Understanding Ethnicity-based Autonomy Movements: A Study of Manipur
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
| Published date | 01 June 2017 |
| Author | Komol Singha |
| DOI | 10.1177/2321023017698260 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Understanding Ethnicity-based
Studies in Indian Politics
5(1) 55–66
Autonomy Movements: A Study of
© 2017 Lokniti, Centre for the
Study of Developing Societies
Manipur
SAGE Publications
sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2321023017698260
http://inp.sagepub.com
Komol Singha1
Abstract
Since the 1960s, Manipur has been plagued by Meitei secessionist movements demanding/striving
for independence from India. However, in the 1990s, following the upsurge of Naga ethnicity-based
autonomy movement within the state and its counter movements by other groups, the secessionist
movement was embroiled in internal feuds. In this process, grouping and regrouping of tribal com-
munities had taken place, impinged by the predatory elites for their political and economic interests.
Unfortunately, the state’s interventions failed to contain protracted conflicts; they rather compounded
the situation, gave rise to hybrid ethnic identities and led to the recurrence of demands for internal
autonomy.
Keywords
Autonomy movement, ethnic identity, Manipur, Nagas, state response
Introduction
Manipur can broadly be divided into two geographical regions—the valley and the hills. The former,
comprising one-tenth of the state’s area is inhabited by around 65 per cent of population especially the
Meiteis. The valley is ringed by the hills with nine-tenth of the area where around 35 per cent of the tribes
(33 recognized and other non-recognized tribes) reside. Meitei being a majority community, Meiteilon/
Manipuri is used as lingua-franca in Manipur.
Due to discontent over the forceful annexation of the kingdom in 1949 and the delay in granting state-
hood, several Meitei organizations with separatist leanings emerged in the 1950s (CDPS, 2015; Singh,
2010). The armed movement for secession/sovereignty from India was kicked off in 1964 with the for-
mation of the United National Liberation Front (UNLF) and intensified in the 1980s when other like-
minded organizations joined it. This had landed the state in a situation of unrest. However, in the 1990s,
following the upsurge of Naga ethnicity-based autonomy movement within the state and its counter
movements by other groups including the Kukis, the secessionist movement, although did not fully
die down, but shifted towards internal feuds among the ethnic groups over the issues of exclusivity,
1 Department of Economics, Sikkim University, Gangtok, Sikkim, India.
Corresponding author:
Komol Singha, Head, Department of Economics, Sikkim University, Gangtok, Sikkim, India.
E-mail: komolhijam2@yahoo.com
56
Studies in Indian Politics 5(1)
dominance and integration (Oinam, 2003). Meiteis, living in the valley being a majority community and
also holding economic and political power, have created a string of hegemonic political and cultural
expressions towards the tribes. As a medium of democratic movement and to put pressure on the state or
Meiteis/valley, economic blockades on the two National Highways (NH 39 and NH 53), which connect
the state with the rest of the world, have become a common feature in Manipur. For instance, Manipur
witnessed the longest ever economic blockade that cut-off the state from the rest of the world for 123
days in 2011, spearheaded by the Kuki ethnic group demanding the creation of Sadar Hill district and its
counter blockade by the Nagas against its creation. In this manner, in the 1990s, Manipur has been the
worst affected state in the country’s Northeastern Region (NER or region hereafter) due to its various
internal movements and counter movements (Lacina, 2009). Its resultant conundrum hobbles the state’s
socio-economic condition in the long run (Singha & Singh, 2016, p. 18).
While analyzing different autonomy movements in the region, especially in Manipur, the larger ques-
tions we always ask are about their transformation into inter-group hostilities from the erstwhile armed
movement for secession and the state’s responses to it. Is this purely a tactical shift by the insurgents or
a strategic re-calibration by the competing ethnic groups? Why has the state failed to contain the inter-
group hostilities so far? With these questions in mind, the present article analyzes the processes and
consequences of autonomy movements bolstered by different ethnic groups in Manipur. In this article,
the term ‘autonomy movement’ refers to various insurgency movements that include the secessionist
movements, internal autonomy movements and the movements for reorganization of the existing state.
Similarly, the ‘insurgent group’ will interchangeably be used with the non-state actor, armed group,
extremist group or militant.
