Ethnic encapsulation and ethnocentrism : The Manipur experience

Rajendra Kshetri *

Ethnocentrism as Prelude to the Conflict:

Human beings everywhere live in societies. Some hundreds of thousands years ago, all societies are homogeneous in that the members of such societies were alike in race, religion, culture, language and practised the same custom. The emergence of heterogeneous societies, a few thousand years ago, changed all this. Heterogeneous societies came about as a result of migration and conquest through which came the extensive and continuous contact and interaction between the members of different societies.

This in time led to the development of larger socio­political units and multi-group societies. There were conquerors and conquered and rulers and ruled. This is to say that under favourable or unfavourable circumstances, Empires and/or Nation states were formed out of this contact. However it so happened that one or more of the groups thus brought together were less powerful than others in the society and therefore less able to protect themselves. They became minority groups-subject to all sorts of discrimination. 'Theories were advanced, policies were and are framed to assimilate and/or integrate the minorities. But the problem of minority-majority remained and indeed the minority, in many cases, cling to its former ethnic identity.

In a multi-ethnic society, it is quite natural that differences in value-judgements and perceptions among the members of different ethnic groups exist. Conflicts of both violent and non-violent type between the groups are also bound to occur. The social tensions and conflicts between the ethnic groups may successfully be resolved through various social mechanism evolved by the society. On the other hand the contradictions may be of antagonistic nature that violence appears to be the only way out. And violence, once it erupts, is such that it turns rational man to irrational, logical to illogical, sane to insane and religious man to bigots.

As Hannah Arendt puts it, 'violence begets violence'. Within the larger framework of violence, ethnic violence is singularly peculiar in that ethnic status means more to the warring ethnic groups than any social or economic status. Such a situation is very conducive for ethnocentrism to raise its ugly head. Ethnocentrism involves the belief that one's own group is culturally "superior" to other groups. Thus, one's own culture is considered to be radically, morally and culturally of greater value or significance than that of others.

Because of greater economic, political or military power one group dominates the other thus giving one or some kind of 'reality' to their superiority. It was through this belief of 'superiority' that the whole process of hate, distrust and suspicion started taking shape in the minds of members of each ethnic group. It is when ethnocentrism becomes the forte of ethnic resurgence that the social order will change and lawlessness will prevail in the society. The extremists and the opportunists of the worst kind will then take over. The society instead of moving one step forward will be moving two-steps backward. The multi-ethnic society of Manipur is today faced with such a social situation that threatens the very fate of every Manipur-be it Meeteis, Nagas, Kukis, or Pangals.

Need for an Open Pluralistic Society:

How to create unity out of diversity so that the society functions progressively and moves toward its desired goal? This has been and is still the most primary and difficult task of most multi-ethnic societies. What had happened in the erstwhile Soviet Union and the Eastern Europe has proved not only the failure of "official" communism as an effective system of Governance but more importantly that of "assimilation" and "integration" as social ideologies.

The Indian experience of assimilation and integration for the last sixty five years is now in its most crucial juncture and it remains to be seen whether or not India will go the erstwhile Soviet way. But the failure or the near-failure to create unity out of diverse ethnic origins and sustain a multi-ethnic society does not necessarily mean that we should go back to the old tribal idea that all members of a society should look alike and think alike. Societies continue to change and new ideologies evolve that go beyond the earlier idea of the homogeneous society as the only good society.

What is required is that such multi-ethnic societies should always keep on looking and searching for new ideologies that will enable the minorities to live with their sense of roots intact. In fact, variations in language, culture, religion are not necessarily injurious to the health of a society if attempts are not made and policies not implemented to strip the minorities of their culture and traditions. This means that ethnic minorities are not to be assimilated, converted or integrated. Nor should they be encapsulated in some special status or territory or driven out.

Rather it is imperative that the separateness and distinctiveness of each ethnic minority is encouraged and choices and options given to live within the framework of an open pluralistic society; A pluralistic society would offer the people of majority group an escape from homogenized blandness and give each people the right to choose what to retain of their own cultural heritage.

In an open pluralistic society, ethnic minority would enter the larger society with their sense of roots consciously aware that they have something unique and valuable to contribute and are indeed contributing something important and positive to the society. Therefore the desired goal of the members of a multi­ethnic society must be to move beyond ethnocentrism and create an open pluralistic society. A society where all human beings belonging to different ethnic origins can flourish and develop. A pluralistic society where ethnic and cultural differences are not stifled for monotonous conformity. A society that would encourage creative diversity and create unity out of diversity.

The 1990s was the most turbulent period in the socio­political history of Manipur. This was the period that challenged the semi-modern and multi-ethnic society of Manipur. This decade will be remembered as one in which the seeds of violence, hatred, distrust, communal virus and ethnocentrism burst forth so widely and extravagantly as to destroy the very existence of civil liberties and social justice. The ethnic violence in Manipur had been gathering for a long time.

But it was only when ethnic violence swept nearly every village in Manipur in the early 90s that people did finally understand that we are indeed caught within an ethnic imbroglio. There are still people who refuse to accept the seriousness of the ethnic crisis. A study of a years's headlines and a running tape of a year' newscasts would reveal that violence, killing and murder have become endemic, if not a way of life, in Manipur. There would be scarcely any account of friendly acts, negotiations or development activities. What happened? What went wrong in the hitherto tranquil hills and valley of Manipur? What or/and who set Manipur ablaze?

For more than two full decades ethnic conflicts had become synonymous with Manipur. The ethnic clash between the Nagas and the Kukis, the Meeteis and the Pangals (Manipuri Muslims) in the early 90s had already claimed hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Villages had been uprooted, houses burnt down and thousands rendered homeless. The physical violence between the warring ethnic groups had, somehow, been put to an end by the combined efforts of both the State and non-State forces. But the deep scars remains. It refuses to heal. One could still feel the ethnic tension, hostility and enmity in the streets of Imphal and the hills of Manipur.

