Last year, a judicial Order plunged Manipur into the midst of violence that has been described as akin to a “civil war” by no less than the Supreme Court of India. A year later, what is the prognosis?
—
IN the records of history, July 2023 stands as a soul-stirring milestone, etched in the collective memory as the moment when the world was forcefully awakened to the dreadful human rights violations in Manipur, India.
The dissemination of a video depicting the abhorrent treatment of Manipuri women from the Kuki tribe— subjected to torture, rape and public humiliation— served as a stark indictment of the prevailing conditions in the region. However, this appalling spectacle merely exposes the tip of an iceberg rooted in the history of socio-political dissent.
The start of Manipur’s conflict can be traced back to an important legal judgment in March last year. A high court directive advocating for the inclusion of the Meitei community— representing a significant portion of the population— into the state’s Scheduled Tribes (ST) list served as a reason for simmering discontent.
The start of Manipur’s conflict can be traced back to an important legal judgment in March last year.
Concurrently, indigenous groups voiced grievances against many governmental policies, including contested land surveys, purported church demolitions and targeted evictions, precipitating a confluence of socio-legal tensions.
The ensuing maelstrom of protest erupted into widespread violence, further exacerbated by the state’s termination of tripartite talks with Kuki militant factions, plunging Manipur into a vortex of legal and socio-political disagreements and conflicts.
Despite intermittent claims of tranquillity, the scars of conflict will remain inside the socio-legal structure of Manipur, permeating every facet of life within the state.
The legal outcomes of Manipur’s conflict have assumed paramount significance. The intervention of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in August of the preceding year marked a watershed moment in the quest for justice. Tasked with deciphering the intricate complexities of violence, the CBI’s investigations unearthed a litany of legal transgressions, from the harrowing ordeal of two Kuki women— subjected to dehumanising treatment and alleged sexual assault— to the unresolved disappearance of two Manipuri students amidst the tumult of ethnic strife.
Also read: The year Manipur burned, government failed and Supreme Court tried
Yet, even encircled by the legal scrutiny, the spectre of censorship looms large over Manipur. The imposition of an information blockade since May 2023 has stifled dissenting voices and imperilled the fundamental tenets of press freedom.
Journalists, entrusted with the noble task of bearing witness to injustice, have become unwitting targets of state-sanctioned aggression, their pens silenced by the coercive hand of censorship. In the crucible of Manipur’s legal and socio-political strife, the significance of justice, reconciliation and unyielding solidarity remains the clarion call to action
From protests to violence
In March of the preceding year, the spark igniting the conflagration of violence in Manipur was kindled by a pivotal high court decree. This landmark ruling, advocating for the inclusion of the Meitei community— constituting 53 percent of the population— into the state’s ST list, served as the proverbial powder keg amidst a tinderbox of simmering discontent.
Concurrently, indigenous tribal groups vehemently opposed various governmental initiatives, including contentious forest surveys, land rights policies, village evictions and allegations of church demolitions in Imphal.
The subsequent withdrawal of the state cabinet from the tripartite Suspension of Operations (SoO) talks with Kuki militant factions, ostensibly to safeguard forest resources and combat poppy cultivation, further stoked the flames of discord, exacerbating pre-existing tensions between the N. Biren Singh-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government and the Kukis.
As dissent expanded into defiance, protests peaked, culminating in an unprecedented act of resistance mere days before Chief Minister Biren Singh’s scheduled visit to Churachandpur on April 27. The torching of a gymnasium, slated to be inaugurated by the chief minister, symbolised the smouldering frustration of a populace aggrieved by perceived injustices.
Subsequent imposition of curfews and internet shutdowns failed to quell the burgeoning unrest. The monumental tribal solidarity march, orchestrated by the All-Tribal Students Union of Manipur (ATSUM), served as a potent symbol of collective grievance, galvanising participation of approximately 60,000 individuals.
This spectacle, under the glaring spotlight of national media scrutiny, metamorphosed into a battleground of clashing narratives and obscured truths, exacerbating the schism between the Meiteis and Kuki-Zo tribes.
Also read: Manipur crisis part 1: What does one do when a judicial Order triggers a riot?
The eruption of violence, initially confined to urban epicentres such as Imphal and Churachandpur, soon spilled over into peripheral regions of the Imphal valley, triggering a deadly spiral of gunfights and ambushes.
