By Deben Bachaspatimayum
Why does it take so long for the Govt of India to make peace among peoples in Manipur and with it? Why the unending `disturbed condition`™, extra-judicial crimes, corruption and periodic/seasonal turmoil and social unrest are OK for the Central Govt? What does it gain or benefit out of this violent environment? Why the Central Govt wants to make peace with the Kuki and Naga armed groups who have effective control over the hills areas at the international border and across by recognizing their issues which directly threaten the pre-existing state and it`™s Constitutional and historical boundary increasing ethnic /communal tensions between ethnically closed neighbouring communities? Why the sum total of chaotically disturbed conditions OK for the political class of the state who compete to run more or less permanently disturbed Govt by hobnobbing with any national political party in power at the Centre? Why it is OK and satisfying to have seasonal economic blockades on all essential commodity supply lines, stand in queues night long for essential supplies or survive on one`™s own savings and increase tensions in society by dutifully resisting, reacting and rejecting or at best indifferent to any issues raised by hill peoples? Why should one continue to raise all of these questions when it is known that many have died in violent actions, out of frustrations, and/or simply disappeared without any trace on being a mere `suspect`™, by the (extraordinary) law in place? The onus is on the individual to allow natural body mechanism for self protection to escape from this death-trap system and seek answers from outside the system.
Has Manipur state become a violent conflict system that works, dependent, on external supply of resources? 20th century conflict studies tell us that conflict is natural because of the diversity in nature and so it is part of life and society. By definition conflict takes place when two or more party perceive that they have some differences or incompatible goals or interests. By this definition conflict can occur at different levels right from interpersonal to international levels. Sociology looks at conflict as essential function for change in society. Without conflict there cannot be any change. To have conflict can be seen as sign for healthy family and society. The Chinese looks at conflict as an `opportunity`™. But, the word `conflict`™ is badly abused and misunderstood, elsewhere, by associating with it, all kinds of negative or undesirable painful experiences or connotations. Any brainstorm exercises on `conflict`™ will draw out all kinds of words that expresses painful experiences and images all kinds of violence. But if take the Chinese look conflict need not be violent, all the time. It is also found out that conflict can become violent only when people by choice/ by default resort to violence as means to achieve their goals or when parties fail to sort out the issues or differences that are fundamental to each of them. People in the past and present continue to make extreme sacrifices of their lives in conflicts with others when they feel certain things which are non-negotiable in life or in the community are being threatened or compromised by the opponents. Further, any in-depth analysis of violent conflicts, often, lands up with the word `misunderstanding`™ and the chances of having more serious misunderstanding are higher between any two parties who do not share common backgrounds or experiences.
Manipur is land of hills and valley inhabited by diverse ethnic tribes, peoples, identities and languages who migrated from different directions and at different times, lived in relative isolations and it continues of attract migrants from all directions. The first wave of tribes who migrated into the fertile valley became the largest homogenous tribes with a common language binding them leaving behind more than 30 different tribes speaking different languages and identities in the hills surrounding the valley. For all these reasons, it is not unusual for the State of Manipur to get entrenched in spirals of violent conflicts and now to have come to a breaking point at present time. But at the hind sight, it might be helpful to gain a perspective understanding on when the conflicts in Manipur turned violent and how. Conflict must have worked through a homogenous Meitei society from its tribal status to emerge as an indigenous state in the valley and a cultural civilization with its unique art, literature, beliefs, customs and practices for more than 2000 years. The trail of violent conflicts begins to speak audaciously from 18th century onwards when Hinduism was forced upon the unwilling illiterate subjects of the feudal lord under external influence and interventions. Painful memory of tortures and burning of ancient Meitei scriptures are still carried over in the present observed as `Puiya Methaba Numit`, every year. A revivalist Meitei Sanamahi movement over the last few decades resulted into burning down the Central Library in 2004 and force inclusion of Meitei script in education curriculum and official use caused a deep division within Meitei society along different religious and cultural traditions: Hindus and Sanamahi communities. The conversion in the valley also effectively created a gap between hills and valley people by causing painful memories of social discrimination, exclusion and humiliation, following `purity and profane policy`™ against the valley-seeking hill tribes at the periphery to only strike back violently in the 21st century challenging the Manipur State by mobilizing external forces. The force conversion built in violent conflicts within the state and in the society and with other tribes in the hills, based on cultural differences.
