The civil war in Manipur is a condensation of various contesting variables which serve as a bone of contention between segmented identities, wherein the nature of power-sharing, identity assertion, and the paucity of robust institutional design to accommodate these assertions has characterised the state polity regarding its minority tribals, with that of token federalism. The failure of statesmanship in accommodating diversities, resulting in the inept engineering of a semblance of equity along political, cultural, and identity lines, consequently fails to address, acknowledge and represent the multicultural entity the state is.
Token Federalism in Manipur:
The very ethos of federalism entails a conscious constitutional design and the institution of safeguards and arrangements which caters to minority concerns. Thus, this model will institute peace and promote coexistence within a larger polity, thereby nullifying the propensity of conflicts and discontent.
In the case of Manipur, it is well established how the minority hill tribes, in general, and the Zo people, in particular, are distinct socio-political groups with their own tribal identity, distinct history, customs, and territory. However, there are continual encroachments into these tribal domains held sacrosanct by majority interests, subverting constitutional norms. There are well-documented cases of arbitrary legislation, constitutional disdain, and disregard for existing institutional arrangements on the part of the Meitei Government regarding matters concerning tribal domain, matters such as land, representation, and of their distinct history. The inadequacy of the Hill Areas Committee (Art. 371C), which is susceptible to being constantly overridden by arbitrary legislation, such as the ‘3 Bills’ in 2015, the arbitrary declaration of Reserved Forest, Protected Forest, Wildlife Sanctuaries, Wetlands and the consequent evictions of Zo people from their homes, cosmetic arrangements for an impotent Autonomous District Council, with provisions and funding heavily dependent on the state government are some pertinent issues which caused grave discontent among the Zo people.
It is pertinent to mention that there is always an overarching majority interest, which successive State governments across all party lines seek to uphold, promote and sustain. Tribal cognizance of this superstructure is the primary reason for the widespread demand for a total separation from Manipur.
On the onslaught of the majority interest and the consequent reflection of the same in resultant legislations, the constitutional and institutional designs that envisaged the protection of tribal interests are futile. The sort of federalism, or rather asymmetrical federalism, which seeks to accommodate tribal interests vis-a-vis Meitei dominance is just a cosmetic arrangement that can be altered or truncated at will, to much tribal peril. The institutions seeking to decentralise power, such as the continually overridden Hill Areas Committee and the defunct, impotent, and fiscally dependent District Councils, were just tokens handed out to tribals to subdue the demand for more autonomy. The failure of this tokenism in safeguarding the tribal interest and the absence of a robust federal arrangement is what eventually culminated in deafening discontent. Thus, the violence in Manipur and the demand for separation may be attributed to token federalism, where the tribal assertion of dignity has rendered this arrangement obsolete.
With the current conflict eventually characterising one that of ethnic cleansing along Zo’s perspective, with massive fatalities and the incessant attacks of tribal villages by valley-based outfits and police commandos, the demand for lasting peace through Separate Administration became louder, as it has been viewed that the current conflict has lacerated the long-standing wounds of political injustice.
Efforts Towards Cosmetic Peace:
It is common knowledge and concern that peace must be heralded back after such widespread conflict. However, any form of restitution to peace will prove futile and will be rendered a cosmetic arrangement if the structural injustice that permeates tribal discontent is left unmitigated. No form of tokenism nor cosmetic federal arrangement will heal the deep anguish nor provide respite to the deeply rooted animosity.
Amit Shah’s appeal for 15 Days of peace on the 30th of May, 2023, has failed to yield results. That very day was marked with fresh violence, while relentless attacks on Zomi-Kuki villages continued unabated. However, these incessant attacks were met with wide recalcitrance, which eventually resulted in heavy casualties on both counts.
Subsequent endeavours to bring about peace had proved futile. The Peace Committee that had been so constituted with the Chief Minister as a member is met with wide resentment, as Biren Singh himself, from a tribal lens, is a major perpetrator of the violence.
Moreover, talks with various Civil Society Organisations and leaders have yet to bring about results. Ministers and MLAs taken to oversee, supervise, and manage relief camps included no Zomi-Kuki MLAs. Lamka (Churachandpur) and Kangpokpi districts pre-dominated by the Zomi-Kuki were assigned to Muslim and Naga MLAs. This is rather evident that there is no initiative by the Biren Singh government to build trust among the communities, nor was there an inclination towards ensuring steps regarding confidence-building measures.
Rather, there was a vehement attempt on the part of the state government to quash tribal narratives and tribal stories about the conflict. FIRs, banning of books, etc., are being resorted to, which gives one an idea that the state might have been no less participatory in perpetrating the violence, thus resorting to concealing facts or at least undermining Zo’s narrative and their stories.
It is noteworthy that the establishment of peace entails acknowledging faults and recognising atrocities rather than concealing them.
Thus, the gross tribal costs owing to the violence, the resultant distrust, and scepticism of any endeavour on the part of the state to bring about restitution signal the massive rift along the Meitei-Zo lines. With such widespread suffering, and decades-old perceived structural and political injustice, any other form of peace will be rendered cosmetic, and disdain of tribal interest and nullification of their dignity.
