| Sunday, December 21, 2003 |

Forum  E-Mail  Site Search
 
THIS WEEK
  Front Page
  Manipur
  Features
  Opinions
  Profiles
  Editorials
  Interviews
  Potpourri
  Photos
  Books
Links
Forum
 
ARCHIVES
 
MANIPURONLINE
- About Us
- Advertise
- Feedback
- Contact Us
- Classifieds
- Letters to the Editor
 
TOOLS
Currency Converter
Stock Calculator
National Stock Exchange
Bombay Stock Exchange
xxx
 
Front Page >> Features  > Story

Step 2: In the <body>, place the 
   
Ethnicity And Politics In Manipur
By  Prof. Gangmumei Kamei
Ethnic pluralism, ethnic nationalism and ethnic politics are popular terms in contemporary politics of Manipur. I welcome the current debate on ethnic politics, among the academics, political activists and some political parties. The National Research Centre has taken the initiative to organize a discourse on Ethnicity and Politics in Manipur. It is true; politicization of ethnicity has taken deep roots in Manipur with its ramification on culture, economic development and governance. There is no aspect of life of the people which has not been affected by ethnicity.

I prefer to apply the primordialist interpretation of ethnicity according to which ethnicity means the 'primordial consciousness' of an ethnic group. 'Primordial' means 'existing from the beginning of time.' Primordial consciousness means the feeling of existence from the beginning. It means the original roots of community. The 'primordial consciousness' is therefore, a pyscho-social phenomenon which persists in any society. This consciousness is the motive force behind the formation of an ethnic identity. Ethnicity is the expression of oneness of an entity based on race, language, culture, religion and common heritage. Ethnicity or the ethnic consciousness had led to the emergence of ethnic movements in many parts of the world leading to ethnic nationalism and or multi-ethnic State system. Manipur is a land of ethnic diversity.

It is the land of three major ethnic communities, the Meiteis who had formed the nation-State by the 15th century, the Nagas who are an indigenous community divided into several tribes who are given a exogenous identity by the British colonial rulers through a generic name 'Naga' since the beginning of the nineteenth century and the Kuki Chin who migrated to Manipur in different periods of history and who had been given another exogenous identity called 'Kuki'.

Ethnicity is a very decisive force in the identity formation of the Nagas and the Kukis. But among the Meiteis it had ceased to be an effective force after the attainment of nationhood and nation State. Manipur is actually a Meitei nation State in which the Nagas and Kuki Chin form very important segments.

Ethnicity was first introduced in the governance of Manipur during the colonial rule when they separated the administration of the hill tribes from that of Manipur valley. The Maharaja was entrusted with the administration of the Meitei inhabited valley with the help of Manipur State Durbar while, the President of the Manipur State Durbar, a British ICS officer was to administer the hill tribes who were sub-divided into the Nagas and the Kukis. And the British indirect rule was introduced in the hills areas.

The British further recognized the Kuki Chiefs and the headmen or the Khullakpas of the Nagas who were authorized to administer their villages through the tribal customary laws. Thus, ethnicity was made an element of governance of the hill tribes. And it still continues in the post-independence period. Politicization of ethnicity was rooted in the colonial administrative system and it is continued even later on.

Politics in the classical perception is the science of governance of a State with the welfare of the citizens as its prime objective. But politics, in practice, has become a craft of management of power which resides in and emanates from the State. It also means the use, control and capture of the power of the State. A State in the classical sense is a people living in a definite territory with a Government of their own possessing a sovereign power to deal with foreign countries.

The political process is the structure and working of a political system within the parameters of a State. The concept of one nation, one State as the basis of a nation-state has undergone a change and it does not exist in its puritanical forms. Manipur was a nation-state but it had an ethnic diversity in her population. This diversity has been sharpened by ethnic identity formation and assertion amongst the tribal people of Manipur.

Ethnic pluralism is a basis of the multi-ethnic State of Manipur. Ethnic diversity is shown by history as the legacy of conquest and subsequent political and social subjugation which led to a plural society.

