Manipur – Enduring Peace Resolution, Consolidation and Advancement -
A Virtual Impossibility in Today’s Content and Context
Sir BH Liddell Hart's famous quote is “If you wish for Peace, First understand War”. Extrapolating to internal strife in Manipur in particular, “If you wish for peace, first understand the historic inherited tribal customs, cultures and chemistry of the societies in detail.
Lesson of Manipur inter tribal history is simple. “Perfect peace” is a virtual impossibility in a short term context. Peace is illusive and nebulous – a mirage. Tribals are at loggerheads against each other. Distrust and hatred is endemic. However, peace is a bold but calculated risk, a brave and noble choice. Peace is not for the weak but rather for those courageous enough to take a risk.
Resolution of Manipur type of conflicts is not simple. Almost all counter internal strife prescriptions have been attempted in the past. The template of counter insurgency employed for 10 times, the highest in the country, includes: Imposition of Presidents Rule 10 times; AFSPA; employment of Security Forces; compensation packages; winning over the hearts & minds of warring tribes; civic action programs; and so on.
Strategic operational lessons attempted includes; “Loose to Win” strategy; brains over bullets or mind over muscles; focus on cultural intelligence; shift out of “attrition” mentality; avoid “Zero Defect” syndrome; conduct during frequent ‘lulls’ more important than how to fight battles; conduct after victory more vital as also early regime restoration satisfying majority sections of society/community; and so on. It is in the full knowledge that big armies & big money cannot win people’s War.
The demand for accountability for the recent Manipur crisis by opposition parties is paradoxical. For, they too muddled to prevent outbreak of more horrendous civil strife for longer duration and failed to control the genocide. In retrospect, all the governments in the past 75 years are squarely responsible and accountable for the continuing crisis escalation engulfing Manipur. Why only, limit it to the North East States? Modern India is engulfed by internal violence due to vicious politics – No Holds Barred.
Ironic but true that the mainstream political parties feign ignorance of the aspirations of tribal people of the North East. They cannot concede Nagas demand for “Greater Nagalim”. Nor can they concede Kukis' demand for setting up “District Autonomous Councils”. Also, loose “Meiteis vote Banks”in pursuit of power. Let me highlight that the trigger for the latest outburst of violence and orgy is the High Court’s direction declaring the “Meiteis” to be classified as Scheduled Tribes”. Why has the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court taken suo moto notice and stayed/overruled the High Courts directions?
As per data in public domain, over 123 times “Presidents Rule” was imposed since 1947 in various states. Manipur heads the list with 10 times followed by UP with 9 and 8 each in Punjab and Bihar. Ipso facto, the imposition of “Presidents Rule” in Manipur ten times has failed to promote enduring peace. Furthermore, employment of security forces in peacekeeping roles and compensation packages etc., also did not promote and consolidate enduring peace. “Time” to find solutions is futile.
Let me highlight that the decrepit political class cutting across all parties are responsible and accountable for their failures to reconcile and resolve politico-socio-economic demands of various sections of Manipur society. In retrospect, the greatest threats to peace in Manipur are the political leaders, media and radical intellectuals whose demand is “Independent Nation” status. Today, the Kuki Hill Tribes demand a separate District Administrative Council. And, the Naga Hill Tribes want the creation of “Greater Nagaland or Nagalim”.
The Meiteis demand ST status due to their Mongoloid heritage. As per latest media visuals, Meitei women rallies demand “Imposition of President's Rule” and “No Talks with insurgent groups”.
Glaring inequalities are everywhere. Manipur is no exception. Cultural homogeneity – due to a myriad of dialects, customs and religions – is an anathema. Inherited historic land rights of tribal clans and villages cannot be changed/violated. The tribal people living atop Hills feel insulated from the progress and prosperity developments of the Plains people. Naturally there will be disgruntlement. Reconciliation of such glaring contradictions is most vexatious. Inter clan, village and tribal rivalry persists. Unless historic inherited cultural imperialism claimed by few is replaced by cultural democracy, hope for forging brotherhood may remain an illusion. So, “bridging the economic-cultural gap” or promoting “unity in diversity” is the biggest challenge faced by mankind.
