DELHI - BY MIDDLE EAST INSIDER - Apr 13,2024

The ethnic conflicts in Manipur, an Indian state in the northeast, have deep roots in a long-standing historical dispute between the Meitei community residing in the Imphal Valley and the hill tribes, primarily the Kukis and Nagas. A recent wave of violence erupted when the hill tribes organized a march in solidarity against the Meitei community's demand for Scheduled Tribe (ST) status. This demand has the potential to significantly change the political power distribution within the state.

 

The ongoing ethnic tensions and violence in Manipur present a significant challenge for Prime Minister Narendra Modi's administration, as it tests their ability to navigate intricate historical and ethnic dynamics while upholding national unity. Furthermore, this conflict is intensified by a combination of unique geographical factors, persistent communal violence, and transnational concerns, all of which may have implications for India's relationship with neighboring Myanmar.

 

The violence in Manipur is deeply intertwined with its historical, cultural, and religious background. Manipur is a melting pot of various cultures and ethnicities, each fiercely protective of their cultural heritage, land, and rights. The Meiteis, who are predominantly Hindus, coexist with the Kukis and Nagas, who are predominantly Christians. This religious divide often aligns with the ethnic divide, further exacerbating inter-community rivalries. Recent attacks on places of worship highlight the sectarian dimension of the conflict.

 

The historical origins of violence in Manipur can be traced back to the colonial period when the British classified the population into distinct categories of "Hills" and "Valley," each governed by separate laws. This classification deepened the sense of distinction between the Meiteis, who inhabited the valley region, and the tribal communities residing in the hills, such as the Nagas and Kukis.

 

Following India's independence, this differentiation was institutionalized through a political structure that granted Scheduled Tribe (ST) status to the hill tribes but not to the Meiteis. ST status provides certain benefits, including reservations in government jobs and educational institutions, which has become a significant source of contention between the groups.

 

The Meiteis' demand for ST status poses a threat to the economic advantages enjoyed by the other groups and has the potential to reshape the political landscape. With the Meiteis comprising over half of Manipur's population, granting them ST status could shift political power and influence in their favor. This power redistribution could potentially marginalize the Kukis and Nagas, further fueling ethnic tensions.

 

In comparison, this contentious issue of affirmative action mirrors similar situations in other parts of India, such as the Patidar agitation in Gujarat and the Maratha protests in Maharashtra, where dominant groups have demanded inclusion in reservation policies. However, the situation in Manipur is distinct due to its ethnically diverse population and the risk of communal violence escalating into a prolonged armed conflict.

 

The current government in Manipur is led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). However, the approach of the central government in dealing with the situation holds significant political implications, particularly in the context of upcoming national elections. Past instances of ethnic violence in the region demonstrate the delicate balance of government interventions, including the potential implementation of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which would allow the central government to dismiss Manipur's government and assume federal control over the state.

 

The decision to invoke Article 356 carries political risks. It can deepen resentment towards the central government if perceived as excessive interference, thus worsening the conflict it aims to resolve. Additionally, considering the BJP's electoral interests in the Northeast, the party is cautious about inflaming sentiments that could harm its political prospects in the region.

 

Consequently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is likely to adopt a measured and calculated response, focusing on gradually deescalating tensions rather than a heavy-handed approach. This may involve facilitating dialogues between the rival ethnic groups, strengthening security measures to maintain law and order, and employing political strategies to address the concerns of both the Meiteis and the Kukis without showing favoritism towards either group.Top of FormBottom of Form

 

The conflict in Manipur carries significant implications not only for the state itself but also for neighboring regions and beyond. It has the potential to reignite dormant tensions in other parts of Northeast India, a region characterized by diverse ethnic groups with overlapping claims to resources. Manipur is also intertwined with broader ethnic conflicts that transcend national boundaries. The Kuki community in Manipur shares ethnic ties with communities in neighboring Myanmar, a country grappling with a complex civil conflict.

 

Since the military coup in Myanmar in 2021, the country's military has intensified counter-insurgency campaigns in the northwest, including the use of airstrikes. As a result, there has been an influx of refugees from Myanmar seeking shelter in India's northeastern states. The arrival of these refugees has become a point of contention in Manipur, with the Meitei community opposing their presence due to cultural affiliations between the refugees and the Kuki and Naga communities.

 

Adding to the insecurity in Northeast India is the pervasive issue of narcotics trafficking. Manipur, along with three other Indian states bordering Myanmar, serves as a crucial transit hub for drug trafficking. In March, Manipur's Chief Minister launched a robust anti-drug campaign, which included the destruction of poppy fields primarily located in the hill areas inhabited by the Kuki communities.

Many separatist groups in Northeast India rely on revenue from criminal activities, blurring the line between violence driven by communal differences and incidents associated with criminal gangs. In this regard, Manipur's connection to the drug trade in Myanmar mirrors the impact of Afghanistan's heroin production on the activities of separatist groups in India's northwestern regions of Punjab and Kashmir.

 

Uncontrolled violence in Manipur has the potential to escalate tensions in Myanmar and vice versa, posing a complex geopolitical risk for India. While India aims to quell communal violence within its borders, it also needs to manage the potential spillover effects of escalating ethnic tensions from Myanmar.

 

Moreover, the simmering conflict and military deployments in Northeast India create a concerning security scenario for northern India. In addition to ongoing territorial disputes along the Sino-Indian border and the longstanding conflict in Jammu and Kashmir, the unchecked communal violence in the Northeast places India in a position where it must address both internal and external threats simultaneously. This strains India's security apparatus and raises concerns about its readiness to effectively handle concurrent security challenges.

 

In light of the complex challenges posed by the conflict in Manipur and its implications for the region, reorienting India's counter-insurgency strategy requires a multifaceted and comprehensive approach. It is crucial to address the underlying causes of these conflicts, which include historical grievances, socio-economic inequality, and political marginalization. This entails going beyond kinetic security operations and prioritizing negotiations and peacebuilding efforts.

 

Efforts should focus on fostering dialogue and reconciliation among the conflicting parties, seeking to understand and address their grievances and aspirations. This may involve initiatives such as truth and reconciliation commissions, community-level dialogues, and inclusive governance structures that ensure representation and participation for all ethnic groups. By addressing the root causes of the conflicts, the aim is to create an environment conducive to lasting peace and stability.

 

Furthermore, recognizing the transnational nature of the conflict, robust regional diplomacy should be an integral part of the counter-insurgency strategy. Cooperation and coordination with neighboring countries, particularly Myanmar, are essential to manage the potential cross-border impacts of the conflict. This may involve sharing intelligence, collaborating on border security measures, and engaging in joint initiatives to combat transnational crime, including narcotics trafficking.

 

In addition to addressing the immediate security concerns, there is a need to prioritize socio-economic development in the region. Promoting inclusive growth and reducing socio-economic disparities can contribute to addressing the grievances that fuel the conflicts. This requires investments in infrastructure, education, healthcare, and livelihood opportunities, with a focus on marginalized communities.

 

Overall, a comprehensive counter-insurgency strategy for Manipur should encompass addressing root causes through negotiations and peacebuilding, regional cooperation, and socio-economic development. Such an approach can help create conditions for lasting peace, stability, and prosperity in the region.