The situation in Manipur has been a constant fixture in the media ever since violence broke out on May 3, 2023, between the Meitei community and the so-called ‘Kuki-Zo’ tribes. Both sides have been severely affected by the conflict. Thousands of people have been displaced, settlements have been destroyed, hundreds are dead and countless lives have been ruined. What began as a simple ethnic conflict has even taken a dangerous turn with widespread allegations and evidence of foreign interference as well. However, the Kukis (despite instigating acts of violence on several occasions) seem to be far ahead in the war of the media narrative. The effectiveness of their over-the-top ‘victim propaganda’ is such that a layman with limited knowledge of the conflict who is residing in any other state of India, or anywhere in the world for that matter will readily put the blame squarely on the Meiteis! Five of their oversized claims are discussed in this article.
CLAIM: “Majority Meiteis indulge in ethnic cleansing of Minority Kuki-Zos”
Population-wise, in the state of Manipur, Meiteis outnumber the Kuki-Zos, but when seen from the regional perspective, it is the Meiteis who are the real minority isolated in the small valley region of Manipur. The Kuki-Zo tribes have numerous ethnic links in neighbouring states and countries. In fact, it is an open secret that Kuki rebels fighting the Tatmadaw (The Myanmarese Army) in Myanmar have crossed over the border to help their brethren. The Kuki propaganda machine also conveniently talks of ‘ethnic cleansing by the Meeteis in the Imphal valley’ but conveniently ignores their own attempts to erase any trace of Meitei settlements in their areas, especially in Churachandpur and Moreh. Many Kuki settlements in Imphal are still well guarded, in contrast to flattened Meitei settlements in their areas.
CLAIM: “Meiteis want to snatch tribal land and rights”
A claim that they have been parroting ever since the Meitei demand for ST status gained momentum. The Meiteis, as indigenous inhabitants of Purva-Uttar Bharat, have every right to demand constitutional safeguards. Meiteis, in fact, can be regarded as more ‘tribal’ than the hill tribes of Manipur if one takes into consideration cultural and religious continuity. The fear that Meiteis will take over tribal land in the hills is unfounded, for Meiteis have historically settled in the plain areas of Manipur, with only a few pockets of habitation in the hills. There are, in fact, more tribal settlers in the valley region than Meitei settlers in the hills. Again, concerns over reservation norms can easily be resolved through dialogue and consensus. The neighbouring state of Assam has separate reservation norms for ‘hill tribes’ and ‘plain tribes’.
CLAIM: “Meiteis are brutal savages with no regard for human dignity”
People let go of reason when tensions are inflamed, and atrocities are inevitable in any conflict. The Manipur conflict has also witnessed many unfortunate episodes since the start. However, since the video of two naked women being paraded by Meiteis went viral, the Kukis have been trying hard to portray themselves as innocent victims of Meitei rage and lust- as if their own hands are completely clean. Innocent school going children, woodcutters, farmers, villagers and most recently a housewife and a veteran traditional event manager (Arangfam)- all have been murdered without an ounce of remorse by Kuki militants. The irony is that several Meitei organisations openly denounced the act of naked parading of women- houses of the accused were even demolished, while there has been complete silence from Kuki organisations so far on the many senseless murders by their militants.
CLAIM: “Meiteis are waging war against the Christian faith”
In any conflict involving communities of different faiths, the desecration and destruction of places of worship is almost inevitable. Many churches and temples in Manipur have also fallen victim, but there have been contrasting reactions and condemnations to the same. Some elements in the Kuki propaganda machine have been actively striving to portray the Meeteis as intolerant anti-Christians, a narrative that has seemingly appealed to Christians in the region and worldwide. On the contrary, the so-called ‘intolerant’ Meiteis have been settling together with followers of different faiths in the valley region of Manipur. Several Meiteis are Christians themselves. Meanwhile, it is reported that Meiteis in Churachandpur were told to take permission from Kukis to perform many of their traditional ceremonies or celebrate festivals. Conservative Christians make no secret of their disdain for other faiths, the followers of which they openly label as ‘heathen’ or ‘unsaved people’, and such elements are common among the Kukis, too. So, who is ‘intolerant’? Also, the Kukis have chosen to conveniently ignore the many temples that their miscreants have desecrated.
CLAIM: “Meiteis have turned Manipur into a lawless state”
A breakdown in law and order and upheaval in the existing order is natural in any conflict. Some armed groups have become active in the Manipur valley in the form of ‘village volunteers’, spurred by the urge to protect the foothill areas of the valley from attacks by foreign funded Kuki militants, and naturally this has led to some issues with law enforcement agencies. The Kukis cite this to blame the Meiteis for lawlessness. Perhaps they have forgotten that their own areas have been functioning for a long time now under the boot of militants with nefarious foreign links who have been controlling all walks of life- enjoying handsome benefits from poppy cultivation, levying heavy illegal ‘taxes’, choosing who gets to win in elections, etc.
To end, here is an excerpt from a recent article written by one Dirinamai Liangchi that featured in Ukhrul Times, a local newspaper in Manipur- “History often reveals a complex web of conflicts involving the Kuki people, spanning clashes with the Karbis in Assam, the Paite in Churachandpur, the Meiteis in the Imphal Valley, and the Nagas in both Manipur and Nagaland. Their strife extends beyond regional borders, encompassing conflicts with the Burmese in Myanmar and even with the Bangladeshis. This recurring pattern invites a question: why does the Kuki community often find itself at the epicentre of these disputes, seemingly initiating conflicts while simultaneously presenting itself as the aggrieved party? This dual perception of the Kuki as both instigator and victim reflects a multifaceted reality that merits a thoughtful and nuanced analysis, moving beyond a superficial understanding to appreciate the intricate layers of their historical and social dynamics. One can only state that the Kuki narrative is often tainted by a pattern of deceitful exploitation of historical grievances and violent manipulation of cultural practices for their propaganda. This position destroys any possibility of truth and reconciliation to emerge.”
Comments