The Anglo-Manipur war of 1891 led to the British conquest of Manipur including the diverse ethnic groups within the territory of Manipur under the political and administrative control of the kingdom of Manipur. Manipur remained a native State under the British paramountcy but the colonial rule encouraged the ethnic groups, the Nagas and Kukis to assert their separate ethnic identity. During the last years of the British rule, the tribal elites were encouraged to form their tribal organisations, Kabui Samiti (1934), Kabui Naga Association (1946), Zeliangrong Council (1947), Manipur Zeliangrong Union (1947), the Kuki National Assembly (KNA), Paite National Council, Tangkhul Long, Vaiphei National Union, Gangte Tribal Union, Hmar National Union, Khulmi Union etc. The tribes had asserted their ethnicity in social, economic and political formation. In such a plural society, conflict is inevitable. The various ethnic groups try to get maximum benefits from the Government. But the elites of these social and cultural groups who were educated and who had connections with the colonial Government or Christian mission or the Maharaja and the British army made 'alliances and collaboration even compromises' among themselves to have access to the power of the State and its resources. The Second World War and post-World War II relief compensations had made possible the inflow of Government money and led to the emergence of contractors and businessmen. These elites made the State a center of power, a resource base and a distributor of resources to harmonize the various interests in the plural State of Manipur. There was an ethnic competition for access to the power and resources of the State. They participated in the political process.

They participated in the drafting of the new Constitution for Manipur to be enforced at the departure of the British in August 1947. The Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947 provided a Constitutional monarchy with a 53 member Legislative Assembly, basic human rights with universal adult franchise. The relation between Manipur and the Dominion of India was guided by the Instrument of Accession and the Stand Still Agreement signed by Maharaja of Manipur. Manipur was an autonomous State with complete internal independence though she accepted Indian currency, post and telegraph, foreign affairs and defense.

In such a political scene, there was a potential danger of the dominant group making the State an instrument of domination leading to despotism of one ethnic or cultural group. The success or otherwise of a multi-ethnic structure and plural society depends on the values and ethos of the dominant group and the readiness of the non-dominant groups to accept their leadership without losing their identity and fully protecting their interests. In this the ethnic diversity is reflected in the management of power and governance of the State.

In the drafting of the Manipur State Constitution in 1947, the Maharaja appointed both the dominant Meitei leaders and representatives of the Naga and Kuki groups as member of the drafting committee. The Kabui Naga Association complained that no Kabui representative was appointed as a member of the committee. Later on, their representative was appointed after the completion of the drafting. During the work of the drafting committee, a Mao Naga leader, A. Daiho strongly argued that the hill tribes should have the right of secession from the State after five years. His proposal was rejected.

In the post-independence period, the representatives of the hill tribes were appointed as Ministers of the State which had never occurred in the history of Manipur. In the election of 1948, 18 seats were reserved for the hills but not on the basis of tribes, the remaining seats were for the valley including Mohammedans. Democracy had provided the opportunity for participation in the governance of the State either as Ministers or members of the Assembly. Every community was represented except the Mao as there was no election due to political agitation. The election of 1948 was the endorsement of the State by the people of Manipur in a democratic way. There were 8 Naga MLAs - 5 Tangkhuls, 2 Zeliangrong and one Monshang, the other 9 were Kuki-Chins including Kom and Paite. In this short-lived experiment in constitutional monarchy, the tribal people accepted the primal position of the Maharaja as the head of the kingdom and leadership of the Meiteis in the democratic set-up as the Chief Minister was a prince appointed by the Maharaja. The hill people accepted the Maharaja as the symbol of unity of the kingdom. This symbol was destroyed when the State was merged with the Dominion of India in October 1949. There was a strong and popular demand by the urban based Congress party for the abolition of the monarchy and integration into India.

The Merger destroyed both autonomy and democracy of Manipur and brought a bureaucratic Central rule under a Chief Commissioner. This was, in practice, the continuance of the colonial rule, a mere replacement of the white men by the brown sahibs of the Government of India. This was a most unfortunate political development in the modern history of Manipur which was as disastrous as the British conquest of Manipur of 1891 in its consequences. Had the Government of India permitted the continuation of the working of the Manipur State Constitution within Indian Union, the people would not have felt the change from the Maharaja to the Chief Commissioner.

During the two decades after the Merger and adoption of the Indian Constitution, Manipur witnessed the assertion of the various ethnic groups. In 1951, the Government grouped officially the tribes of Manipur into three categories as the Scheduled tribes, Any Naga Tribe, Any Kuki Tribe and Any Lushai Tribe. This was the official acceptance of the Naga and Kuki identity of the various tribes. But the tribes themselves did not like these nomenclatures and submitted to the Backward Classes Commission for individual tribes to be recognized as Scheduled tribes. As per recommendation of the Commission, 29 tribes were recognized as Schedule Tribes in the President's order of 1956. The ethnic principle was also applied by the Government of India in the Constitution of the Advisory Council of Manipur under the Chairmanship of the Chief Commissioner. The ethnic groups including the Nagas and Kukis participated in the first Indian Election to the Parliament and Electoral College of 1952, the subsequent elections in 1957, 1962, 1967, and 1971 before the attainment of Statehood in 1972. Ethnicity at the tribe and clan level became a factor in the voting pattern in these elections.

