How can we negotiate for peace in Manipur in the aftermath of the brutal violence that has left thousands of people homeless, 1,700 houses burnt, 221 churches and numerous vehicles burnt and 72 people including women and children killed, while thousands still suffer from traumatic experiences, hundreds of people are in the relief camps, and 35,000 people are internally displaced?

Internet connections were shut off and curfew was imposed. The conflict between the Meitei and Kuki tribes broke out on 3 May in Manipur after a peaceful protest march was organised by the All Tribal Students’ Union Manipur (ATSUM) against the Manipur High Court’s order directing the State government to submit a recommendation for the inclusion of Meiteis in the Scheduled Tribe (ST) list to the Central government within four weeks.

Advertisement

The local media reported that 1,041 guns and more than 7,000 rounds of ammunition were taken by miscreants from the Police Training Centre at Pangei and Indian Reserve Battalion (IRB) amidst the outbreak of violence and these guns – except 300 – have not been returned to the government till today. The Meitei are the dominant majoritarian political class who hold 40 of the 60 seats in the State Legislative Assembly.

They comprise 53 per cent of the population whereas the Kuki/Zomi tribe accounts for 16 per cent. This conflict is not a simple Hindu-Christian communal conflict, but has been brewing for the past many years with a long disenchantment. The Meiteis lay claim to a 2,500- year-old civilization but they feel that they have been left behind in getting top government jobs, and access to land in the hills because tribes are protected by Article 371 (A).

The Meiteis are categorized into General (GE), Other Backward Caste (OBC) and Lois (SCs) residing in the valley, and they occupy around 10 per cent of the land whereas the tribal people reside in the hills, and own 90 per cent of the land. A point of contention is that the tribes can buy land in the valley, but the Meitei cannot buy land in the hills as it is protected by Article 371(C).

The Meitei hold political power and some Kukis have institutional positions of power in bureaucracy and walk in the corridors of power. Some of the Meitei ruling political class have fewer educational qualifications and hence the bureaucracy, mostly occupied by Kukis, seems to have an upper hand. Hence, there is tension between the Meitei ruling political class and Kuki tribal bureaucracy.

Both Kuki and Meitei formed their armed groups to protect their interests. The state government declared some tribal-owned forests as reserved forests and the tribals who depend on it as their means of livelihood felt threatened by this new policy of exclusion. And, there is a rise of radical rightwing Meitei organisations who focus on neo-Meitei nationality that promotes Sanamahi religion, not Vaisnavite Hinduism.

The rise of the neoMeitei Sanamahi religious identity confronted the conflict of interest of the tribal Christian identity. Each of these groups has demands and the state has played identity politics to manage them. In the eventuality of a Naga and Kuki political arrangement, the Meitei felt the need to have ST status and it’s almost like a pre-emptive measure.

Another cause of tension is the poppy plantation by tribal people in the hills. The poor tribal farmers can’t afford to invest capital worth Rs.1.2 lakh and above in such plantations. It is alleged that some elite class often invests to take the surplus value from the poppy plantation and timber but the poor tribal farmers are blamed. These existing problems intersecting caste, tribe, religion, class, and the like were facilitated by the political class and hence, the solution to the problem needs to be made through political settlement.

Ten Kuki-Zomi MLAs (seven of them from BJP) have urged the Union government to carve out a ‘separate administration’ under the Indian Constitution. The Kuki demand for a separate administrative district is going to create a problem since there are several interlocking processes and internal problems. There is a possibility that the Nagas may also ask for their aspiration for greater Nagalim. Metaphorically, the current situation in Manipur is like a pressure cooker that is about to blow its whistle.

Epistemic violence is imposed by both communities and the conflict is fullblown and it is extremely difficult to talk about peaceful co-existence at this juncture. The idea of India is grounded in the principle of social justice, inclusivity, and diversity and it’s rooted in Enlightenment philosophy. However, the idea of India has failed again in Manipur as AFSPA is still in force in the state although revoked in some parts.

And violence against the Kukis has been justified by the infiltration of the Kukis from Myanmar, drug smuggling, and the like. The infiltration of Kukis from a neighbouring country is another national security problem but the state has proven to be ineffective in protecting its international borders.

If the state is seriously concerned about the infiltration of the Kukis, the international borders should have been sealed a long time again. It’s the failure of the state to identify people without borders and attempt to deport them. This is the immediate trigger for violence. It is for the government to reach out to the victims and offer them not just relief packages but security, and permanent peace for both parties.

Secondly, the affected victims suffer from a trust deficit and hence, the state must cause the ‘trust’ factor to be restored. All community representatives have to negotiate for an amicable solution. The state has to assuage the Kukis and assure them of complete security. Thirdly, the challenge for the state is that Kukis may not come forward for peace talks unless they get their demands. Maybe a tripartite agreement may appease the tribal people.

There is a tough task ahead for the state. Peace cannot be achieved by coercion, but it can only be achieved by understanding and negotiation between the parties. The future is an open moment, and it depends on our collective effort to learn from mistakes and usher in a new era.

(The writer teaches at the University of Hyderabad.)