By Bhogtoram Mawroh
Whenever it appears that the situation in Manipur could be improving, a provocation or revelation throws the state back into turmoil. The recent upsurge of violence began with the news that the two Meitei students, 17-year-old Hijam Linthoingambi and 20-year-old Phijam Hemjit, missing since July 6, had been killed. The revelation, though heartbreaking, is not totally unexpected. The Meitei have blamed the Kuki for the killing, and there is a strong basis for that. Members of the Kuki community have been raped, paraded naked, beheaded, and burned alive. Is it difficult to believe that there will be some elements within the community who are looking for payback? And as always, in the end, it is the innocents who pay the price. What is worrying is that dozens of people are still missing. It is very likely that they are also already dead. One can hope that it is not the case. But hope has become such a scarce commodity in Manipur right now. This means that the moment there is some semblance of calmness, a new revelation might throw everything into turmoil once again. The important question then becomes: how will all this affect the long-term prospects of peace in the state? How will this conflict eventually end?
The genesis of this conflict lies with the judgement passed by a single-judge bench of the Manipur High Court directing the state government to consider the request of the Meiteis for inclusion in the Scheduled Tribes (ST). This prompted the organisation of the ‘Tribal Solidarity March’ to oppose the demand for inclusion of the Meitei community in the ST category. Violence started soon thereafter. Although the decision of the Manipur High Court was later criticised by the Supreme Court, the damage had already been done. The question is what will happen to that demand now? Is there any possibility of the Meitei getting ST status?
Though not spelled out in the Indian Constitution, Scheduled Tribes have been identified to have the following features: (i) indications of primitive traits; (ii) distinctive cultures; (iii) geographical isolation; (iv) shyness of contact with the community at large; and (v) backwardness. Do the Meiteis fulfill any of these criteria? The mention of primitive traits is highly problematic, irrespective of to whom it is applied. But Meiteis do have a distinctive culture that has been influenced a great deal by the Hindu culture and the Bengali language, which was the official script for the kingdom. It is only recently that the Meitei script has been revived. Still, what is clear is that they did not suffer from geographical isolation and were definitely not shy about having contact with the community at large. Now, regarding backwardness, there could be an argument. However, Meiteis control the statement machinery in Manipur and have achieved great success in the national mainstream as well. This gives them an edge over the existing tribal communities, not just in their own state but in other states as well. So, by what parameters are they going to be judged to be backward? Maybe the Mandal Commission’s methodology of identifying socially and educationally backward classes will be used for this purpose. Based on the 2021 North Eastern Region District SDG Index Report and Dashboard for 2021–22, it is clear that the hill districts are lacking behind the valley in many social, educational, and economic indicators. So, even if the Mandal Commission methodology is used, the Meitei will definitely be found to be more advanced than the existing tribes. So, it begs the question: on what basis will the ST status be given to them? And if they don’t get it, will the deaths of all the people be a colossal waste over something that was never possible in the first place? That will be a really frustrating outcome for the Meiteis.
Quite a few Meitei themselves do not agree with the demand for ST status for the community. According to them, and this is generally accepted by others as well, the whole demand is about land and not the ST status itself. The Indian Constitution has given many protections to the tribals, which include, among others, the prevention of alienation from their land. This takes the form of not allowing non-tribals to own land in tribal areas. On the other hand, since Meitei are not categorised as tribals, no such provisions exist in the valley. Their own growing population and an increasing migration of Indians (and alleged illegal immigrants) have them worried that while the tribals can come down to the valley and buy land, they cannot relieve the pressure on their own land. Certain important questions thus emerge: how much of the land in the valley has passed on to the hands of the tribals and the outsiders? Is it at a scale that is threatening the dispossession of the Meitei in the valley? If not, is that a fear for the future that has not arrived yet? In that case, how can anyone be sure that such a future will actually come to pass now that people are aware of it? So does this mean that all this violence has been perpetuated by an unfounded fear? Is this, not unlike the ST demand, a case of another colossal loss of lives for a spurious issue? But even assuming that the perception of the Meitei that they are losing their land is genuine, what could have been the possible solutions?
