Introduction

India’s North East has over the centuries seen an extraordinary mixing of different races, cultures, languages and religions, adding to diversity of India. With an area of about 2.6 lakh sq. kms., and population of little over 39 million, seven states of North East comprising of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura, and Sikkim is a conglomeration of around 475 ethnic groups and sub-groups speaking over 400 languages / dialects. The region accounts for around 8 per cent of India’s total geographical area and little less than 4 per cent of India’s total population. Of 635 communities listed in India as Tribal, more than 200 are in North East. Of 325 languages listed by ‘People of India’ project, 175 belonging to Tibeto – Burman group are spoken in North East (Bhaumik, 2009).

Political dynamics in North East India is characterised by identity assertions drawing vitality and strength from mass mobilisation in defence of political aspirations held for preservation of ethnic and cultural distinctiveness (Deb, 2015). The means adopted for political articulation are both constitutional and non-constitutional in nature which confronted the state, encompassing greater part of North East, homeland of numerous autochthonous ethnic tribes, who have lived on clan loyalties and in glorious isolation from each other in time and clime, the region is not a melting pot of a pan-tribal society, but a veritable remake of Tower of Babel with tribes speaking different tongues, expressing different thoughts, following different faiths and practices, who are at war with each other over supremacy or for preserving their identities from assimilative advances of outsiders making the region a hotbed of political irreconcilabilities (Moorshahsry, 2015).

Manipur

Manipur is situated in extreme northeastern part of India, bordering Myanmar for about 352 kilometers in East and South of it; Nagaland to north, Assam to west and Mizoram to south. Manipur shares its borders with Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Myanmar. The state has distinct geography with hills at all sides and valley in middle. About 90% of area is mountainous, surrounding the central valley sloping to south. Forests cover 77.4% of Manipur. It covers an area of 22327 sq. km (8,621 sq mi). Manipur has population of 2,855,794 as per 2011 census. Of this total, 57.2% live in valley districts and remaining 42.8% in hill districts. The valley is mainly inhabited by Meitei speaking population. The hills are inhabited mainly by several ethno-linguistically diverse tribes belonging to Nagas, Kukis and smaller tribal groupings. Naga and Kuki settlements are also found in valley region, though less in numbers. It also borders two regions of Myanmar, Sagaing Region to east and Chin State to south. Manipur is divided into 16 districts and has 34 recognized Scheduled Tribes and 3 non- tribal groups, belonging to different ethno - linguistic traits. The ethnic groups can be broadly classified into three catgegories: Meitei, Naga and Kuki – Mizo. They belong to Mongoloid race and Tibeto – Burman language family varying from one another. Meiteis are concentrated in the valley and are dominant population group in Manipur. Naga and Chin- Kuki – Mizo groups inhabit hill areas surrounding Manipur plains (Thangboi Zou, 2015).

Main Religions practiced by Ethnic Groups in Manipur

According to 2011 census, Manipur's ethnic groups practice variety of religions. Hinduism and Christianity are major religions of Manipur (Census of India, 2011). Meitei ethnicity is majority group following Hinduism in Manipur, beside other immigrants following Hinduism in Manipur. Among indigenous communities of Manipur, Meiteis are the only Hindus as no other indigenous ethnic groups follow this faith. According to 2011 Census of India, about 41.39% of Manipuri people practice Hinduism. The Hindu population is heavily concentrated in Meitei dominant areas of Manipur Valley, among Meitei people. The districts of Bishnupur, Thoubal, Imphal East, and Imphal West have Hindu majorities, averaging 67.62% (range 62.27–74.81%) according to 2011 census data. Christianity is religion of 41% of people in Manipur but is majority in rural areas with 53% and is predominant in hills. Christianity was brought by Protestant missionaries to Manipur in 19th century.

In 20th century, few Christian schools were established, which introduced Western-type education. Christianity is predominant religion among Manipur tribals. Manipur is mostly a tribal state with constantly changing religious demography, two-thirds of tribal population is Metei who are mostly located in valley areas. Meteis are predominatly Hindus, unlike Kukis and Nagas who are mostly Christians and reside in the hills (Samant, 2023). At time of independence, Manipur’s Hindu population was 62 % which declined to 41 % in last census. Its Christian population had gone up from 19% to 40%. Meiteis, Kukis and Nagas traditionally have history of conflicts (Bansal and Ramachandran, 2017).

History of Manipur

To understand contemporary politics it is essential to understand history from medieval times. By medieval times, royal families in Manipur had started doing marriage alliances with Burmese Ahom Royals. Hindu Royals from mainland India had started marrying Manipuri Royals (Schoetz and Das, 2023). With arrival of British, situation in Northeast started changing. In 1824, Manipur entered into subsidiary alliance with British. The first Anglo-Burmese war led to expulsion of Burmese army from Manipur. The Treaty of Yandabo in 1826 restored kingdom of Manipur to its Maharaja and Burmese were eased out of Manipur. The kingdom of Manipur was left alone, as long as it paid tribute (Bhaumik, 2009). The Kingdom of Manipur was conquered by Britain following Anglo – Manipur War of 1891, becoming a British protectorate. British designated Manipur a ‘subordinate native state’ in 1891 and in 1907 stated that hill people were dependent on Maharaja of Manipur (Kumar, 2005). Prior to annexation on 15th October 1949 with India, Manipur was an independent Princely state ruled by Maharaja. Due to British fallacious policy, hill area was administered by British political agent and valley was allowed to rule by Meitei king. British also rehabilitated Kuki before Naga with intention to fight against Burmese, Lushai and Naga tribes. British promised Manipur to protect it from foreign aggression. Manipur was a princely state that had complete autonomy to all its decisions except foreign affairs. Towards end of Second World War, British granted complete rights to Manipuri state to decide their foreign relations and defence (Samant, 2024). Their boundary extended upto Kabaw valley in Myanmar. Manipur was scene of Kuki Rebellion 1917–1919 in which Kukis conducted guerrilla war against British, and only yielded when British threatened to completely destroy their settlements (Kipgen, n.d.). Between 1917 and 1939, some people of Manipur pressed princely rulers for democracy. By late 1930s, princely state of Manipur negotiated with British administration its preference to continue to be part of Indian Empire, rather than part of Burma, which was being separated from India. These negotiations were cut short with outbreak of World War II in 1939. At time of Indian Independence from British Rule in 1947, Northeast consisted of Assam and princely states of Manipur and Tripura. Manipur and Tripura became Union Territories of India in 1956 and states in 1972. Hijam Irabot Singh (1896–1951) opposed merger of Manipur with India and proposed creation of Purbanchal republic that would comprise Manipur, Tripura, Cachar and Mizo hills, including Kabaw Valley, already ceded to Burma (Kalita, 2011). British India moved towards independence and princely states which had existed alongside it became responsible for their own external affairs and defence, unless they joined new India or new Pakistan. Manipur State Constitution Act of 1947 established democratic form of government, with Maharaja continuing as head of state. Maharaja Budhchandra was summoned to Shillong, to merge the kingdom into Union of India. Later, on 21st September 1949, he signed Merger Agreement, merging the kingdom into India, which led to its becoming a Part C State (Singh, 2003; Dikshit and Dikshit, 2013). This merger with India was disputed by groups in Manipur, as having been completed without consensus and under duress (Kannabiran and Singh, 2008). It became Union Territory in 1956 (Rajgopalan, 2008). In 1972 Manipur became full state by North – Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 (Samant, 2024). Manipur was not included in Eighth Schedule until 1992 (Rajgopalan, 2008).

