The conflicts in Manipur have a long socio-political history. The root causes behind these clashes are diverse and complex, including colonization, governance issues, drug trafficking, discrimination, geopolitics, and militarization. The ethnic groups and governments have failed to reconcile the differences peacefully. Through this chapter, the researcher is trying to provide an overview of the conflict and how this has affected the people of Manipur. The researcher will identify various dimensions of the conflict in Manipur and analyze how drug trafficking, land rights, and illegal migration are linked to ethnic violence between Kukis and Meiteis by highlighting the historical, cultural, and political aspects of the problem. Further, the existing policies and laws are analysed. Finally, the need for peace negotiations, the requirement for the disarmament of the communities, the need for investigation and trial of grave violations, and the necessity for establishing a truth and reconciliation commission will be discussed.
TopThe Hills-Valley Divide
It is important to outline the hill-valley divide in Manipur to understand the existing conflict. All socio-economic, political, and cultural developments or non-developments in Manipur have to be seen through the prism of this divide (Hausing, 2009.). Before the arrival of the British, the hills were under the autonomous rule of Chiefs. During the colonial period, the hills and valley were differentiated and administered separately. The Britishers exercised direct rule in the valley and indirect rule partially in the hills, widening the gap between the hills and the valley. Moreover, the divide-and-rule policy of the British widened the cultural gap among the communities (Kumar Sharma, 2017). During the colonial period, the policies adopted excluded the hills as the hills were considered unproductive and economically unviable. Therefore, the gap in economic development between tribals and non-tribals increased.
This divide continued even after the British rule. Over the years, the inequality and gap between the hills and valley have grown, leading to continued ethnic conflicts. The valley region remained the center for all socio-political activities. The non-tribal people occupying the valley have more fertile land and are economically superior to the tribals in the hills. The valley people enjoyed more political power and marginalized the tribes in the hills. Due to the larger number of Meitei people residing in the valley, they have a higher number of representatives in the state assembly (only 19 seats are reserved for tribals out of 60 seats), giving them more power in decision-making. Since 1990, there have been only Meitei Chief Ministers for Manipur. The Meiteis are considered economically and politically powerful compared to the Kukis and Nagas, who live in deplorable conditions on the underdeveloped hills. The state governments in Manipur have always been alleged to have a bias in favour of Meiteis and use most of its funds are utilized towards the development of Imphal Valley while depriving the rightful developments in the hills.
The developments are different in valleys and hills. The Meiteis are in a more advanced and prosperous position compared to other ethnic communities in Manipur in terms of education, infrastructure, and employment. In contrast, the hill areas faced inadequacies in educational services, transportation, health care, hospitals, infrastructure, employment opportunities, and access to resources. The state resources concentrate on the valley, causing inequality toward the hill people. In this hills-valley divide, Kukis are more vulnerable compared to Nagas, who have already secured a homeland for themselves, Nagaland (Kipgen & Chowdhury, 2016).
This non-inclusive growth and the failure to address the legitimate aspirations of the hill people have led to political unrest, continued insurgency, ethnic violence, and demands for self-determination and autonomy movements in Manipur. For several decades, the Kuki homeland and Greater Nagaland movements demanded the right to self-determination and self-governance.