Manipur Needed Martial Law to Neutralize the 2023 Civil Warfare — PR or a New Government Is Merely a Diversion, Not a Real Solution

Living in a particular land is not necessarily permanent or confined to one's place of origin. Since time immemorial, people have migrated from one place to another in search of better facilities or living conditions, whether due to weather, soil, landscape, business opportunities, or other personal reasons. No one can deny this historical reality. This very concept needs to be understood and introspected by the people of Manipur.

In this century, where peace is the only catalyst for development and progress, Manipur remains trapped in the pursuit of land, money, political power, and political games, alongside the aforementioned reasons for migration, namely, better facilities and living conditions. Even today, people may struggle for better facilities and opportunities without necessarily migrating. Therefore, there is no reason to deny that people have historically moved from one place to another in search of better opportunities and living conditions.

The Manipur crisis, or civil conflict, which began in 2023, is rooted in the aforementioned issues. To justify their actions and provide a rationale for waging war, the Kuki-Zos are portrayed by the warring communities, particularly the Meiteis and the Kacha Nagas, as illegal immigrants, narco-terrorists, and so on. These allegations have become one of the major reasons behind the continuation of the Manipur crisis since 2023. Similarly, the Kuki-Zos have made their own allegations against the Meiteis and the Kacha Nagas.

No one can legitimately label an entire community as immigrants or narco-terrorists because every community has individuals who may possess such characteristics or engage in such activities. These allegations have spread worldwide through social media and news platforms. Many social media users are targeting the Kuki-Zos without understanding the ground realities, underlying causes, questions of justice, or actual facts. Only a few trusted or verified journalists may have a comprehensive understanding of the situation, while much of today's news coverage appears to be influenced by paid narratives or political agendas.

As stated above, most communities, races, and populations living in their present-day locations or countries are not necessarily permanent inhabitants by historical origin. People began establishing modern nation-states at different points in history. For instance, the United States of America (USA) gained independence in 1776, and its citizenship and national identity developed from that point onward. Those who were recognised as citizens under the newly established nation became Americans.

However, before the arrival of Europeans and Africans, the land that constitutes present-day United States was inhabited by Indigenous peoples, commonly referred to as Native Americans or American Indians. They were the original inhabitants of the land. Nevertheless, Europeans and Africans also became part of American society and its historical development, including the period of independence. This raises an important question about how we define indigeneity, historical belonging, and national identity.

If the allegations that the Kuki-Zos are illegal immigrants are true, why did the Government of India or the Government of Manipur not identify them as illegal immigrants and take appropriate legal action, including deportation or prosecution, where warranted? I am referring specifically to allegations of mass or community-wide migration, not individual cases.

Yes, there may have been a few individuals or groups who migrated, given that India shares borders with Myanmar, Bangladesh, China, Bhutan, and other neighbouring countries. Cross-border movement has existed since the formation of these modern states. We cannot claim that Myanmar or Bangladesh migrated from Europe or Africa.

The Government of India or the Government of Manipur has not historically treated the entire Kuki-Zo community as illegal immigrants or subjected the whole community to imprisonment. This raises questions about the historical presence and recognition of the community, including its participation in the broader historical developments that shaped India.

Every community has its own mythology, traditions, and historical narratives. According to Meitei and Kacha Naga mythology and historical accounts, their communities have existed in Manipur for thousands of years. Likewise, Kuki-Zo mythology and historical narratives also describe their presence in areas that fall within the present-day map of Manipur thousands of years ago.

So, which of these three communities is the sole owner or indigenous community of Manipur? Can anyone conclusively define that? Even God would not make such an unfair declaration. Such a claim would be unjustifiable spiritually, historically, physically, or on any other grounds.

Let's Talk About the Battlefields and Ground Fighters!

Since 2023, what is commonly described as ethnic clashes has developed into something far more serious. Considering the incidents that have occurred so far, it could be described as civil warfare, with allegations of genocidal violence. Such a crisis is unprecedented in the history of India in terms of its scale and the circumstances surrounding the conflict between communities.

Speaking from the perspective of reported incidents and eyewitness accounts, the Kuki-Zo village volunteers are portrayed as acting primarily in retaliation or self-defence, using largely indigenous, locally manufactured weapons such as pumpis (locally made firearms), kartoos, and other rudimentary weapons. They are not, as claimed, equipped with sophisticated weaponry comparable to that of insurgent or militant groups or groups operating under the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement.

The insurgent or militant groups possessing sophisticated weaponry, who might otherwise be expected to defend civilians or the Kuki-Zo population, have already entered into agreements or arrangements under the Suspension of Operations framework. Consequently, civilians are left to defend themselves. As a result, numerous Kuki-Zo people have reportedly been killed since 2023.

On the other side, the Meitei armed groups, particularly the self-proclaimed social organisation Arambai Tenggol, have been accused of possessing sophisticated illegal weapons and looted government weaponry. They are alleged to have been given free passage throughout Imphal city and the surrounding valley areas.

