Throughout the course of India's history, metaphors have played a crucial role in describing the killings of minority groups.

One famous example is the Sikh genocide, after which Rajiv Gandhi said, "When a big tree falls, the earth shakes."

Similarly, the Gujarat communal violence targeting Muslims in 2002 was described by Narendra Modi thus: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Professor Bimol Akoijam, in his article published on May 22 in The Hindu, introduced a metaphorical phrase to describe the massacres in Manipur – 'spark, material and inferno.' He states that while the spark might be the Meitei community's demand for Scheduled Tribe (ST) status, it requires material to ignite it and escalate it into an inferno.

All these massacre metaphors appear to refer to natural processes that can be explained scientifically. Their use implies that the killings are an inevitable consequence of something else. Thus, Akoijam's metaphor suggests that minority community massacres are the natural result of the majority community's anger.

If the focus is on accepting killings as natural consequences, then there is no point in discussing the killings themselves or the government-police collusion that led to them. Instead, what is implicit is that the focus should be on understanding the factors that give rise to these ‘natural effects’ and determining the ‘true natural cause’ of the massacre – in Manipur's case, the anger of the majority community. This is akin to saying that those concerned about the massacres should engage in discussions about the anger and threats faced by the majority community, as that is what needs attention. 

Akoijam's article does examine the threats and problems faced by the majority community.

Also read: Modi and Manipur: The Legacy of Nero Lives on in India

Before analysing his perspective, it is crucial to pause. Massacres are not the natural consequences of grievances or anger, no matter how strong or genuine they may be.

Instead, they are conscious decisions made by groups driven by pure hatred, often influenced by chauvinistic or militant elements in society. Additionally, these actions are aided and abetted by powerful sections of society and are sometimes actively supported by government decisions.

Whether articulated in ruthless or sober terms, cause-effect genocide metaphors ultimately convey the sentiment of "they got what they deserved”.

Having introduced the metaphor, Akoijam proceeds to analyse the ‘causal conditions’ that transform the spark into an inferno. According to him, ‘the causal conditions’, which he refers to as the 'material' of the inferno, lie in the invented dichotomy between two geographical features of the landscape: hills and valleys. He argues that this topographical divide is false in Manipur. Then he proceeds to argue that the tribal and non-tribal distinction in Manipur is fundamentally problematic since it stems from this false topographical divide, which is a result of the colonial policies that the British enacted in India.

Consequently, he concludes that the special protection granted to tribes by the Indian constitution is unwarranted. In his argument, he ultimately posits that the unwarranted privilege bestowed upon tribes in Manipur is the ‘material’ that acts as the ‘causal condition’ resulting in the ‘natural consequence’ of mass killings. That is, the majority community in Manipur finds itself in a ‘disadvantaged position’ due to the ‘undue privilege’ granted to tribes by the constitution, and this anger serves as the ‘causal condition’ for the massacre.

Perhaps unbeknownst to him, Akoijam's framework of analysis, aided by metaphors, inadvertently reveals information to the reader regarding who is being targeted and who is perpetrating these acts of violence.

Despite his use of academic terminology, his analysis ultimately zeroes in on the same reasoning as other hate campaigns and massacres in India: the belief that ethnic, caste, and religious minorities are prospering at the expense of the majority communities and pose a threat to their existence.

Also read: Medicine Shortages, Uncertain Educational Futures: Manipur Is Reeling Under Many Impacts of Violence

Irrespective of the validity of the topographical divide between valleys and hills, the tribal-non-tribal distinction is not based on geography. Tribals are granted special protection under the Indian constitution not because they reside in the hills. While the hills may have contributed to their socio-economic conditions, the tribal-non-tribal distinction is rooted in ethnic and caste differences. The constitutional protection enshrined for them serves as a safeguard against the entrenched caste and ethnic hierarchy that has historically governed Indian society. 

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that the ethnic-caste hierarchy is not the invention of the British. In other words, the British did not write Manusmriti.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian constitution, unequivocally expressed this rationale for political safeguards for marginalised communities in India thus:

“If I am certain of anything it is of this—that in a self-governing India, which does not recognize the hard facts of Indian society, the strings of political power will be in the hands of the ambitious members of the upper strata of Indian society drawn from the high-placed, well-educated and opulent castes, i.e. in the hands of the aristocracy of wealth, education and social standing. In politics, as in other walks of life, the victory is always to the stronger. The aristocracy will have the resources derived from wealth and education. But this will not be the only advantage in favour of the aristocracy against which members of the minor and weaker communities will have to struggle for their share of political power.”

In the interview with Karan Thapar for The Wire, Akoijam remarks, “Hatred and mistrust for the Meiteis have not been manufactured today. It has been manufactured among tribals by their politicians, intellectuals for decades. Meiteis have only started this in recent times.”

This form of shifting of the blame to the minority community by siphoning off the agency of the common tribal people is in itself, a form of oppression.

Later in the interview he states, “These MLAs will flag off the lack of funding for the tribal areas in the budget and so on just before the election. But they will never raise this when these things are discussed in the assembly”.

In light of video recordings available in the public domain of tribal MLAs raising the issue of budget disparity between hill and valley in the state assembly, the remarks made by Akoijam show a biased understanding of tribals in Manipur. The interview is a distinct revelation of the majority community’s mindset towards tribal groups. A cursory look at the Manipur state budget allocation for the hills and the valleys along with the distribution of seats in the state legislative assembly exposes the significant advantage enjoyed by the majority community for decades.

Thangsiandong Guite is a PhD Research Scholar at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Mohali.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.