Ethnic Groups and Civil Strife in Manipur

ic Groups and Civil Strife in Manipur The primary conflict in Manipur involves a variety of insurgent groups constituted along tribal identities and demanding sovereign homeland, politicization of ethnic identities in post-independence era and internal rivalry in state politics along religious and ethnic lines has profoundly impacted quality and administration of the state and also course of insurgent politics. Tensions between ethnic and tribal subgroups over pattern of land tenure and distribution have triggered multiplicity of conflicts. A number of accumulated grievances several of which are historical in nature fuel Manipuri discontent. The circumstance of Manipur’s merger with India in October 1949 continues to cast its shadow on postcolonial politics of Manipur.

The resentment centres around perception that independent kingdom of Manipur was not incorporated into Indian Union as an equal member state of the Union. The fact that full statehood was conferred to Manipur only in 1972 despite Manipur having distinction of holding first ever elections to state assembly continues as sore point in Manipur till this date. Language is also an extremely emotive and explosive issue. Notwithstanding its distinguished history it was only in 1992 that Manipuri language was accorded status of official language in Eighth Schedule of Indian Constitution. The issue of Kabaw Valley is yet another factor. The Valley (spread over some 7000 sq. miles historically a part of Manipur was handed over by British to Burma as gesture of goodwill in aftermath of signing of Treaty of Yandabo in 1826. In 1953, Jawaharlal Nehru during a visit to Burmese Premier, U Nu gave up Manipur’s claim over it. This decision was not received very well in Manipur and continues till this date to ranckle psyche of significant section of Manipuri population. These instances have come to be interpreted as examples of extreme insensitivity and apathy of central government to Manipuri culture, heritage and sentiments. In recent years, issue of Bangladeshi and Nepali migration and Assamese and Naga irredentism have also been source of increasing unrest in Manipur. Another source of anxiety is fear that territory of Manipur may be split by Government of India to accommodate Greater Nagaland demand of Naga insurgents.

The turmoil in Manipur is aggravated by ‘internal’ quarrels between its explosive ethnic mix. Decades of civil strife have torn entire Manipur apart. The majority or 57 per cent of population of Manipur is predominantly Hindu Meitei and dominates central lowlands, while various Naga tribes in surrounding hills make up 13 – 14 per cent and Kukis, another 12 -13 per cent. There are number of smaller ethnic groups in Manipur, such as Mizo / Chin and Paite – related tribes in Churachandpur; Muslim Meitei Pangal in Imphal Valley, Bishnupur, Thoubal and Chandel; Komren in Senapati; and even sizable population of Nepalese in Imphal and town of Moreh on Myanmar border. Meiteis as well as Nagas, Kukis and other tribals all speak tongues that belong to Tibeto – Burman family of languages (Linter, 2015). Manipur had first experience of Hmar – Kuki conflict (1959 -60) for regrouping hill tribes as ‘Kuki’ or ‘Naga’. Since then last decade erupted with Naga – Kuki, Kuki – Paite and Kuki – Metei intra community conflict. Insurgency started growing in Manipur in 1960s. Debacle of India in 1962 Sino-Indian War encouraged militant activities in Northeast India along with Manipur. Although there are multiple insurgent groups in Manipur, first militant group was formed in 1964 – United National Liberation front. Between 1977 and 1980, People’s Liberation Army of Manipur (PLA), People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK) and Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) were formed. These new groups too joined insurgent movement (Samant, 2023). The insurgency in neighbouring Nagaland had spillover effect in Manipur as well. Kuki National Organisation (KNO) was formed on lines of National Socialist Council of Nagaland. It had an armed wing called Kuki National Army. It escalated conflict further. Kukis were often scared of their conflict with Nagas and Naga interests overtaking their cause. Therefore, they created their groups that often had clash of interest with Nagas (Gadkari, 2023). Most of rebel groups, which claim to represent one ethnic group or other, collect ‘taxes’ from businesses and individuals. Extortion by rebels and corruption within local administration hinders any serious development efforts. Money sent by central government tends to disappear into pockets of local officials. The outcome of all this is a sad state of affairs in Manipur, which is far worse off than any of other northeastern states as there are more insurgent groups than in any other northeastern Indian state, fighting government forces as well as each other and many groups have become criminisalised, carrying out extortions in name of “Manipuri nationalism” (Linter, 2015). Economic development in resource-rich northeast India has been arrested owning to many complex issues, including illegal economy of insurgency. In Manipur, pay- off has to be made to several insurgent groups (Bhattacharya, 2011)

While hill tribes were classified as Scheduled Tribes and qualify for reservations in education, government employment, Meiteis do not. Meiteis argue that hill tribes used this unfair advantage to dominate administrative set up of Manipur. In 2005 about 34.41% population were members of scheduled tribes (Kumar, 2005). Hill tribes of Manipur included Naga tribes in areas next to Nagaland, and Kuki and Mizo tribes in areas next to Mizoram. The umbrella terms “Naga" and "Kuki" in first list of schedule tribes were not accepted by tribes, who insisted on change to list in 1965 under which they were designated by their names. Only Thadou tribe retained Kuki name (Kumar, 2005). Meiteis are majority ethnic group in Manipur but occupied only a tenth of land and were not allowed to buy land in hill areas.