By 19th century, further external intervention under the colonial dispensations caused far reaching impacts, in the legal and political environment of the state. Based on religious, cultural, geographical and social differences and divisions between hills and valley the British kept in place separate structures and institutions of governance and administrations totally severing all traditional socio-political relationships between hills and valley. Later, in the 20th century, the autonomy of the hills had to reflected in the drafting both Manipur state (Manipur Hill Areas Regulation) in 1947. The forced merger of the pre-existing independent and nascent democratic state in 1949 to the Union of India carrying post-traumatic syndrome following bloody Hindu-Muslim partition left a deep scare of humiliations among the patriots for losing the native state of the southeast Asian origins on one hand, and on the other, the joy of merging into the great Indian state and its economy of the Indo-Aryan cultural mainstream for the Hinduized section of society along with native state. By 1972 when the merged state was granted statehood under Union of India, the Indian Constitutions was amended to accommodate the pre-existing autonomy of the tribal identities in the hill areas (Hills Areas Committee under Art 371-C) while at the same time restricting their political rights by installing single house of 60 member legislative assembly with unequal representation of 20:40 hills: valley and structural power imbalance. This imbalance has been causing structural conflict within the system in 20th century. The extension of AFSPA 1958 by a resolution of state assembly in 1980 all over the state completely militarized the state to scalp and liquidate all anti-state or anti-national elements on mere suspicion with full legal impunity. But the patriots of pre-existing state continue to fight for over three decades, relentlessly with the belief that they will get freedom from occupational forces, one day. Leaving aside all of these cultural, historical and political reasons of violent conflicts World Bank studies tries to explain violent conflicts by using `greed and grievance`™ theory.
According to this theory, which is based on study of various protracted social conflicts around the world, conflict begins originally with genuine grievances but as it progresses further on over a period of time the greed of power, land, resources, prestige and material benefits take over to continue the fights, endlessly. This theory helps us to identify parties involved in a given protracted social conflict and identify their original grievances and greed over resources. Using this theory as an analytical framework can help us understand why and how certain armed groups in NER have shown climbing down from their tall claims for sovereignty to seeking autonomous areas under the existing state. Further, analysis can also explain how rival groups who fought against one another at one point of time can also come together as close allies, based on discovery of common interests between them. This theory has some limitations. Overusing it to explain all kinds of conflict in our region may be misleading. Moreover, this theory, does not lead us to transformation of a violent conflict system but guides to strike collaborations with conflicting parties by seeking common interests. The violence built in the system continues to work with other adversaries. It is futile to fight against a fully militarized state/ violent system. There are only two options.
Violence is self destructive system. It is said, violence destroys the power it seeks to have. This is one option. Don`™t challenge the state forces with small arms. But wait for the Manipur state to destroy itself by its own machinations. The question is how long and at what cost. There is no clear answer to this unless there are deliberate and subtle plans to hasten the process of self-destruction. The second option is to adopt conflict resolution and conflict transformation approach and put in place several strategies at work to separate violence from healthy conflicts. We need to know in specific terms all the underlying sources of violence and address them appropriately and authentically, once for all, to be able to work with the conflict to transform the systems of violence to one that is creative, productive, innovative and progressive. For the conflict transformation to happen human resource development in the field of conflict transformation and peacebuilding is critical. Transforming a violent conflict system like Manipur also requires an international collaborative of experts in the fields. Based on the international experiences of peacebuilding and conflict transformation, a professional and peace practitioners team from inside and outside the violent conflict system is critical to make the transformation processes more effective and comprehensive. But larger question is: whose interest is conflict transformation?
Why would the political class in Manipur and the Central Govt be interested to invest in conflict transformation in Manipur? Is there a common interest that can be also met better and safer, more efficiently and cost-effectively, and honourably by following nonviolent processes? What are values, needs and interests of each of key stakeholders in this conflict? Which of these values, needs and interests are negotiable and which ones for who is non-negotiable? How is the conflicting situation affecting the values, needs and interests of different parties? How can we work with those non-negotiable issues? We need to crack these riddle sooner to save lives of innocent people before they get engulf in the wild fire of communal hatred. Finally, it is not us and them but the system that has caught into spirals/ vicious cycles of violence by default. And if some of us are able to come out of it, take a systems perspective, we can design a peaceful and harmonious system to work for our social, mental and spiritual advancements in our society. This is possible if we know how to make conflict work for us for a better tomorrow without allowing it to get into violent cycles.
(Deben Bachaspatimayum is a Freelance, Peacebuilding consultant.)