Manipur a test of govt’s ability to manage unity in diversity
AS euphoric celebrations over Maharashtra state elections lead to a ‘masterstroke’ discourse and headlines, the continuing agony of Manipur has been relegated again. A brief mention of rushing an additional 10,000 CAPF (Central Armed Police Forces) soldiers towards addressing the spiralling Manipuri violence seemingly satisfies the national consciousness. Official figures peg the death toll at about 258, with about a lakh displaced. The substantially higher unofficial figures are automatically pooh-poohed. News coming out of the troubled state is patchy, if any. The complete breakdown of Manipur is a mere footnote in news.
Manipur is a microcosm of India with religio-ethnic diversities, polarised assertions and a deeply contested history that tests the ruling dispensation’s ability to manage the constitutionally aspired unity in diversity. Manipur hosts an amalgamation of Hindus (Vaishnavite Meitei), Christians (Kuki-Zo, Nagas), Muslims (Pangals), Buddhists and tribals and it even had Jews (B’nei Menashe) once upon a time.
Therefore, the erstwhile Kangleipak state (Meitei-ruled Manipuri state) has always had to deal with underlying disaffection among its non-Meitei populace, especially in the hills dominated by Kukis and Nagas. But a certain geographical arrangement and understanding of respecting the local turfs and sensibilities of the various diversities ensured a semblance of normalcy.
In a way, Manipur mirrors the challenges that had beset the newly independent India. It, too, had required the celebration of the commonality of differences as opposed to insisting on the homogeneity of the ‘land of the pure’ or Pakistan. The foundational and constitutional ‘idea of India’ was a direct contrast to the majoritarian ‘idea of Pakistan’as India was fundamentally predicated on inclusivity, secularism and a deliberate accommodation of ‘others’.
Therefore, the ‘idea of India’ always beseeched a large-hearted outreach, protection and affirmation of those whose voice could get naturally diluted in a democratic majority. Ultimately, as numbers matter in a democratic contest, those with lower numbers (read minorities) could get lost. It is this imagined vulnerability of the minorities that led to societal dissonance in regions with higher numbers of minority denominations, like Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab or the Northeast states.
The integration of many of these regions, such as Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India in 1948, or the Maharaja of Manipur’s signing of the merger agreement in 1949, were by themselves complicated events. Obviously, the forces inimical to India fanned the situational dissonance towards secessionism. It had taken Delhi to course-correct many of its missteps and admit to some excesses whilst signing the peace accords in places like Punjab and Mizoram to trigger the end of insurgent movements. Finally, the ‘Idea of India’ had triumphed by convincing the restive diversities, especially minorities, on the genuineness of Delhi in honouring the foundational spirit of unity in diversity.
Sadly, along with Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur has the dubious distinction of facing the longest continuing insurgency and the maximum number of insurgent groups. Groups like the People’s Liberation Army of Manipur (PLA), People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak and Kangleipak Communist Party represent the societal grouping in the state. Other prominent insurgent groups include Naga groups like the National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak-Muivah and National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Khaplang as also the Kuki National Army representing the Kuki ethnicity. These groups have separate, specific, and, often, conflicting agendas that seek to protect their respective turfs and arrangements.
These armed groups could either be pursuing purely secessionist movements, such as the PLA, or protectionist agendas to defend their communities from seceding space in the delicate arrangement from usurpation or diminishment. Many groups have fought violently in the past, like the Kuki forces against the Naga groups, or, like now, the Meitei multitude against the Kukis.
Delhi always had a difficult task in addressing each group and challenge uniquely, without resorting to blanket narratives or presumptions. Therefore, while it is relatively peaceful in the once-troubled places like Nagaland, Mizoram and Assam, the divergence of competing interests in the Manipuri cauldron have failed to end the insurgent movements therein. Although till about 2022, the broadly respected arrangement of various groups ensured relative peace, but not completely. Delhi had to tiptoe around the armed aspirations to not be seen as favouring any group or community.
The local arrangement among the Manipuri divide was given to a sudden fracture, with the local courts suggesting affirmative action that seemed to suit one group over the other perceptively. This move, coincidentally, fitted well with the thrust of majoritarian politics that had entered the region and spurred the ruling dispensation in Delhi into power even in Imphal for the first time in 2017. The fact that this winning partisan thought had successfully conflated religion with nationalism, it axiomatically led to ‘othering’ or aspersions of ‘anti-national’ on to communities that did not fit the formula.
Dangerously, the perception gained credence that Delhi had made a choice among the restive groups that threatened the traditional set piece of local arrangement . The supporting rhetoric was typically one-sided, with murmurs of one side having foreign support, gunrunning, smuggling, territorial denialism and even aspirations of a ‘Christian state’. It didn’t help matters that the actions of the law and order agencies also seemed to favour one side. The absence of the the Prime Minister’s visit despite the scale of tensions and bloodshed only deepened the distrust amongst the proverbial ‘others’ in the conflict.
The new narrative may have electorally benefited the ruling dispensation in the region, but it has also brutally polarised the communities and allies, like the regional National People’s Party, had no choice but to throw in the towel. It is true that conflict-ridden regions like Jammu and Kashmir and Manipur have very little impact on national government formation, with just three seats for the former and two for the strife-torn state. However, these regions with substantial number of minorities or ‘others’ test the sincerity and commitment of the ruling government to the constitutional morality of unity in diversity.
