Manipur violence and UNLF Peace Accord

Geography of Manipur and History of Violence in Manipur

There are 16 districts in Manipur, but the state is commonly thought of as divided into ‘valley’ and ‘hill’ districts. Today’s valley districts of Imphal East, Imphal West, Thoubal, Bishnupur, and Kakching were part of the erstwhile kingdom of Kangleipak, ruled by the Ningthouja dynasty.

• The Manipur valley is encircled by skirts of low hills (hill areas comprise the bulk of Manipur’s geographical area), live 15 Naga tribes and the Chin-Kuki-Mizo-Zomi group, which includes the Kuki, Thadou, Hmar, Paite, Vaiphei and Zou peoples.
• The Kangleipak kingdom, then a British protectorate, was repeatedly raided by Naga tribes who came down from the northern hills. The British political agent in Manipur brought the Kuki-Zomi from the Kuki-Chin hills of Burma to protect the valley from plunder by acting as a buffer between the Meiteis and the Nagas.
  • The Kukis, like the Nagas, were fierce headhunting warriors — and the Maharaja gave them land along the ridges, where they could act as a shield for the Imphal valley below.
• Kuki-Meitei divide: The hill communities (Naga & Kuki) and the Meiteis have had ethnic tensions since the kingdom era. The Naga movement for independence in the 1950s triggered insurgencies among the Meiteis and Kuki-Zomi. The Kuki-Zomi groups militarised in the 1990s to demand a state within India called ‘Kukiland’(a state within India). This alienated them from the Meiteis, whom they had earlier defended.
  • In 1993, Hindu Meiteis clashed with Pangals (Muslims), and also there was horrific violence between the tribal Nagas and Kukis, which saw more than a hundred Kukis massacred in a single day by Nagas, and thousands driven from their homes.
• District of Churachandpur: Kuki-Zomi-dominated Churachandpur (a Myanmar bordered District) has mostly Christian population. It is the country’s poorest district (as per the Panchayati Raj Ministry in 2006) and it remains abjectly poor.
  • In 2015, as the Meiteis of the valley protested demanding ILP in Imphal city, equally intense protests were seen in Churachandpur countering the demand and protesting the introduction of laws.

There have been violent communal clashes in Manipur due to the Manipur High Court (HC) directing the State to pursue a 10-year-old recommendation to grant Scheduled Tribe (ST) status to the non-tribal Meitei community.The violence escalated after the All-Tribal Student Union Manipur (ATSUM) organized a "tribal solidarity rally" against the alleged move to include the Meiteis on the ST list.

Which are the major communities residing in Manipur?

• The State is like a football stadium with the Imphal Valley representing the playfield at the centre and the surrounding hills the galleries.
• The valley, which comprises about 10% of Manipur’s landmass, is dominated by the non-tribal Meitei.
  • This area yields 40 of the State’s 60 MLAs.
• The hills comprising 90% of the geographical area are inhabited by more than 35% recognised tribes.
  • This area sends only 20 MLAs to the Assembly.

Why does the Meitei community want ST status?

• There has been an organised push in support of this demand since 2012, led by the Scheduled Tribes Demand Committee of Manipur (STDCM).
• Recognised as tribe before merger with India
  • In their plea before the High Court, it was argued that the Meitei community was recognised as a tribe before the merger of the princely state of Manipur with the Union of India in 1949.
  • It lost its identity as a tribe after the merger.
• Need to preserve tradition and culture
  • The demand for ST status arose from the need to preserve the community, and save the ancestral land, tradition, culture and language of the Meiteis.
  • As per the arguments forwarded by the community in the court:
    • The community has been victimised without any constitutional safeguards to date.
    • The Meitein/Meetei have been gradually marginalised in their ancestral land.
    • Their population which was 59% of the total population of Manipur in 1951 has now been reduced to 44% as per 2011 Census data.

Why are tribal groups against ST status for Meiteis?

• The tribal groups say the Meiteis have a demographic and political advantage besides being more advanced than them academically and in other aspects.
  • The Meiteis are a dominant group controlling the state and its apparatuses.
  • Hence, the claim that Meiteis need ST status to protect their culture and identity is self-defeating.
• They feel the ST status to the Meiteis would lead to loss of job opportunities and allow them to acquire land in the hills and push the tribals out.
• The Manipuri language of the Meiteis is included in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution.
• Sections of the Meitei community — which is predominantly Hindu — are already classified under Scheduled Castes (SC) or Other Backward Classes (OBC).

What led to the recent Unrest?