Politicization of Ethnicity:

After India's independence, the ethnic groups of North East India tried to assert their ethnicity in politics of the region. Attempts were made to forge a tribal solidarity. Their greatest success was the incorporation of the VI Schedule of Indian Constitution which provided autonomy for the tribal areas. They were attracted to the parliamentary democracy of the Indian Constitution. Only the Nagas under the Naga National Council raised their rights to self determine their future by declaring their independence. They did not participate in the Constituent Assembly nor did they accept the Indian Constitution. The NNC conducted a plebiscite on May 16, 1951 to express their support for an independent Nagaland. They revolted in 1956 at the expiry of the ten year tenure of the 9-Point Agreement between the NNC and Governor of Assam.

In Manipur, there were two agitations after 1947; one was Hmar Movement for merger with Lushai Hills as inspired by the Mizo Union of the Lushai Hills district. The other was that of the Naga People's League which stood for the independence of the Nagas, in Mao area of north Manipur. But other Nagas and the Kukis did not participate in the Naga National Movement, nor with the merger with the Lushai hills. The Nagas of Manipur did not participate in the Plebiscite of 1951 which was regarded as the bedrock of Naga independence movement. Their non-participation in the Plebiscite was regarded as a unique feature of the politics of the Naga of Manipur. But due to the denial of democratic rights to the people of Manipur, there emerged different movements against the new 'colonial' rule of the Indian Government. One was the demand for the restoration of the 'Assembly' of Manipur, second was the demand for independence of Manipur, the third was for Naga Independence. The fourth was for Mizo-Kuki independence.

In the demand for the restoration of the Assembly and Statehood from 1954 to 1972, all the ethnic groups participated under the aegis of the political parties and several tribal organisations.

It was the Manipur National Union under the leadership of Sagolsem Indramani of Imphal and Yangmaso Shaiza of Ukhrul which first raised the demand for the independence of the ancient State of Manipur. Then in 1966, with the inspiration of Naga Nationalist Movement, the Meitei State Committee worked for independence, and United National Liberation Front and the Revolutionary Government of Manipur was formed.

Naga insurgency was started in 1956 in the then Naga Hills district. As a response to this rebellion, the Government of India created the Naga-Hills-Tuensang Area (NHTA) in 1957 and made an agreement with the Naga People's Convention in 1960 and formed the 16th State of the Indian Republic, to be named Nagaland to provide an ethnic homeland for the Nagas in the Indian Union. In the late 1958, the Naga rebels infiltrated into the Naga inhabited areas of Manipur which was a Union Territory and influenced the Naga leaders to join the Naga National Movement. The Naga leaders, who were inclined towards the NNC, formed the Manipur Naga Council (MNC) in 1960. They supported the NNC's boycott of the general election of 1962 and joined the NNC ultimately. In 1964, an agreement in respect of suspension of operation was concluded between the Federal Government of Nagaland and Government of India. The 'Ceasefire' was extended to three sub-divisions of Manipur. This extension was the beginning of the legitimization of the demand of the Naga ethnic territory. (Which was denied in 1997- India and Naga Ceasefire and the denial was confirmed by the roll back of the Ceasefire for Manipur on July 27, 2002, creating the on-going debate on ethnic territory of the Nagas). After the failure of talks between NNC and Government of India, the Naga insurgency was in a low key in Manipur.

In 1966, the Mizo National Front revolted and their cadres also operated in the Kuki-Chin areas of Manipur. The Kuki-Mizo partnership in this rebellion produced a Kuki-Mizo solidarity. But they were opposed by the Paite dominated Zomis. The Chin-Kuki-Mizo solidarity was greatly fastened. In the Mizo-Kuki revolt in Manipur, the issue of Kuki State and Independent Chinland were pushed into the background.

