Reducing every conflict to Hindu vs ‘X’ minority

Underlying conditions besetting conflict zones are often extremely complex, while political discourse and deliberately crafted narratives dangerously oversimplify the ground reality. This oversimplification occurs due to a lack of understanding of the historical and multifaceted layers within, leading to the formation of popular perceptions that prioritise divisive factors such as religious or ethnic affiliations. We have witnessed this phenomenon in Jammu and Kashmir, where complex geneological issues of the integrative process were ultimately reduced to a Hindu-Muslim dimension. Similarly, in Punjab, once driven wholly by socio-economic concerns dating back to the Anandpur Sahib Resolutions of 1973, it has now been defined by a Hindu-Sikh divide. More recently, Hyderabad Liberation Day celebrations took on an unmistakable Hindu-Muslim angle, even though the fundamental opposition to the Nizam’s Razakaar force came from unrelated Communists and peasants who could have been from any religious faith. Manipur’s intricate and strained tensions were likewise conveniently reduced to a Hindu versus Christian/Tribal divide to serve political interests.

From the fake outrage of television anchors and biased print reporting to unbridled social media discussions and unrestrained private conversations, nearly everyone contextualised their views of the chaos in Manipur to the Hindu-Meitei versus the ‘other’ (read, tribal, Christian, or even ‘foreigner’), straight from the playbook of majoritarian politics. As is the case in any conflict zone, those claiming to possess the ‘monopoly on truth’ portray themselves as the wronged party, selectively presenting facts to bolster their credibility. Details are cherry-picked to downplay the pain and suffering of the ‘other’ party, while piecemeal facts like Meiteis being disallowed from buying land in the mountainous tracts were further embellished with purported claims of ‘others’ to be ‘drug-racketing’, ‘gun-running’, or being ‘foreigners’, etc. While not entirely false, this narrative is one-sided and lacks historical context, ignoring the prevailing ground situation in Manipur and the existence of various insurgent groups and their antecedents.

It took the irrepressible horror of a leaked video to posit an alternate reality to the wider citizenry. Suddenly, the lot that had been ‘othered’ in the narrative till then also came across as possible victims of unfairness. The compromise of the official machinery, including that of the clearly biased and compromised police forces acting on partisan lines, sprung forth. The worms came out of the woods (though not fully) with details of the video victim hailing from a military family, debunking the majoritarian-nationalist line that had been crafted earlier. Weeks earlier, a detachment of the Indian Army had held terrorists but had to release them owing to pressures from village women who had surrounded them; unbeknownst to most, they too belonged to the majoritarian strain, who had been heroised till then. Suddenly, it dawned that the blame game could not be as lopsidedly partisan (majoritarian) as had been done, as there were villains on both sides.

What most don’t know is that the last major terror strike in 2020, entailing the ambush of an Indian Army Commanding Officer and his family, was done by an insurgent group belonging to the majoritarian side and not to the ‘othered’ one in the recent conflict. Full facts could destroy the carefully stitched narrative of identities that supports partisanship. The fact is that the most powerful insurgent groups in the bloody history (and present) of Manipur do not belong to the ‘othered’ ethnicity. But this is not to suggest that the Kukis and their own armed militias have been aboveboard or even pro-India—but only to suggest nuance and measure, to not fall into traps laid out by partisan narratives that can amplify or suppress wrongs at will.

Recently, an Indian Army soldier, Sepoy Serto Thangthang Kom, was tragically kidnapped and killed while on leave in his village. He too belonged to the till-now ‘othered’ side of identity perceptions, belying the convenient ‘us-versus-them’ storyline, with strains of nationalism conjoined to the same.

Even the recent terror attack in Kashmir saw the killings of three senior officers, including DSP Humayun Bhatt, who was a second-generation officer in the Indian Police, as his father too had earlier retired as the Inspector General of J&K Police. But the reality of many Kashmiris who don the Indian ‘uniform’ and defend the nation to protect its territorial integrity is rarely ‘normalised’ in public imagination, as it could weaken the more electorally gratifying, even if polarising, line of Hindu-Muslim ‘divide’.

Given the recent diplomatic dissonance between India and Canada on the ‘Khalistani’ issue, care must be taken to make no sweeping generalities about any community. While the government must do whatever it takes to send a strong argument to the Canadian authorities, the voluble party spokespersons and patronised troll armies must never forget that the community in question has shed far more blood for the nation and that they need no further certificates of patriotism, especially from folks who will never come even remotely close to the dangers and sacrifices that they undertook. The roll call of martyrs who stand tall defending India on the borders and those who routinely pay the ultimate price cannot be subjected to innuendoes, barbs, and lazy aspersions.

While secessionists, insurgents, supremacists, and bigots are an undeniable reality, it is not the exclusive preserve of any specific community, as all are complicit. To attribute the malaise only to specific communities is to take sides and be wholly partisan, as desired by politicians. WhatsApp forwards cannot be internalised towards hatemongering and building societal divides. India is given too diverse a landscape that insists on mature, civilisational and, above all, constitutional choices to be made to cherry-pick instances while framing narratives. Superimposing identity-based perceptions militates against the notions of ‘Idea of India’ and the citizens must beware falling prey to the identity-based politics of some, as was practiced once by the British towards divide-and-rule. Demonising some as ‘others’ makes electoral sense, not constitutional sense.

(The writer is former Lt-Governor of Puducherry and Andaman & Nicobar Islands)