From Struggling Communities to Conflicting Communities
- A Reflection on the Crises of Our Times -

Sanatomba Kangujam *

Entering into the polemics centering on Muivah's visit to Somdal would not be productive at this historical stage especially when the struggling communities of the North East have been trying to project the prevailing conflict situation as one between two political entities. No struggling community can be expected to remain silent when their very existence or their future survival is being challenged. But the way how one responds to a particular situation Should be informed by the reality of one's being and becoming.

The process of political mobilisation that we can see in the forms of Naga integration movement and the movement for the territorial integrity of Manipur are fraught with danger which will not auger well for the entire North East. The prevailing Ethnic Cold War, if not properly managed, has the potential to plunge the whole North East into something which the region has never witnessed before in its history.

Such an outcome will only be to the disadvantage of the indigenous peoples inhabiting the region since ages. It will contribute a great deal in normalising the situation if the conflicting parties realise that the Gol has been relentlessly trying its best with all the resources at its disposal to portray the prevailing conflict in the North East as an internal law and order problem of India generated by economic under-development of the region. At this juncture, therefore, adopting uncompromising stances between struggling communities would exactly fit into the strategy of the Gol.

Intensification of the horizontal conflict (conflict between communities of the region) will proportionally lead to decrease in the degree of vertical conflict (conflict between the Gol and the struggling communities of the North East). This has been rendered largely by the absence of the projection of common enemy and lack of shared experiences of the struggle.

Similarly intensification of vertical conflict will result in decrease in the degree of horizontal conflict. This is made possible due to the sharp projection of the presence, of a common enemy as well as the shared experiences derived from the common struggle. It is precisely this understanding that informs GoI's policy towards the North East.

In this regard, it may be recalled that the Naga insurgent groups and the insurgent groups of Manipur have been systematically trying to portray the prevailing conflict in the North East as an international armed conflict involving two separate political entities, as the case may be, to the international community. To counter such a propaganda spread by the insurgent groups, the best strategy for the Gol is to transform the prevailing conflict into an ethnic conflict thereby rendering the situation as an internal law and order problem of India. In line with this policy, the Gol entered into the Bangkok Agreement in 2001 only to roll back later on after generating the maximum impacts.

And now, visiting permit was granted to Shri Th. Muivah and then with drew again on some pretexts thereby provoking both sides of the Lim divide. The policy of the Gol produced the desired effects on the relations between the Meiteis and the Nagas. But the Meiteis and the Nagas have failed to see this political trap.

The conflict between the struggling communities of the North East is non-antagonistic in nature in a sense that it can be transformed or resolved if their respective elites have the political will to accept their realities. Their realities can be defined in terms of their common racial origin, shared political experiences and intertwined geo-spatial ties. The historical and political realities of the Nagas and the Meiteis reveal that they have a common destiny which can only be separated at their own peril.

The Nagas and the Meiteis belong to the mongoloid stock of human race unlike the Indians who belong to Aryan and Dravidian groups. The Indians hardly differentiate between the Nagas and the Meiteis when it comes to cultural identities. All the North Easterners are "Chingkies" in their eyes. Their attitude towards us confirms that we the North East people are one and the same family.

In fact, our social practices, culture, customs, traditions, beliefs, food habits, sensibilities etc. are quite different from the Indians. We are Ngaari Eaters (fermented dry fish). The Nagas and the Meiteis are struggling communities who are struggling against the Indian State to regain their lost independence. Precisely on account of their political aspirations, the two communities had equally suffered a lot under the Indian democratic rule. For example, when it comes to Human Rights violations the Nagas as well as the Meiteis have borne the wrath of the so called Indian Security Forces. This is one area where they have common experiences.

It will, however, be overstretched to attribute all the contradictions existing in the inter-community relation to India's divide and rule policy without underscoring the facticity of our inherent limitations. In my view, these contradictions are to a great extent due to uneven responses to Indian democratic rule as a result of uneven political socialization informed by historical circumstances and divergent worldviews.

For instances, when Irabot launched the communist armed struggle against feudalism and colonialism, Phizo was busy holding talks with the Indian authorities for arriving at a negotiated settlement of the Naga issue. When Phizo launched the armed resistance against the Indian State, the Meiteis were highly absorbed in the statehood movement under the Indian Constitution.

