Imphal: In recent times, hate speech has become a cause for concern for all responsible citizens. Disconcertingly, the canvas is no longer limited religious minorities but is increasingly getting broader. Northeast India with its multi-diverse cultures has become a hotspot for hate speech in recent times.
Manipur, once regarded as mini-India for its diverse composition of communities, is particularly becoming intolerant. Rampant hate speech and racial profiling are becoming the norm; several examples have shown that there is little hope of bringing violators to justice as long as it is directed toward a particular group.
The state’s forest policies
The Manipur government recently issued a notification that villagers settling in what is called “reserved forests” would be evicted. The notification was resisted tooth and nail by the settlers therein. The state government’s move was opposed by tribal legislators who argued that the state would require the approval of the Hill Area Committee (HAC) – represented by all tribal MLAs – in any policy matter related to the hill districts of Manipur.
With regard to that particular right of the HAC granted by the Constitution, the former chairman of the committee, K. Leishiyo, had released a statement last year. The legislator had then reminded the state government of the “procedural error on the Declaration of Reserve Forest after 1972”, further stating that “any declaration of Protected Forests, Reserve Forests and Wild Life Sanctuaries on or after June 20, 1972 shall not be enforced by the department until the approval of the Hill Areas Committee” as it pertains to Schedule Matters of Article 371C of the Presidential Order of 1972.
Most recently, in response to one such notification, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA from Saikot, Paolienlal Haokip, wrote to the concerned officer asking if procedural norms were fully adopted while declaring some areas as “reserved forest”.
The legislator also sought evidence and documents pertaining to the declaration of such forests as “reserved forest” under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Forests Rights Act, 2006. Haokip remains one of the most vociferous among the hill area MLAs to have raised the issue of anomalies even though he belongs to the ruling dispensation led by chief minister N. Biren Singh.
Stiff opposition to the government order by the public, mostly belonging to the Kuki community, has inexplicably turned into a war of words between the Kukis and the valley-based Meitei community to which the chief minister belongs. The Meiteis are being perceived as suspecting the Kukis of grabbing forest land. The Kukis are suspicious of government policies, such as this notification which is strongly backed by the non-tribal Meitei community, who are also the majority community in the state.
Ideally, the issue should have been settled between the government and the dwellers of the forests but it began to take an entirely new shape based on community lines. In support of the government’s move, some Imphal valley-based groups organised mass plantation drives on a few occasions – only to be confronted by the tribal communities.
In diverse cultures with competing values, every policy of a government can be a point of discord. The claims and counter-claims over the ownership and authority of such forests have led to the spread of hate speech to a magnitude never experienced in the past. The involvement of the valley-based civil society groups in confronting the hill tribes on the matter speaks volume of the “majoritarian agenda” in the state’s forest policies. The non-tribals of the Imphal valley claim certain areas of Koubru and Thangting Hills as a secret place of the Meiteis.
In certain plantation drives, the flags of the Salai Taret, symbolising the seven Meitei clans, were also planted. To the tribal communities, this is perceived as the majoritarian intention of the government’s forest policies backed by the valley-based communities of Manipur.
Also read: Free Speech in Manipur: A Slippery Slope Between a Facebook Post and Arbitrary Detention
Hate speech and racial profiling
The ensuing war of words between those for and against the declaration of reserve forests have brought few tribesmen under police scrutiny. A tribal social media influencer, Romeo Kipgen, was asked by the state police to seek a public apology for a speech made on April 4 in which he mentioned “Kuki Hills”, a term he used to indicate Kuki inhabited hills within the present boundary of Manipur.
On the other hand, no police action has been noted thus far when hate speech has been directed towards the Kukis. A social media user, Suraj Nameirakpam, posted the following words [now deleted] in the last week of May:
“Your 2nd Black Day Will Be Against Meiteis & there will be no one to observe. U r ur Last Kind”.
The social media post was a direct warning that mass killing of Kukis would be taken up by the Meiteis and that none would be left to mourn. A degree of hate as evident as in those lines could have been enough for the authorities to take immediate suo motu cognisance of the matter and action against the culprit. However, nothing happened, even though the chief minister was tagged on social media about it. Though on May 29, a first information report (FIR) was registered against the particular social media user at the Churachandpur police station, there is no report of his arrest or any action against him until now.
