A Long History of the 2023 Ethnic Violence in Manipur
Manipur
The
present Manipur is geographically divided into the hills and the valley. The
valley constitutes 10% of the total geography and is inhabited principally by
the Meitei and other communities, who constitute almost 60% of the population
of the State. Most Meitei people have followed the Bengali Vaishnavism form of
Hinduism since the 18th century; around 15% follow Deobandi Sunni Islam, and
more than 10% follow the indigenous Sanamahi religion. While there are
religious differences among Meiteis, they are ethnically the same. Socially and
under the Indian reservation system, they fall under the general/Economically
Weaker Sections (EWS) category, mostly Brahmins and erstwhile royal and
aristocratic families, Other Backward Classes, and the Scheduled Castes,
exclusively made up of the Loi community. None of them is categorized as a
tribe. Meiteis represent 40 out of 60 legislative assembly seats and dominate
all other spheres of life: political, cultural, economic, and social. One good
example is the Manipuri, an identification category that refers only to Meiteis
and excludes tribal communities. The hills, which cover 90% of the
geographical area and 40% of the population, are inhabited by the Naga and
Kuki-Zo communities, with various sub-tribes. Most of them follow the American
Baptist denomination of Protestant Christianity. The hills are represented by
the 20 legislative assembly seats and one (out of three: two Lok Sabha and one
Rajya Sabha) parliamentary seat. These
issues become crucial against the backdrop of what Political Scientist K.K.
Suan Hausing calls “contesting totalizing projects” of three competing
communities (in the form of autonomy movements), which run parallel to and are
counterposed to India’s nation-building project in the region. These
counter-positions to the Indian state are rooted in the “thesis of
separateness” proposed by British officials John Hutton and N.E. Parry in the
early 20th century. Building on this thesis, which emphasized racial,
historical, cultural, and linguistic distinctions, Sir Robert Neil Reid
suggested to the Government of India that the Northeast tribal hill areas be
administered separately, possibly under the British Government. As India’s
independence approached and discussions about the future of these areas
intensified, this thesis became a foundational element in the memoranda and
representations submitted by the Naga and Zo (Mizo/Zomi) people to both
colonial and postcolonial Indian governments, continuing to influence their
projects to this day.
Naga, Kuki-Zo, and Meitei Communities
Since the
ethnocultural boundaries largely coincide with territorial space in Manipur,
demands of the Naga and the Zo peoples for carving out separate autonomous
homelands challenge the Meiteis’ totalizing project. Hausing points out how the
problem of such totalizing projects is further aggravated by the quagmire of
international legal complexities around the term “autonomy” itself. The idea of
a “unique history and political situation” is key to the Naga totalizing project.
The Nagas had upheld this perspective since 1929, when they presented a
memorandum to the Indian Statutory Commission, known as the Simon Commission.
They reiterated this stance in the Nine Point Agreement of 1947, also known as
the Akbar Hydari Agreement, and more forcefully in the Sixteen Point Agreement
of 1960, which was instrumental in establishing the State of Nagaland. Despite
these efforts, the crucial demand for the “integration of Naga territory,” a
significant element of the Sixteen Points Agreement, has not been realized for
the Naga-populated areas in Manipur.
The Zo
people have also persistently advocated for their totalizing project since
1947, beginning with a memorandum submitted by the Mizo Union. This document
called for “territorial integrity, solidarity, and self-determination.” Their
effort aims to revive the spirit of the 1896 Chin-Lushai Conference held at
Fort William in Calcutta. Organized by the British, this conference was the
first significant attempt by the Zo people to seek administrative and political
unification of their lands, now divided between Bangladesh, India, and Myanmar.
The Naga and Zo totalizing projects share a common theme: they are rooted in
the modern historical need to overcome the colonial-era division of their
communities into separate and distant borderlands. Therefore, the “unity and
integrity” of these ethnic groups are central to their respective projects.
The
Meiteis’ totalizing project is largely based on the State’s royal chronicle and
other official historical accounts that promote the idea of a Meitei nation.
Historically, this nation encompassed territories also inhabited by the hill
people. Moreover, it is argued that the State has successfully integrated
diverse identities into this unified construct. The distinction between the
“hill people” and the overarching Meitei identity arose from a historical event
in the eighteenth century, when Vaishnavite Hinduism began to significantly
influence the Meiteis under the kings of Manipur. Religion became a more
prominent social identity marker and a way to define the “self” and the “other”
toward the end of the nineteenth century. This shift occurred when Christian
missionaries, primarily American Baptists and Welsh Presbyterians, began
influencing the hill areas.
Colonial Administration of the Hills and the Valley
The evolving ethnospace was increasingly politicized by British colonial administrators, who deliberately implemented a separate administrative system for the hills and plains over time. The British formalized this separation. However, this ongoing political and legal issue was considered resolved by establishing a representative institution through the Manipur State (Hill Administration) Regulation, 1947, under the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947, even before India’s independence. The Hill Regulation was claimed to have received the consent and endorsement of notable figures from the hill areas. After India gained independence, the legacy of the Manipur State (Hill Administration) Regulation, 1947, continued through the creation of six Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) for the hill areas under the Manipur (Hill Areas) Act, 1971. However, the functioning of these councils led to the centralization of power, since the ADCs were given administrative, but not legislative or judicial, powers.
The 2023- Violence
Historical tensions between the hill communities and the state were significant, but key events leading up to the violence were also significant. The State government exploited the February 2021 Myanmar coup to target Kuki-Zo villages under the guise of an anti-drug campaign and forest conservation, which agitated the Kuki-Zo organizations. The latter argues that these actions were carried out without following the legally established procedure and with malicious intent. This situation was exacerbated by the Manipur High Court’s April 2023 directive to the Union Government to include the Meiteis in the Scheduled Tribes category. The HC directive sparked significant concern among tribal groups. Many fear that granting this status to the Meitei could undermine the protections currently afforded to the tribes, particularly in areas such as employment, legislative reservations, and land ownership. They were anxious that their rights and resources may be diluted if the Meitei are included in the ST category, potentially threatening their cultural and economic safeguards. In this context, a Tribal Solidarity March was organized on May 3, 2023, that began as a protest against State policies but turned violent after a minor incident during the rally.
Comments
Post a Comment