Metei people represent around 53% of population of Manipur state, followed by various Naga ethnic groups at 24% and various Kuki / Zomi tribes (also known as Chin-Kuki-Mizo people) at 16% (Lisam, n.d.). By contrast, hill tribes could buy land, and as scheduled tribes had better opportunities for employment in public sector. Meiteis responded by reviving their traditional culture and religion, protesting the presence and special powers of armed forces in the area, and forming militant separatist groups with links to other such groups in Myanmar and Northeast India (Kalita, 2011). These included United National Liberation Front, Peoples Liberation Army and Peoples’ Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak, and fought a semi-urban guerrilla war in Imphal valley (Kalita, 2011).

Land and Development Crunch

One of Manipur’s chief problem has been severe shortage of land in the valley and development neglect of hill areas. Manipur constitutes a fertile bowl-shaped valley surrounded by hills. While Manipur valley holds only ten per cent (2000 sq. km) of state land, it is home to 70 per cent of population, primarily Meitei. The hill areas comprise 90 per cent of State’s territory, occupied by Naga and Kuki communities, along with some other small tribal groups, who make up 30 per cent of State’s population. They have been protected by special laws that ensure tribal customary rights and prevention of land transfer to non-tribal (Chinai, 2018).

The kingdom of Manipur came under British protectorate after treaty of Yandabo, 1826, that concluded Burmese occupation of Assam and Manipur. The hills of Manipur, held to be non-revenue generating areas, were generally left un-administered and were under President, Manipur State Durbar, who was a British Indian Civil Services officer. The valley was under regular modern revenue administration (Phanjoubam, 2016). Following independence, this tradition continued and in 1960, when Manipur was still Union Territory, Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act was introduced in the valley. The non-taxpaying hills were still left largely un-administered. In 1972 when Manipur became full – fledged state, this divide between valley and hills was formalized through application of Article 371 – C of Constitution of India in hill areas regarding protecting culture, custom, land of tribal people (Chinai, 2018).

The Autonomous District Councils of Manipur

Sections of Manipur’s hill tribes have raised apprehensions that State Government is seeking to curtail their protection against land transfers through amendments to MLR & LR 7th Amendment Bill, 2015 and protection of Manipur People’s Bill 2015. They held that lacking access to fertile, agricultural land such transfer would jeopardise their means of survival. Six Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) for tribal people of hill areas were created in 1973 under Manipur (Hill Area) Autonomous District Councils Act 1971 of Government of Manipur. These councils were outside purview of Sixth Schedule of Constitution (Prasad, 2004). All hill area matters are required to be referred to Hill Area Committee (HAC), which is Mini assembly of all 20 hill MLAs within 60 member Manipur State Legislative Assembly. Since 2014 there has been demand to upgrade to Sixth Schedule of Indian Constitution, as applicable to Meghalaya, Mizoram, Tripura and Assam which would bring greater autonomy. Sixth Schedule of Constitution of India provides for tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram to be administered as autonomous districts or regions. The valley has no safeguards against legal land transfers and over years it has led to acute paucity of living and survival space for Meitei, who are primarily agricultural people. Meitei have been demanding protective laws against transfer of their land, placement of controls on presence of non- locals through implementation of Inner Line Permit (ILP), which is presently applicable in Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal, which is issued under Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873. Meitei are also seeking status of scheduled tribes so that they can also avail reservation facilities in education, jobs and gain access to land in hill tribal areas (Chinai, 2018).

Manipur has thirty-four recognized scheduled tribes (ST) which broadly belong to Naga and Kuki-Zomi groups. Meiteis who are settled in Imphal Valley constitute 54 per cent of total population but inhabit only 10 per cent of land. The tribes people constitute around 41 per cent of population and inhabit 90 per cent of state’s geographical land (Kamei, 2018) During colonial times, British deliberately introduced hill-valley” divide by separating administration of hills from Plains (Suan, 2009).

This divide was also accentuated by religious divide between the two, wherein Meiteis embraced Vaishnavism patronized by Kings of Manipur and hill people converted to Christianity by Christian missionaries who were allowed to function in hill areas (Kshetri, 2006).

In 1963 when Union territory of Manipur was created, and provided with Territorial Assembly with thirty members, elected tribal members of Assembly functioned as HAC of Assembly in charge of some affairs of hill areas and some of them were also included in Council of Ministers (Kshetri, 2006). In 1972, when Manipur was inaugurated as 19th State of Indian Union, thirty member Territorial Assembly was increased to sixty member Legislative Assembly. Out of these sixty members, nineteen were reserved for STs and out of two Lok Sabha seats, one was reserved for ST (Kshetri, 2006).

A significant step towards administration of hill areas of Manipur was taken with insertion of Article 371 C in Constitution of India. This article provided for enactment of Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act in 1971 which was enforced in 1973 after Manipur attained Statehood. Under the Act, hill areas of Manipur were divided into five autonomous districts with six autonomous district councils (ADCs). The autonomous districts were Senapati, Ukhrul, Tamenglong, Chandel and Churanchandpur. The district of Senapati had two councils – Senapati and Sadar Hills and rest had four district councils (Suan, 2015). In addition to ADCs, HAC has been constituted under Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Area Committee) Order 1972. The Members elected from hill areas of Manipur, members of HAC, then elect Chairman and vice chairman. HAC is highest body at legislative level to oversee planning, implementation and monitoring of all developmental activities in hill areas of Manipur (Government of Manipur, n.d.). As provided under Article 371 C of Constitution, HAC vets all laws affecting hill districts.

The ADCs in Manipur are however fundamentally different from ADCs in other four northeastern states. Firstly, ADCs in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram were established under Sixth Schedule. The ADCs in Manipur were established by Act of Parliament as Sixth Schedule did not apply to Manipur which was a Princely state and not Hill District of Assam. Secondly, unlike ADCs established under Sixth Schedule, ADCs in Manipur are not entrusted with judicial and legislative powers. ADCs could only make byelaws on subjects of allotment, occupation or use of land for agricultural purposes or non agricultural purposes, use of unclassified forests, use of canal or water courses and regulation of jhum farming or other shifting agriculture (Kshetri, 2006). ADCs of Manipur are also given only limited administration and financial powers which means that they are allowed to raise revenue through only limited sources (Kshetri, 2006).