The ethnic 'Irridentist Movement' reflected in the Naga integration and Mizo integration are co-terminus with the ethnic nationalist movement. It was the demand for the integration of 'contiguous Naga areas' raised by the Naga People Convention in their Sixteen Point Memorandum (1959) which was subsequently recorded in the 16-Point Agreement of 1960 and the creation of Nagaland State in 1963 that gave encouragement to the Naga leaders of Manipur to start the Naga Irridentist Movement in the years before the granting of Statehood to Manipur by the Government of India in 1972. 

This was reinforced by the Indo-Naga Ceasefire of 1964 which was extended to three sub-divisions of Manipur which gave legitimization of the claimed 'ethnic theory' of the Nagas. The Naga leaders of Manipur who took prominent role in the movement were political leaders who were sidelined and ignored by the State Congress Party. Their movement was opposed by the political parties and Government of Manipur. This movement was a classic example of 'a group of elitist leaders of an ethnic group being denied in the power sharing by a dominant ethnic group trying to assert their power through an irridentist issue. Had the leadership of the Congress party been judicious in accommodating the aspiration of those ex-Socialist Naga leaders, the Naga integration movement might not have been started by them.

However, the situation became very volatile as similar movement for integration of Kuki-Mizo areas into Mizo hill district under the inspiration of the Mizo National Front was started. Simultaneously, there was a strong movement for granting of Statehood for Manipur. Amidst these three contradictory movements, there emerged a very popular non-political movement for cultural integration for social harmony among the people of Manipur. The Manipur cultural integration movement was initiated by a strong group of dedicated intellectuals and youth belonging to all ethnic communities, based on common past and common cultural heritage with a strong plea for a common future. Manipur had not faced such a great crisis since Seven Years' Devastation (1819-1826) of her survival as a multi-ethnic nation State.

General Election of 1971:

This great question of Manipur to be or not to be a State was settled by the fiercely contested General Election of 1971. This is the greatest example of the politicization of ethnicity. There was three crucial issues in this election; Naga integration of Rishang Keishing, Mizo integration of Holkhomang Haokip, Manipur integration and Statehood of Paokai Haokip of INC and 'Manipur's integrity' of Yangmasho Shaiza, an Independent backed by CPI. Integration or Disintegration of Manipur was the issue.

One Naga leader and one Kuki leader stood for disintegration of Manipur. One Naga leader and one Kuki leader stood for integration and Statehood. One Kuki leader, Paokai Haokip won and the two irridentist candidates were defeated. This dangerous and emotive issue was settled by the electoral mandate given by the people of Manipur, the Nagas, the Kuki-Chin and the Meiteis. Statehood was granted by the Government of India in 1972. The United Naga Integration Committee (UNIC) of Rishang Keishing was merged with Indian National Congress in August 1972. The United Naga Integration Committee (UNIC) died and Rishang Keishing became the leader of the Congress Party and was elected four times as a Chief Minister of Manipur. But the Congress Party in the Merger Agreement gave an assurance that the question of Naga integration could be discussed in the Congress Party as the Naga integration was not an anti-national or anti-Constitutional issue. The organization was dead but the idea survives. The seed laid by the Naga People's Convention in 1959, converted by Rishang Keishing into a movement was revived by the Naga Nationalist demand for a unified Nagalim. The idea was rejected by Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru in the 16-Point Agreement of 1960, by Indira Gandhi in the granting of Statehood of Manipur in 1972, by IK Gujral in the Indo-Naga Ceasefire in 1997, and by Atal Bihari Vajpayee in his rejection of the extension of the ceasefire 'Without Territorial Limit' in July 2001 and his Kohima Declaration of October 29, 2003, rejecting demand for Greater Nagaland. Mandate of the people expressed through their vote saved Manipur. But the Naga Irridentist Movement may continue.

Constraints of a multi-ethnic State:

The constraints of a multi-ethnic State are resolved or attempted to be resolved in a democracy. Conflict resolution has become a major function of a multi-ethnic State. The diverse ethnic interests are accommodated due to the collaboration and compromises of the elites. In Manipur, the problems of ethnic diversity and contradictory ethnic aspirations have come out, as noted above, in focus with the Merger of Manipur with the Dominion of India and the introduction of pseudo-democratic institution under the Indian Constitution under a frame of colonial administrative system. India had preserved the distinct political entity of Manipur despite her changing (or gradually improving) political status. But Manipur is facing a serious problem of ethnic diversity and plural society in politics, administration, development process and social solidarity. Yet, the Indian parliamentary democratic process with its emphasis on equality and participation in the power-sharing and resource sharing are binding Manipur. What are the features of this binding tie?