When the RPF and the UNLF are sticking to the issue of sovereignty and plebiscite respectively as a condition of holding political dialogue, the NSCN-IM has been engaging in an unconditional peace talk with the Gol, demanding integration of Naga areas of the North East with maximum autonomy by scaling down from its earlier demand for complete independence.

If Phizo had joined hands with Irabot or if the Meiteis had embraced Phizo's armed struggle at that particular historical stages, the present contradictions would have been minimized.

The existing ethnic cold War is rooted in the overlapping of political space imagined by the elites of the respective struggling communities. For example, the four hill districts of Manipur namely Chandel, Ukhrul, Senapati and Tamenglong are claimed by the Naga elites as territory constituting a part of their imagined political space on the one hand.

On the other hand, the Meitei elites (including the Meitei Pangals) claim that the four districts form an integral part of Manipur. When the respective elites try to translate their imagined political space into concrete political structure and resort to ethnic mobilization to that end, a situation of ethnic cold war or an ethnic conflict emerged. But the contradictions generated by the "overlapping" is not a problem if one views the entire realities from a broader perspective. The Meiteis and the Nagas imagined the same territorial space simply because that territory equally belongs to both of them. The valley belongs to the Nagas and the Kukis alike in as much as the hills belong to the Meiteis.

In the present context, it has become increasingly difficult to determine the territorial boundaries among communities. Same is true with the ethnic boundaries. There are no definite criteria to determine who is a Manipuri, or who is a Naga or who is a Kuki or a Zomi at this particular stage of identity formations. The ethnic boundaries are so fuzzy that any arbitrary demarcation at present is likely to produce unprecedented ramifications. The question of ethnicity and territoriality has been inextricably interwoven that it is difficult to find an immediate solution. The best option, therefore, is to maintain the status quo ante for the time being until mutually acceptable solution is worked out.

It will take a great deal of farsightedness on the part of the Meiteis to respond to the politics of inte gration initiated by the Nagas with maturity and prudence. Denying the historical realities of the Nagas would in a way amount to denying our own realities. Mutual appreciation and recognition is the need of the hour. Deriding each other's history will only fit into the game plan of the third party. The incipient Naga nation building and the Manipuri nation building are inherent with numerous shortcomings.

There is no dearth of arguments to advance for or against the two patterns of nation building. But that is not the solution. The solution has to be sought somewhere beyond the prejudiced notions and emotionally charged character of our narrow perspectives.

I have a word of caution for the Meiteis. Both the politics of integration and the politics of integrity are equally communal in nature and content. If you wrestle with a wrestler who is smeared with mud, you will ultimately end up being smeared with the same mud. The Meiteis are accusing the NSCN-IM for trying to settle the Naga issue within the framework of the Indian Constitution.

But at the same time, the Meiteis are also seeking constitutional protection for ensuring the territorial integrity of Manipur within the Indian Union. We have been demanding the inclusion of a provision in the In dian Constitution by amending Article 3&4. So what if the difference? Both these politics ended up inside the courtyard of the Indian Constitution.

In the course of trying to protect the territorial integ rity of Manipur, the Meiteis have forgotten that they are also fighting against the Indian State. While trying to substantiate our arguments for the inviolability of the territorial integrity of Manipur with legal and historical evidences, we have unconsciously endorsed the Stand still Agreement and the Instrument of Accession of Au gust 11, 1947 and the, Merger Agreement of 1949, which the new generations of Manipuri nation have been try ing to refute.

What a mighty blunder committed by our elites! Please go through the People's Declarations of August 4, 1997 and June 26, 2001 and you will realise the self-inflicted injury. The Manipuri civil society or ganisations seemed to have forgotten that our political community is contesting the validity of the Merger Agreement while giving undue weightage to the politics of territorial integrity.

It may be recalled that a National Convention held in 1993 at GM Hall under the aegis of a conglomerate of civil society groups had declared the Merger Agreement null and void. Invoking the Merger Agreement of 1949 as an intellectual strategy to substantiate our argument for rendering the territorial integrity of Manipur inviolable will prove to be self-defeating in the long run.