As tribe’s people of Manipur realized that areas where ADCs were formed under Sixth Schedule were more autonomous compared to theirs, they started demanding extending Sixth Schedule to Manipur as well. Das (2024) has covered demands made since 1974 till 2021 as well as functioning of ADCs. One issue that unites Nagas and Kukis is demand for extension of Sixth Schedule to Hill areas. The HAC drafted Manipur (Hill Areas) Autonomous District Council Bill, 2021 and sent it to state government in August 2021 for it to be tabled and enacted into legislation. This bill proposed to increase number of council members from 24 to 31, delimitation of 28 constituencies, greater autonomy and financial powers for ADCs, creation of Hill Area Secretariat for managing, coordinating, monitoring working of ADCs (Das, 2024).

The valley-based civil organisations appealed to state government not to table the bill as it contains maximum provisions for creating Naga Autonomous Territorial Council and Kuki Autonomous Territorial Council which are opposed by them (Das, 2024). The State Government staved off the bill by constituting a committee to ascertain whether state government has mandate to pass such a legislation since 1971 Bill was passed by Parliament (Zaman, 2022). Kukis see District Councils as a step towards gaining an autonomous state. Nagas hope to merge Council area with that of Nagaland. These hopes of Kukis and Nagas are vehemently opposed by Meities who see it as a design to break up state of Manipur. Manipur government has not yet taken positive initiative on this aspect. Till contentious issue of extending Sixth Schedule to hill areas of Manipur is amicably resolved, cycle of ethnic and political tensions will keep on recurring in Manipur (Das, 2024).

Insurgency in Manipur

Manipur has been one of the most troubled states in Northeast region, with Naga, Meitei, Kuki insurgent groups operating from Manipur. Naga hills which are dominated by various Naga tribes had a sense of participation in Naga insurgency. The first Meitei insurgent group, United National Liberation Front (UNLF) was formed on 24th November 1964 and was right from beginning besotted with factionalism. This factionalism, accompanied by divergent ideological orientations and support bases, ensured number of insurgent groups in Manipur, such as People’s Liberation Army (PLA), People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK), Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP), all between 1977 and 1980. Another rebel group called Kanglei Yawoi Kanna Lup (KYKL), formed in 1994 with radical agenda of moral and social reform, contributed to existing violence. Several Kuki groups were formed in 1990s which were primarily based on inter-ethnic rivalry in Manipur Hills with Naga tribes. Manipuri Muslims known as Pangal Meiteis formed People’s United Liberation Front (PULF) in 1993, given overall ethnic violence in Manipur (Rahman, 2015). Kuki armed struggle began to surface in political scene in late 1980s. Being one of the dominant groups of Manipur after Meitei and Nagas, Kukis feel marginalized with growing fear of insecurity from dominant communities of Manipur (Kipen and Roy Choudhury, 2016). Impetus for Kuki demand for statehood in Manipur can be seen against backdrop of community’s feeling of deprivation and marginalization in state of Manipur (Roluahpuia, 2024).

In Manipur, dominant Meitei community has successfully wielded power. This also means that they can exert their influence on state policies. Political aspirations and demands of Meitei civil society organisations have seen their progressive realization – from demand for inclusion of Meitei Mayek in Eight Schedule to use and introduction of Meitei Mayek as official and non-official language of state and increasing extension of Manipur Land Reform and Land Regulation Act (Shimray, 2007). Ethnic dominance of Meitei has alienated tribes who see government as ‘ethnocracy’ (Haokip, 2022). The demand of Manipur tribals for protective mechanism in form of Sixth Schedule remains denied (Bhatia, 2010). This is besides simmering tension in state between groups that demand separation from Manipur, such as Naga movement for territorial integration. The current socio-political set up in state enforces majoritarianism than perpetuates injustice and violence against minority tribal communities (Roluahpuia, 2017).

Faced with simultaneous uprisings in plains and by Kukis of hill regions, in 2008 Indian Army signed a Suspension of Operation agreement with eight Kuki groups in hope that they could be used against rebel groups in valley. Active groups in Manipur in 2009 included People's Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak, Military Council faction of Kangleipak Communist Party, People’s United Liberation Front, People's Liberation Army and Kuki Revolutionary Army. The areas bordering Nagaland were affected by National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM) (Kalita, 2011).

Manipur in independent India saw great deal of political consciousness in face of ethnic revival among different tribes of Naga and Chin – Kuki – Mizo group. Extremism in Manipur can generally be categorised into three streams: valley (Meitei) stream who believed that Manipur king was forced to access into Indian union and who are fighting for sovereignty; Naga stream, who has been fighting for integration of all Naga inhabited areas in Assam, Nagaland, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh; and Chin – Kuki – Mizo or Zo Group who has risen up to claim for their ethnic autonomous ‘homeland’ within Manipur and across international border to Burma. This form of ethno – nationalist movement with certain degree of patronage, moral and material support from people of each ethnic group has given rise to militancy in Manipur (Thangboi Zou, 2015).

Manipur gave birth to People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in 1978 adopting violent way for complete independence. After PLA, dozen of insurgent outfits emerged with demand for regional autonomy to secession or total independence and have been operating in Manipur. Noted among them are Revolutionary People’s Front (RPF), United Liberation Front (UNLF) in 1986, People’s Revolution Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK) a valley based Meitei insurgent group who claimed an independent state embracing geographically all North East states except western part of Assam and part of Tripura. Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP). Hmar People’s Convention (HPC), Kuki National Organisation (KNO), Kuki National Army (KNA) are other outfits of Manipur.

