Why Manipur is imploding

TROUBLE IN NORTHEAST : A stagnant economy, competition with 'outsiders' and limits on civil liberties instilled a sense of siege in the valley.

The recent clashes in Manipur between the people of the valley and the hills are manifestations of a deeper crisis caused by the erosion of the state’s syncretic culture.

Manipur consists of Meitei-dominated valley that hosts two-thirds of its population, but makes up only 1/10th of its area. The Valley is completely surrounded by hills,  home to over 30 Naga and Kuki-Chin tribes. The tribes speak languages that are, in most cases, mutually unintelligible.

Historically, the hills and the valley were bound together by trade and were intermittently brought under one state by the Meitei kings, whose army was multiethnic and court culture borrowed from various communities. This shared history nurtured Manipuri spoken by Meiteis as the lingua franca of the valley and adjoining hills. Manipuri came to serve as a bridge between communities.

From 1972-97, half of Manipur’s chief ministers were from minorities – (Meitei) Muslim and (Christian) Tangkhul tribe, but after that, only Meiteis have served as CMs. Manipur’s (linguistic) syncretism has weakened over the years partly because the Church introduced the Latin script for tribal languages, while Meitei ethnic nationalists promoted an indigenous script for Manipuri.

Legatees of a millennium-old literate civilisation, Meiteis expect to be treated differently from tribes (Manipuri is the only Tibeto-Burman language of the North-East with an indigenous script, while Manipuri dance is among the region’s two classical dances). Both Delhi and the Bengali neighbours of Meiteis failed to meet the expectations. The tribal elite secured access to higher education and central jobs due to reservation and received political attention thanks to armed insurgencies (Meiteis eventually floated insurgent groups and demanded tribal status).

Manipur attained statehood in 1972, nine years after Nagaland and that too without comparable constitutional safeguards. This hurt Meiteis who thought they deserved a separate state before others given their long history of self-governance under an indigenous state. The delayed inclusion of Manipuri in the Eighth Schedule had hurt their cultural pride too. (Manipuri was the first Tibeto-Burman language in this category, though). So, Meiteis were denied the benefits enjoyed by tribes as well as integration with and recognition in the “mainland.”

They fell between two stools, with both tribes and caste Hindus treating them as “others.” Meiteis also resented that they were not allowed to buy land in the hills while the tribes could settle in the valley, and that the tribes controlled the valley’s supply lines. A stagnant economy, competition with `outsiders’ for land and jobs, and limits on civil liberties imposed under the pretext of fighting insurgency instilled a sense of siege in the valley that has been aggravated after 1997 by the secretive talks between the Centre and the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-IM/Isak-Muivah faction). The NSCN-IM is claiming more than half of Manipur for “Greater Nagaland.”

The identity and economic crises pushed a section of Meiteis to call for severance of bonds with the mainland, de-Sanskritisation of Meitei culture, and the reinstatement of pre-18th century script and religion. In early 18th century, traditional Meitei faith, scholarship and script were suppressed by a Meitei king of purportedly uncertain lineage, who embraced a strand of Bengali Vaishnavism.

The state government approved the reinstatement of an indigenous script (Meitei Mayek) in 1980, despite disagreements over the identification of the “original” version. However, it did not do much to promote that script. In 2005, a movement in favour of the indigenous script culminated in the burning of the State Central Library, which had a big collection of texts in Bengali-Manipuri script.

The government hastily agreed to redouble its efforts to introduce the script in schools and administration. The tribes were familiar with Manipuri written in Bengali-Manipuri script. They did not want to learn another script and sought recognition for Latin as one of the scripts for Manipuri. The syncretic language that belonged to everyone, now got split into parallel streams.

Violent protests

Meiteis then demanded the introduction of permits a la Nagaland to limit the influx of outsiders. In 2015, the government obliged them by introducing controversial legislation in the face of violent protests in the tribal areas, where people feared that the proposed laws could deprive them of their rights as original inhabitants. In 2016, the government bifurcated tribal districts ignoring objections. In both cases, the government violated legislative customs and its constitutional obligations. Meiteis have genuine concerns about territorial implications of the talks between partisans of “Greater Nagaland” and the Centre. However, use of legislative majority to impose policies on tribes will not help their cause.

The Tangkhul-dominated NSCN-IM, which is trying to make the partition of Manipur seem desirable, has also contributed to the erosion of communal harmony. Its pursuit of “Greater Nagaland” has been associated with the killing of moderate Tangkhuls, the marginalisation of other Naga tribes of Manipur, the forcible co-option of smaller non-Naga tribes of Manipur into the Naga fold, and the ethnic cleansing of Kukis. It has also used Naga civil society organisations to impose long blockades that have caused immense hardship to Meiteis and alienated them from Nagas.

There are two clear beneficiaries from the latest flare-up. First, three-term Chief Minister Ibobi Singh, who is trying to divide the tribes that joined hands against controversial bills and rally Meiteis behind his party ahead of the 2017 elections. Second, the NSCN-IM, which is in search of an external enemy after its credentials to lead Nagas have come under severe attack in Nagaland. Unfortunately, the erosion of Manipur’s syncretic culture has given a free hand to opportunists and extremists on both sides.

(The writer teaches at Azim Premji University, Bengaluru)