Null Affinity Across Segmented Societies:
Manipur, as established, fails to be a multicultural entity. The unabated negation of tribal assertion and dignity, and the override of constitutional provisions, though tokens, has writ large the deficiency of holding these conflicting entities within the same sub-national polity.
A pertinent case that should be considered is the deep segmentation of the society in Manipur along the Meitei-Tribal divide. Ethnic cleavages run deep, where Meiteis and Zo people claim mutual exclusivity without any semblance of affinity. No cultural practice is common to each group, while the state government is fancied along majoritarian taste, much to tribal resentment. Also, the religious divide has been a poignant issue that has been a centrepiece in the current ongoing violence. As many as 357 churches have been burnt by the Meitei mob, which evokes a sense of religious animosity despite years of co-existence, although on shaky grounds, sustained by a delicate balance with minimal statecraft necessary for the same.
The conflict soon boiled over and gained widespread Filipe owing to the latent enmity. In the past, instances of arbitrary majoritarian overreach, coupled with political manoeuvers which failed to acknowledge tribal rights to the lands they occupy, legislations deemed inconsiderate and thereby seen as the stripping of tribal dignity and their belongingness had gained adequate attention in the conflict. Moreover, throughout the conflict, deep animosity and enmity permeate the whole strata of Manipur society, where any individual belonging to the ‘other’ is seen as a target and, thus, some as victims. This is a major cause behind the mayhem in Imphal Valley, where innocent tribal victims were massacred by mobs belonging to the ‘other’ group. A corollary to this is the arsoning of tribal houses and the relentless attack of adjoining villages to a point where tens of thousands are displaced in safer locations, in their respective belts.
Thus, any form of settlement and bringing about peace will prove futile if it fails to arrest the dearth of injustice felt by the Zo people after much-perceived suffering of deemed subjugation. The very nature of the conflict has affected all levels of social strata- even tribal elites in the Imphal valley had been ‘driven out.’ This implies that any form of consociationalism is ruled out as the possibility of elite-level power sharing is dismissed with all ties being severed.
Robust Federalism: The Case for Separation:
For a pluralistic cultural entity like Manipur to be minimally successful, i.e., stable and legitimate in the eyes of its varied inhabitants, it must command respect and allegiance and cultivate a sense of belongingness from the same across all segments of the populace. The people within Manipur, irrespective of communities, must identify as equal stakeholders of the same territory they were deemed to be part of. However, the various institutional arrangements and the very nature of state functioning have been seen as a wide disregard for the Zo people. Even the lethargic handling of the conflict, amidst continuous tribal sufferings, has instilled a sense of being ‘othered.’ At the same time, the state’s apparatus caters to the Meitei plight, thereby almost seen as lopsided redressal through the tribal lens.
So the essential question is no longer institutional design or the namesake of token federalism but a prior and much more elemental question, one of nationalism and belongingness to the country at large. At the same time, identities remain intact, and the attribution of dignity for the same.
A distinctive feature of political identity is that it is attached to a geographical area. Zo people, having been occupants of their territory since antiquity, need acknowledgement by India and Manipur. Although there are attempts at recognising and acknowledging these assertions, they are just cosmetic arrangements susceptible to majoritarian overreach, as witnessed in the build-up of the Manipur conflict.
Thus, with the failure of token federalism, and the cosmetic arrangements to bring about peace always susceptible to be proved futile, it is only imperative that further contestations and conflicts and the propensity to the same are obliterated through a political solution. The deep segmentation, animosity, and the resultant violence cast conflicting entities into domains they can call their very own, and the Manipur state government orders and legitimacy were contested in tribal domains. This gives a certain sense of de-facto separation.
Dear Reader,
Over the past four years, EastMojo revolutionised the coverage of Northeast India through our sharp, impactful, and unbiased coverage. And we are not saying this: you, our readers, say so about us. Thanks to you, we have become Northeast India’s largest, independent, multimedia digital news platform.
Now, we need your help to sustain what you started.
We are fiercely protective of our ‘independent’ status and would like to remain so: it helps us provide quality journalism free from biases and agendas. From travelling to the remotest regions to cover various issues to paying local reporters honest wages to encourage them, we spend our money on where it matters.
Now, we seek your support in remaining truly independent, unbiased, and objective. We want to show the world that it is possible to cover issues that matter to the people without asking for corporate and/or government support. We can do it without them; we cannot do it without you.
Support independent journalism, subscribe to EastMojo.
Thank you,
Karma Paljor
Editor-in-Chief, eastmojo.com
The de-facto separation given rise to by the conflict and events building up is only the eventual end of such cosmetic institutionalisation, which had feebly sustained Manipur. Thus, the calls for a robust mechanism that insulates tribal rights, identity, custom, land, and ways of life have gained traction and are rendered imperative. This will prevent the truncation of tribal assertion of dignity while cultivating a tribal sense of belongingness to the multicultural entity India boasts of, which till today, is vehemently negated by Manipur.
Views expressed are personal. L Do Sian Mung is an alumnus of the University of Hyderabad and an independent researcher.
Also Read | Biren Singh govt major hurdle in restoring peace in Manipur: Left