• While the forest eviction and demand for ST status for Meiteis have been the most prominent recent triggers, the divide between the Meiteis and tribals on several issues has widened over the past decade.
• Issues in Delimitation Process: In 2020, as the Centre began the first delimitation process in the state since 1973, the Meitei community alleged that the Census figures used in the exercise did not accurately reflect the population break-up.
  • Tribal groups (Kuki and Nagas) on the other hand said they had grown to 40% of the state’s population and were underrepresented in the Assembly.
• Intrusion of Migrants from Neighbour Area: The February 2021 coup in Myanmar has led to a refugee crisis in India’s Northeast. Meitei leaders have alleged that there has been a sudden mushrooming of villages in Churachandpur district.
• The Drugs Problem: Some tribal groups with vested interests are trying to scuttle govt’s crusade against drugs.
  • The anti-drug drive was started by destroying poppy fields. “Illegal settlers” related to the Kuki-Zomi of Manipur, growing drugs on cleared lands.
• Recent Unrest: The first violent protest erupted over the eviction of the residents of a Kuki village.
  • 38 villages in the Churachandpur-Khoupum Protected Forest area (in Churachandpur and Noney districts) are “illegal settlements” and its residents are “encroachers (encroaching reserved and protected forests and wildlife sanctuaries for poppy plantation and drugs business”).
  • Kuki groups have claimed that the survey and eviction is a violation of Article 371C, as kukis are residents of Hill Area.
    • Article 371C provides for the creation of a committee of the Manipur Legislative Assembly consisting of the members elected from the Hill Areas of the state and Governor shall have responsibility for proper functioning of that committee.
    • At the State level there is Hill Area Committee constituted under the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) order, 1972. The Hill areas Committee comprises of all MLAs elected from the hill areas of the State as its members.
  • The state government withdrew from the suspension of operations agreements with two Kuki extremist groups accused of inciting the protesters.

Mitigating efforts to control VIOLENCE

• Need to evaluate the criteria for ST status (to Meities) in line with recommendations given by several Committees, like:
  • The Lokur Committee (1965) recommended 5 criteria for identification, namely, primitive traits, distinct culture, geographical isolation, shyness of contact with the community at large, and backwardness.
  • Bhuria Commission (2002-2004) focused on a wide range of issues from the 5^th Schedule to tribal land and forests, health and education, the working of Panchayats and the status of tribal women.
  • A High-Level Committee (HLC) in 2013, under chairmanship of Prof. Virginius Xaxa was constituted to study the 5 critical issues related to tribal communities: (1) livelihood and employment, (2) education, (3) health, (4) involuntary displacement and migration, (5) and legal and constitutional matters.
• Bring more surveillance along the border areas to prevent the incursion of the migrants from Myanmar. Strengthening economic and diplomatic ties with neighboring countries can help enhance regional stability and security.
• Need to maintain the identity of the people along the border areas to identify the local residence. Signing Peace settlement agreements with the local insurgent group to maintain the peace in the region.
• The repeal of AFSPA, the controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act1958, is necessary to improve the human rights situation in the region. The government should ensure that the legal system is fair and transparent to prevent the misuse of power by security forces.
• The government should foster the participation of the people of the region in the decision-making process to instill a sense of ownership and belonging.

UNLF Peace Accord

Recently, the Centre and Manipur government signed a peace agreement with the United National Liberation Front (UNLF), the oldest valley-based armed group in Manipur.

What is the history of UNLF?

It is Manipur’s oldest militant group dominated by the Meitei community and one of the seven “Meitei Extremist Organisations” banned by the Union government under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act

• Established-1964
• Founder- Arambam Samarendra
• Aim- To liberate Manipur from India and to form an independent socialist state of Manipur.
• It is distinct from the insurgent groups active in the state’s Naga-dominated and Kuki-Zomi dominated hills.
• Objective-
  • It favoured a long-term programme to secede from India, form alliance mainly with China and gradually capture political power with the help of an indoctrinated young population and the intelligentsia.
  • It aimed at reclaiming the Kabow Valley in Myanmar.
• Manipur People’s Army- It is an armed wing formed in 1990 which has carried out attacks on India’s security force.
• 4 point proposal- In 2005, it mooted a proposal to bring the Indo-Manipur conflict to an end.

• Government’s response- The Central government didn’t accept the 4-point proposal by UNLF.
• Factions- UNLF split into 2 factions due to internal differences.
  • Khundongbam Pambei- Signed the peace agreement recently with the government.
  • NC Koireng- Remains opposed to talks.

What is the significance of the deal?

• Historic milestone- The pact marks a historic milestone, as it is the 1^st time a valley-based proscribed organization has engaged in peace negotiations since the eruption of ethnic violence in 2023.
• Establish peace- The UNLF, known for its armed struggle, has agreed to renounce violence and participate in the peaceful democratic process.
• Success of tripartite agreements- The tripartite accords initiated by the Centre since 2014 have led to surrendering and a substantial decline in violence in terms of security forces, civilian casualties and number of violent incidents.
• Rehabilitation- The agreement provides for the rehabilitation and re-settlement of UNLF's armed cadres.
• Institutional support- A Peace Monitoring Committee will oversee the enforcement of agreed ground rules.

What are the challenges?

• Multiple stakeholders- The peace agreement can be complex to implement due to multiplicity of stakeholders and their divergent interests and grievances.
• Unknown terms- The terms of the agreement are not known and the involvement of militants in the latest ethnic conflict may complicate the issue further.
• Opening up of issues- If criminal cases are withdrawn, then similar concessions have to be given on the other side to the Kuki militants who professedly are continuing with the Suspension of Operations agreement.
• Diverse demands- Each group has distinct historical grievances, aspirations and demands, making it hard to arrive at a resolution that satisfies all parties.
• Vulnerability- The fragility of peace agreements also lies in their vulnerability to disruptions caused by extremist factions or splinter groups within these communities.
• Distrust- Lack of trust in the government’s commitment to fulfil promises outlined in peace agreement undermines its effectiveness.
• Geopolitical factors- The reluctance of neighbouring countries to support peace processes or interference by external actors can destabilise the region.