Ethnic Identity Formation
In a true sense of the term, ethnicity is only a construct, resulting from the interaction of the state, politi-
cal and economic processes (Nag, 2003; Nagel, 1994). It sometimes finds expression in political domi-
nation, economic exploitation and psychological oppression. This negative meaning often creates
ethno-nationalism and politicizes certain ideological goals that give birth to an ethnic community.
Nevertheless, ethnic identities that shaped frequent violence in Manipur are more of a creation of politi-
cal necessities (Oinam, 2003).
As for the genesis of ethnic identity construction, after the kingdom/Manipur was colonized by the
British in 1891, for administrative convenience, the tribes were categorized into two broad ethnic
groups—the Kuki and Naga (Kom, 2015; Piang, 2015), based on their place of habitats (Oinam, 2003;
Sharma & Arunkumar, 2010). The tribes living in the northern hill tracks, bordering erstwhile Naga Hills
of the undivided Assam (present Nagaland) were termed as Nagas (Oinam, 2003) and those living in the
southern hill tracts, bordering Myanmar and erstwhile Lushai hills of the undivided Assam (present
Mizoram) were termed as Kukis. According to a few scholars (e.g., Kipgen, 2013; Kom, 2011; Oinam,
2003; Singh, 2009), though the Kukis were vaguely recorded after British colonization, the Chin–Kuki
communities who had migrated recently to Manipur from Chin state of Myanmar and settled in the
southern hill tracts of the state were clubbed together as Kuki ethnic group. On the other hand, ‘Naga’ is
a highly contested term (Baruah, 2003); it connotes an amalgamation of different tribes and came into
existence only in the late nineteenth century (Ghosh, 2008; Kom, 2015). The Naga identity construction
went through a perpetual shift in the 1940s when the Karbis and Nepalis were included, but the present
Naga tribes of Manipur were excluded (Nag, 2003; Singh, Sharma & Thangjam, 2016). Therefore, the
present Naga identity in Manipur is more a functional category created by British in the 1880s (Oinam,
Singha 57
2003), not one based on linguistic lines (Baruah, 2003; Kom, 2011). Similarly, the ethnonym of Meitei
was originally known as ‘Ningthouja/Meitei’ salai (clan dynasty), which was one of the seven salais that
ruled seven independent principalities in the valley in the early part of the recorded history. Later on, it
overruled other principalities, thereby absorbing the different groups to form ‘Meitei’ ethnic identity and
over the years, many highlanders also got absorbed in Meitei confederation (Oinam, 2003).
Shifting from Secessionist Movement to Infighting
To understand the contextual realities, the conflicts that have been haunting Manipur for long can be
broadly studied under two groups—(i) conflict between the state and non-state actors or secessionist
movements and (ii) ethnically driven conflicts or internal feuds.
Today, Manipur is probably the only state in India where nearly 30 small and big insurgent groups
operate and the state administration is often held hostage by these groups (Roy-Chaudhury, 2006;
Shivananda, 2011). Though the seed of sovereignty movement in Manipur was sown by Hijam Irabot in
1930s, the armed movement against the state started with the formation of UNLF in 1964. Several other
outfits joined hands with the UNLF, especially in the late 1970s and early 1980s, for the same cause.
Initially, these groups engaged in mobilizing cadres, imparting military training and creating social
awareness. In the 1980s, almost all of them intensified armed campaigns against the state, and the
Government of India (GoI) suddenly realized its negligence and ignorance of this border state for a long
time. As an immediate measure, GoI deployed a large number of security forces, much higher than that
of the national average. In 2010–11, the security force to civilian ratio in Manipur was 1:20 (one security
personal for every 20 Manipuri), compared to 1:126 at the national level (Begum, 2012), which shot up
from the ratio of around 1:500 in the 1950s. Despite this measure, not much respite from armed-conflict
was visible; this rather escalated the conflicts between the state and non-state actors; consequently, the
Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958 (AFSPA) was imposed in 1980. It further worsened the situation
in Manipur, multiplied armed conflicts and emerged as the human rights violation issue. Almost 50 per
cent of the region’s total insurgency related fatalities were contributed by Manipur in the 2000s (Singha,
2015). During this period, on an average, 135 insurgents, 65 civilians and 26 security personnel were
killed annually (RAP, 2015). As a result, a large section of people is living in a web of insecurity.
However, since the...
To continue reading
Request your trial