Most important, rapid demographic transitions – both legal and illegal – even in Manipur are real. “Inner Line Permit” allows outsiders to enter Manipur, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh for temporary duration only. “Foreigners Issue” is, therefore, a critical issue considering the influx of Rohingyas Muslims from Myanmar. Christianity has overtaken Vaishnavism. Religious rivalry persists.
Moreover, peace has become elusive and illusive in today’s high forums – Parliament and State Assemblies. Naturally, conflict escalation erupts particularly when political leaders out of power and radicals spin divergent ideologies. How can one expect crooks and criminals masquerading as elected leaders to reach Bi-Partisan consensus to reconcile divergent tribal aspirations?
Let me also share my experiences briefly. In 1963-1964, “Counter Guerilla Warfare” was the role for my unit in Nagaland to maintain peace in Manipur and Nagaland. Patrolling in search of hostile camps, apprehension/killing of guerillas and other self-protective defensive roles performed. Hardly, there was focus on reconditioning the psyche of primitive local tribal communities. No civic action programs. Almost non-existent was Media, political, bureaucratic and civil society coverage.
Subsequently, the scope of security forces role expanded – Peace Promotion and Forging - to include: Civic Action Programs and Conduct of Psychological Campaign to promote peace. No peace committees at the village levels. However, local commanders interacted at local level with villagers in pursuit of peace. In IPKF, interaction was with “Peace Committees” by commanders at various levels and media interactions. Yet, there was no enduring peace in all the situations.
Yet another shortcoming is lack of convergence of activities between political class, bureaucrats, civil society organizations and the media. At best, the catchy slogan coined is "Give peace a chance". But, mostly they operate at cross purposes. And, blame games are common. Instead, What is currently in vogue in J & K (joint operations by police and security forces) needs replication even in Manipur.
Let me also highlight that critical understanding of many dimensions of “Peace Resolution” is vital. It includes “Peace Keeping, Maintenance, Promotion, Reconciliation, Advancement and Consolidation”.
Remember always that the transformation from violence to living in peace is most difficult. "Peace" is the cry of the weak and "Violence" is the act of the strong. Even the most ‘Civilized Man’ persists to believe the jungle law: “Survival of the fittest” or “Might is Right” or “Power grows from the barrel of the gun”. Yet, mankind craves for peace.
Many experts believe peacekeeping is ineffective at best and harmful at worst. At the same time, there are others who believe that the negative perceptions of peacekeeping are dead wrong. Decades of academic research has demonstrated that peacekeeping not only works at stopping conflicts but works better than anything else experts know. Peacekeeping is effective at resolving civil wars, preventing them from recurring, and rebuilding state institutions. It succeeds at protecting civilian lives and reducing sexual and gender-based violence. And it does all this at a very low cost, especially compared to counterinsurgency campaigns.
However, peace building is often a laborious and expensive process—and one that can easily be undone. Defining higher directions for peace building and forging is an anathema in today’s political environment. Bi-partisan consensus is vital, but impossible with each political outfit blaming the other at both the Central and State levels.
In reality, “Peace, Progress, Prosperity & Brotherhood – P4B” must spring out of People. Unless “We the People” cutting across the full spectrum of society strive to maintain peace, they cannot enjoy its fruits. Progress and prosperity eludes such societies.
So, “Wake Up”, “We the People of Manipur” and follow the prescriptions of great pacifists. Pacifists like Gandhi, Martin Luther King etc believed that peace starts from within and actions should reflect it. Gandhi had said, "Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. Pacifist A.J. Muste once declared, "There is no way to peace. Peace is the way." Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek but a means by which we arrive at that goal." Unless one practices it, one cannot strive for it. People must stand for peace, in their actions, in their expectations of their leaders, and in exercising their votes. Only then will elected officials -- and others around them -- follow peoples lead.
At the cost of repetition, peace initiatives must start with the people; it must grow from below and not imposed from the top by coercion. The civil society, non government organizations and media must play a vital part. And, the Church must promote peace in collaboration and cooperation with other religious leaders.
