By the time a durable peace and security arrangements are found with active participation and involvement of all indigenous stakeholders, the Central Government will gain by cutting down at least 50% on security expenditures and transferring the same amount to education and health in the region.
By Deben Bachaspatimayum
The Prime Minister, Home Minister and Chief Minister have time again said ‘normalcy or peace has returned in Manipur’ only to be followed by an out-break another cycle of violence with bilateral or secretive talks with the conflicting parties from time to time. While this has been a recurrent pattern over the last one and half years after 3 May, 2023, some academicians, senior journalists including MP from Manipur have also accused both the center and state governments for trying to normalize deeply divided, militarized and antagonized condition without any concrete efforts to stop the cycles of violence and without any serious initiative for dialogue between the conflicting parties. The Home Minister, while speaking to the national media on completion of first 100 days of NDA 3.0 on 17 September and announcing a roadmap for peace in Manipur, once again, claimed that the situation in Manipur was ‘peaceful’ for three months before the recent outbreak of violence from 1st September 2024 (India Today, 17 September, 2024). While there are important points to be noted in the roadmap to follow up it is also important to understand why and how Govt’s ‘peace and normalcy’ in Manipur is followed by another cycle of war and violence? And whether these words mean the same for the people in Manipur also?
Dialogue as approach to the roadmap for peace in Manipur
Before we proceed, some important points in the roadmap for peace in Manipur may be noted 1) fencing the entire length of India-Myanmar border with huge budget sanctioned considering influx of Myanmar nationals as ‘the core issue’ of Manipur, 2) dialogue between conflicting parties to resolve the conflict, 3) supply of essentials from army canteens as local truck drivers feel insecure of their lives on the National Highways which are under the control of hill-based armed militants hostile to the valley people and 4) peace talk with almost all the ‘insurgent’ groups in the state except for one group, etc. The Home Minister did not commit any budget for the dialogue process between the conflict parties nor any details on who, when, where, and how the dialogue will begin which he said is the only way the problems in Manipur can be resolved. While dialogue is extremely important approach to finding out what ‘peace’ or ‘normalcy’ actually mean for the Central Government and for all the conflicting parties/ stakeholders in Manipur, whether these words have the same meaning between the conflicting communities and if not how to find mutually agreeable and beneficial solutions to all parties involved in the conflicts at the end of this roadmap for peace in Manipur, etc., dialogue can start only when the Central Govt sideline a dedicated Peace Budget for Manipur and professionally qualified team of facilitators and peace-makers from across the conflicting communities are mobilized to support the dialogue processes.
‘Peace’ or ‘normalcy’ and the ground realities
Without dialogue ‘peace’ and ‘normalcy’ can also be sources of tensions and violence in Manipur. Whenever the Govt reports ‘peace’ and/ or ‘normalcy’ in Manipur, the ground realities for the people have been otherwise. There are simmering tensions with war of words and narratives in both social and mainstream media, alongside with belligerent show of arms and ammunition, preparedness for more bitter fights without any control by State authority. Indigenous valley people, continue to live confined and restricted with hostile armed militants in bunkers targeting from the surrounding hills and depriving their rights to work in their own paddy fields and to travel to rest of India without any efforts from security forces ensuring safety and security of the people on these roads. Essential goods bound for the valley being subjected heavy illegal taxation by the militant groups under the Suspension of Operation with Assam Riffles without any efforts to stop them resulting into skyrocketing of prices on essentials in the valley. Heavily guarded security barricades along the inter-district boundaries keeping common people geographically divided in ethnically exclusive enclosures as ‘Kuki areas’ and ‘Meetei areas’ and also depriving essential services to the Kuki areas reaching from the state headquarters without any efforts to restore the services. The conflicting parties continue to clash with contradictory demands; ‘total separation’ or ‘separate administration’ (which directly antagonizes the Naga community) as the only option for Kuki-chin’ as against the ‘protection of the historical territorial integrity’ for the Meetei. Nevertheless, the state’s historical territory seems to be breaking up, anyway, so deeply and suddenly by triggering an ethnic violence with cross-border ethnic community effectively controlling large area of the hills for creation of a homeland which is strongly contested by indigenous Naga tribes of the same hill areas. If this is ‘peace’ and ‘normalcy’ simply because there is no violent incidents then the statistics on the ground tell their stories.
