Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, during his short Manipur visit on September 13 after more than two and half years of confounding silence and absence since a violent conflict broke out between the Meiteis and Kuki-Zo group of tribes, announced nothing to appease either side in the conflict.
In either of the two public meetings he addressed, one at the Peace Ground, Churachandpur and the other at Kangla, Imphal, there were no hints that the demand of the Kuki-Zos for a separate administration of Union Territory status would be considered, nor was there a mention of dismantling of the buffer zones created after the trouble broke out or to ensure free movement for all along the highways which the Meiteis want.
He did meet children from relief camps at both the venues. Although in his speech he made no mention of the internally displaced persons, IDPs, the Governor Ajay Kumar Bhalla who accompanied him to both the places did say in his address that a three-phase plan for having the IDPs return to their original homes is being worked out.
The expectations of the parties in conflict were dashed, but equally disappointed are also legions of commentators standing on presumed moral high grounds who have been pronouncing their verdicts on what is and what should be in all that have been happening in Manipur.
However, to be fair, what the PM ended up doing was somewhat inevitable. Unlike what many presume, this is not a bilateral matter between the warring groups – Meiteis and Kuki-Zos. Manipur is a multi-ethnic state, with 33 recognized Scheduled Tribes, and several non-tribal communities including the Meities who form a thin majority.
Continual adjustments of frictions and tensions among these communities have been the fabric of Manipur’s long history. Quite tragically, a sinew of sanity snapped in this process between Meiteis and Kuki-Zos on May 3, 2023, and a lot of the blame for this would have to go to populists who dangerously stoked and amplified the insecurities of either side.
If not for this catastrophic turn of events, all of the immediate causes of the nightmare the state is in, could have been settled without resort to violence. Eviction of encroachers from forest lands, demand for Scheduled Tribes status amongst a section of the Meiteis, the fight against spread of poppy plantation menace, illegal immigration from across the border, all could have been handled legally and consensually in ways where nobody ended up demonised or dehumanised.
Given this multiplicity of interests amongst Manipur’s many communities, even now, any plan for a lasting resolution to the present depressing crisis can only be after bringing all stakeholders on board, in particular the Nagas, who are the second largest ethnic group after the Meiteis.
This is so especially if the deemed settlement is territorial. Nagas and Kukis share virtually the same living space in the hills, and Nagas claim most of the land Kukis are now settled were theirs and are still theirs. Unless such matters are first put to rest, bigger trouble can be expected if non-consensual settlements are pushed.
If the PM’s avoidance of matters directly related to the present conflict can be understood as inhibited by this constraint, what however remains unforgivable is his two-and-half year delay in coming here. Had it been otherwise, and had his government ensured the law remained strictly and solely in the hands of the law, even if it meant dismissing the then state BJP government which was obviously not up to the challenge, the wounds suffered by so many ordinary people would not have been as deep, making reconciliation far easier. But better late than never.
One message was however clear from proceedings. There will be no rewards for violence and all dispute settlements will have to be across the negotiating table. This is prudent, for once violence is allowed to become a bargaining chip, what Paul Collier called a “conflict trap” can result and other players will begin using the same currency in the hope of similar rewards.
Other than these between-the-lines messages, it can be said the PM’s visit was no more ceremonial. Billboards and full front-page advertisements in all major local newspapers in Manipur on the morning of his arrival loudly spelled this out already. He was coming to announce a total of Rs. 8500 crores worth of projects for Manipur under the slogan “Viksit Bharat, Viksit Manipur”.
Of this amount, Rs.1200 crores worth were projects already completed awaiting inauguration, and these include two additional Manipur Bhavans, one at Salt Lake, Kolkata, and the other at Dwarka, New Delhi. The remaining Rs. 7300 crores were marked for infrastructural projects to be launched across the state.
In the state, the mood is hence a mix of relief and disappointment. Many are sore that nothing substantial was spelled out on strategies to resolve the current crisis. Kuki-Zos in particular were unhappy that their demand for bifurcation of Manipur to create a Union Territory for them was not taken cognizance of and one BJP MLA among them went public saying the PM’s visit was a waste of resource.
Many Meiteis too were sore that the PM was silent on their demands, such as their inclusion in the ST list and highway protection. However, on their core concern of preservation of Manipur’s territorial integrity, they would be happy by what the PM indicated. He had generous praises for Manipur’s history, its contribution to the freedom struggle as a reward for which Andaman Nicobar’s Mt. Harriet was renamed Mt. Manipur in honour of rebellious Manipur princes imprisoned there by the British. He also eulogised the contribution of the state’s athletes and artistes in bolstering India’s image etc.
In resolving Manipur’s problem, probably some kind of autonomy model will have to be thought of, either by strengthening existing grassroots governance institutions or else by introducing new ones. But as the meaningful silences of the PM implied, this will have to be by consensus of all stakeholders, and not just of the two warring parties.
This article was first published in The New Indian Express. The original can be read HERE
Editor, Imphal Review of Arts and Politics and author
