ManipurFirst: Unlocking the Opportunity for One Manipur's Evolution
As a MeiteiHindu (Tribe) and a native of Manipur origin, I have come to realize that my understanding of Manipur and its people has been limited and superficial. I admit that I have not taken the time to truly understand the complexities and nuances of this diverse state, just as there are multiple versions and narratives of the famou...
As a MeiteiHindu (Tribe) and a native of Manipur origin, I have come to realize that my understanding of Manipur and its people has been limited and superficial. I admit that I have not taken the time to truly understand the complexities and nuances of this diverse state, just as there are multiple versions and narratives of the famous Ramayana story across different regions and communities. It is essential to acknowledge that each tribe within Manipur holds its own perspectives and experiences.
In recognizing this, I have also become aware of the historical and ongoing injustice that has shaped the relationship between the Meitei tribe and other tribes in Manipur. It is evident that Manipur is a complex state within the larger context of India, can term as of European governance, with its diverse tribes and identities.
I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Bimol Akoijam for shedding light on these matters during a recent talk-show with the esteemed journalist Mr. Karan Thapar. Dr. Bimol's statement was clear, unbiased, and provided valuable insights. With that in mind, I would like to summarize the key points I have personally learned from the discussion, which I believe can be beneficial not only to me and my fellow Manipuri community but also to our global friends.
False Topographical Division in Manipur
The topographical division in Manipur, known as the Hill Valley divide, is an artificially created concept. The British incorrectly perceived the valley and hills as separate topographical entities. They mistakenly believed that the relationship between the Imphal valley and the hills would mirror that of Guwahati and the Naga Hills, but this umption was unfounded. As a result, the people of Manipur were divided and governed under different legal systems, leading to differential treatment of the same population.
The colonial clification of Hill tribes was later replaced with scheduled tribe and general categories. The exaggeration of this situation following Independence was rooted in the false topographical distinction. Interestingly, during the British era, there was no such land-based differentiation, but it emerged after Independence and Manipur Kingdom joined Republic of India. This false topographical division has caused numerous problems in Manipur, highlighting the importance of comprehending its historical origins.
The Land Ownership in Manipur
The British deliberately established false topographical divisions, which were then perpetuated and amplified after Independence, leading to disparate legal frameworks and land rights for the same co-existed people. In Manipur, even the valleys, despite being part of a Hill State, are subject to differential treatment. The presence of the Hill Area Committee within the State embly holds little significance in a region designated as a Hill State. The division between Hill tribes and the valley was a strategic maneuver employed by the British for purposes of divide and rule. Unfortunately, the Indian government exacerbated this division by further employing the same tactic. The introduction of democratic politics and electoral democracy has only intensified the divide. Moreover, the notion of deprivation and backwardness has been communalized and exploited for political gains. It is imperative to discard archaic categories and address the neopatrimonial structure that perpetuates these divisions.
The Need for Land Reforms in Manipur
The competitive nature of democratic politics in India has resulted in politicians employing divisive rhetoric that separates rather than unites the people. This unfortunate trend has worsened the rift between the Hill and Valley communities in Manipur. Land laws in Manipur are based on an artificial division between the Hill and Valley regions, leading to restrictions on Meitei individuals from purchasing land in the Hill areas. Urgent land reforms are necessary in Manipur to address crucial issues such as economic development, land ownership, and the ability to obtain collateral for bank loans in Hill areas. The demand for scheduled tribe status among the Meitei community primarily arises from concerns about safeguarding their land and a desire to attain equal standing with other tribes in the state. It is possible that once the land-related problems are adequately resolved, the demand for scheduled tribe status may diminish. The primary concern for the Meitei people revolves around their right to purchase land across the entire state, as they were able to before the implementation of the Manipur land laws in 1960.
The Kuki tribe in Manipur are as equal and part of the same ethno-linguistic family as the Meitei tribe.
The committee appointed by the Government of India has recommended the elimination of tribal categorization for self-identification. The usage of the term "indigenous" is contentious as it promotes a division between native populations and outsiders, which is not endorsed by India and China. The British colonial administration artificially imposed a misleading topographical division between the hill and valley communities, fragmenting them into distinct groups. While it is possible that a significant number of Kuki individuals may have entered the region illegally, further investigation is required to ascertain their status. The Kuki and Meitei tribes belong to the same ethno-linguistic group, and the perceived division between them was a construct devised by the British. The term "Kuki" itself carries inherent problems and necessitates redefinition. The border between Manipur and neighboring countries, such as Burma (Myanmar) and Bangladesh, is porous, leading to migration from these regions.