KNA demanded autonomous state near Myanmaar for Kukis while other claimed ‘Kuki-homeland’ covering Ukrul, Senapati, Imphal and Kuki dominated areas of Nagaland, Assam and Manipur with 22.32 sq.km geographical areas having nine districts and thirty three recognized scheduled tribes. Five hill districts Chandel, Churachandpur, Tamenlong, Senapati and Ukhrul dominated by Tribal and state land laws prohibited Meitei and non- tribal to buy land and settle in the hills. Four valley districts (2.23 sq. km.) – Imphal East, Imphal West, Bishnupur and Thoubal are mixture of all tribe representatives. Splinter groups have arisen within some of armed groups and disagreement between them is rife. Other than UNLF, PLA and PREPAK, Manipuri insurgent groups include Revolutionary Peoples Front (RPF), Manipur Liberation Front Army (MLFA), Kanglei Yawol Kanba Lup (KYKL), Revolutionary Joint Committee (RJC), Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP), Peoples United Liberation Front (PULF), Manipur Naga People Front (MNPF), National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-K), National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-I/M), United Kuki Liberation Front (UKLF), Kuki National Front (KNF), Kuki National Army (KNA), Kuki Defence Force (KDF), Kuki Democratic Movement (KDM), Kuki National Organisation (KNO), Kuki Security Force (KSF), Chin Kuki Revolutionary Front (CKRF), Kom Rem Peoples Convention (KRPC), Zomi Revolutionary Volunteers (ZRV), Zomi Revolutionary Army (ZRA), Zomi Reunification Organisation (ZRO), and Hmar Peoples Convention (HPC). Meitei insurgent groups seek independence from India. Kuki insurgent groups want separate state for Kukis to be carved out from present state of Manipur. Kuki insurgent groups are under two umbrella organisations: Kuki National Organisation (KNO) and United Peoples Forum. Nagas wish to annex part of Manipur and merge with greater Nagaland or Nagalim, which is in conflict with Meitei insurgent demands for integrity of their vision of an independent state.

Understanding Violence between Meitei and Kuki in Manipur in 2023

Manipur, like rest of northeastern region, consists of variety of communities that have history of mistrust towards one another. Meiteis make up slightly over half of population, while tribal communities, consisting of Kukis and Nagas, make up nearly 40%, with Kukis making up 25% and Nagas 15%. Although Meiteis are predominantly Hindu, they also follow their ancient animist beliefs and practices, and there are Meitei Pangals who make up 8% of Meitei population and practice Islam. Meiteis are more educated and hold greater representation in business and politics in state compared to Kukis and Nagas. The dominant Hindu community, which is based in state’s capital city of Imphal, forms more than 50 percent of state’s population of 3.5 million, as per India’s census in 2011. While Meiteis are mostly based in plains, they have presence in hills as well. The majority of Kukis and Nagas follow Christian faith. The two mostly Christian tribes form around 40 percent of state’s population, and enjoy “Scheduled Tribe” status, which gives them land-ownership rights in hills and forests. They are most significant tribes residing in the hills. Kukis are dispersed throughout northeast region of India and Myanmar. In Manipur, many Kukis migrated from Myanmar several centuries ago and were initially settled by Meitei rulers in hills to serve as barrier between Meiteis in Imphal valley and Nagas who frequently attacked the valley. Later, during insurgency in Nagaland, Naga rebels argued that Kukis were residing in areas that should be part of separate Naga state they were demanding. In 1993, there was intense violence between Nagas and Kukis in Manipur, resulting in deaths of over a hundred Kukis at hands of Nagas. Although Nagas and Kukis have historically been at odds with each other, they are in agreement in their opposition to Meiteis.

The violence erupted on 3rd May 2023, in India's state of Manipur. The violence killed around 60 people and injured around 230. It began in Churachandpur district during "Tribal Solidarity March" called by All Tribal Student Union Manipur (ATSUM) to protest granting of reservations to majority Meitei community. ‘Tribal Solidarity March’ resulted in violence in Torbung area of Churachandpur district. The march was organised by various tribes, including Nagas and Kukis, in response to demand for Scheduled Tribe (ST) status by Meitei community, which Manipur High Court had instructed state government to recommend to Centre within four weeks. During the march, armed mob allegedly attacked Meitei community members, sparking retaliatory attacks in valley districts, which then spread violence throughout Manipur. The current conflict between Meiteis and ‘tribals’ is extension of hills-versus-plains conflict seen elsewhere in northeast. Recent Manipur violence stems from disputes over land and special privileges, which have created divisions between religious and ethnic communities in Manipur. Immediate provocation for ethnic unrest appears to be demand for Meitei community, which accounts for 53 per cent of Manipur’s population and primarily inhabits Manipur Valley,to be included in Scheduled Tribe list. Meiteis claim they are marginalized as compared to other mainstream communities. The tribes believe granting “Scheduled Tribe” status to Meiteis would be an infringement of their rights as they claim to be marginalized part of population and not Meiteis. The tribes believe Meiteis are already dominant community and call shots in state politics and hence should not be given affirmative action. They see Scheduled Tribe status as Meiteis eating into their pie. Tribal areas in northeastern part of India enjoy certain constitutional protection and there is anxiety in them that scheduled tribe status would mean that Meiteis can own land in the hills. In February 2023, state government began an eviction drive in districts of Churachandpur, Kangpokpi and Tengnoupal, declaring forest dwellers as encroachers which was seen as anti-tribal. The government’s eviction of Kuki villages, which were encroaching on protected forest area, was another factor that contributed to already tense situation and provided further fuel to growing animosity against Meitei community. In March 2023, five people were injured in violent clash at Thomas Ground in Kangpokpi district where protesters gathered to hold rally against “encroachment of tribal land in name of reserved forests, protected forests and wildlife sanctuary”. In same month, Manipur Cabinet withdrew from Suspension of Operation ceasefire agreements with Kuki National Army and Zomi Revolutinary Army. On 11th April 2023, in Imphal’s Tribal Colony locality, three churches were razed for being "illegal constructions" on government land, which led to more discontent and further fed into animosities on both sides. On 20th April 2023, single judge of Manipur High Court directed state government to “consider request of Metei community to be included in Scheduled Tribes (ST) list.” Kukis feared that ST status would allow Meiteis purchase land in prohibited hilly areas. Meiteis, who are largely Hindu and make 53% of population, are prohibited from settling in hilly regions of state as per Land Reform Act of Manipur, which limits them to reside in Imphal Valley, constituting 10% of state's land. Tribal population, consisting of Kukis and Nagas, which form about 40% of Manipur's 3.5 million people, reside in reserved and protected hilly regions consisting of rest of 90% of Manipur. The tribal population is not prohibited from settling in valley region. Meitei people in Manipur suspect that there has been huge increase in tribal population in Manipur which "cannot be explained by natural birth". They have been requesting application of National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Manipur for identification of illegal immigration from Myanmar. Kukis say that illegal immigration is pretext under which Meitei population wants to drive tribal population from their lands. While Kukis dominate land ownership, Meiteis dominate political power in Manipur Legislative Assembly, where they control 40 out of 60 seats. Disputes over land and illegal immigration have been primary root of tensions which have existed for decades. The Chief Minister of Manipur was scheduled to visit Churachandpur on 28th April 2023 and inaugurate an open gym. Before inauguration could take place, on 27th April 2023, gym was set on fire by protestors. Section 144 of IPC was invoked for 5 days and police clashed with protestors on 28th April 2023. In Manipur, curfew was imposed across eight districts, including non-tribal dominated Imphal West, Kakching, Thoubal, Jiribam, and Bishnupur districts, as well as tribal-dominated Churachandpur, Kangpokpi, and Tengnoupal districts

