In the wake of the recent surge in violence in Manipur, the death toll continues to rise, reaching a devastating count of 71 lives lost. This ongoing ethnic violence has not only shattered the lives of countless individuals but has also highlighted the failure of civil society in promoting dialogue and bridging the deepening divides. The strife has not only polarized peace-loving students, intellectuals, and civil society groups but has also overshadowed the voices of those who are willing to transcend ethnic boundaries in the pursuit of peace.
The history of Manipur is marred by recurring clashes, with communities often categorized and pitted against one another based on ethnic affiliations. This categorization has hindered progress towards fostering understanding and cooperation among diverse groups. The recent escalation of violence has been so severe that it has pushed aside the individuals who possess the potential to build bridges and promote dialogue.
In the face of this violence, one would hope that years of advocating for the right to life and fighting for human rights would have fostered mutual respect among individuals and groups. However, the situation in Manipur tells a different story. Respect for each other’s lives and the ability to empathize seem to be lacking in the collective consciousness of the society.
The failure of civil society to initiate meaningful dialogues across communities during these turbulent times is a grave concern. The unrest unfolding before us underscores the limitations of civil society, which is perceived as the guardian of our rights. While mass movements against oppressive laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and cases of extrajudicial killings have gained momentum, they have failed to foster a broader discourse on the right to life that transcends ethnic boundaries.
Regrettably, previous instances of violence, such as the alleged mass rapes in the Churachandpur district’s Parbung and Lungthulien villages in 2006, were mired in the familiar tribal versus non-tribal and hills versus valley dichotomies. The specific rights of the women victims were not adequately addressed, highlighting the dominance of political language that perpetuates divisions based on majority-minority dynamics and geographical disparities.
Amidst this bleak scenario, the Hmar Women Association, based in Imphal, has stood out by forcefully advocating for the plight of women. This organization has managed to maintain a critical distance from civil society actors, insurgent groups, and the state government, avoiding the confines of unresolved ethnic binaries and political categories. However, their impact remains limited, as the broader civil society discourse has predominantly emerged from valley-based groups and has not permeated beyond.
In Churachandpur, there has been a favoring of central security forces over state security forces in countering insurgent groups. The presence of “Meitei” insurgents from the valley region in the southern district has generated significant unease. However, it is also crucial to acknowledge that non-state armed groups from the Kuki-Chin-Zo community are increasingly asserting ethnocentric demands for differentiated autonomy under the Indian constitution.
Allegations of non-state armed groups violating ground rules since the initiation of talks under the Suspension of Operations among the United People’s Front (UPF), Kuki National Organisation (KNO), the Manipur state government, and the Union government of India in 2008 have been reported. These violations not only perpetuate factional conflicts among armed groups but also jeopardize the fundamental right to life of ordinary citizens. The silence of state agencies on such incidents raises concerns about their potential symbiotic relationships with non-state actors or their involvement in counter-insurgent measures that pit one armed group against another.