The idea of Manipur:

The picture of Manipur felt in the hearts and minds of her people and their psyche is the idea of Manipur. The feeling of the people towards their own homeland, their history, their culture, their understanding of their economy and political system constitute the idea of Manipur.

Manipur is a cradle of human civilization and human creativity. Manipur represents a rich culture and civilization. Manipur is the meeting place of different races, cultures and religious out of which, a composite culture is evolved which is Manipur's unique contribution to world culture and Indian civilization. Culture is the epitome of Manipur.

History looms large over every aspect of Manipur. She has been rightly described as a gift of history. It is true that Manipur was a historically evolved State through the centuries. Her two thousand old history is a unique historical phenomenon in India, which her people are really proud of.

Manipur is a hill State as the ancient poets say, a golden country, surrounded by mountains and guarded by the highlander. It is the gateway between India and South-East Asia. It is an international route of trade, commerce and migration. It was the passage for the Indian adventurers, colonizers, traders and religious missionaries of ancient times to the countries in South-East Asia. It was also a route for the people of South-East and China to North-East India. Manipur has, in return, been influenced by the Indo-Aryan culture and Sino-Tibetan culture of Central Asia and South-East Asia.

Manipur is a plural society and a multi-ethnic State consisting of the peoples like the Meiteis, the Nagas, the Kuki-Chins, the Meitei-Pangals (Manipuri Muslims) and Indian immigrants. Originally, a Meitei nation State, ethnic pluralism is the foundation of the State of Manipur through the ages with full participation of the various communities with the full protection of their ethnic, religious and cultural identities. The State of Manipur is a partnership of all sections of her population. Manipur belongs to them collectively.

Manipur is a multi-religious State of Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Sanamahi and tribal indigenous faiths. Though the Meitei and tribes have embraced alien religious, Hinduism and Christianity, they still preserve their traditional culture and way of life. Religious toleration and respect for each other's religious bind them all. They preserve their culture, dance, music, folklore and folk literature.

The people of Manipur had shared the joy and sorrows of their history, ravages of the Burmese invasion, British conquest and ravages of the world war, the colonial rule and economic hardship. Manipur is economically underdeveloped but a socially progressive State.

Manipur presents a portrait of heterogeneity and homogeneity. But the sense of unity in diversity is the underlying binding tie.

However, one has to admit that Manipur is in a critical situation, in which the forces of Indian democracy, nationalism and internal colonial economy are at variance with the Meitei nationalism, Naga nationalism and the Kuki-Chin aspirations. Manipur is confronted with the challenge of the conflicts arising out of the encounters between these forces. This has been further complicated with social fragmentation and economic deprivations. Manipur has to resolve the present challenges to her polity and its social foundation, if she has to survive as a State. She will survive as she had overcome greater crises in her long history.

Federal structure of Manipur:

Some academics and political activists think that federalism or ethnic federalism is an answer to the political instability and ethnic contradiction in Manipur. Based on the Swiss model, federation consisting of three nationalities, the French, the Germans, and the Italians, Manipur State also may be visualized as a multi-ethnic sub-federation within the Indian federation. We are aware that on the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission and pronouncements of the Supreme Court of India, Federalism has been accepted as a basic feature of the Indian Constitution. Such a sub-federalism in the context of Manipur calls for the restructuring of the Federal relation between Manipur State and Government of India. A restructuring of Manipur's polity based on her Pre-Merger political status via-a-vis the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947 and the two treaty documents known as the Stand Still Agreements and the Instrument of Accession is necessary.

Such a restructuring will provide greater autonomy for Manipur which may be worked out through a negotiation between the people and Government of Manipur with the Government of India. It is also essential that in order to meet the two major ethnic aspirations, an internal federal restructuring may be considered for a public debate.

A federal restructuring of Manipur based on the Pre-Merger Manipur State Constitution Act and the two treaties, Stand Still Agreement and Instrument of Access may be incorporated in the Constitution of India. This will spell out the federal relation between Manipur and Government of India and the subjects mentioned in the two treaty documents. The Constitutional provision will provide a greater autonomy for Manipur at different levels of governance.

*** This article is the improved version of the speech given by the author at the Talk on Ethnicity and Politics of Manipur organized by the National Research Center, at Manipur University on September 16, 2003.

Courtesy: The Sangai Express

  

 

 Copyright © 2002 ManipurOnline. A Virgo Communications Company ALL RIGHTS RESERVED..  | Privacy Policy | Contact Us