In the aftermath of May violence in Manipur, a narrative set out in the media by the Kuki intellectuals and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) states that tribals vented out their anger against the Manipur High Court order that instructed the State Government of Manipur to initiate process of conferring Scheduled Tribes status to the majority Meitei community.
The Manipur High Court later freezed the order for one year. The peace march, officially initiated by the All Tribal Students Union Manipur (ATSUM), expressed its fear that if ST status is given to the Meiteis, their job prospects in Government offices will be severely affected.
However, it is hard to digest that a perception of fear would generate such a wide scale violence across the Kuki-dominated districts, while Naga-dominated districts remain totally peaceful. When apprehension on such a disconnect was raised, CSOs and Kuki intellectuals made concerted efforts to narrow down the triggering point of violence to an attempted burning of Kuki war memorial.
While further apprehension was raised, a hit-and-run vehicle driven by a Meitei driver was floated. Several counter narratives have emerged from the Meitei side that the anti-ST reservation rally was a façade to hide Kukis’ anger against the State Government over eviction of illegal encroachers from the reserved and protected forest land, and a drive against poppy cultivation.
Dealing with Imbroglio
Even if anti-ST reservation is a façade, the perception of the Kukis and Nagas cannot be ignored. We must seriously engage with the fear and look out for ways to overcome such a fear. There are two-prone ways to engage with the issue. One, to go into the debate whether ST status demand of the Meiteis is justified, and two, if the Meiteis are granted ST status, are there ways to arrest the fear in these tribes, even if it is unfounded.
Historical Twist
Prior to the merger of the Manipur kingdom in 1949 to the then newly independent India, Meiteis were addressed in the writings of British administrators and ethnographers like TC Hodson as “tribe”. In the 1950s, when the Scheduled List of tribes was prepared under Article 342 of the Indian Constitution, Meitei community was stated to be in the Scheduled List. However, Meitei elites worked hard to exclude themselves from the list, the most probable reason being self-pride. Subsequently, the North-East Frontier Tribal Areas and Assam, Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas Sub-Committee headed by Shri Gopinath Bordoloi excluded the Meiteis from the Scheduled List. It is hard to judge if this perception was right or wrong. It is only after 70 years that the Schedule Tribe Demand Committee of Manipur (STDCM) countered that perception.
Meitei Hindus display a strong syncretic culture of blending Sanatan Dharma with their indigenous faith. Compared to this, both the Kukis and the Nagas have lost their indigenous faith with the embracing of Christianity
In recent spurt of writings, few Kuki scholars have questioned how after nearly 70 years one could realise that one is backward. The data highlighting growth of ST population states that in 1951 Scheduled Tribe population in India was 225 lakhs with 6.23 per cent. In 2011, the population shot up to 1,043 lakhs with 8.61 per cent. This cannot be due to the mere increase in population by birth. This seemingly unnatural growth indicates that many communities in different phases of time got included in the Scheduled List. So, there is nothing unnatural about declaring a community “backward” at any given point in time. Inclusion of the Gujjar community in the “More Backward class” in 2019 is a case in point. Since 2022, Dalit Christians, too, have been demanding their inclusion as SC. Late entry to the Scheduled List cannot be a disqualifier.
The Qualifier
What then is the qualifier? Colonialist definition of a tribe states that they are animist, primitive, geographically isolated, and lag behind in the journey of human growth and development. Fulfilment of one or the other attribute(s) shall qualify a community to be called a “tribe”. The contemporary reading of the concept started with the coinage of a new term “indigenous”. It started in 1923 with the Haudenosaunee Chief Deskaheh travelling to Geneva to speak to the League of Nations and defend the right of his people to live under their own laws, on their own land, and under their own faith. Indigenous peoples are inheritors and practitioners of unique culture, faith, and ways of relating to people and the environment. By these criteria, Meiteis are more indigenous than the Kukis and the Nagas, as the latter have embraced Christianity and lost the values and practices of their indigenous cultures. In fact, it is hight time to interrogate if an indigenous community can still retain its indigeneity if the members have embraced a world religion and its practices. Unlike the Christians in the State, both Hindu and Sanamahi Meiteis follow indigenous ritual practices and cling to their indigenous cosmogony. Meitei Hindus display a strong syncretic culture of blending Sanatan Dharma with their indigenous faith. Compared to this, both the Kukis and the Nagas have lost their indigenous faith with the embracing of Christianity. So, by all standards, Meiteis qualify to be considered in the list of Scheduled Tribe.
Remedial Measures
There is need for dialogue between the Meiteis and the agitating communities and find out ways to ensure that inclusion of Meiteis in the ST list will not affect their job prospects. Competition here takes place at two levels – national and State. Competition at the national level is among members of many communities enlisted in the scheduled list, and hence merit within this socially engineered competition goes outside the bound of the Kuki, Naga, and Meiteis. There is no guarantee that the successful candidates have to be from the State of Manipur.
In the case of competitions at the State level, there are ample cases where further reservations are meted out earmarking the seats in line with community representation. According to Article 16 (4) of the Constitution, the State can safeguard reservation quota, which implies that mechanisms can be set to distribute the reserved seats on ethnic line or any other criterion. This will be the prerogative of the State government. Hence, the agitating tribal leaders must free themselves with preconceived perceptions, and engage into free and objective reflection. The philosophy behind reservation policy is to ensure affirmative action and fulfil the ideals of social justice. This must be opened to all the indigenous population within the State without exception.
Comments