The talks between spokesperson for the state government Th. Radheshyam and delegates from United Naga Council (UNC) in Senapati were perhaps referred to as an “icebreaker”, but there are bigger issues concerning the relationship among the communities of Manipur for the Khemchand government to solve through dialogue alone. Dialogue is obviously essential in such cases, but when the content of the issue is not solved by dialogue itself, it becomes nothing more than a ritual.
It was known that the UNC is ready to talk, although they prefer discussions to take place in Senapati rather than Imphal. Perhaps more importantly, they want their grievances to be redressed prior to withdrawing themselves from the agitation. Some of these grievances include scrapping of the Suspension of Operation (SoO) accord with the Kuki organizations, dealing with the offenders of the May 13 abduction and killing, declaring KNF-P as a terror group, and dislodging Nemcha Kipgen from the post of Deputy Chief Minister.
The government thus faces a hard choice between managing each community politically individually or confronting the core issues that have led to institutionalizing distrust.
The debate over the SoO agreement serves to point to the problem. Signatories to the SoO agreement, namely the United People’s Front (UPF) and the Kuki National Organization (KNO), deny allegations that the agreement is under revision and have called them baseless. However, the question about the agreement vis-à-vis its provisions regarding the territorial integrity of the State remains open to varying interpretations.
Ambiguity on such an issue of territorial and constitutional integrity of the State cannot be afforded by the Government.
If a decision in regard to the SoO agreement has been taken at all, the government has to come out clearly on the issue. If not, then too it should say so explicitly.
While the initiative of the Khemchand government to seek a solution involving three communities is conceptually correct, peace cannot come in Manipur if it excludes any community from the political discourse. However, inclusiveness does not necessarily mean appeasement. In this regard, the government, which represents the State as a whole, must show that dialogue is not about compromising on constitutional legitimacy, territorial integrity, rule of law and rights of any community.
The recent attempt to reach out to Kuki-dominated areas should be viewed in this context. However, such outreach alone cannot become a policy for peace. Visits to areas where the Chief Minister and his representatives were unable to reach earlier can indeed create symbolism, but without any concrete results, reconciliation may well become a photo-opportunity while the underlying issues are left unresolved.
“Apple of discord” in Manipur is not an agreement, one blockade or an administrative decision; rather, it is the built-up distrust on the matters of land, political representation, security, identity and territorial disputes. Unresolved issues fuel each other and create a vicious circle. Hence, the government that pursues a three-community solution needs to build consensus before selling the idea.
However, the demand for dialogue from the UNC in Senapati cannot be automatically discarded. Neither should any community’s demands be accepted blindly. It is important that the government establishes a dialogue process where representatives of all three communities meet based on clear agendas with documentation and publication of results of their discussions. Each issue of security agreements, territorial integrity, displaced populations, highways, politics and rehabilitation needs to be addressed in separate forums rather than in a single politically driven compromise.
It is also important that the government shows that the rule of law is non-negotiable. If abductions and killings have taken place, then investigations have to be carried out despite the identities or politics of the perpetrators. In the same way, claims made regarding armed outfits should be dealt with legally and evidentially and not politically.
The Chief Minister of Manipur, Yumnam Khemchand Singh, now faces the challenge of a crisis where every step will be looked at from the perspective of community interests. Therefore, his government will be judged not only by the number of dialogues it conducts but also by the outcome of those dialogues.
Manipur requires a settlement and not merely a stop-gap arrangement. It will be possible for there to be an agreement among the three communities only if it is built on the principles of equality of citizenship, constitutional protection, territorial integrity, justice, and security. The government must meet with everybody but satisfy nobody. This is the tricky balance between reconciliation and capitulation.