If the Meiteis do not get ST status, they would need another kind of constitutional provision that prevents outsiders from buying land in the valley. Outside the tribal areas, it is only in the Himalayan states like Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand that restrictions exist on the buying of agricultural land by people from outside the state. Jammu and Kashmir, in fact, had more stringent provisions, with a complete ban on the transfer of land to outsiders. However, with the abrogation of Article 370, that provision is also gone. In fact, Indians from other parts of the country not being able to buy land in the state was used as one of the arguments for the removal of the constitutional provision. Unless Article 370 is reinstated, it is difficult to imagine that a government that believes in uniformity will actually concede to creating a similar ‘special’ provision for Manipur. For all its implications in terms of national security, Manipur is not Kashmir. Is it then not surprising why the situation has been allowed to fester for this long?
Now let’s assume that the Meiteis do get ST status. Two things can happen. The first is the most obvious: outsiders will be barred from buying land in the valley. That might work for a while, but sooner or later, that will not be enough to accommodate the growing Meitei population. As it is, they constitute more than half of the state’s population but are limited to just 10% of the state’s area. Unless they start practicing family planning, their numbers will rise above the carrying capacity of the valley itself. Then they will look for land outside the valley to accommodate their growing numbers. Now that they are ST, they will become eligible to buy land in the hills. However, even if that facility is available, will they be able to make use of it?
One thing is certain: as long as Kukis continue to be demonised and attacked, the Meiteis will not be safe in the hills. In an area where arms proliferate, the only way Meiteis can stay in Kuki areas is if they wish to be ghettoised, with their movement restricted to only within their area of habitation. The moment a Meitei in Kuki areas is harmed, the cycle of violence will start once again. What about the Nagas though? Will they allow Meiteis to settle in their areas? Even before the Kukis started demanding a separate administration, the Naga had already started fighting for a separate Nagalim. The Meiteis opposed it since they believe the entire Manipur, including the hills (though they don’t stay there), belongs to the Meitei. In other words, the Nagas have no right to demand separation since it is the Meiteis, not the Nagas, who can decide that. So, will the Nagas allow the Meiteis to buy land and settle in the hills, which will legitimise that claim? Instead of having an ethnic cleansing in the future to delegitimize the claim of other people on what a group perceives as their ancestral land, is it better not to allow any form of legitimization from the very beginning? Before allowing the Meitei to buy land in the hills, the Naga will look back at their experience with the Kuki, whom they claimed had encroached on their lands. Will they risk that with another group?
There are some Meitei commentators who claim Meiteis are not actually going to go to the hills since they are valley people. It seems that the memo did not reach the people on the ground, who are using the inability to buy land in the hills as angst against the tribals. But what is not stated is that it is not the poor, land-starved Meitei who will buy land in the hills but it will be the elites who will then engage in speculation or lease it to extraction industries for large sums of money. Does this mean that ordinary Meiteis are being used as cannon fodder for the benefit of the rich? That would, if true, be a very cruel joke played on the people of Manipur.
The underlying reasons for the violence may be much deeper, but, from the perspective of the Meitei, on the surface, the demand for ST status, which is linked with land, has been the flashpoint. The drug trade is just an added layer meant to demonise a warring community. In one of her interviews, apart from accusing the Meitei Chief Minister of the State, Biren Singh, of being part of the drug trade, former cop Thounaojam Brinda also revealed that poppy is cultivated up to Arunachal Pradesh. Last time I checked, there were no Kuki in that state, but there are Naga tribes who stay there.
So, what is the endgame here? What is going to be ultimately achieved by the violence continuing except for making the situation even more intractable and reconciliation impossible? How is that not going to strengthen the case for a separate administration for the Kuki? I know it is difficult to reason right now, but there will come a time when cooler heads will look back at what happened. Then they will ask what it was all about. What did they gain, and what did they lose? Hopefully, it is not too late by then.
(The views expressed in the article are those of the author’s and do not reflect in any way his affiliation to any organisation or institution)