Most of us will agree that one of the major political problem in Manipur today that has wide implication in the entire north east India is the demand for 'greater Nagalim.'

The main opposition to this demand, it seems come from the Meiteis although certain sections of Kukis, Meitei-Pangals and even significant section of Nagas (among the non-Meitei groups whether they constitute majority is a matter of debate and needs to be determined).

There are extreme inflexible positions on both sides- Nagas' basic position of 'right to decide their own fate and live under one administrative unit' and Manipuris' (supporters of Manipur) position of not ceding an inch of 'land, which belong to Manipur'.

Obviously, both conditions cannot be fulfilled at the same time. At this context, the concept of ' Maninagapur' proposed by Lt. Col. H Bhubon Singh (Project Maninagapur: Lt. Col. H Bhubon Singh; ) can be worth considering.

I know some people may actually laugh at the idea as impossible and ridiculous. However, before out rightly rejecting it let us carefully examine the merits and demerits of this proposal.

So, what is Maninagapur?

It is simply a merger of present day Manipur and Nagaland into one Indian state (or nation whatever) with its winter capital at Imphal and summer capital at Kohima (some details are proposed by the writer but all details including the name can be settled later on).

What it means for both sides:

The greatest dividend from such a merger will be peace, without which no future development and growth of this region is possible. Such an arrangement will not hurt the egos of the people on both sides. No particular group can dominate in such a state.

It makes social, political as well as economic sense. However, on the other hand, it will also mean foregoing the identity of Nagalim or Manipur.

Does it mean sacrificing the 'unique identity' of the communities involved?

Not necessarily. The Meitei, Naga or Kuki identities did not disappeared in the last 60 years when they lived under a single Indian state of Manipur. Therefore, there is no question of losing their identities if they have to live together under some other name.

Consequences of continuing the conflict:

It is high time we understand the impossibility of the current extreme inflexible positions on either side. This will remain a major hurdle in resolving the conflict. To wait for the other side to blink first will be underestimating the other side.

It will be very foolish of one side to think their decision can be imposed forcefully on the other. One should also realize that the real issue is among us here, not between Nagas and Government of India (GOI) or between Meiteis and GOI. So, the concerned parties should start talking with due consideration towards each other's sensitivities.

Meitei-Naga ethnic clash is inevitable in the near future unless this conflict is resolved to the satisfaction of all the parties involved. It is very easy to arouse passions and to inflame the mobs on either side by the present set of irresponsible politicians and leaders.

Each side will blame the other and GOI for the 'denial of their rights'. No real peace is possible in the near future unless the conflict is resolved. No peace means no development and growth of this region.

Nagas will remain surrounded by hostile neighbours on all sides and Manipur blockaded by Nagas. Here we can learn a lot from the continuing Israel-Palestine conflict. Israel despite being a developed state is in a state of war with the Arab neighbours for the last half a century and no peace is foreseeable in the near future.

Myth of a 'nation state':

In the last half a century there is significant movement from the Meiteis, Nagas and other ethnic groups in the NE India to preserve and assert their identities. Most of these groups consider themselves belonging first to their nations (i.e. Nagalim/Kangleipak) and secondly to India (for those people considering themselves as Indian).

If we examine carefully, the idea of a nation state is a 'state of mind,' an illusion created by its proponents. There is not a single binding factor on which the concept of nation state is built. Most of the proponents of nation state emphasize on shared history, common territory, language, race, shared interest etc of its people as the basis of their nation.

However, any of these factors cannot be the sole basis for the idea of a nation state. For example, look into 'Indian State', there is no shared or common history (NE India and rest of India), territory (NE India and rest of India), language (18 official languages!), and race (Aryans, Mongoloids).

What is common to the people of India is their shared common interest. To an ordinary person in Bangladesh what he understands by his/her nation might change from time to time in the short period of last 60 years: first as belonging to British India, next to Pakistan state and presently to Bangladesh. Having said that, the idea of nation states cannot be discarded so easily. They remain relevant in this age in order to protect and advance shared common interest of its people.

What is common to all the tribes constituting the present 'Nagas?' Yes, some common factors are definitely there e.g. religion and racial similarity. However, these same factors binding the present 'Nagas' cannot they be applied to Meiteis, Kukis and other groups?

The claims of uniqueness of Meiteis, Nagas or Kukis how much of these are based on consensus scientific evidences? How different are Meiteis from Kabuis and how similar are Tangkhuls and Semas?

If a concept of Nagalim can be developed in the last century by combining some tribes, then formation of a concept of Maninagapur by combining Meiteis, Nagas and Kukis should not be an impossible idea (it should be remembered that Meiteis came from uniting the seven different clans).

Some may still argue the impossibility of integrating these warring groups. However, if that is not possible how can you integrate Tangkhuls and Semas or Meiteis and Pangals?

On the other hand, some Meiteis' stand that Nagas must leave Manipur if they want to join Nagalim is simply ridiculous. If the Nagas' demand for a greater Nagalim based on their 'uniqueness' is reasonable then it is equally reasonable for Manipuris to try to safeguard their '2000 years old territory'.

As these 'reasonable positions' cannot be fulfilled at the same time a middle ground have to be adopted. So, here comes the idea of Maninagapur.

Roadblocks: There are certainly roadblocks ahead as some vested groups or so-called leaders will try to oppose it, as they are likely to loss their influence on the people.

To conclude, let us learn to live together, instead of dreaming homeland for each community. You cannot choose your own neighbours; you have to live with them.

Let us be considerate and tolerant towards others.