Amidst long-standing tensions between Meitei and Kuki people, Kuki organization called All Tribal Student Union Manipur (ATSUM), opposed to decision of Manipur High Court, called for a march named “Tribal Solidarity March” on 3rd May 2023, which turned violent in district of Churachandpur. Reportedly, more than 60,000 protestors participated in this march. During violence on 3rd May 2023, residence of mostly Kuki Tribal population were attacked in non-tribal areas. According to police, many houses of tribal population in Imphal were attacked and 500 occupants were displaced and had to take shelter in Lamphelpat. Around 1000 Meiteis affected by violence also had to flee and take shelter in Bishnupur. Twenty houses were burnt in city of Kangpokpi. Violence was observed in Churachandpura, Kakching, Canchipur, Soibam Leikai, Tenugopal, Langol, Kangpokpi and Moreh while Meiteis being concentrated in Imphal Valley during which several houses and other properties were burnt and destroyed. On 4th May 2023, fresh cases of violence were reported. The police force had to fire several rounds of tear shells to control rioters. Kuki MLA who is representative of tribal headquarters of Churachandpur, was attacked during riots while he was returning from state secretariat. By end of 3rd May 2023, 55 columns of Assam Rifles and Indian Army were deployed in the region and by 4th May 2023, more than 9,000 people were relocated to safer locations. By 5th May 2023, about 20,000 and by 6th May 2023, 23,000 people had been relocated to safe locations under military supervision. Central government airlifted 5 companies of Rapid Action Force and 10,000 army, para-military forces and Central Armed Police Forces were deployed in Manipur.

On 4th May 2023, Union government invoked Article 355 of Indian constitution that lets it take over and have special powers in a state and took over security situation of Manipur. Several hill-based militants engaged with Indian Reserve Battalion in which five militants were killed. The army ‘significantly enhanced’ its surveillance in violence-affected areas, including Imphal Valley, through aerial means such as drones and deployment of military helicopters while curfew was relaxed for limited period from 7th May 2023. On 12th May 2023, all 10 Kuki MLAs, issued a statement demanding separate body be created to administer their community under Constitution of India in wake of violent ethnic clashes and that living under Meitei-majority administration after violence would be “as good as death” for their community. Five organisations of tribal students of Manipur in New Delhi also demanded probe into alleged involvement of two radical Meitei groups, in violence. Union Government Minister of Home Affairs Amit Shah held meetings with Biren Singh monitoring the situation in Manipur. An MLA Dinganglung Gangmei petitioned Supreme Court of India against High Court's recommendation to state government to add Meitei people to Scheduled Tribes list. On 29th May 2023, hundreds of women from Kuki, Mizo, and Zomi tribes staged a protest at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, demanding intervention by central government to end communal tensions in Manipur. On 19th July 2023, a video went viral showing two Kuki women, being stripped, paraded naked on streets, slapped and sexually assaulted by presumably Meitei men. The women were forcibly taken away from police station when they were fleeing mob violence. The younger victim was allegedly gang-raped and one of victims' father and teenage brother were killed by the mob while trying to protect the victim. Kuki community have accused police of siding with Meitei. On 20th July 2023, Chief Minister Biren Singh defended his decision to curtail Internet access in Manipur, citing similar incidents occurring in the past. Union government ordered social media platforms to remove all posts showing viral video. Seven arrests were made in case, all of them after viral video surfaced. Supreme Court responded within hours after circulation of video, warning that court will intervene if government fails to act. The CBI took over case on 29th July 2023. On 1st August 2023, Supreme Court stopped CBI from recording two women’s statements which was scheduled just two hours before Supreme Court hearing on case, due to objections by women. On 31st July 2023, Supreme Court asked Manipur government to provide complete break-up of around 6000 FIRs related to violence in state. During hearing on 1st August 2023, Supreme Court said that state underwent “absolute breakdown of constitutional machinery”. On 7th August 2023, Supreme Court took suo moto cognisance and formed a committee consisting of retired Jammu and Kashmir High Court Chief Justice Gita Mittal (who will lead the committee), former Bombay High Court judge Justice Shalini Phansaklar Joshi and former Delhi High Court judge Justice Asha Menon to look into relief and rehabilitation and appointed former Mumbai Police Commissioner Dattatray Padsalgikar to oversee the probe. On 20th July 2023, PM Modi said incident of video showing two women being paraded naked shamed India and that no guilty will be spared. On 7th August 2023, Kuki People’s Alliance withdrew their support to BJP government of Manipur led by N. Biren Singh. The parliamentary opposition tabled a no-confidence motion about crisis on 10th August 2023. Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed the conflict, stating that "there would soon be peace in Manipur" and whole India would get behind resolution efforts.

Influence of external factors

External factors add another layer of complexity to situation in Manipur. Coup in Myanmar and subsequent crackdown has led to influx of refugees which influenced unrest in Manipur. Coup in Bangladesh may further exacerbate the situation.