Role of central and state security forces
60,000 security forces in addition to a few thousands deployed for counter-insurgency operation in the state under AFSPA with around 40,000 state police forces are on the ground operating without any clarity on their roles made known to the people. There are also allegations and counter-allegations on the Assam Riffles (Task force for CI Ops and border security) for siding with Kuki militants and Manipur police with Meetei militants. A Unified Head Quarters with a nonlocal retired IPS officer as the Chairman to coordinate combined operations remain without any substantial achievements on the stated objectives; counter-insurgency operation, security and maintenance of law and order (Governor’s Order dt: 31st May 2023). And 60,000 thousand people displaced on both sides suffering on daily basis without any Govt efforts to resettle and rehabilitate them, over 4500 houses burnt down, over 300 places of workshop destroyed, over 220 persons killed and over 1000 injured including small children, young women and aged and around 27 persons including young boys and girls remain missing without any trace. The whole populations in the state remains deeply militarized with over 6000 government weapons in the hands of civilians and more sophisticated weapons coming in from across the porous borders.
Diverse perspectives and different meaning of peace and normalcy in Manipur
Given the above as the ground realities, if only non-occurrence of violence incidents with people living in geographically divided enclosures and local peace committees and peace-makers on both sides of the divide incapacitated; threatened and silenced within own community mean ‘peace’ or ‘normalcy’ for the Govt then the situation is much deeper than what is apparent on the surface as ‘ethnic problem’ and attracts many more questions: Why is peace and normalcy for the people of Manipur different from that of the Central Govt? And how the perspectives of the Kuki-chin community, the Naga people, the Meetei differ from one another, whose perspectives can meet or not meet anywhere with that of the Central Govt? Should the Central Govt’s perspective and meanings for peace be imposed over the local people or should these perspectives find a middle ground to draw out a commonly shared meaning of ‘peace’ and ‘normalcy’ for the people in Manipur? Series of discussions in the local and national electronic media and opinion pieces in the print media throw lots of insights on the situation.
The state as the most powerful party in Manipur problems
One of the finest IAS officers retired, Dr R.K. Nimai, having served the state Government and seen the conflicts from inside and outside, reflects and comments on his regular column in local dailies. In his recent column he wrote, ‘many articles have been written about the use of the Kuki by the national agencies in their fight against the NSCN (IM) and the Meitei Insurgent Groups (MIGs) and without any systematic counter from either the Kuki groups or the national agencies many treat this as fact.’ Further, ‘it is the Indian deep state that is playing the cards….’ These statements give some hint at the Central Government’s perspective on Manipur and possible meanings of what ‘peace’ and ‘normalcy’ condition in the state might mean. It is also true that Manipur remained outside of Indian history till the merger of the state ‘under duress’ in 1949 and so there can be deep sense of anxieties in the national minds in securing the state by any means, possible. This Central perspective when juxtaposed with that of Manipur as a pre-existing independent native state, and a center in its own right, struggling to restore the lost sovereignty, is bound to clash with different meanings for ‘peace’ and ‘normalcy’. The meaning for these words can get even more murky when the Naga and Kuki of Manipur get entrenched with their own diverse political aspirations with overlapping territorial claims within the same territory. It might be good risking to venture into the world of meanings for the same words as it might help understanding the larger picture.
Violence destroying common human needs and interests
Peace and normalcy for the Union Govt as the central sovereign state authority could mean fully secured boundary areas in the east, full control over the entire region with free access to the natural resources over and below the ground for economic growth and fully secured southeast Asian trade corridor without any groups contesting, protesting or resisting against it. For the Meetei of the valley who are the architect of Manipur state and author of its history would mean fully protected historical hill-valley territory and its integrity based on the democratic foundation laid in 1948 and at the same time have good relationships with India based on its cultural affinities and with east Asian neighboring countries based on its history of international relations. Peace and normalcy for the Kuki-chin groups, as the late settlers in the Naga and Meitei ancestral domains, could mean securing their settlement areas recognized as autonomously protected territory or ‘homeland’ under the Constitution of India with active supports from Indian military and administration and live as the most loyal citizens of India. For the Naga peace and normalcy can be recognition of their sovereignty over the large tract of hills surrounding the valley by the Govt of Manipur, Govt of India and loyalty from the Kuki-chin people who have accommodated in their ancestral domains while keeping good neighborly relations with the Govt of India, Manipur and eastern neighboring communities. It is apparent that a deep sense of insecurity and hope for peaceful relationships seem to be the common human needs and interests which are being destroyed on everyday basis by indulging in mutually destructive violence.