Additionally, Colonel R.K. Rajendro, leader of a civil society group International Meitei Forum (IMF), and Sapamacha Jadumani, president of another civil society group Federation of Haomee (FOH), have been instrumental in spreading venomous hate speech directed at the Kukis since the past few years. Highlighting a few instances of involving the Kukis in the recent past, these leaders from the majority community are habituated to generalising the entire Kuki population as refugees and migrants.
The Kuki Reformation Forum (KReF) had registered an FIR against these two individuals and their organisations about a year ago. No action was taken by the authorities and they continue to speak on that mode at several platforms.
What is being noticed is that hate speech, earlier the territory of individuals, was now taking place at the institutional level. On May 27, the youth wing of the BJP Manipur Pradesh, Bharatiya Janta Yuva Morcha-BJYM Manipur Pradesh, uploaded a social media post with an image of Kukis mourning the death of their members, and stated:
“Kuki singna 1993 da Imphal Kangjeibung da o-khongna kapkhiba NSCN na takhairakpadagi..maduda kanbiruba Meitie gi asoibani”
This translates into:
“Kukis mourning the death of their members at Imphal Kangjeibung as a result of NSCN aggression… It’s a mistake of the Meiteis that we helped them.”
The act of only threat and intimidation carried out by the youth wing of the BJP once again exposes the influence of the majority over the lives of the minority – evident elsewhere in the country. While individual engagements in libellous acts are a concern, such acts committed at the political, organisational and institutional level speak of the degree of hate and intolerance on the part of those in authority. This leads to the question: has BJYM become the organisation of a particular community?
The Imphal block of Kuki Students Organisation (KSO) along with its legal advisor had registered an FIR on May 31 at the Lamphel police station against that online upload. However, till date, no action has been taken up against any functionary of BJYM or its social media handler.
Racial profiling is nothing new in Manipur. Among the three major indigenous communities – the Meiteis, the Nagas and the Kukis – the Kukis often become the soft target of such profiling. They often end up being labelled as “refugees” and the “later migrants” to Manipur. In this regard, the latest incident took place with the arrest of social activists Mark Haokip, president of International Human Rights Association (IHRA, India and Coordinator, Myanmar). After Mark was arrested over defamatory social media posts, the chief minister N. Biren Singh made a statement that he was a “Myanmarese”. When The Hills Journal, a news portal with which this author is associated, inquired about the veracity of the chief minister’s statement, it came to light that Mark Haokip’s grandfather happened to be an Indian National Army (INA) veteran who joined the Japanese forces along with Subhash Chandra Bose to overthrow the British during the INA-Japanese campaign in 1943-44.
To set the record straight, the Kukis were one of the earliest inhabitants of the region if the words of notable academics such as professor J.N. Phukan and professor Gangmumei are to be taken into consideration.
The royal chronicles of the Meitei kings don’t shy away from mentioning Kuki inhabited villages and settlements dating back to several hundred years. Therefore, the charge levelled against Kukis as “foreigners” or “refugees” are a result of ignorance of their history. In fact, the geographical domain of the Kukis is spread beyond Manipur as one can see in the present set-up. Kukis, sometimes called “Chin” and “Mizo”, are found in Myanmar and Bangladesh. This is enough indication that Kukis were very much a part of that entire territory. If the issue of Kuki migration to Manipur is to be discussed, it should begin with the nature of the boundary drawn during the British colonial era.
Respond harshly or perish
The return of the BJP in the recently concluded state assembly election, securing 32 out of 60 seats, comes with huge expectations. With that in mind, initiatives such as the “100 Action Points For First 100 Days”, “Chief Ministers-gi Hakshelgi Tengbang” (CMHT), “CM Da Haisi” (Lets Meet CM) and “Lairik Tamhallasi” (Let Them Go to School) are noteworthy, but these cannot be a substitute for peace, harmony and stability in the region. Building an accommodative, tolerant and inclusive environment should precede any development policies, not the other way round.
The real challenge of the BJP-led government in the state lies in how effectively it acts against hate speech, intolerance and racial profiling, irrespective of which community is attacked with such offences. Any further delay in checking such offences will undermine all other efforts of the government to create a bridge between communities. The onus is on the chief minister in setting the house in order first and everything else will follow suit.
Haoginlen Chongloi authored the book History, Identity and Polity of the Kukis published by Hornbill Press, 2020.
