading of Langza village volunteer David Theik by Meitei militants. These incidents, coupled with the recent killing of mentally challenged Kuki-Zomi woman Debora Donngaihching Hangzo in Imphal, contradict the peace talks propagated by the majoritarian valley populous.
The Meira Paibis (Meitei women’s group) stopping the Indian Army from stationing its troops in affected peripheral areas, a ‘no-work, no-pay’ rule amid massive displacement, and an indefinite internet shutdown show the inability – or the lack of will – of Manipur’s political dispensation to stop the growing ethnic violence. The Narendra Modi government’s silence is deafening, too.
Root cause of deepening fault lines
The 2005 burning of the state library of Imphal, where most of the historical data of Manipur’s tribal communities was documented, combined with systematic radicalisation of the Meitei community, seems to have gradually caused the ethnic clashes targeting hill tribes, particularly in Zomi-Kuki inhabited areas. The attacks on Zomi-Kuki tribals, which began on 3 May this year, are the outcome of a systemic build-up and planning over several months at least.
This disturbance can also be traced to developments emerging from the controversial opening of the Chivu-Chandrakirti Park in Behiang, Churachandpur, in October 2022. It remains a site of much controversy between the Zomi-Kuki tribes in Churachandpur and the valley’s Meitei community. According to The Wire, “the stone inscriptions at Chivu misrepresent the victory of the British over the Lushai [tribal chiefs] as a victory of the Manipur Maharaja” during the Lushai expedition of 1871-72. Commemorating the event in this way highlights the overriding predominance of majoritarian state history over local histories in a culturally diverse region like Manipur.
This controversy was followed by the state’s ‘immigrant hunting’ programme, which alienated the Kuki-Zomi people and led to Manipur’s own indigenous tribals being branded as ‘refugees’ and ‘immigrants’. In January 2023, the Imphal Municipal Corporation initiated a survey of all Kuki-Zomi areas in and around the Manipur capital, marking them with paints and numbers. Subsequently, on 3 May, heinous mobs attacked thesehouses and properties. The state government had also demolished three Kuki-Zomi churches in Imphal, stating they were illegally built on government lands.
The Manipur government followed up on these events by evicting tribal villages accused of encroaching on reserved forests. This led to a protest rally on 10 March in various hill districts under the aegis of the Indigenous Tribal Leaders Forum (ITLF).
Despite the rally being peaceful, Manipur CM N Biren Singh accused Kuki-Zomi insurgent groups of instigating unrest. Harping on this claim, he withdrew the state government from the tripartite talks that had been going on since 2005 between underground hill groups, the state government, and the central government for the purpose of finding an administrative settlement for the relative autonomy of tribes in Manipur.
Also read: Manipur violence an ‘indictment’ of Centre, setback to long-term strategy in northeast, say scholars
The hill-valley divide isn’t imaginary
Zomi-Kuki tribes have inhabited Manipur’s hills since before British colonial rulers conquered the region in 1891. They were only separately annexed during the Chin-Lushai Expedition of 1889. The Maharaja of Manipur never controlled the hill tribes and their lands, and the British administered them separately.
After the Partition of India, the Manipur Merger Agreement of 1949 did not effectively include tribal areas and tribal administrations under chiefship. “Not even a single inch of hill area was covered under this agreement,” wrote Brigadier Sushil Kumar Verma in The Complexities of Tribal Land Rights and Conflict in Manipur: Issues and Recommendation. The tribal chiefs, particularly the Zomi chiefs, dealt with the Raja of Manipur as an equal partner. When Raja Goukhothang Guite was treacherously captured and killed in an Imphal jail in 1872, tensions escalated between the Meitei and Zomi.
In 1873, John Butler, Deputy Commissioner of Cachar, recorded the Peace Treaty of Sanjenthong between Sumkam Guite – son of deceased Raja Guite – and Chandrakirti, incumbent Raja of Manipur: “The formula of the oath declared that peace should now last between the two nations until the sun rose in the West, until rivers flowed up hill, until hair grew on stones…”
Another treaty, the Treaty of Moirang, was signed on 10 April 1875 between Maharaja Chandrakirti and Sumkam Guite. The terms of the agreement stated that “Sumkam’s territorial jurisdiction will extend upto Moirang, and the Maharaja will rule over the rest of the plains. Both will collect revenues from their respective subjects…” This effectively entrenched Sumkam Guite’s control over Moirang. Lasting peace was finally achieved with the conclusion of this treaty.
Article 371 (C) of the Constitution, added by the 27th Amendment Act of 1971, divided Manipur into hill and valley areas, giving special protection to territories with tribal settlements.
Also read: Pulwama mosque, Manipur incidents bad for Army’s image. There’s need for course correction
Without justice, there can be no peace
The central government should involve communities in Manipur to chart a concrete solution to the ongoingturmoil. Even if peace and normalcy, as defined by the majoritarian view, set in, unresolved issues will eventually erupt like a volcano. It is not uncommon for majorities to subvert marginalised voices to give precedence to their own manufactured narratives.
Like French philosopher Michel Foucault’s concept of ‘power/knowledge’, where power is shaped by accepted forms of knowledge, scientific understanding, and truth, the unbalanced viewpoint of media organisations suggests dominant valley politics continue to redefine history through structures of power.
Peace without justice is like tyranny. Long-term solutions to conflict will require protecting tribal rights, culture, and land. Tribal areas should be allowed to govern themselves. They should be given legislative, executive, and financial power to develop their own lands. Meitei militant groups featured in the list of government security agencies should be pressured to accept negotiations with the Indian State, just like the Zomis, Kukis, and Nagas did in the form of Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreements or cease-fire frameworks. There should be a neutral body to look after the process of healing and reconciliation.
The only workable solution to this tussle is establishing a separate administrative unit for the Zomis and Kukis, with a Union Territory status and a separate legislature devoid of Meitei influence.
Will PM Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah read the writing on the wall and hear the voice of the people? Only time will tell.
The author is an Assistant Professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University and teaches Language, Literature, and Culture Studies. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)