UNDENIABLY, the so-called secular state of India has undergone a reign of ethnic and communal terror under Narendra Modi’s rule. Amid the Hindu-Muslim communal riots in recent months, an ethnic clash erupted on 3 May 2023 in India’s north-eastern state of Manipur between the Meitei people, a majority that lives in the Imphal Valley, and the tribal community from the surrounding hills, including the Kuki and Zo peoples. The ongoing violence in Manipur between the Kuki-Zomi tribals and the largely Hindu Meiteis has witnessed direct clashes between two ethnic groups ever since the 1990s.
A historical retrospect: Manipur’s main ethnic groups: Kukis, Meiteis and Nagas, are at loggerheads over the political future of Manipur. On one side, the Meiteis who live in the central low-lying plain want a country of Manipur with full sovereignty, and on the other, both Nagas and Kukis, who live in the hills surrounding the plain, are in favour of the reorganization of Manipur into three parts so that they can control certain territories outside Manipur.
The Nagas call their homeland Nagalim, while the Kukis call their homeland Kukiland. Nagas and Kuki/Zo are the major tribe conglomerates and the Kukis are divided into numerous tribes like Thadou people, Hmar people, Zou people, Vaiphei people, Gangte people, Simte people, Tiddim people, Paite people, etc. In 1993, Hindu Meiteis clashed with Pangals (Muslims), and there was horrific violence involving the tribal Nagas and Kukis, which saw more than a hundred Kukis massacred in a single day and thousands driven from their homes.
If Nagalim and Kukiland are carved out of Manipur into two new states of India, Manipur will lose a large part of its land. But, this will not go unchallenged since Meiteis are determined to preserve the integrity of Manipur and its territory, while the Nagas and Kukis are at loggerheads as their territorial claims overlap. In this context, the central aim of this essay is to examine how and why the three ethnic groups view Manipur so differently, and the political assertion of ethnicity into issues that produce conflict. At the heart of the conflict between them is the long-standing hills versus valley identity divide and the disparities in development between the two.
Since May 3, the northeastern Indian state of Manipur has witnessed repeated inter-ethnic clashes primarily between two local ethnic communities, the Meitei and Kuki. The violence has resulted in over 75 deaths and the burning of at least 1,700 buildings (including homes and religious sites). More than 35,000 people are currently displaced as well, with many now living in one of the 315 relief camps in the state. As the fighting continues, these numbers may also be rising.
According to Paul Brass (1991: 347) the ethnic group formation involves three sets of struggle. The first set of struggle takes place within the ethnic group itself for control over its material and symbolic resources, which in turn involves defining the group’s boundaries and its rules for inclusion and exclusion. The second set of struggle takes place between ethnic groups as a competition for rights, privileges and resources. The third takes place between the state [nation state] and the groups that dominate it, on the one hand, and the populations that inhabit its territory on the other. The valley (plain) is mainly inhabited by the Meitei speaking population (native Manipuri speakers).
The violence has driven hundreds of Manipur residents to seek refuge over the border in Myanmar’s Chin state, which is itself racked with conflict between rebel groups and the forces of General Min Aung Hlaing’s military junta. Journalists have faced restrictions on reporting from Manipur, and an internet blackout has been in place for more than a month. “This is state-sponsored violence,” said George Guite, who runs a non-governmental organisation that advocates for Kukis’ rights, adding that peace could only be achieved if New Delhi sacked the local administration and took direct control of Manipur.
According to the Amnesty International report, ‘’laws and policies that were passed without adequate public and legislative consultation eroded the rights of human rights defenders and religious minorities. The government selectively and viciously cracked down on religious minorities, and explicit advocacy of hatred by political leaders and public officials towards them was commonplace and went unpunished. Punitive demolitions of Muslim family homes and businesses were carried out with impunity. Peaceful protesters defending minority rights were presented and treated as a threat to public order. Repressive laws including counterterrorism legislation were used rampantly to silence dissent. Authorities intimidated human rights defenders using digital technologies, including unlawful surveillance. Adivasis and marginalized communities including Dalits continued to face violence and entrenched discrimination.’’
Arguably, since Modi’s re-election in 2019, New Delhi has fostered most controversial policies– that explicitly ignore Muslims’ rights– and are intended to disenfranchise millions of Muslims. Under Modi, violence against Muslims has become more common propelling anti-Muslim sentiments. These villainous moves drawn by the Hindutavti agenda of marginalizing the Muslim community in India, have sparked protests in India while drawing international condemnation. Most importantly, the Hindutva-hired terrorists have no fear of any legal prosecution since all the governmental institutions have been extremely politicized.
A world view about India: In the given scenario of ethnic and communal divide, one question– above all strikes at the heart of the Indian democracy’s uncertain future –who belongs in today’s India? Since June 20, Naredara Modi has been on an official visit to the United States, this is an ethical and moral obligation of the Biden Administration to take the issue of human rights abuse (communal and ethnic violence in India.
Needless to say, India’s constitutional and legal architecture vindicated: ’’India sought to build a liberal democracy—one that afforded all its citizens equal rights and protection under the law. Inherent in this vision was an embrace of secularism and India’s diversity’’ While India’s founding fathers conceptualized India as a secular state fostering multiculturalism, the BJP’s sponsored policies of religious, racial and cultural segregation in IIOJK, including the rest of India strongly endorse that India is a polity where every day humanity is bleeding.
—The writer, an independent ‘IR’ researcher-cum-international law analyst based in Pakistan, is member of European Consortium for Political Research Standing Group on IR, Critical Peace & Conflict Studies, also a member of Washington Foreign Law Society and European Society of International Law. He deals with the strategic and nuclear issues.
Email: rizvipeaceresearcher@gmail.com
