Manipur, a picturesque state nestled in the northeast of the country, has been facing a tumultuous situation over the past few weeks. Since May 3, when ethnic clashes first broke out in the north-eastern state, around 130 people have died, 352 have been injured and some 60,000 have had to flee their homes, stricken with panic and fear. The private residences of several legislators, ministers, and political leaders, as well as police stations, have been attacked and burnt down and state armouries have been looted.
What is unfolding in Manipur is primarily an ethnic clash between the two large dominant communities in the state―the largely Hindu Meiteis, who live in the plains, and the Christian majority Kukis, who dominate the hills. The immediate trigger was a high court order that proposed a tweak in the state’s reservation matrix, bringing the Meiteis within the Scheduled Tribe fold. But the state government’s aggressive moves — including its unilateral withdrawal from some tripartite agreements between itself, the Centre and militant groups, and its so-called anti-encroachment drive in the forested hills that sparked fears of displacement and dispossession — have also contributed to the conflict.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Understanding the complexity of the situation is the first step towards finding a lasting solution. Manipur’s diverse cultural fabric, with its varying religious, linguistic, and ethnic backgrounds, demands a comprehensive approach that respects and celebrates this diversity. Acknowledging the rich tapestry of identities within the state paves the way for genuine dialogue and reconciliation among all stakeholders.
The ethnic clashes in Manipur often stem from historical grievances and misunderstandings. At the root of Manipur’s problems is an old scar: equitable access to sparsely available resources. For example, recent reports mention that about 65 per cent of the population that includes the Meiteis inhabit just about 10 per cent of the landmass in the central valley and 90 per cent of the geographical area comprising the hills is inhabited by about 35 per cent of the population, triggering constant conflict.
Recognizing and addressing these deep-rooted issues is essential for healing and forging a united society. By promoting platforms for inter-community dialogue, historical inaccuracies can be corrected, grievances can be aired, and mutual understanding can be fostered.
Manipur needs a concerted effort to facilitate interactions between different communities, promoting understanding and empathy. Initiatives such as cultural exchanges, sports events, and festivals that bring people from different backgrounds together can help bridge the gaps that divide communities. By focusing on shared aspirations and common goals, trust can be built, and the foundations of unity can be established.
As things stand today, a thick blanket of mistrust and fear envelopes the state. In this context, a return to normalcy must be a necessary basis to address the grievances of the affected parties that led to the conflict in the first place. There cannot be any redress when groups continue to engage in targeted violence against each other, enforce blockades to prevent the transportation of essential goods and services, and continue to prevent displaced people from getting back to their homes.
The Union government’s constitution of a peace committee comprising eminent public figures in the state has hit a snag with many of them refusing to join it or suggesting that they have been added to the committee without prior consultation. As a result, the peace process is in a shambles.
The success of a peace initiative requires that all groups in a conflict are represented and include representatives with public standing or a record that transcends their identities. The withdrawal of quite a few public figures from this initiative, unfortunately, reveals the ethnicisation of civil society in Manipur and complicates the process of peace building.
The government should still not give up on persuading prominent political and civil society representatives to engage in a dialogue with one another. It must consider sending high-level emissaries to bring all stakeholders back to the negotiating table and the security establishment must re-establish a reputation of impartiality and credibility.
The government also needs to dispel the perception that elements in the local police are complicit in the violence and crack down on errant personnel. There is a deep divide between those who administer the state and the people. The state government is seen with suspicion by the Kukis because Biren Singh is considered to be pro-Meitei. Therefore, accountability must be fixed for administrative lapses and law-and-order failures.
With a deep trust deficit between community leaders and State government representatives, it is incumbent upon civil society members, within and outside Manipur, to take up the cause of rebuilding inter-community ties and not letting militant and chauvinist groups hijack the role of representation.
A new “healing touch” exercise is likely to be much more difficult but is probably more necessary than ever before. This is a sensitive part of India that shares a border with Myanmar. Its vulnerabilities need to be addressed through better defence preparedness. While the immediate need is to end violence and restore law and order, a comprehensive solution will have to address the various divisive issues and factors operating in the state. But the key lies in initiating and persevering with political processes that promote peace and tranquillity in this crucial north-eastern state.
(Anish Esteves is a Senior Content Editor at a start-up based in Mumbai.)