Triangular conflict with overlapping claims on the same territory
Different meanings of the words also clearly show triangular contest over Manipur territory. Govt of India and Kuki-chin group as one party imposing their peace and normalcy by dividing Manipur’s territory based on ethnic identities, apparently, to weaken the armed resistance from the Meiteis and Nagas as the indigenous communities asserting their historical and traditional propriety over the state and at the same time mutually contesting with overlapping territories. Meeteis wants to maintain the hill-valley territorial integrity for peaceful coexistence and harmony based on its democratic foundation and in tune with its composite cultural heritage, whereas, the Naga wants autonomy over the entire hill areas for working out good neighborly relations with the Meetei in the valley and Govt of India as an external authority. Given the diverse perspectives and overlapping claims it is obvious to have complicated conflicts in Manipur but the beliefs that ‘the other’ is the problem and violence, threats and intimidations are the only ways to get rid of the problem is the problem in Manipur for India. The Central Govt of India has to review its belief in consistent use of military power over the civilian population as a self-respecting democratic country. Violence has created mutual insecurities both for India and the indigenous people in the region. History seems to teach lessons to all; big or small.
Opportunities for peaceful resolution is in the air
After one and half years of extreme forms of violence and untold sufferings in Manipur a ray of hope seems to have dawned upon in the horizon. Starting with the recent announcement of roadmap for peace in Manipur, the Home Minister highlighted the importance of ‘dialogue’ between peoples to find solutions in Manipur. Since then, there is call for dialogue from the state Chief minister and members of parliament from the state. This is creating a space for peace-makers from across the communities and from the rests of India to coalesce and work together to support the Govt’s initiative for dialogue. Conflict offers both dangers and opportunities. After having experienced dangers enough through generations, it is time to explore the opportunities, fully for the love of our present and future children. Responsible leaders of the government and conflict parties would certainly be interested to leave behind a peaceful world with enriched natural environment and ecology for the future children to inherit instead of wars and sufferings.
Govt has to show political will for peace
No peace without peace budget is to say no growth without investment. The Home Ministry has to come up with a dedicated budget committed for dialogue initiative to walk the roadmap for peace and also detail out who, when, where and how dialogue process may be initiated. Secondly, until the CI Ops is ended and AFSPA is scrapped totally as a healthy democratic country, the Central Govt will always be seen as one of the most powerful state parties to the insurgency as ‘counter force’ and hence, for a durable peace, security and stability in the region, a powerful party to the conflict should not be the arbiter of peace process. For this reason, HM has to constitute a neutral /professional dialogue facilitators team comprising of experienced and professional dialogue facilitators by drawing upon the rich pool of retired and working government officials from diverse field of works and professions, and including also well-meaning civil society leaders, lawyers, human rights defenders and peacebuilders of high moral integrity from rest of India with fair gender composition. Thirdly, organize the peace workers from across the ethnic and religious communities including good number of women leaders from Manipur and rest of India to assist and support the dialogue facilitators team in initiating dialogue processes. And lastly, provide Government infrastructure and institutional facilities outside Manipur as multiple venues for dialogue processes.
Fund for peace by siphoning from the security budget
Lastly, a durable solution to the problems in Manipur will have to be found at three levels treating all communities; those who claims to be indigenous and others as equal right bearing citizens and equally trustable for and capable of local, national and regional peace and security in mutual interests. This requires that the dialogue is initiated at three levels. In the first level, the conflict between Meetei, and Nagas in Manipur will have to settled through facilitated dialogue process and at the second level both Naga and Meetei should have facilitated dialogue with the Kuki-chin parties to find mutually acceptable and durable solution in Manipur. And the third level the Meetei, Naga and Kuki along with other minority communities should jointly as people of Manipur have dialogue with the Home Ministry to find durable solution to India’s security and economic development concerns in the region. These solutions can come about with much lesser or at no additional cost to the Union Government and tax-payers if it decides to siphon off incremental percentage of the security and security related expenditures in maintaining thousands of troops deployed in Manipur for CI Ops as a Fund for NE Dialogue and Peace. By the time a durable peace and security arrangements are found with active participation and involvement of all indigenous stakeholders, the Central Govt will gain by cutting down at least 50% on security expenditures and transferring the same amount to education and health expenditures in the region. Finally, it may be right to say Manipur’s problem is India’s problem and so Manipur’s solution is also India’s
(Deben Bachaspatimayum is Imphal based expert in peace and conflict resolution)