Report on “The Unfolding Ethnic Conflict in Manipur”

Dr. Pushpita Das, Research Fellow, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), spoke on “The Unfolding Ethnic Conflict in Manipur” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 22 May 2023. The session was moderated by Col. Gurinder Pal Singh, Research Fellow. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, the Director General of MP-IDSA, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), the Deputy Director General of MP-IDSA and scholars of the Institute were in attendance.

Executive Summary

The tribal dimension in the North Eastern socio-political landscape is one of the dominant issues. The flashpoint of Manipur is innately associated with the issue of tribal claims and aspirations. The supposedly disproportionate land holdings among theMeiteis, Kukis and Nagas have been the crux of the problem. This resentment has further been exacerbated by the migration of these communities into the hill and valley areas. The overlapping territorial claims by various militant organisations have caused mutual distrust and hostility amongst the communities which is exacerbated by corrupt and non- inclusive governance.  

Detailed report

Col. Gurinder Pal Singh began the meeting with a brief introduction about Dr. Pushpita Das.

Dr. Pushpita Das detailed the large scale ethnic violence witnessed in Manipur on 3 May 2023. The genesis of this violence could be traced back to a protest march organised by All Tribal Students Union of Manipur in headquarters of all the hill districts of Manipur. Initially a peaceful march, it turned violent when the Kuki militants allegedly attacked Meitei community members in Churachandpur district. In retaliation the Meitei community attacked Kukis in valley areas. In the aftermath of these violent ethnic conflicts more than 70 people were killed and more than 48,000 people were rendered displaced, along with large scale damage to infrastructure. Prompt action was taken by the government with suspension of internet, curfew was imposed and a shoot at site order was given.

The protest march was in response to a High Court judgement in April 2023. The High Court ordered the state government to send a recommendation for the inclusion of Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe community. The Supreme Court has termed this judgement as ‘factually wrong’. The Meitei community has historically been demanding the inclusion in the Scheduled Tribe list. In 1995, the Meitei community was granted Other Backward Class (OBC) status. In 2012, the Scheduled Tribe Demand Committee of Manipur Valley was established and the demand for inclusion of the Meitei community in the Schedule Tribe category intensified. In 2013, the Union Government asked the state government to forward the recommendations for the inclusion of the said community in the Schedule Tribe list. The Manipur Government did not respond.

The issue has revived a decade later and again the state government has not replied to the Union Government’s call for recommendations. The Meitei tribal union filed a writ petition this year in the High Court asking the High Court to direct the state government to reply to the 2013 letter of the Union Ministry for Tribal Affairs.

A point of consideration is that both the Nagas and Kukis are against the inclusion of the Meitei community in the ST category. Kukis have simmering anger against the Meitei dominated state government. There are several decisions taken by the incumbent government which have been contested by the Kukis. Prominent among them is the issue of migration. After the military coup in Myanmar, rampant migration from Myanmar has created socio-economic issues. In response, the government has suspended the free movement regime, detained 400 illegal migrants from Myanmar and issued eviction notices. These strict government responses have attracted criticism from the Kuki community because the migrating people from Myanmar are of their own community of the ‘Kuki-Chin- Mizo’ tribe.

Another issue is ‘war on drugs’, a campaign started in 2017. The Kuki community dominates the business of illicit cultivation of poppy and the government’s crackdown, according to them, is directed against their community. As a result, large scale protests have ensued with intermittent violence. The state government considers these protests as motivated by Kuki militants and hence anti- government.

In 2016 as peace talk started, the Kukis expected that their demand for a separate Kukiland will be met. This demand has been dominating their agenda since the 1960s. The demand is in light of the animosity Kukis feel against Meitis and Nagas. The decade of 1990s witnessed a kind of ethnic cleansing of Nagas and Kukis. As a result, the demand for a separate Kukiland was intensified by Kuki militant groups. In 2008, two broad organisations subsumed all the Kuki militant groups, Kuki National Organisation and United Peoples Front. In 2016, it is these organisations with which the government started negotiations. The talks failed because of the lack of convergence in demand between the two groups.

In a larger context, Hill-Valley divide is the crux of the problem. Dr. Pushpita Das detailed the geographic and demographic landscape of both Hill and Valley areas. Further she explained that its Meiteis which from 53% of the population but inhabit only 10% of the land. Northern districts are occupied by Nagas which constitute 17% of the population while Kukis, which form 26% of the population are concentrated in the southern part of the state. This disproportionate spatial distribution of the Meities and tribals is the crux of the problem.

Dr. Das concluded by suggesting that if peace has to see its day, all the three communities will have to step back from their rigid demands and uncompromised stand. Government should be the first initiator and provide inclusive and efficient governance, rest will follow. Kukis need to reconsider their demand for greater Kukiland for more than one reason.  

Comments and Questions

The floor was opened for questions and comments. The Director General, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, in his remarks, complimented the clarity and comprehensiveness of the presentation. He brought out the point that it’s not just the internal developments that have bearing on the internal security situation but it’s also about what’s happening in other neighbouring countries, in this case, Myanmar. He deplored the violent setback to the peace process that has been continuing for almost a decade. He pointed out the complexities in the implementation of Sixth Schedule. He also talked about the social mobility that has been witnessed in the demands of Meities for ST status over a period of time.

The Deputy Director General, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.) mentioned that Meities consider all non-Meiteis as outside their identity and society. He also referred to the Vaishnavite Meitei Kingdom and its influence in present days. Further, he pointed out the feeling of discrimination among Kukis where he mentioned that crackdown on poppy cultivation is not followed up with crackdown on its manufacturing and transportation which is being handled largely by Meiteis. He further pointed to the politician-police and smugglers nexus.

Dr. Rajiv Nayan commented on demographic composition of the Kuki community and their role in bureaucracy.

Mr. Anil Kamboj, Former Senior Fellow, IDSA, commented on the peculiar logistics arrangement in Manipur. He also alluded to the huge density of population in Meitei dominated valley (610-650 per sq. km) and miniscule density in hill areas (19-20 per sq. km). As per his view the restrictions on purchase of land should go away.

Mr. Niranjan Oak asked about the logic of Meiteis demanding Scheduled Tribe status when they already have OBC category. He also asked the prospects of Article 371 as a-succour for the problem.

Dr. Das mentioned that the Meiteis demands are centred on land and their ability to buy land in hill areas. The Eighth Schedule already provides sufficient safeguards for Meitei language. The need is to start acting on a peaceful path.

The Report has been prepared by Mr. Abhishek Verma, Research Analyst, Internal Security Centre.