Myanmar: Many communities in Manipur, such as Kukis, Nagas, and other tribal groups, share ethnic, cultural and linguistic ties with similar groups in Myanmar, particularly in Chin State and Sagaing Region. Chin and Kuki-Zo people are among large number of refugees who have arrived, escaping brutality and persecution at hands of Myanmar military. Lack of effective control by Myanmar government and conflict in Myanmar provide insurgent groups with spaces to regroup, train and launch operations against Indian security forces. India-Myanmar border is significant route for drug trafficking. In August 2023, Home Minister of India stated that situation in Myanmar had added to ongoing conflict in Manipur and announced that porous border between Manipur and Myanmar would be fenced and free movement regime (FMR) would be suspended.

Bangladesh :There are cultural connections between Manipur communities and those in Bangladesh. Some Manipur-based insurgent organizations like United National Liberation Front (UNLF) and People’s Liberation Army (PLA), have used Bangladeshi territory as base for training, regrouping, and launching operations. Presence of Bangladeshi migrants in Manipur has been contentious issue. Local communities view these migrants as competing for jobs and resources, adding to social tensions. Bangladesh Ex-Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina revealed that several Western nations are reportedly conspiring to create Christian state by annexing parts of Bangladesh, Myanmar and India. This has found secret allies in Kuki-Chin National Front (KNF) and other regional insurgent groups. Bangladeshi authorities have noted connections between KNF and other groups in India and Myanmar, suggesting coordinated effort to establish separate eastern state. The KNF’s alliance with Islamist militant group Jamaat Ul Ansar Fil Hind Al Sharqiya (JAFHS) is seen as strategic move to destabilise the region and further their agenda.

Implications of Violence

Economic Development:Violence has markedly impeded infrastructure projects. Exports of textiles, medicines and food items have fallen by nearly 80 per cent. Economic stagnation fuels cycle of poverty and further unrest, as disenfranchised youth are recruited by insurgent groups.

Social Fabric:Constant conflicts have strained intercommunity relations leading to societal fragmentation and mistrust. The displacement of communities due to violence destabilizes region and creates humanitarian crises and exacerbates social tensions.

Loss of Human life:According to government figures, as of 3rd May 2024, 221 people were killed in violence and 60,000 people were displaced. Over 1,000 injuries, 32 people reported missing, 4,786 houses burned and 386 religious structures vandalized.

Violence against women:Incidents of sexual violence have garnered attention, bringing to light harrowing reality faced by women in Manipur. Meitei mobs have repeatedly targeted women as means of control of rival faction, burning homes and subjecting them to assaults.

Growth of militancy:Prolonged unrest could provide fertile ground for militant groups to expand their influence and recruit more people, leading to rise in extremist activities.

Internal displacement:As per report published by Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), Geneva, Manipur violence accounted for 97% of displacements in South Asia in 2023

Elusive Peace

Galtung (2000) developed a concept called ‘violence triangle’ to understand notion of peace. He refers to distinction between three separate forms of violence - direct violence, structural violence and cultural violence, all are closely related to each other. To achieve peace in holistic or positive sense, society has to overcome all forms of direct, structural and cultural violence. Achievement of peace in India’s security paradigm is understood to be absence of violence which falls in domain of negative peace. Peace should not be understood only as the absence of violence but it should also address some structural issues for which insurgency becomes a recurring phenomenon in the region. One of the basic objectives of peace policy should be to address the structural issues for which a conflict occurs (Mahanta, 2015). Manipur is a state where insurgency is very active even now. Peace efforts have not still acquired much success. Very idea of peace in Manipur is layered. If at one level, we are to look at frequency and number of occasions in which armed groups or non-state armed actors have engaged with state armed groups or undertaken attacks or ambushes, there is no decline of activities since 2023.

Action plans to be adopted by Government at policy level:

Disarming of Civil Society:Huge quantity of weapons and ammunition are being held by warring communities in conflict-driven Manipur. Entire civil society needs to be disarmed on priority.

Rehabilitation of victims:It is important to identify victims and rehabilitate them with help of Government and civil society.

Engagement with All Tribes:Engage all stakeholders, including various ethnic groups, in a dialogue to understand their grievances and find common ground. First step is initiation of process of identifying common problems, acceptable to conflicting groups through inclusive mechanism.

Independent commission for conflict resolution:Mere appeals for peace talks from time to time along with military engagements cannot bring in a tangible solution. It is important that government should constitute an independent commission for conflict resolution in Manipur.

Transparency and Fairness:In order to remove trust deficit, government should ensure that legal system is fair and transparent to prevent misuse of power by security forces.

Evaluation of Criteria for declaring a community as SC/STThere is need to evaluate criteria for ST status for all, as per present status, in line with recommendations given by Lokur Committee (1965) which recommended five criteria for identification, namely, primitive traits, distinct culture, geographical isolation, shyness of contact with community at large and backwardness.

Surveillance of International Border:Government should increase surveillance along Myanmar Border to keep check on infiltration and illegal migration from Myanmar, Bangladesh. Any major inflow of population is likely to create ethnic or religious backlash.

One District One Force (ODOF)ODOF will result in better coordination and operations to restore normalcy and personnel of one security force will be responsible to maintain law and order in one district increasing accountability and reducing conflict amongst security forces.

Better coordination among forces:There are instances of lack of coordination among various forces deployed in Manipur like Assam Rifles, Indian Army, CRPF, State police. This has led to multiple standoffs between Assam Rifles and Manipur police.

Tough policy towards insurgents who resort to violent militancy:Empowerment of indigenous populations should not prevent tough policy towards insurgents who resort to ethnic cleansing and violent militancy.

Protection of indigenous land:Land alienation in India’s Northeast has led to serious ethnic tensions. Armed militiamen representing ethnic group formed core group that perpetrated violence. Tribesmen list perceived land loss to settlers as their main grievance, which leads to furious outburst of ethnic violence. In Manipur’s hill region, land alienation was growing until Manipur Land Revenue and Reforms Act was passed in 1960. This act prohibited sale of tribal land to non-tribals.

Reverse Internal Displacement:Ethnic conflicts in Northeast have led to considerable internal displacement of victim populations. Once displacement has taken place, it is important to provide security to affected population and organise their return to ancestral villages at earliest.

