MAnipur has been a witness ethnic violence since May 3, which has not only claimed 71 lives but has also polarized peace-loving students, intellectuals and civil society groups.
The state had experienced similar conflicts in the 1990s. Throughout the history of violence, we lump together and separate everyone in Manipur on the basis of categories like Naga, Kuki, Meitei and Pangal. By now, each of us has become used to lumping ourselves into these categories as potential and emotional protectors of our communal interests. Violence is once again on such a scale that we lose sight of those who can bridge borders to promote dialogue.
One would think that assertions of the right to life and years of activism around human rights in a conflict zone, involving both state and non-state actors, would deepen mutual respect between individuals and groups. But in Manipur the situation is opposite. We have not imbibed respect for each other’s lives in the thick and thin of our intersubjective world.
failure of civil society
Can civil society initiate dialogue between communities during these hours of violence? The current state of unrest highlights the failure of civil society, which we see as agencies to protect our rights. So called mass agitation or extrajudicial killings, alleged rapes against black laws like AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) Thangjam Manoramaetc., hardly replicate a discourse for the right to life across the borders and boundaries of our ethnic mindset and landscape.
I remember in 2006 alleged gang rape Civil society groups mainly chose to confine themselves to the usual arguments of tribal versus non-tribal and developed valley versus marginal hills, by a group of rebels in Parabung and Lungthulian villages in Churachandpur district. No one specifically talked about the rights of women victims. Our political language of majority and minority, hill-valley dichotomy, and developed and underdeveloped geographies dominate the discourse against the right to life.
Organizations such as the Imphal-based Hamar Mahila Sangh have been able to speak forcefully for the plight of women. It has done so without falling into the categories of unresolved ethnic conflicts and politics, while maintaining a significant distance from civil society actors, insurgent groups and the state government. Even in 2004, after the alleged rape of Manorama, the visibility of civil society groups on the streets and the discourse on rights against violence were equally dismal. In such context the authority discourse is claimed primarily among valley-based groups and not beyond.
In Churachandpur, in contrast to the discourse against state security forces, the district favored central security forces in combating insurgent groups. For the people of the Southern District, a significant disturbance was created by the valley-based ‘Meitei’ insurgents operating in those areas. But it is also a reality that non-state armed groups belonging to the Kuki-chin-zo community are becoming stakeholders in the demands for ethnic and group differentiated autonomy under the Constitution of India.
Allegedly, non-state armed groups have been alleged For violating ground rules since the start of talks in 2008 under the suspension of operations between the United People’s Front (UPF), the Kuki National Organization (KNO), the state government of Manipur and the central government of India. It is not just factionalism. War between armed groups but also violations of the right to life of ordinary citizens. State agencies prefer to remain silent on such incidents as they may either have symbiotic relationships with non-state actors or are actively pitting one armed group against another through covert cooperation and exclusionary tactics. , which is called the rebel measure.
Over the past ten years, limited civil society space has been gradually replaced by loosely organized violent mobs that engage in mob trials. From an ethnic perspective, one can observe the emergence of various new radical organizations that claim to defend identity, religion, culture and history. Fear and anxiety have replaced rights-based liberal discourse in much of civil society.
Need for alternative public consultation
Discussions about culture, territory, and the safety of people take place amid long-standing issues of trust between communities. In this context, it is inevitable for a group to question whose land, culture, history and identity will be protected and who can be left out. Unsurprisingly, when the state steps in to check the entry of ‘outsiders’ under proposed mechanisms such as the National Population Commission or the National Register of Citizens (NRC), many fear exclusion.
The eviction of villagers from the Churachandpur-Khaupam protected forest area may have contributed to the current unrest in Manipur. Instead of looking at it from the perspective of ethnic nationalism, why not connect the problem with other cases of evictions that have already happened in the rest of the state? This is yet another example of deeply divided political discourse on the rights of people affected by various state policies and programmes.
The eviction issue has been described as the game plan of the state representing the ‘majority community’. Why can’t our civil society come together by putting aside the politics of communities and ethnicity? Expulsion of people takes place for various purposes of the state. One of the reasons behind the displacement of tribals from forest areas is to filter out ‘illegal migrants’ and to protect the national wealth. The second reason is the prevention of ‘illegal encroachments’ in protected and reserved forest areas. There is also eviction of forest dwellers or forest-dependent people to encourage the state’s compensatory forestry scheme or mining or extraction of natural resources. Rights activists have opposed such objectives.
To understand the problem of eviction in the Churachandpur-Khaupum Protected Area, we must consider it within the framework of the neoliberal developmental state, which often causes displacement of people in various development projects. In the process, citizens turn into a population category, people who do not have rights and are not expected to speak for them. In that case, anyone who opposes the eviction becomes so alien that the state can suppress it. Many rights activists have been called anti-nationals for questioning evictions and displacement due to hydroelectric power and road infrastructure projects in the state.
With the activation of rights taking place across the state on evictions due to hydropower projects in Tamenglong and Senapati districts, mining in Ukhrul district, and tourism development in Loktak wetlands, the rights of forest dwellers or people dependent on forests must be properly maintained. regions. There has been a global indigenous discourse on protecting common people dependent on the environment against neoliberal state policy and programs of resource extraction.
However, none of these discourses that pertain to our society in general are interesting enough for agencies such as the Forum of Indigenous Tribal Leaders, KNO, Demand Committee of Scheduled Tribes, or Kanglipak Kanba Lup. Instead, the issue is approached through a political discourse of tribal versus non-tribal or valley and hill dichotomy. The ethnic community is challenging the ownership rights of the state on the land on the basis of ancestral rights of the group. A heavy investment of ethnic, religious, identityistic and imperative interests can be seen in the understanding of land and forests.
While one must debate the importance of human autonomy over land, resources and entitlements, not every issue should be reduced to a matter of complete autonomy of a specific group or ethnic experience. Since civil society will not raise its voice, an alternative discourse is needed across boundaries and borders. Such a choice can only come with the thought and courage to cut across social divides and engage with issues beyond caste barriers.
The author teaches at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. The views expressed are personal.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)