On the social front, there is hardly any concern for the chemistry of societies. Fragile tribal relationships are the most difficult to manage due to their history of continuous fighting over many centuries between the factions and also between villages and towns. And, conflicts between tribes are a matter of life and death over land, water and roads and not power per se. No governance or poor governance further compounds the tribal engagement initiatives. Due to the fragile local intra tribal situation, insurgent havens co-exist with communities in the villages and towns. Unless the insurgents are separated and isolated from the people, the tribal engagement strategy may not yield dividends.
In particular, visual and social media have critical roles to play. Media’s “Nitpicking” to sensationalize news by oft-repetitive replays of violence, particularly gender related crimes, does more harm than restore confidence among warring parties to “Live and Let Live atmosphere” as preamble for restoration of peace. In reality, media and social media are psychologically inducing deeper hatred and distrust. In particular, media must provide exhaustive coverage of peace promotion, building and resolution stories. And, social media needs to be controlled and those exacerbating hatred must be punished.
Gaining people's support for peace would need better understanding of their needs, choices and more importantly, their sensitivities. Preoccupied with fortress-type protection, leaders tend to distance themselves physically and psychologically from the people. Connecting with the people and protecting them from violence, rooting out corruption and promoting development is round the clock engagement. Also, it is both a short and long term fight.
And, psychological reconditioning takes time at all levels. Temporary short term initiatives cannot facilitate building harmonious relationships among warring tribes. Political initiatives must do things dramatically different – to change how one thinks; and how one operates. Media plays a vital role. Similarly, the role of religious leaders with moblizational capabilities must pursue “peace resolution” as their end objective.
Thus, psychological reconditioning or dynamic changes in thinking and attitudes – the way they think and act - of political leaders, bureaucrats, judiciary, media, administrative machinery, police forces and security forces is critical if one wants to promote and consolidate peace.
At the Apex political level, a number of times tested and proven steps are available to promote peace like confidence building measures prefacing peacemaking, building, enforcement and maintenance. Annihilation and attrition strategies, particularly encounter deaths and killing of innocents caught in the crossfire cannot pay in the ultimate. The just functioning of the coercive apparatus of the state and not partisanship and rampant corruption is an imperative.
Of course, the strategies – Means and Ways – include: declaration of unilateral ceasefires; granting of amnesty to surrendered; release of prisoners; lucrative financial rehabilitation packages; continuing reconciliation talks through emissaries, offering opportunities for political power sharing etc. In some cases, such initiatives have paid dividends and in others they have failed. In the majority of cases, they may succeed in dividing the militant groups, but may not facilitate peacemaking.
The security forces surge may be an operational imperative, but temporarily only. Even Security forces must respect the complexities of the situation and design tailor-made “Winning Over the Hearts and Minds of the People”. By pursuing tactical military gains and mindless attrition in vicious pursuit of power, the risk of strategic defeat due to casualties and collateral damages become real. Ultimately, the change in the operational culture is most critical at grass roots level. Their judicious employment can earn the respect of the people.
Be that as it may, peace building is now conceived of as a multistage process to strengthen and begin unifying communities through approaches ranging from governmental capacity-building, economic development and psychological reconditioning of all those involved in the crisis situation. The end objective of each initiative is to be a step toward improving human security. And the process often includes a transitional justice mechanism to foster societal healing and reconciliation.
Thus, the real challenge for Modi and the NDA government alike is multi dimensional. Without credible long term development strategies in social, political and economic fields, “Presidents Rule” and Security Forces alone cannot pay ultimate peace and stability dividends. Force and fear cannot produce enduring peace.
Viewed from the above overall framework, it is never too late for the present political dispensation at Delhi to reach bi-partisan consensus on political initiatives to adopt and implement. Imposition of the President's Rule only provides a temporary reprieve. Modi must visit Imphal and interact with all political outfits in Manipur. The least that needs to be done politically includes: Constitute “Autonomous Districts Council” separately for Naga tribes and Kukis; Eviction of Foreigners, particularly Rohingyas Refugees” and sent back to Myanmar; Protect traditional Tribal village “Land Rights”; and announce compensation packages to rehabilitate those affected. Interact with all civil society organizations, religious leaders and media in particular to promote, consolidate and advance “Peace Resolution”.
0 Comments