Xi camouflages his Master Plan for crushing Taiwan’s freedom

BANGKOK: Sources that were within the higher...

QATAR’S ROLE AS MEDIATOR BETWEEN HAMAS AND ISRAEL IS CRUCIAL

LONDON: Acting as a back channel mediator...

Inside the elections: A look into the role EC’s poll observers play

NEW DELHI: Every general election, over 2,000...

A holistic approach needed to solve the Manipur problem

Editor's ChoiceA holistic approach needed to solve the Manipur problem

Many of the issues involved in Manipur, to some extent have their origins in history.

New Delhi

The state of Manipur has been on the boil for over two months, the violence claiming in its wake, over 100 lives. More than 40,000 people have been displaced, rendered refugees in their own homeland. The damage to property both private and public, has been colossal. This current spate of violence is purely an ethnic conflict between two dominant tribal communities within the state, the Kukis and the Meities.

Manipur in fact, has been the spectre of double edged violence and unrest for close to six decades. One is the armed insurgency against the state, and the other, ethnic conflict between communities.

Hostility and animosity between the Kukis and the Meiteis has been long standing. Geographically the state can be bifurcated into two zones. The Imphal Valley comprising the plains, occupying around 10% of the total area, is inhabited predominantly by the Meitei tribe, constituting 53% of the population. The surrounding hill areas form the abode of the hill tribes, namely the Kukis and the Nagas, constituting around 40% of the total population. The hill tribes have been particularly resentful of the fact that the Meiteis, being the more educated community, command greater political clout, enjoy a higher standard of living and have better access to government jobs. Another grouse is that a major chunk of the state’s resources is spent on the development of the Meitei dominated plains.

The spark that ignited the flame of the current round of violence, was the verdict by a Bench of the Manipur High Court, directing the state government to take a decision within four weeks on a long-standing demand by the Meitei community, to be accorded the status of a Scheduled Tribe, a verdict strongly resented and objected to by the Kukis and the Nagas.

The first concrete sign of discontent among the Kukis surfaced in the late 1980s, when the Kuki National Organisation (KNO) a “separatist” group came into being. Violent clashes between the Kukis and Meiteis followed, resulting in a considerable loss of lives. The elected representatives of the Kukis, highlighting the fact that the very existence of the tribe was threatened, put forward a demand for an autonomous Kukiland within the state of Manipur, comprising the Kuki dominated district of Churachandpur and Chandel, and the Kuki dominated areas of the adjoining Naga dominated districts like Tamenglong and Ukhrul.

Historically, right up to 1919, the Kukis led an existence of independent tribes ruled by their chieftains. The Imperial Government seldom interfered with their way of life. The first resistance to British hegemony took place from 1917 to 1919. Termed as the Anglo Kuki War, the resistance ended in a victory for the Imperial forces, after which the territory was subjugated by the British. Since then, the Kukis had been yearning to regain their lost independence. This further manifested itself during World War II, when the tribe sided with the Japanese and the Indian National Army. Their hopes were however dashed to the ground with the Allied victory, and were further shattered with the accession of Manipur to the Indian Union.

Unfortunately, sections of public opinion outside India’s Northeast, tend to view this present spate of purely ethnic violence as an extension of the insurgency. Though both to a large extent, it is also deemed as the outpourings of frustration, disappointment and disenchantment among the Manipuris. But many of the issues involved differ, and to some extent, the roots have their origins in history.

Manipur’s existence as an independent state dates back to 1110 A.D. when the kingdom of Kangleipak, was established. The kingdom, later renamed Manipur, continued its independent existence till its defeat in the Battle of Khongjam during the brief Anglo-Manipur War of 1891. Thereafter, Manipur became a princely state in the Indian Union, under British Paramountcy. Incidentally, the Battle of Khongjam, is still officially commemorated every year on April 23.

With the end of British rule in 1947 and the Lapse of Paramountcy, the then Maharaja of Manipur, Bodh Chandra, assuming the status of Manipur would be that of an independent nation, relinquished his monarchy. A new Constitution, perhaps the first of its kind in India, was instituted under the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947. The Maharaja of Manipur became the Executive Head of an elected legislature, and a new democratic Constitution was framed for Manipur. As mandated by the Act, an election was held and the first ever elected Manipur State Assembly was inaugurated by the Maharaja on 18 October 1948.

These developments did not go down well with the Government of India. In September 1949, the Governor of Assam, Sri Prakasa, invited Bodh Chandra to Shillong supposedly for talks. The Maharaja instead was presented with a tailor-made Instrument of Accession or Merger Agreement, whereby Manipur would have to accede to the Indian Union, which clearly meant that the state would have to forgo its independence. Bodh Chandra asked for time to discuss the matter with his council of ministers, To the contrary, the Maharaja found his residence surrounded by personnel of the Indian Army and he was placed under house arrest. Finally, on 21 September 1949, Bodh Chandra was left with no option but to sign the Instrument of Accession.

An executive order was then passed dissolving the Manipur state assembly and the elected council of ministers. The people of Manipur were gravely incensed by this action on part of the Government of India, and considered it a major humiliation and betrayal. Subsequently, Hijam Irabot Singh, a member of the dissolved council went underground and sowed the seeds of protest which grew into a full-blown insurgency by the early 1960s.

After its merger, Manipur was categorised as a part “C” state, administered by the President of India through a Chief Commissioner. In 1956, Manipur became a union territory. The Insurgency continued to grow. In the forefront were armed separatist groups like the United National Liberation Front (UNLF), the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK), to name a few.
In 1970, Government of India declared Manipur as a disturbed area, and all separatist organisations were declared unlawful. With the violence growing out of control, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, (AFSPA)) was invoked and still continues to be in force, a measure which has antagonised and alienated the people of Manipur no end. Finally, after a prolonged agitation, Manipur was granted full-fledged statehood 1972, in the hope that this was put an end to the growing insurgency, a miscalculation that clearly backfired.

Immediately, the biggest challenge before the Government of India is to find a long lasting and permanent solution to the various dimensions of violence that have been plaguing this north eastern state. The vitiated atmosphere has been spreading the fear of insecurity among the people and irreparably hampering the process of economic development.
The government needs to adopt a more holistic approach to dealing with the problem. What is called for is a two-pronged effort aimed simultaneously at curbing the insurgency on the one hand, and resolving the ethnic conflict on the other. Though resolution of the conflict and permanent peace ought to be top priority, the powers that be would do well to realise that there is a vast difference between long-term reconciliation and short term peace-making. The increased presence of the armed forces and the paramilitary, may do well to quell the violence and restore calm in the short term, but would provide no long-lasting solution to the deep-rooted problem which would facilitate the process of permanent reconciliation.

A Round Table dialogue needs to be initiated. The aggrieved parties do have a right to be heard as equal partners. This could go a long way in removing misconceptions and arriving at a platform from where the destination would be not just peaceful coexistence but mutual co-operation, bonding and ever-lasting peace. At this point, the demand for an autonomous Kukiland within the boundaries of the state of Manipur, is an option well worth considering. Side by side, the need of the hour is a long-drawn-out programme of economic emancipation, necessarily including creation of employment opportunities, industrialisation. trade promotion to name a few.

- Advertisement -

Check out our other content

Check out other tags:

Most Popular Articles