Burmese refugees are fleeing in Manipur, India.
While some influential individuals in Manipur argue that the number of refugees is limited, others believe that there could be a higher count. It is crucial to establish institutional mechanisms to effectively manage the refugee crisis. The current estimate suggests that only a few thousand refugees have migrated from Burma (Myanmar) into Manipur. However, it is important to acknowledge that animosity and distrust towards the Meitei community have been artificially created by politicians and some few intellectuals for their vested interest. To address this situation, a constitutional determination is necessary to differentiate between legal and illegal individuals. Furthermore, it is imperative to approach the refugee influx in the Northeast region as a humanitarian concern. Satellite images can provide valuable insights into settlement patterns and aid in understanding the situation more comprehensively.
Prejudice is a barrier to finding a common ground to deal with differences.
The response of the Indian government to the crisis in Manipur has fallen short of the expectations of the local population. The conflict in Manipur is a manifestation of the broader divide between the Northeast region and the rest of India. Instead of comprehending the complexities of Manipur, which houses 34 distinct tribes with a history of coexistence spanning over 2,500 years, the mainstream media has hastily jumped to conclusions, exacerbating the conflict. The unofficial and indirect application of Article 355 is undermining the federal principle, further alienating the government from Manipur. The national media has not fully grasped the intricacies of the situation, compounding the challenges faced by the region.
Dr. Bimol concluded by offering a thoughtful suggestion: the resolution of this complex and emotional conflict can be achieved relatively swiftly by establishing a second chamber in the Manipur embly with equal representation from all districts. Consolidating identities will not provide a solution; instead, autonomy in development and forest affairs can contribute to the collective well-being of the region.
Conclusion:
In this peak of the 21st century, often referred to as the age of instant information, it is futile to propagate misleading and fabricated stories and lies. Such tactics cannot create any lasting impact, given that people today are self-aware and educated. The process of nation-building is a complex and challenging endeavor that requires active participation, co-creation, and collaboration of all stakeholders within and outside.
While we cannot undo the damage caused by the sudden conflict between two communities (tribes), we must view this as an expensive lesson and a rare opportunity for Manipur and its people. Regardless of our tribal backgrounds, we, as citizens, bear the responsibility for not thoroughly considering the qualifications and character of those who represent us as leaders.
Hence, it is time to embark on building a new, inclusive Manipur by abandoning outdated vote bank strategies and the politics of buying votes. We must distance ourselves from individuals who seek power through deceitful means.
Let us unite to identify and bring all the intellectuals Manipuri (tribes), regardless of their location. Introducing an inclusive platform is crucial for fearlessly sharing their ideas and contributions. Within our intricate social structure, I strongly believe that such inclusive endeavors can rectify past injustices and pave the way for a progressive future Manipur. In this envisioned Manipur, differences and diverse identities will no longer elicit fear; instead, we will all be acknowledged as Manipuris, bound together by our shared homeland. This collaborative, co-creative, and progressive ecosystem of Manipur can serve as a global exemplar, demonstrating the potential of a harmonious society. By taking this small step of transitioning from "I" to "we" and embracing the Manipuri (tribe) as equals, we can foster a spirit of coexistence and development throughout a unified Manipur. If you like and agree to this idea, kindly DM me so that we can progress together to the next level. #ManipurFirst #OneManipur
#Meitei #Naga #Kuki #Aimol #Anal #Chiru #Chothe #Gangte #Inpui #Hmar #Kharam #Khoibu #Koirao #Kom #Lamkang #Liangmai #Mao #Maram #Maring #Mate #Monsang #Moyon #Paite #Poumai #Purum #Ralte #Rongmei(Kabui) #Simte #Suhte #Tangkhul #Tarao #Thadou #Thangal #Vaiphei #Zeme, #Zou
#PersonalSpace
Read more
In recognizing this, I have also become aware of the historical and ongoing injustice that has shaped the relationship between the Meitei tribe and other tribes in Manipur. It is evident that Manipur is a complex state within the larger context of India, can term as of European governance, with its diverse tribes and identities.
I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Bimol Akoijam for shedding light on these matters during a recent talk-show with the esteemed journalist Mr. Karan Thapar. Dr. Bimol's statement was clear, unbiased, and provided valuable insights. With that in mind, I would like to summarize the key points I have personally learned from the discussion, which I believe can be beneficial not only to me and my fellow Manipuri community but also to our global friends.