The 'Bangkok Declaration' of June 14, 2001, following the Indo-Naga ceasefire agreement, had almost turned the Imphal valley into a 'Bosnia,' a 'Kosovo'. The Declaration had served as nothing less than an adrenalin to the simmering enmity and hostility between the Meeteis and the Nagas. It is anybody's guess as to how long- years, decades, centuries – it would take to restore the century-old ethnic and kinship ties and the feeling of mutual trust "between the Meeteis and the Nagas, particularly the Tangkhuls.

The damage had been done. As the years passed and the decades rolled, it becomes increasingly clear that the State and the non-State forces had done everything but restore mutual trust and confidence among the warring ethnic groups. The much sought-after peace still remains elusive and may prove to be a bridge too far. How did the situation reach such an impasse? And why did it occur in the first place? Perhaps the government, both the Union and the State have been and are ineffective and not impartial in tackling the present ethnic crisis for reasons best known only to the powers that be.

Perhaps some "politicians" of dubious roles have created a Frankenstein in the hills and valley of Manipur. Perhaps the emergence of a "new middle class" among the warring ethnic groups have led to or coincided with the outbreak of the present ethnic rivalry. Perhaps the conflict has been deepened because of 'disinformations' and 'doublespeaks' on the part of some 'leaders' of both the warring groups. Perhaps basic issues have not been addressed by the right persons at the right time. And finally, but not the least, ethnocentrism has perhaps something or everything to do with the outbreak of ethnic conflict in Manipur. Now that the State of Manipur have witnessed more than two decades of political stability, will the ethnic conflict cease to exist, or at least come to a terminal point?

Will the Government of Manipur be now more effective and show the political will, so necessary but hitherto lacking, in solving the ethnic impasse? Perhaps, perhaps not. The listing here of a long list of 'perhaps' is not to build a 'case of perhaps' (though Perry Mason would find it tough but not impossible to crack) but an attempt to pose some sophisticated questions. Sometimes, ability to pose a good question is more important and rewarding than skills in finding answers. To ask better question we need better concepts and tools and these cannot be done from the chair alone. They are to emerge from and be tried out at the research field. This is sadly but truly lacking in all the so-called attempts to bring an end to the ethnic conflict.

Oversimplification of Ethnic Issue:

Much had been said and written about the simmering ethnic tension/enmity/conflict in both the hills and valley of Manipur and the reasons thereof. Political and economic reasons were cited and age- old enmity between the warring ethnic groups mentioned. It must be remembered, though, that much more can still be said about the ethnic conflict in Manipur and this piece does not pretend to say it all. The present piece does not deal with the ethnic group relations as such either (ethnic group relation is one area which demands full time research and the Government of Manipur for a start, could and should think of engaging the Social Scientists of the State whose explanations of the issues involved in ethnic tensions would be more plausible, if not correct, than any administrative explanation).

Consequently, no attempt is made here to theorize the ethnic conflict in the state. This is more of a policy paper, a suggestive note to and for the Government about the contributions that Sociology and other social sciences can make towards better appreciation of the issues involved in the majority-minority relations. The ethnic problem is no longer a minority problem. The minority problem is the majority problem today, begging for better understanding, appreciation, analysis, solution and resolution.

One of the biggest obstacles to the understanding of what is involved in situations of ethnic tensions is that of oversimplification. The man in the street is often inclined to refer to the issues posed by the multi-ethnic society of Manipur as if they constituted a single problem to which there should be a single answer. He may think that Manipur has an 'ethnic problem'. Others may say that Manipur has a majority-minority problem or that the root cause of the problem is the inherent contradictions and conflicts between the indigenous peoples and the immigrants.

Some would maintain that disputes over land is the crux of the problem while others would say that 'poor living standard' is the root cause. All this is about as helpful as asserting that the cause of inflation is greed. Ethnic group relations pose a multitude of problems. Some are economic, political and/or administrative problems about what should be done. Some are still social problems about the sense of 'ethnic revival', the sense of root, the presence of superiority – inferiority complex among the members of each ethnic group. There is therefore a strong need for caution in the interpretation of contemporary issues like the present ethnic crisis. One should be cautious enough not to fall prey to any interpretation which falls under the grand theory of reductionism. The explanations have to be sought in the complex interaction of all the forces which define a society – the economic, political, socio-cultural, historical as well as the individual perceptions and reactions to the same.

Beyond Ethnocentrism:

As a result of the unprecedented ethnic violence and tensions, our society is moving towards a social disaster. We are caught in the clutches of an ethnic crisis so overwhelmingly that the very essence of our society is at stake. The present crisis is however like no other crisis. It comes not from external enemies, nor from economic forces. It comes from within ourselves. Its roots are deep within our own history and its resolutions depends not on the mere economic development or the deployment of more security forces or the creation of 'homelands' but on our ability to go beyond ethnocentrism.

The ability to learn to respect the divergence in cultural values and acknowledge that cultural differentiation does not imply the inferiority of ethnic minorities who are ethnically distinct from the wider society. A disease, a social disease, more dangerous than AIDS and Cancer, hitherto unknown and unheard of, is spreading, wide and fast, in Manipur in so dangerous a manner that it is tearing Manipur apart. Ethnocentrism is a disease that kills slowly but surely and threatens the very foundations of human civilization. Either we perish the disease or the disease shall perish us all. Either we build a multi-cultural pluralistic society and learn to live with diversity or we all die in an agony of hate, distrust and violence. The choice is ours.