The government will not direct SoO groups to use firearms and fight for Kuki-Zo civilians, unlike the allegations surrounding NSCN(IM), EF, ZUF(K), or Arambai Tenggol. If that is the case, why doesn't the Government of India allow Kuki-Zo village volunteers to use sophisticated weaponry to defend themselves? Such a decision would be an insult to the government and the military, and it is unlikely to happen.

However, allowing a peace-talk participant such as NSCN(IM) to operate with impunity or engage in armed conflict within the country, or against citizens of any community, while being under a peace-talk agreement, would raise serious questions about the law, the Constitution, and the norms governing such organisations.

It is inevitable that Kuki-Zo civilians will have to move from one place to another for their livelihoods, medical needs, and other essential circumstances. No human being can remain confined to their home permanently. Given the prolonged nature and severity of the conflict, it is increasingly difficult to dismiss concerns that the war or alleged genocidal violence could be connected to a larger conspiracy involving the Central Government. This is now a major question that demands answers.

Despite recurring incidents of kidnapping, killings, attacks, and other forms of violence taking place every week or month, the government appears to be preparing for elections. All intending candidates, MLAs, and ministers seem busy organising public programmes, functions, and sporting events to appease the public.

This reflects a megalomaniacal style of political leadership, in which politicians continue governing without resolving the underlying problems while leaving no stone unturned in their pursuit of political interests and power.

Moreover, the former Chief Minister, who was in office when the conflict erupted in 2023 and failed to resolve it as the head of the state government, may now be contemplating a new political role or strategy to overcome the situation.

Whether the Chief Minister is old or new, nothing will be resolved until all unauthorised armed groups and individuals possessing illegal weapons are effectively disarmed and brought under the law. Without addressing this fundamental issue, Manipur will not see the light of day.

Manipur remains in darkness. We are not living in normal circumstances; therefore, continuing ordinary administrative and public services as though everything is normal is neither appropriate nor likely to be effective.

Why Martial Law?

In a crisis like Manipur's, which may be unprecedented elsewhere in India, the situation raises the question of whether extraordinary measures, potentially including martial law, are necessary to neutralise illegal armed elements and restore public order.

Until unauthorised armed groups and individuals possessing illegal weapons are effectively disarmed, prosecuted, and brought under the law, no ordinary legal or governmental mechanism may be sufficient to prevent recurring incidents of kidnapping, mass murder, killings, ambushes, and attacks on villages.

President's Rule has already been imposed in Manipur, yet the crisis has not come to an end. This raises concerns about whether the situation continues to be influenced by the political agenda of the Central ruling party, allegedly favouring one particular community. Such are the circumstances.

Introducing a new state government would be even less effective than continuing under President's Rule if the underlying political control and strategy remain unchanged. It would merely amount to changing the strategy of the political game, while control remains with the ruling political establishment at the Central and State levels.

Consequently, fairness and impartiality will remain questionable for both warring communities. Unless political favouritism is completely eliminated, there will be no meaningful possibility of establishing lasting peace in Manipur.

Martial law and President's Rule are fundamentally different concepts. Martial law generally refers to the exceptional exercise of military authority when civilian institutions are unable to maintain public order, whereas President's Rule under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution involves the constitutional assumption of state governance by the Union when the state government cannot function in accordance with the Constitution.

Martial law is often described as a measure of necessity when the ordinary civilian legal framework is considered inadequate to address an extraordinary emergency. Military forces may be deployed to restore public order, subject to the applicable constitutional and legal framework.

Under President's Rule, however, the ordinary legal system does not cease to function. Instead, the state government's executive authority is assumed by the President, and the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers cease to exercise their functions. The local police, civil administration, bureaucrats, and ordinary courts continue to function under the applicable constitutional framework and Union supervision.

Possessing firearms for unlawful violence is a crime, irrespective of whether an individual belongs to a peace-talk group, an SoO group, or any other organisation. We all know that the lawful possession and use of firearms for security purposes are governed by the relevant laws and regulations.

Therefore, anyone outside the authorised government security forces or military who unlawfully possesses or uses firearms should be identified, disarmed, investigated, prosecuted, and imprisoned if convicted under the law.

Only through such impartial enforcement of the law can the present situation in Manipur begin to change. I hope everyone understands this. Yet, the government has not been able to bring the situation under control. Whom should we blame? Surely, one cannot help questioning whether this is all part of a larger political game.

The Final Question: Who Will Take Responsibility for Manipur?

This worst-case scenario in Manipur cannot be handled or resolved by beating around the bush. The response must be firm, decisive, and uncompromising in enforcing the law. Inhumane acts and continued violence cannot be addressed effectively through ineffective or inconsistent law enforcement.

Where are the heads of the Government of India? Where is the Supreme Court? Where are the senior security and military leadership, and what is their judgement on curbing one of the worst crises India has witnessed in its history? Or do we need an entirely new Central Government to bring the Manipur crisis under control? That is the billion-dollar question at this moment!

(Views expressed are personal)

(The Writer is a former Contributor in the 'The Sangai Express' English daily and can be reached @ zagenchicken@gmail.com)