NAOCHON CHAMROY
In the recently included 45th conference of Director Generals of Police and Inspector General’s of Police in New Delhi, the Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh observed that the Naga-Meetei divide has accentuated. He cited ethnic assertion being the caused. It is true that ethnocentrism and territorial aquisiveness both real and perceived have caused anxiety in Manipur. However to address the issue meaningfully one need to also understand that the idea conveyed by term such as ‘ethnic assertion’ might just be political expression on the periphery of a core issue.
Why this issue has become so obvious and prominent today needs critical examination in the light of the present social and political realities and aspiration of the people. Besides the contradiction in the Naga and Meetei nation narratives based on their historical memories, I would like to dwell on what is more recent and controversial, say, Manipur in the late 40s to begin with to drive home my point.
Post World War II, Indian independence was eminent. Every princely states in India were preparing for a new political arrangement. In this happening moment Manipur was presented with a historical challenge to secure an independent constitutional monarch. The chief minister of the interim government on behalf of Maharaja of Manipur had announced to set up a Constitution Making Committee (CMC) for new democratic form of government in the state. It was many things to many people specially the educated people of that time. For most of the coalition parties in the Praja Shanti government and the Manipur State Congress it was the ‘responsible government’ they have long fought for. To the left leaning groups it was to be an Independent Socialist Republic in South East Asia. Apart from the few leaders who were way ahead of their time, the hill peoples were politically less conscious. Their representatives in the Constitution Making Committee (CMC) who were selected by the PMSD from their respective areas were skeptical about the experiment. They had apprehension that it would be ‘impossible to preserve the best of their culture, traditional, customary laws and political practices’. However with much reluctance (R. Suisa for example did not attend the first meeting of the CMC on 24th March. 1947 for these reasons), the hill representatives emphasized on two things to be enshrined in the constitution of Manipur. (1) provide for ‘a large measure of local self government. (2) A clause be inserted that any section of hill peoples shall have the right to secede at the end of five years should they find the arrangement unsatisfactory Athika Daiho from Mao and TC. Tiankham from Churachanpur went to the extend of making it clear that they could not be a part of the committee if such a clause was not incorporated in the proposed constitution. But the political honeymoon was short lived. Manipur State Constitution Act was passed but failed to accommodate the views and aspiration of the hill leaders. It was a political fiasco. Naga National League (NNL) under the leadership of A. Daiho openly launched a campaign for “tribal rights and independence”. According to their representation to the Secretary of the Ministry of State, New Delhi, self Determination means integration of tribes of the same stoke under one administrative umbrella. Three people were killed by the State Force and the Assam Rifles as a result of the campaign. Many more were injured at Mao Gate. How history repeat itself! Even Meetei leaders like Hijam Irabot Singh understood the importance and political impact assertion of these rights good coast. He wrote to his fellow Meetei brothers in his self edited paper Anouba Jug (23rd No. 1947) that legal arguments to get back Kabaw Valley is not enough. He wrote that since Burma was getting Independence in 1948, unless Manipur got full responsible govt., the people of Kabaw would not like to joint Manipur and that Democratic rights of the people could not be ignored. Nagas think they are right that is why the issue still continues today. Premonition of the hill CMC members was proved right and was authenticated by the Maharaja of Manipur Bodhachandra Singh himself and his supporters like the Manipur State Congress who were mostly members of Nikhel (Hindu) Manipur Mahasabha. Had the Maharaja who was supposed to be the head of the state been committed to or had any respect for the Manipur State Constitution, let alone tribals, it was expedient of him to enjoy the support of the State Legislatures before signing the merger Agreement on 15th Oct. 1949.
It was only a handful of them who were awakened to the reality of their being. Now what these few leaders believed has become the common sense of the hill peoples, particularly the Nagas. Coming together as one people under one administrative unit is sine quo non to the Nagas in any future political settlement. On the other hand, the Meetei fears that the move will upset the present territorial boundary of the state. Both Meetei overground and underground have sworn by the territorial integrity of Manipur. This, I think, is the ‘Divide’ that has ‘Accentuated’ in recent times.
The more important thing now therefore is to face the reality body, mutually with political maturity. Whether it be the Nagas or the Meeties no one can escape the reality and dynamics of their respective “nation building project” or collective construction of selfhood. Former Samajwati party strongman Amar Singh is right when he spoke to the press as head of National Federation for New States at New Delhi on 1st Sept. 2010, that States are not created base on geographical requirements but on political needs. The crux of the Naga-Meetie divide is to understand these political needs of each other. I feel this kind of empathy could dawn only when both are prepared to think beyond the traditional formulaes and polemics lest the thing they fear the most could befall on them. Can they talk on a new partnership or are they just strange bed-fellows after all? Only time will tell.