Epilogue

What Manipur requires is not a moratorium on peace talks but a comprehensive peace process policy that goes beyond the immediacy of ceasefire, suspension of operations and agreements. Peace talk in Manipur is not a mechanism for structural conflict resolution, but it is a temporary means to rehabilitate the leaders and cadres. A comprehensive peace process policy must be based on notions of fairness, justice and representation to various stakeholders. One of the basic objectives of the peace policy should be to address the structural issues for which the conflict occurs. One will have to deeply engage with societal issues that have led to multiple armed conflicts - Fears of loss of land, demands for political empowerment, ethnic identity assertion, hill-plain divide. Ethnic distrust, fear of discrimination creates structural conditions for ethnic armed conflict.

References

Bansal, S. and Ramchandran, S. (2017). Christian population on the rise in Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur. Hindustan Times, 9th March 2017.

Bhatia, B. (2010). Justice denied to tribals in the Hill Districts of Manipur. Economic and Political Weekly, 38-46.

Bhattacharya, R. (2011). Development Disparities in Northeast India. New Delhi: Foundation Books.

Bhaumik, S. (2009). Troubled Periphery – Crises of India’s North East. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Census of India (2011). Census of India Website: Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India.

Chinai, R. (2018). Understanding India’s Northeast – A Reporter’s Journal. Mumbai: Rupa Chinai.

Das, P. (2024). Formation of Autonomous Councils (Assam, Manipur) – Impact on Ethnic Conflicts, Peace Negotiations. In Uttara Sahasrabuddhe and Gayatri Lele (Eds.) Grace, Glory, Gaffee – India’s Northeastern Region@75. Mumbai: KBI Publishers. 102 – 134

Deb, B.J. (2015). Extremism in North East India. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd

Gadkari, M.G. (2023). Manipur Unrest – A Complex Threat. Indian Defence Review, 31st May 2023, http://www.indiandefencereview.com/manipur-unrest-a-complex-threat/

Galtung, J., Jacobsen, C.G., Brand-Jacobsen, K.F. (2000). Searching for Peace, London: Pluto Press

Haokip, T. (2022). Ethnocracy in Deeply divided societies: The Dynamics of Ethnopolitics in Manipur. In J.J.P. Wouters (Ed.) Exploring Vernacular Politics in Northeast India: Democracy, Ethnicity and Indigeneity (176-198), New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Kalita, N. (2011). Resolving Ethnic Conflict in Northeast India. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Indian History Congress, 72, PART–II: 1354–136.

Kamei (2019). Tribal Land, Customary Law, and Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act. Economic and Political Weekly, 53 (19), 52

Kannabiran, K. and Singh, R. (2008). Challenging the Rules(s) of Law. New Delhi: SAGE Publications

Kipgen N. and Roy Chowdhury, A. (2016). ‘Contested state-craft’ on the frontiers of the Indian nation: ‘Hills-Valley divide’ and the genealogy of Kuki ethnic nationalism in Manipur. Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 16(2), 283-303.

Kipgen, D.M. (n.d.). The Great Kuki Rebellion of 1917-19: Its Real Significances, (Courtesy: The Sangai Express).

Kshetri, R. (2006). District Councils in Manipur, Formations and Functioning. Delhi: Akansha Publishing House

Kumar, N. (2005). Identity Politics in the Hill Tribal Communities in the North-Eastern India, Sociological Bulletin Society, 54 (2),195–217.

Lisam, K.S. (n.d.) Encyclopaedia of Manipur, 322–347

Linter, B. (2015). Great Game East: India, China and the Struggle for Asia’s Most Volatile Frontier. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Mahanta, N.G. (2015). Auditing Peace and Conflict in India’s Northeast: Do We Need a ‘Peace Policy’? In D. Suba Chandran and P.R. Chari (Eds.) Armed Conflict, Peace Audit, and Early Warning 2014, New Delhi: Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd., 201-227.

Moorshahsry. R.S. (2015). North East India: Maladies and Remedies. In B.J. Deb (Ed.), Extremism in North East India, New Delhi: Concept Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1 – 5.

Manipur (IMPHAL), knowindia.gov.in

Phanjoubam, P. (2016). The Northeast Question: Conflicts and Frontiers. London: Routledge.

Prasad, R. N.(2004). Sixth Schedule and the working of the district councils in the North-Eastern states. Dialogue, 6(2), 149-164.

Roluahpuia (2017). Media in conflict or Conflict in Media: Examining Media Coverage of Conflict in Northeast India. Asian Ethnicity, 18(4), 488-504

Roluahpuia (2024). Politics for Peace. Rethinking the Making of Peace in Mizoram. In Uttara Sahasrabuddhe and Gayatri Lele (Eds.) Grace, Glory, Gaffee – India’s Northeastern Region@75. Mumbai: KBI Publishers. 164 – 186

Samant, S.S. (2024). Mapping the Region – An Overview of Northeast India. In Uttara Sahasrabuddhe and Gayatri Lele (Eds.) Grace, Glory, Gaffee – India’s Northeastern Region@75. Mumbai: KBI Publishers. 11 – 42.

Schoetz, A. and Das, Y. (2023). When did Kukis reach Manipur and and how the past is shaping the state’s present. India Today. 4th August 2023.

Shimray, U.A. (2001). Ethnicity and Socio-Political Assertion: The Manipur Experience. Economic and Political Weekly, 36(39), 3674-3677

Singh, K.S. (1998). People of India, Vol. 31, Manipur. Calcutta : Anthropological Survey of India

Singh, N. J. (2005). Revolutionary Movements in Manipur. New Delhi: Akansha Publishing House.

Singh, U.B. (2003). India Fiscal Federalism in Indian Union,Suan, H.K.K. (2009). Hills-Valley divide as a site of conflict: Emerging dialogic space in Manipur. Beyond Counter-Insurgency: Breaking the impasse in Northeast India. 263-289.

Thangboi Zou, S. (2015). Wave of Ethnic Revival and Extremism among Chin - Kuki – Mizo (Zo) People in Manipur. In B.J. Deb (Ed.), Extremism in North East India, New Delhi: Concept Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 258 – 280. The Hindu (2019). Manipur shuts down against 1949 merger. 15th October 2019

The Hindu (2019). Manipur shuts down against 1949 merger. 15th October 2019

Zaman, R. (2021). Manipur divided over bill granting more autonomy to tribal councils. Scroll.in, 26th December 2021.

Zartman, I.W. (2001). The timing of peace initiatives: Hurting stalements and ripe moments. The Global Review of Ethnopolitics, 1(1). 8-18.