Examining the demand made by a progressively forward moving Meitei community of Manipur for Scheduled Tribe status after having been listed in the general category for the past 60 years
In the last two decades many demands for Scheduled Tribe (ST) status were made by different socio-cultural groups in various parts of India. In the northeastern region the contentious ones were the demands made by Adivasis of Assam and Meiteis of Manipur. The Scheduled Tribe Demand Committee of Manipur (STDCM) has been demanding ST status for the Meiteis since the latter part of 2012. Within a year the STDCM claimed to have been assured by the Indian prime minister in July 2013 for examining the demand provided the Manipur state cabinet takes a decision in favour of the committee’s demand.
In response to the demand made by the STDCM, Manipur legislator Irengbam Ibohalbi moved a Calling Attention Motion in the State Assembly in this regard on 25 February 2014, and was assured by the Deputy Chief Minister Gaikhangam Gangmei, who also holds the Tribal Affairs and Hills portfolio, that the issue will be discussed with the Central Government after a thorough study. There has never been such a hasty positive gesture, whether it is propagandistic or real, made by the central government on any contentious demand made in the northeastern region. This led to a series of protests by the hill tribes of Manipur in the form of press releases and threatening more intensive protests.
The STDCM argued that the Meiteis’ mongoloid physical features, the practice of animism (Sanamahi faith) by most of the population (Sangai Express, 2013), and being partial Hinduised and the first settler of the Imphal valley fulfil the criteria of being categorised as ST. It blamed the Government of India for the present rift and misunderstanding between the hills and valley people, resulting from the recognition of hill people as tribes and the Meiteis as mainly general category, and stressed on the non-existence of adversarial discord before India’s independence.
To them the demand is to recover the cohesive, harmonious and peaceful society before the merger of Manipur into India on 21 September 1949 (Imphal Free Press, 2013). They also emphasised the need to protect their endangered culture and identity by way of being listed as ST under the power vested to the president by Article 342(1) of the Indian Constitution. However, the movement is largely restricted to periodic press releases without street protest and mass movement or violence in any form.
The Hills Perspective
To the tribes in the hills of Manipur the main reason for the Meiteis seeking ST status is to avail the opportunity of job reservation (Hueiyen Lanpao 2013). However, when this apprehension is being examined carefully the Meiteis in places such as Sekmai, Phayeng, Khurkhul, Koutruk, Laimaram, Kwatha, Laimaram Khunou and Andro, and other weaker sections have already been given SC and Other Backward Class (OBC) statuses.
If the remaining Meitei community further needs reservation, they can either be listed into the SC or OBC category which has more reservations for jobs in public sectors and in educational institutions than ST. But it bewilders and agitates many in the hills as to why an ST status is sought. When delved into this demand there are tacit objectives behind this. The hills-valley divide is so deep that peaceful coexistence and stability in Manipur is now a far cry and in the process of disintegrating the state. To the STDCM, if ST status is given to the Meiteis the wedge between the hills and valley people could be reduced to a certain extent and the integrity of the state can be preserved.
The assertion that animism is being practiced by most of the Meitei population is misleading. According to the Census of India, Hindu Meiteis constitute about 80 per cent of the total Meitei population, and the rest are mainly Meitei Pangal/Muslim (about 19 per cent) and negligible Sanamahi faith. The Meitei Pangal and Meiteis with Sanamahi faith are already categorised in the OBC category. Again, the claim that Meiteis need ST status to protect their culture and identity is self-defeating. The Meiteis are a dominant group controlling the state and its apparatuses. The state has been protecting their cultural, political and economic rights. As such, their culture and identity are in no way endangered.
For many decades the Meiteis, through the instrument of their dominated state legislative assembly, have been attempting to remove the restriction imposed on the Meiteis in acquiring lands in the hills through certain legislative acts but without much success.11 In a public meeting organised on 22 October 2011 at Imphal by Manipur Land Revenue & Land Reforms Act (MLR & LR Act, 1960) Demand Committee which discussed the possible means and ways of extending the MLR & LR Act to the hill areas of Manipur, a remark by one participant conveys the extent of seriousness of the issue.
The participant said ‘...that a civil war may break out in Manipur if the MLR & LR Act is not enforced uniformly all over Manipur’ (Sangai Express, 2011). On the other hand, ST status to Meiteis will automatically remove this restriction and, therefore, be able to acquire lands in the hills with their sheer purchasing power. Through this they can expand their occupied territory beyond the Imphal valley. This attempt can be observed in the systematic administrative expansions of the Imphal districts into the foothills of Sadar Hills.
To the hill tribal people of Manipur, the demand for ST status by STDCM is a ploy to attenuate the fervent political demands of the Kukis and Nagas, as well as a tacit strategy of the dominant valley dwellers to make inroads into the hill areas of the state.
The Way Out
Contemporary Manipur is filled with demands and counter-demands, protests and anti-protests, and bandhs and counter-bandhs. The three communities are intractably interwoven over different issues. In recent years the fervent demands by the hill people for separate administrative arrangements posed an enduring challenge to the Meitei-dominated state politics. It has led to the sporadic formation of Meitei pressure groups which some of them even specialised in hurling communal expressions and the others formulating strategies to dilute and counter the hill's demands.
The demand for ST status by STDCM not only generated a debate between the hills and valley people but also within the Meitei community, with equally strong objection and opposition from different sections. This contradiction within the Meiteis points to the demand as evolving from a small section of the Meiteis without any prior consultation or consensus. The demand, seemingly, has become very much ‘political’ rather than ‘sociological’ or ‘anthropological’.
As such, the way out lies not on the ST status for Meiteis but on managing and paying attention to the apprehensions and misunderstandings among the state’s people. Here arises the management of diversity. This key-issue has to be handled carefully by the state government. The best policy is to carefully and seriously manage these apprehensions and looming misunderstandings among the people.
(Courtesy of Sage Publications)