The twelve-month-long orgy of violence has exacted a devastating toll on the state’s economy, leaving in its wake a trail of shattered businesses, crippled educational institutions, and disrupted transportation and communication networks. The agrarian sector, the lifeblood of Manipur’s economy, bore the brunt of the unrest, further exacerbating the plight of the populace.
The aftereffects of the violence is further portrayed by the harrowing statistics of weapon proliferation and displacement. More than 4,500 firearms were purloined from police armouries in the wake of the May 3, 2023 outbreak of violence, with a mere fraction— approximately 1,800—recovered or surrendered to date.
The conflict, predominantly pitting the tribal Kuki-Zo populace against the Meitei majority, has precipitated a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions, with thousands displaced and forced to seek refuge across state borders.
The meticulous process of record cleansing, initiated by a dedicated task force, has uncovered an entire world of overlapping offences and geographical dispersal of victims seeking legal redress.
The socio-political conflict of Manipur stands irrevocably altered in the wake of the protracted violence, with inter-community fault lines etched ever deeper. The imperative of inter-community dialogue, facilitated by political stakeholders and civil society actors, now emerges as a ray of hope amidst the prevailing gloom.
The historical grievances and colonial legacies underpinning Manipur’s strife-ridden orbit must be addressed with alacrity, directing the way for a more inclusive and equitable future.
Despite intermittent claims of tranquillity, the scars of conflict will remain inside the socio-legal structure of Manipur, permeating every facet of life within the state.
Official records attest that the strife between the Kuki and Meitei ethnic communities ignited on May 3, 2023 has exacted a toll of 224 lives and displaced over 60,000 individuals, many of whom continue to seek refuge in neighbouring Mizoram, Assam and Meghalaya.
Also read: Manipur crisis part 2: A Zo-Kuki perspective
Amidst the wreckage of homes and livelihoods, the future of displaced Manipuris remains shrouded in uncertainty. Over the past year, a relentless wave of arson has engulfed hundreds of residences, commercial establishments, and sacred sites, sparing not even the domiciles of government officials and political figures.
This climate of fear and hostility has spurred a tragic litany of fatalities, with the spectre of violence persisting unabated, evidenced by casualties reported as recently as April 28 this year.
Leadership amidst crisis
The chasm between Kuki and Meitei leadership has only deepened in the wake of the conflict, epitomised by the Kuki community’s impassioned call for a ‘separate administration’,staunchly opposed by the Meiteis.
Against this backdrop of division, the streets of Manipur have become a battleground of competing voices, with civil society groups emerging as the vocal advocates of their respective communities.
The recent electoral process, marked by violence and controversy, showed the urgent imperative for healing and reconciliation in Manipur. The absence of Kuki participation in the polls, coupled with incidents of intimidation and electoral malpractice, shows the pressing need for a conducive environment to ensure democratic integrity.
This political uncertainty has drawn a line, a palpable sense of division that has seized Manipur’s society, epitomised by the physical and metaphorical barriers that now divide communities along ethnic lines. The notion of a ‘Line of Control’, entrenched in ethnicity, has effectively severed vital connections and rendered cross-border travel perilous.
Legal dimensions of Manipur’s conflict
In its Order dated August 7, the Supreme Court of India constituted a committee of three female judges from various high courts to scrutinise the humanitarian aspects of ethnic violence in Manipur.
This division Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, issued several judicial directions in response to petitions concerning the Manipur violence.
Journalists, entrusted with the noble task of bearing witness to injustice, have become unwitting targets of state-sanctioned aggression, their pens silenced by the coercive hand of censorship.
The court’s interventions followed hearings of multiple petitions, including those filed by two women from the Kuki-Zomi community who were subjected to heinous acts of sexual assault and public humiliation by a mob.
Also read: Manipur crisis part 3: How can the State watch while Manipur burns?
The Supreme Court’s Order shows a critical stance towards the government’s handling of the prolonged violence. On August 1 last year, the court characterised the police investigation as “tardy”, mandating the appearance of Manipur’s Director General of Police in court.
In its August 7 judgment, the Bench reiterated the term, noting significant delays in the registration of first information reports (FIRs), recording of witness statements, and the execution of arrests.
“There has been a considerable lapse between the occurrence and the registration of FIRs, recording of witness statements and even the arrests are few and far between,” the Bench stated.
Supervision of the ongoing investigation by the CBI will be directly monitored by the Supreme Court, with former Maharashtra Director General of Police, Dattatray Padsalgikar, appointed as the supervisor.
