Churachandpur (Manipur): The recent events in Manipur have unfolded a grim reality of targeted killings. This has resulted in a complete emotional and physical separation between the tribes residing in the hills and the non-tribal population in the valley areas.
Manipur’s hill and valley have a long history of distinct socio-political, historical, and geographical entities. The amalgamation of these regions during British colonial rule created a forced union, leading to intermittent conflicts. The dual administration system was established to address these conflicts, but the underlying grievances and the sense of division persist.
Resolving these issues and promoting inclusive development requires a nuanced understanding of the historical context and a commitment to addressing the concerns of both the hills and the valley. In light of these alarming developments, it is imperative that the government authorities address this crisis by recognising the tribe’s history while creating a space for separate administration, which can help sustain peace.
Historical background
In the olden days, Manipur, located in the northeastern periphery of India, was known as “Meekley” (as mentioned in James Rennell’s memoirs and maps of India), while the hills surrounding the valley were known as the Yo, Sho, or the Zo country or the Naga country, a tract of land under tribal chiefs. The valleys, home to different salai communities of the majority Meitei, were ruled by the monarch.
Before the British colonial rule, the idea of the current Manipur with its definite boundary did not exist. The idea of Manipur extends only to the limit where the Maharaja in the Valley could impose his tax collection rules over the hill tribes. The hills surrounding the kingdom in the valley consisted of numerous autonomous tribal settlements with their own administrative systems and land ownership patterns, each under tribal chiefs. These communities had perfected their own customs, traditions, and governance mechanisms over centuries.
Map extracted from Major-General Sir James Johnstone’s ‘My Experiences in Manipur and the Naga Hills’, 1896
However, during the British colonial administration, there was a push toward centralising and consolidating power.
In the interest of ‘administrative convenience,’ the British amalgamated the hills and valleys into a single administrative unit in the late 19th century, but the governance of each was carried out separately. This forced union in the post-colonial period of the two distinct regions laid the foundation for the conflicts that have persisted in Manipur to this day.
However, the Union government made attempts to recognise both unique histories. The instance of insertion of Article 371C is one such example, as the rationale on the part of the Union is integration instead of forced assimilation.
Over the decades, the amalgamation of hills and valleys, however, led to domination over the tribals/hills by the Meitei in political, administrative, cultural spaces, etc., as the power of the state was strongly centralised. This resulted in the tribal communities being constantly marginalised and their autonomy getting eroded without a strong decentralised power mechanism.
Though the dual administrative arrangement of separate rules and regulations for the hills and the valley continued nominally after Independence, the Manipur State Hill Areas Administration Act was enacted in 1947 for the hill areas and the Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 for the valley. Yet, this arrangement eroded gradually with the integration of Manipur with the Union, and the assimilative policies continued to pose challenges for the tribals.
Also read: ‘Completely Factually Wrong’: SC Slams Manipur HC Order on Meiteis and ST List
Failed administrative setup
The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971, was enacted by parliament prior to Manipur attaining statehood.
Unlike other autonomous district councils in Northeast India which are based on the Sixth Schedule of the constitution, the district council in Manipur operates under a different and watered-down framework.
Since 1974, the tribal communities in Manipur have been demanding the extension of the Sixth Schedule to the hill areas of the state. The Sixth Schedule provides special provisions for the administration and governance of tribal areas, granting them a degree of autonomy and self-governance. The demand for extending the Sixth Schedule to Manipur’s hill areas stems from the belief that it would better safeguard their rights, protect their culture, and fulfil their aspirations for self-determination and autonomy.
Both at the centralised and decentralised levels i.e. Hill Areas Council (HAC) and the District Council in Manipur, there have been challenges in representing and protecting the interests of tribal communities. The limited power of HAC and District Councils are hindered by frequent bypassing of the HAC in matters affecting the hill areas by the state. The District Council elections have not been conducted since 2020.
The limited representation of tribals in the Manipur assembly also resulted in a power imbalance, further marginalising tribal voices by diminishing their influence in policy-making processes. This has led to a sense of dissatisfaction among the tribals in their political ambitions, as their aspirations and interests are not adequately addressed within the existing political framework.
Discrimination and land encroachment
In Manipur, there have been consistent attempts by the majority community to infringe upon traditional tribal lands and resources, both directly and indirectly, exacerbating the divide between the tribal and non-tribal communities. False assumptions and misinformation have been propagated, leading to a distorted perception that tribals occupy 90% of the state’s geographical area while non-tribals are confined to just 10%. This notion needs to be corrected, as it misrepresents actual land distribution in Manipur.
Here, one must recognise the role of sedentary agriculture and its associative revenue implications in contributing to the hill-valley discord. James Scott had argued that geospatial location across divides manifested varied cultural implications, wherein incremental production in the plains and the resultant increase in revenue enabled institutionalisation and, soon after, saturated the plains. In contrast, production in the tribal belt is low and hence, acts as an impediment to establishing various institutions. This accounts for the misconception that it is unfair for the tribals to occupy 90% of the land, while Meitei landholdings constitute only 10%.
The Manipur government’s introduction of three controversial anti-tribal bills in 2015 further exacerbated the situation. These bills were seen as discriminatory by the tribal communities as they threatened their land rights and cultural identity. The bills were met with widespread protests and demonstrations from the Kuki-Zo population.
The Manipur government’s recent enforcement of forest acts and laws has laid bare the same apprehensions about facilitating land grabbing and displacement of tribals from their ancestral lands. These acts are seen to be utilised to declare tribal areas as reserved forests and protected lands without proper compliance with relevant statutes. Such actions have resulted in forced eviction from and displacement of Kuki-Zo settlements, leading to social and economic upheaval within these communities.
It is crucial to address these issues and promote dialogue and understanding between the tribal and non-tribal communities in Manipur. Respecting the land rights and cultural identity of the tribal communities, ensuring their participation in decision-making processes, and addressing the socio-economic disparities are essential steps towards fostering harmony and inclusivity in the region. It is also important for the government to counter misinformation and false narratives that perpetuate division and prejudice among the communities.
Also read: My House Was Burnt Down in the Manipur Violence. And Just Rebuilding it Won’t Make it Home.
Way forward
Historically, there has been a significant emotional and psychological discord between the tribal communities and the Meiteis. These differences in identity, culture, and aspirations have contributed to a sense of division and separation. The recent mass intrastate exodus of communities further highlights the physical and geographical separation that has taken place.
To achieve lasting peace, separate administration is viewed as a prerequisite. The Union government has two potential options to consider: ruling Manipur directly as a Union Territory, or granting political autonomy under Article 244A of the Constitution. Both options aim to address the deep-seated conflicts and provide a framework that accommodates the needs and aspirations of the tribal communities and the Meiteis.
Reviewing the role of the incumbent chief minister, N. Biren Singh, is necessary due to his alleged direct responsibility for crimes committed at a time when he is also the home minister. Several quarters have doubted whether he will employ all means at his disposal to arrive at a peaceful solution.
Either this or the imposition of the President’s Rule is thus needed to improve the law and order situation in the state while political solutions are being discussed.
In response to what many have called state-sponsored ethnic cleansing and systematic targeting of the Zomi-Kuki-Mizo-Hmar community, the 10 MLAs belonging to these tribes have come out in open support of the demand of a separate administration. These demands and proposals reflect the deep-seated grievances and frustrations of the tribal communities and the need for a new approach toward meeting the political aspirations of different communities clubbed together in Manipur.
Sangmuan Hansing is an independent researcher.