Resolution of Armed-conflict in Manipur: An Alternative Perspective
By DHANABIR LAISHRAM

A solution to the vexed problem of armed-conflict in Manipur is still elusive. Concerned groups seem to be caught in a matrix of meaningless means and endless ends. Moreover, any suggestions, which tend to deviate from the established ‘wisdom’, are treated as blasphemy.(1) As a result, there is little ‘fresh’ thinking on the subject, least of all any proposition, which calls for sacrifice on the part of either of the contestants. In this paper, an alternative paradigm is put forward for consideration.

Basically, the question of conflict resolution arises when each contesting groups/parties have entrenched interests and have given critical output, in terms of relentless pursuits to achieve the goals through available means (armed struggle, ideological warfare, sustained mobilization and recruitment, etc.) over a period of time. Therefore, the first step towards resolution of any conflict is to identify the interests of the conflicting parties. And, the second step is to pursue means, which would make the parties sacrifice their interests so that a ‘compromised line’ could be adopted. This framework incorporates the methodologies and principles of conflict prevention, conflict management and conflict transformation and is, in turn, informed by these.

CONFLICT SITUATION IN MANIPUR

Any attempt for conflict resolution in Manipur needs to address to the two critical conflict situations. One is the ongoing armed-conflict between the armed opposition groups (hereafter AOGs) and the Indian State. And, the second is the conflict situation between the people in the hill and the valley which, so far, has not manifested in physical violence. The latter can be ascribed to different political aspirations of the people in the two geographical areas in the state. For our purpose, the former situation is prioritised over the second, as it can be taken as the source of the chains of conflicts in the state.

The AOGs in Manipur have their own sets of political ideas based on Marxist, Leninist or Maoist lines. Their conception and demand for self-determination is historically rooted and is juxtaposed against the nation-building enterprise of the Indian State and, thus, against her (state) security. Consequently, we have a situation in which two forces subscribing to antagonistic political objectives enter into conflict. Over the years, the situation has escalated. Therefore, any attempt to resolve the crisis needs to determine the genesis of the conflict. From this one can devise modalities to minimise the conflict or predict a time when the conflict is likely to end.

THE GENESIS OF UNREST

Manipur’s existence as a sovereign kingdom for many centuries came to an end when the British defeated her in the Anglo-Manipur War of 1891.(2) Hereafter, the Queen of Britain assumed suzerainty over the kingdom until British paramountcy lapsed on August 14, 1947.(3) Manipur once again became independent and sovereign power was restored to the king. Through a general election in June 1948, under the Manipur Constitution of 1947, popular sovereignty was enforced.(4) The first ever Assembly sitting on October 18, 1948 heralded Manipur as an independent constitutional monarchy. But the independent political status was short-lived as the Dominion of India snatched away the freedom from people on September 21, 1949. The leaders of the then Dominion of India, who had all along maintained that the people of the princely state should decide the future of the state, failed to take into confidence the opinion of the people’s representatives in the then existing national house of Manipur. Instead, the ‘Merger Agreement’ was forced upon the king in Shillong. This was achieved through intimidation and willful manipulation and the King signed the Agreement under duress. The people of Manipur were kept in the dark about this Agreement and it became operational on October 15, 1947 and independent Manipur became a Part ‘C’ State under the Dominion of India. The National Convention on Merger Agreement held on October 28–29, 1993 at Imphal, declared the agreement as ‘lacking constitutional validity and having no legality’ and ‘Merger’ was termed as ‘Annexation’.(5)

Since the day when Manipur was annexed in the most undemocratic way, the people of the state who are of Mongoloid stock, speaking a language of Tibeto-Burman family and having a separate culture and history of its own, have been struggling to regain the lost sovereignty. This is the genesis of political unrest and subsequent armed conflict in the state.

The antagonistic nature of the relationship between Manipur, the occupied nation, and, India the colonial power, emerges strongly as time passes by. Shaped by such a form of power relationship, people have become more organised in their show of defiance against the imposed rule, which is manifested in the form of mass protests, armed revolutionary movements and human rights activism, etc. At the same time, the Indian State’s difficulty in sustaining its continued rule is clearly demonstrated in its implicit dependence on draconian laws and suppressive measures. State terrorism is practised to suppress the people for the continuation of the Indian rule. The fallout is that people’s ‘Right to Life’ is denied in the escalating scenario of human rights violations. Nothing can be clearer than the statement given by one opposition leader in the state legislature of Manipur in the wake of the gang rape of a housewife by the Indian Army on August 1, 1996 in which he termed the incident as a clear case of ‘State Terrorism and human rights violation by the Indian Army.’(6)