I agree with the argument that the issue of the territorial integrity and the issue of sovereignty are two sides of the same coin. However, my concern is about the strategy to be adopted to protect the territorial integrity. Is it politically correct to seek protection of the territorial integrity of Manipur within the framework of the Indian Constitution while simultaneously fighting the Indian State?

Yesterday, we talked about holding of plebiscite under UN supervision and today we are demanding protection of the territorial integrity under the Indian Constitution. It is such a lack of consistency in our approach that appears most startling to me. This contradiction is perhaps the reflection of the political dilemmas that the Meiteis are facing today.

On the question of priority of these two issues territorial integrity and sovereignty it will be most foolish to compromise the issue of sovereignty for the sake of territorial integrity. Here one may question the relevance of sovereignty in the absence of territorial integrity. My answer is that a correct notion of sovereignty does not recognise any artificial and superficial restructuring of the present political boundary of Manipur by the Gol under the Constitution of India.

Theoretically speaking, the issue of sovereignty and the issue of territorial integrity do not constitute two different issues; rather they are simply two sides of the same issue. When the issue of sovereignty is comprehensively addressed, the problem of territorial integrity will be automatically resolved as the notion of sover eignty organically encompasses the notion of territorial integrity.

Therefore, any attempt aims at compartmentalisation and prioritisation of the questions of sovereignty and territorial integrity has the implication of undermining the issue of sovereignty itself. For example, movement for territorial integrity is likely to compromise the sovereignty issue of Manipur as the former has to be pursued within the framework of the Indian Constitution while the latter has to be sought not only outside the Indian Constitution but also outside the Indian Union.

The conflict between the Nagas and the Meiteis, or called it Manipuris if you like, can never be resolved within the framework of the Indian Constitution. How long are the Meiteis going to use the Indian State machinery against the Nagas and how long are the Nagas going to use the Indian Constitution against the Meiteis are the questions that always haunt my political vision. As for the Indian Government, it is in its interest to prolong and escalate the conflict so as to render the Naga issue and the Manipur issue as the internal problems of India.

The Meiteis and the Nagas are fighting a lost battle as no one is going to come out victorious as long as they are seeking to settle the issue within the framework of the Indian Constitution. They have already lost the war. For instance, the Indo-Naga conflict and the Manipur-India conflict have already transformed into Meitei-Naga conflict or Manipuri-Naga conflict. Ironically, the Gol has re-incarnated from being a party to the conflict to a mediator or an arbitrator of the conflict. Now, conflict in Nagaland and conflict in Manipur have become mere internal law and order problems of India.

Besides, the claim that the Indian army and para-military forces, arc being deployed in the North East only to assist the civil administration to control the prevailing ethnic conflict has been vindicated. Both the Nagas and the Meiteis are bound to lose the battle for spatial domination with the GoI assuming the role of the "Laughing Third" holding the scale and weighing it alternately in favour of the one or the other as it finds most expedient to neutralise both sides.

The prevailing ethnic cold war between the Meiteis and the Nagas cannot be defused overnight. Nevertheless, no Stone should be left unturned to normalise the situation. To this end, the major insurgent groups of Manipur and the Naga insurgent groups should initiate unconditional dialogue to normalise fraternal relations. Moreover, the apex civil society organisations of the Valley should also hold dialogue with the Naga civil societies without setting any pre-condition. Serious introspection needs to be done on the kinds of strategies that are being adopted in the course of defending the territorial integrity of Manipur.

Fighting against the politics of integration should not be allowed to degenerate into fighting our own people. Fight against the politics but not against the Nagas of Manipur. Strategy like imposing 'Counter' Economic Blockade against our own people will further alienate them which will only undermine the idea of a United Manipur.

We cannot protect the territorial integrity of Manipur by antagonising the Tangkhuls, the Maos, the Zeliangrongs or the Anals. Manipur is not complete without Ukhrul and so is the Manipuri nation, without the Tangkhuls. The policy of singling out the Tangkhuls and demonising Shri Th Muivah will only lead to further intensification of the prevailing ethnic cold war. Let us remember that when you criticise Shri Th Muivah, you are criticising the entire people who owe allegiance to him and his politics.

