MANIPUR: A FAILED STATE WITHIN MULTIPLE SOCIETIES
Manipur embodies a classic case of a failed attempt at instituting a state amidst a multiplicity of mutually exclusive societies - some which are anti-state and some, against co-optation and assimilation within a state. It is a case where attempts at instituting a statist order fails miserably, where pre-existing societies and cultures are feebly integrated, only to be at the brink of a collapse.
Why does this exercise fail? What must have resulted in such a catastrophe? Why is Manipur state a failed project? For an answer to these questions, one must revisit the history of what now constitutes Manipur. Secondly, one needs to understand the complex societal milieu and the multiplicity of cultures and segmentation within societies in Manipur over the years. Then a careful interrogation of the various power centers within Manipur, civil bases and political outlook of the varying cultures might help one make sense of the failed nature of Manipur.
The Past: Anti-state hill societies v/s the State
“90 percent hill-10 percent valley” has often been a recurrent theme in the Manipur conflict. Of the 90% hill lands, there are a multitude of cultures, tribes, tradition and chieftainship, an alternative political and hierarchical set up of parallel societies existing vis-a-vis the State. These hill societies, since pre-colonial times, were never under the Manipur state regime. In fact, Southern Manipur, to this day, has never been under the political control of any Meitei raja. Thus, the hills were never part of the statist arrangement.
The villages and the chiefs were the paramount power in the hills, a political arrangement which is the closest resemblance with that of a modern state. In fact, the institution of a modern state, with its taxes and duties, has never constituted the hill imagination. If at all, ‘avoidance’ has only been the relationship that was shared between the hill men and the state.
Civil societies, tribe councils: Alternative power centers
Hillmen or tribals, including the Nagas and the Zo people (Zomi, Kuki, Hmar/Mizo tribes) have their own set of customary practices, traditions and alternative polity. Criminal cases, civil cases, and all sorts of services which a modern state is supposed to provide had already been in place in tribal societies. Customary practices of poi, suutpi kawi, and of marriages and divorces have been institutionalized and fashioned according to the tribal way of life. This implies that a semblance of order had been in place in parallel existence to the state. This made the modern state redundant, and even till today, these practices are very much in vogue.
Civil societies, Tribe councils, clan based institutions and village level organizations today are now repositories of these age old tribal practices. Each tribal societies with their CSOs have their own legal prescriptions, attuned to local specificities and traditions. An always pertinent fact in regards to tribal civil societies is that they carry heavy weight in matters of politics and in their participation in the exercises of the modern state. This means that these CSOs are huge stakeholders in the modern state polity of Manipur, deriving their mandate from their respective local tribal grounds.
Null accommodation and tribal disdain by the state
With the institution of a state in Manipur, and the encapsulation of all the above multiplicities into a single state entity, accommodation policies and inclusion of marginalized tribal groups within the state must have ensued. However, past experiences of the tribals in their relationship with the state does not signal a healthy inclusion of their interests. Legislative systems have been disproportionately saturated by majority Meiteis, who position themselves as the vanguard of Manipur state integrity. Thus, state-making leaders have to tow the line of majority Meitei interests, and sometimes posit themselves as the embodiment of Meitei whims to garner majoritarian support. This relegated the tribals to the margins of the state, with legislations, government orders - matters regarding land ownership, forest laws and even tribal welfare, fashioned according to majoritarian interests.
Tribal CSOs and alternative societies seemed to be overlooked when the state institution took over. And when the state fails to adequately provide the services these existing institutions have rendered for ages, and when tribal welfare and interests gain no traction in the state agenda, an inevitable clash of civilisations take place - tribal versus the modern state. Each tribal society seeks to attain their respective spaces in the institutional set up of the state. However, a state which is fashioned along majoritarian whims is incapacitated to accommodate such a plurality of tribal interests. This inevitably led to numerous tribal assertions over the years of Manipur’s history.
The Manipur conflict
The Manipur conflict is now a result of the failed attempts of assimilating free and independent tribal societies into an ill-fitting modern state like Manipur. Any attempts at establishing a state institution must be based on compromises and brokering peace, especially when the state is in the brink of a clash with the numerous tribal ways of life which are held dear by them for ages, and an attribution of due regard to tribal customary practices, societies and polity, some which have outlived the state.
However, the present scenario is the culmination of years of disdain of these tribal institutes and stakes within a modern state institution. It might have been an effect of the ill-understanding of the unique tribal societies and their contextual specificities by state-makers. Above all, it is an erroneous exercise to establish a state, when there are already multiple societies positioning themselves as equal stakeholders in their respective domains.
L. Do Sian Mung is a researcher and student leader based in Lamka.
Views expressed are personal.