The Union Ministry of Home Affairs was directed to assign five deputy superintendent of police-rank officers from Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Odisha and the Delhi National Capital Territory, with at least one female officer included. These officers are required to submit periodic reports to Padsalgikar.
The court’s directives included the formation of no fewer than 42 special investigation teams (SITs) to probe various offences, notably those involving murder and sexual violence.
SITs tasked with investigating sexual violence are mandated to be led by female officers. The Supreme Court further instructed that the SITs should comply with established legal standards and previous Supreme Court directives, such as those issued in Nipun Saxena versus Union of India and XYZ versus State of Madhya Pradesh.
Furthermore, the seminal work of the High-Level Committee (HLC) in 2013, chaired by Prof. Virginius Xaxa, shed light on critical aspects concerning tribal livelihoods, education, health, displacement and migration, and legal and constitutional matters, offering invaluable insights for inclusive development strategies.
Enhanced surveillance along border areas to deter illegal migration from neighbouring Myanmar emerges as a priority, improving regional stability and security. Strengthening economic and diplomatic ties with neighbouring nations holds promise for bettering cooperation and addressing shared challenges.
Also read: Manipur crisis: A fresh incision in old fissures
Emphasising the necessity of impartiality, the Supreme Court ordered that the SITs should not be composed exclusively of members from any single community involved in the conflict.
The eruption of violence, initially confined to urban epicentres such as Imphal and Churachandpur, soon spilled over into peripheral regions of the Imphal valley, triggering a deadly spiral of gunfights and ambushes.
This measure aims to maintain the integrity and impartiality of the investigative process. Furthermore, the court stressed that victims of violence must be afforded remedial measures regardless of their community affiliation, and perpetrators must be held accountable, reinforcing the principle of equal justice under the law.
In response to allegations of police collusion with the perpetrators of violence, the court directed an investigation into these claims. The judiciary highlighted the need for accountability among state officers, stating, “Every officer of the state or other employee of the state who is guilty not only of the dereliction of their constitutional and official duties but of colluding with perpetrators to become offenders themselves, must be held accountable without fail.”
Additionally, the court mandated that the SITs conduct outreach to relief camps to inform survivors of violence that they can report their experiences to an impartial body.
This outreach is critical for ensuring comprehensive investigation and accountability. The Supreme Court’s directives represent a robust legal discipline aimed at addressing the manifold dimensions of the Manipur conflict, emphasising judicial oversight, accountability, and the protection of fundamental human rights.
Where do we go from here?
In the aftermath of the violence, lingering questions haunt the collective conscience of Manipur’s populace. The fundamental quest for justice and accountability persists, as families mourn the loss of loved ones and grapple with the wreckage of their shattered lives.
Yet, allegations of complicity and malfeasance cast a pall over the integrity of the state’s leadership, clearly showcasing the erosion of public trust with an urgent need for institutional reform.
As Manipur grapples with the aftermath of a year marked by bloodshed and upheaval, the trajectory of its post-independence narrative hangs in the balance.
Against this backdrop of division, the streets of Manipur have become a battleground of competing voices, with civil society groups emerging as the vocal advocates of their respective communities.
Against the backdrop of simmering ethnic tensions and political intrigue, the legacy of the past twelve months remains indelibly etched in the annals of Manipur’s history, a stark testament to the enduring perils of division and discord.
Faced with the daunting task of rebuilding trust and healing deep-seated divisions, one cannot help but wonder: Who will step forward to lead the way? The journey toward lasting peace and prosperity demands bold leadership, genuine dialogue and a steadfast commitment to justice and inclusivity.
It requires a collective effort to transcend the barriers of ethnicity, religion and politics, and forge a path towards a future defined by unity, resilience and shared prosperity.
In the face of adversity, Manipur has the opportunity to rise above its challenges and emerge as a shining example of resilience and renewal. The road ahead may be fraught with obstacles, but it also holds the promise of transformation and renewal.
As Manipur grapples with the aftermath of a year marked by bloodshed and upheaval, the trajectory of its post-independence narrative hangs in the balance.
The question remains: Will Manipur seize this moment to chart a new course towards a brighter tomorrow, or will it succumb to the shadows of its troubled past?
The answer lies in the hands of its people and leaders, who must summon the courage and vision to shape a future defined by peace, progress and prosperity for all.