Here, it is pertinent to "point out that some sections claim that there is no ethnic conflict in Manipur. But, on the contrary, the truth is that criminalising and demonising the leaders of other group(s) is an important feature of an ethnic conflict. The process of demonisation will ultimately enable one to eliminate his enemy, which in most cases turned out to be perceived ones and not real.

Paradoxically, we claim that all the communities of Manipur are harmoniously coexisting, but at the same time war of words which is relentlessly going on in the media indicates otherwise. If the Meiteis emotionally react to any provocation, instead of responding to the situation, it only serves the interests of those who want Manipur's balkanisation. Emotional reactions will only sharpen Hill-Valley dichotomy and Meeitei-Naga ethnic divide.

More than ten years of campaign for peace and emotional integrity and harmony has been defeated the moment we imposed counter-economic, blockade. We must be careful to ensure that we are not being trapped in the process of defending the status quo. A keen observation of the situation reveals that the way how the Meiteis are responding to the situation though successful in repulsing the divisive forces for the time being, has largely contributed towards accentuating the feeling of us and them.

I am commenting more on the Meiteis as I feel that the Meiteis being the majority community in Manipur has greater responsibility in the present context and by saying this I am not justifying the subversive acts being perpetrated by ANSAM or the UNC.

The Meiteis seem to have reached a conclusion that there is no more option left for protecting the territorial integrity of Manipur except resorting to force. This is a highly ill-informed conclusion. Force cannot hold the Nagas back from joining Nagaland State for eternity without working out a political arrangement to accommodate their political aspirations within the body polity of Manipur. In order to solve the problem, one has to accept the reality.

One cannot deny the fact that the economic blockade being imposed by ANSAM got intensified following the aborted visit of the NSCN-IM's Supremo to Somdal. At the same time, one should be sincere enough to acknowledge the fact that the economic blockade had been officially imposed by ANSAM demanding rectification of the ADC Act and deferment of the election much before the May 6, Mao incident.

The demand put forward by the ANSAM has nothing to do with the issue of Naga integration and any arbitrary linkage between the two issues would be nothing more than a deliberate policy to deny the Hill Manipuris their legitimate political demands. Nothing would be more communal than this. Why should others unnecessarily oppose the Nagas when they demand something to the Government of Manipur? It is upto the Government of Manipur to respond to their demand after considering the feasibility of the same. Even if the method adopted by the ANSAM results into extreme hardships for the general public, the responsibility to control the situation still remains with the State Government. Otherwise, what is the need of having a Government in place? Our politics should not be based on fear and apprehension.

Therefore, the Sixth Schedule should immediately be extended to the Hills of Manipur. But at the same time, provision should also be made to allow settlement of the valley people in the hill districts. Campaign for emotional and territorial integrity will be rendered meaningless if the hill people are constantly denied of their political rights which have long been overdue. It will be wise to recall why the election to the Autonomous District Council has not been conducted for the last twenty years or so.

In fact, the tribal people had boycotted the ADC election demanding extension of the Sixth Schedule. At that time, the slogan raised by the tribal people was, "No Sixth Schedule, No District Council Election". The present State Government seems to have made a mockery of democracy by frequently amending the ADC Act instead of addressing the genuine grievances of the hill people.

I believe that no Naga of Manipur would desire to join the Nagaland State and further pursue the politics of integration in the event of granting Sixth Schedule to the Hills. In this regard, it will be pertinent to recall what a leader of an insurgent group had said in his interview with the CNN-IBN a few years back :
"We believe all ethnic groups can co-exist respecting one another's distinct identity. However, the majority community should not try to dominate the minority communities. This is the basis of our political outlook. And we believe that there should be autonomy at all levels. Even a small community of 200 people can have autonomy if they so desire."

Reluctance to extend the Sixth Schedule to the Hills might be informed by the fear of disintegration of the State. Besides, certain quarters may be nurturing the view that granting of autonomy to the Hills may become a stepping stone for ultimate secession. However, such a view seems to have no intellectual foundation.

A world renowned constitutional expert, Professor Yash Ghai of the University of Hong Kong writes thus, "autonomy does not promote secession; on the contrary, true autonomy prevents secession". He claims that refusal to grant autonomy on the ground that it leads to secession is not conclusive.