Pallab Bhattacharyya
(pallab1959@hotmail.com)
The present violence in Manipur, which erupted from the triggering incident of the Tribal Solidarity Rally resorted to by the All Tribal Students’ Union of Manipur (ATSUM) against the move for the granting of ST status to Meiteis, is an eloquent testimony to the severe fault lines existing in the state since India’s independence.
The first fault line is the accession of the state from British India itself. During the days of British rule, Manipur was one of the Princely States, and by the late 1930s, the princely state had negotiated with the British administration for its preference to continue to be part of the Indian Empire rather than part of Burma, which was separated from India in 1935 to weaken the freedom struggle erupting in Burma at that point in time. On August 11, 1947, Maharaja Budhachandra signed the Instrument of Accession, joining India. Later, on September 21, 1949, he signed the Merger Agreement, merging the kingdom into India, and this action was later disputed by groups in Manipur, as having been completed without consensus and under duress. This has led to the growth of the Metei insurgency in Manipur.
The second fault line is the demography of the state. As per available census data for 2011, 41.39% of the state population are Hindus, 41.29% are Christians, 8.39% are Muslims, and the rest are other groups like Jain, Budhist, etc. However, the ST population of 11.67 lakhs out of 28.6 lakhs of the total population is mostly Christian.
Thirdly, the Meiteis, who constitute 53% of the population, are confined to the valley area, which is roughly 10% of the state’s area. In fact, 64% of the population lives in the valley, which represents 40 of the state’s MLAs. However, the hill areas, which comprise 90% of the state’s landmass, have only 20 MLAs, and this is a point of friction with the tribals, primarily Nagas and Kukis.
Fourthly, the geographical location of Manipur, which Pandit Nehru described as the Jewel of India and Lord Irwin as the Switzerland of India, is very strategic, with Mizoram, Assam, and Nagaland on one side and 352 km of Myanmar on the other. The Free Movement Regime (FMR), which allows the tribes living along the border to travel 16 km across the boundary without visa restrictions, alleges the Meiteis, is the primary cause of the infiltration of Kukis across the border to strengthen their cause of a separate state.
The Scheduled Tribe Demand Committee of Manipur started demanding ST status for Meiteis as early as 2012, based on the fact that Meiteis were recognised as a tribe before the merger of the state in 1949. The status is needed to save the community and the ancestral land, tradition, culture, and language of the community, which are under attack by illegal infiltration. The Meiteis, which constitute 53% of the population, are not allowed to purchase land in the hill areas, i.e., in 90% of the land mass of the state, whereas tribals can do the same in hills as well as plains, and this has caused the shrinking of the valley. The threat of Nagalim is also looming large in their perception, and the community has been marginalised in the long run. They also claim that their population dropped from 59% in 1951 to 44% in the 2011 Census. 2006–12 ILP agitation and FMR for Naga-Kuki-Zomi tribes had fuelled the suspicion of their being reduced to a minority-a resurgence of Assam Movement sentiments of 1979–1985.
The tribals, on the other hand, are agitating against the HC direction to the state to consider the Metei demand of ST as this would lead to Meiteis eating into their pies because of their superiority—a sentiment harboured against the Meenas in mainland India. The Meteies countered by saying that the Kukis had usurped most of the administrative posts in the state.
The eviction drive by the Manipur Government in 38 villages of Churachandpur-Khoupum Protected Forest Areas, treating the settlers as illegal encroachers, is, according to the Kukis, counter to their constitutional protection under Article 371C. The government of Manipur has also withdrawn from the suspension of operations agreement with Kuki extremist groups.
The absence of any proactive measures from the GOI when the violence erupted because of its preoccupation with the Karnataka Election had injured the sentiments of the Meteis as the mainland was insensitive to the peripheral’s aspirations.
The Government of India had, however, taken a series of measures to ease the situation: engagement of an experienced 1986 batch IPS (Retd) officer, Kuldeip Singh, as advisor; deployment of additional CPMFs; visit of the Hon’ble UHM; initiation of dialogues with all the stakeholders, etc., just to name a few. However, it is felt that the following steps are the need of the hour for a peaceful resolution of the conflict:
Evaluation of the ST status demand of Meiteis keeping in view the recommendations of the 1965 Lokur Committee, the 2002–2004 Bhuria Commission, and the High Level Committee of 2013 under Prof. Virginius Xaxa Initiation by the GOI of various economic activities like trade, tourism, agricultural farming, etc. and activation of the Act East Policy, primarily engaging the tribal and Meitei people together so that dependence on one over the other is the moving spirit in the entire exercise, This may be time-consuming, but it will be successful in the long run.
Gradual revocation of AFSPA in line with Assam
Greater surveillance in border areas.