The violence that broke out in Manipur following the tribal solidarity march on 3rd May 2023, called by the All Tribal Students Union Manipur (ATSUM) in Torbung and the magnitude of the havoc it created, is unimaginable in a civilised society of 21st century. The rally, which resulted in violence, was in protest to the demand for ST status by the Meiteis. The act of violence has been pictured in many shades, between Christians and Hindus, Kukis and Meiteis, tribes and non-tribe or between hills and valley people. Shockingly, the violence spilled over beyond the state to Shillong, Meghalaya where Kuki and Meitei communities were involved in a clash in the evening day after it occurred in Manipur. It is also alleged that anti-social elements through social media engineered the violence. However, it is not only Kukis, other Naga tribes also were a party of the solidarity rally. The police are alleged of standing by the side of their community people. So, practically, it is a conflict between reservation-enjoying and reservation-seeking communities.
Following violence Army and Assam Rifles were deployed. More than 20,000 people were evacuated to safe places. More than 1100 people entered Assam to avoid the brunt of violence. Sadly, settled people became refugees. Internet and mobile services were suspended. Curfew was imposed.
Politics have not remained far behind. Congress demands President Rule in Manipur though similar incidents in West Bengal and Bihar did not invite any reaction. In some quarters, the violence is attributed to the opposition’s handiwork because Manipur and Meghalaya are BJP-ruled states. One or the other reason cannot be attributed to the incident. The issue is complicated and multiple of reasons might be behind the incident of violence. Whatever may be the reason, it is humanity in general that has been victimised.
It should be mentioned that the solidarity march was in opposition to an order of the Manipur High Court directing the state government to submit to the Centre its recommendation on Meiteis’ representation for ST status. Meiteis have been demanding ST status for decades now. The Scheduled Tribe Demand Committee (STDCM), Manipur of the Meiteis state that their demand is more about protecting the ancestral lands, culture and identity of the Meitei people who are threatened consistently by illegal immigrants from Myanmar, Bangladesh and other outsiders. Is not there any other means to achieve the expressed goals than ST status? It needs to be examined. As reported, their demand is based on historical evidence that they were listed as one of the tribes of Manipur before it merged with the Indian Union in 1949. Surprisingly, they missed this status in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. So, they demand their status back for which they had filed a petition in Manipur High Court.
The aftermath of the violence following the solidarity March in the Torbung area of Churachandpur district showed a spread effect, deployment of the army, the plight of citizens, migration, evacuation, politics, and legal challenges. A recent news item reports that BJP MLA D. Gangmei, Chair of Hill Areas Committee (HAC) filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court challenging the order of the Manipur High Court that stands responsible for escalating tensions between two communities. SLP is filed challenging the constitutionality and legality of the High Court order.
In the backdrop of High Court order, HAC passed a resolution protesting the inclusion of the Meiteis under ST category. The resolution was followed by the solidarity rally and subsequent violence, arson, killing, damage to property and so many other things. The resolution argued that the quota of present ST groups in government jobs and educational institutions would be reduced when shared by Meities as ST. Is the benefit shared equally within a reserved category? It is a pertinent question but has no significance. A debate on the question might draw a fault line within the category which cannot be risked by jeopardising the strength of the community identity.
The petition filed to SC shows that the tribes were against the High Court order. Then, why there was opposition to Meiteis’ demand for ST status which is not new? Opposition to ST status is evident from the reason underlying the protest. Reservation has created elite sections within a category, say a tribe. Don’t the elite sections block advantages flowing down to the poorest of the poor? Has not a poor section emerged within non-reserved castes/communities in the development process? The voice on the issue is a silent echo as inequality has emerged in a reservation community in the process of integration with a national development agenda.
A cursory observation would be sufficient to make one realise an old fault line between reserved and non-reserved categories. Even within the reserved category, the fault line exists between better and least-placed communities. Is it that old fault line that incited the conflict in the backdrop of reservation claims? It can be argued in a general context that reservation stands as a potential factor of conflict between reserved and non-reserved categories. It also facilitates the perpetuation of caste and creed with the issue of caste certificates for reservation benefit. In other words, categories created for reservation on caste and community basis are perpetuated and thus the potentiality of conflict and violence. If Manipur violence can be taken as a lesson, it is the right time to rethink the question of caste and community-based reservation. When the base is made of categories of conflicting interest, it is not practicable to expect peace, mutuality, and co-existence by perpetuating the fault line with institutional support and mechanism.
(Written by Professor M. C. Behera; Rajiv Gandhi University)