False Topographical Division in Manipur
The topographical division in Manipur, known as the Hill Valley divide, is an artificially created concept. The British incorrectly perceived the valley and hills as separate topographical entities. They mistakenly believed that the relationship between the Imphal valley and the hills would mirror that of Guwahati and the Naga Hills, but this umption was unfounded. As a result, the people of Manipur were divided and governed under different legal systems, leading to differential treatment of the same population.
The colonial clification of Hill tribes was later replaced with scheduled tribe and general categories. The exaggeration of this situation following Independence was rooted in the false topographical distinction. Interestingly, during the British era, there was no such land-based differentiation, but it emerged after Independence and Manipur Kingdom joined Republic of India. This false topographical division has caused numerous problems in Manipur, highlighting the importance of comprehending its historical origins.
The Land Ownership in Manipur
The British deliberately established false topographical divisions, which were then perpetuated and amplified after Independence, leading to disparate legal frameworks and land rights for the same co-existed people. In Manipur, even the valleys, despite being part of a Hill State, are subject to differential treatment. The presence of the Hill Area Committee within the State embly holds little significance in a region designated as a Hill State. The division between Hill tribes and the valley was a strategic maneuver employed by the British for purposes of divide and rule. Unfortunately, the Indian government exacerbated this division by further employing the same tactic. The introduction of democratic politics and electoral democracy has only intensified the divide. Moreover, the notion of deprivation and backwardness has been communalized and exploited for political gains. It is imperative to discard archaic categories and address the neopatrimonial structure that perpetuates these divisions.
The Need for Land Reforms in Manipur
The competitive nature of democratic politics in India has resulted in politicians employing divisive rhetoric that separates rather than unites the people. This unfortunate trend has worsened the rift between the Hill and Valley communities in Manipur. Land laws in Manipur are based on an artificial division between the Hill and Valley regions, leading to restrictions on Meitei individuals from purchasing land in the Hill areas. Urgent land reforms are necessary in Manipur to address crucial issues such as economic development, land ownership, and the ability to obtain collateral for bank loans in Hill areas. The demand for scheduled tribe status among the Meitei community primarily arises from concerns about safeguarding their land and a desire to attain equal standing with other tribes in the state. It is possible that once the land-related problems are adequately resolved, the demand for scheduled tribe status may diminish. The primary concern for the Meitei people revolves around their right to purchase land across the entire state, as they were able to before the implementation of the Manipur land laws in 1960.
The Kuki tribe in Manipur are as equal and part of the same ethno-linguistic family as the Meitei tribe.
The committee appointed by the Government of India has recommended the elimination of tribal categorization for self-identification. The usage of the term "indigenous" is contentious as it promotes a division between native populations and outsiders, which is not endorsed by India and China. The British colonial administration artificially imposed a misleading topographical division between the hill and valley communities, fragmenting them into distinct groups. While it is possible that a significant number of Kuki individuals may have entered the region illegally, further investigation is required to ascertain their status. The Kuki and Meitei tribes belong to the same ethno-linguistic group, and the perceived division between them was a construct devised by the British. The term "Kuki" itself carries inherent problems and necessitates redefinition. The border between Manipur and neighboring countries, such as Burma (Myanmar) and Bangladesh, is porous, leading to migration from these regions.
Burmese refugees are fleeing in Manipur, India.
While some influential individuals in Manipur argue that the number of refugees is limited, others believe that there could be a higher count. It is crucial to establish institutional mechanisms to effectively manage the refugee crisis. The current estimate suggests that only a few thousand refugees have migrated from Burma (Myanmar) into Manipur. However, it is important to acknowledge that animosity and distrust towards the Meitei community have been artificially created by politicians and some few intellectuals for their vested interest. To address this situation, a constitutional determination is necessary to differentiate between legal and illegal individuals. Furthermore, it is imperative to approach the refugee influx in the Northeast region as a humanitarian concern. Satellite images can provide valuable insights into settlement patterns and aid in understanding the situation more comprehensively.
Prejudice is a barrier to finding a common ground to deal with differences.
The response of the Indian government to the crisis in Manipur has fallen short of the expectations of the local population. The conflict in Manipur is a manifestation of the broader divide between the Northeast region and the rest of India. Instead of comprehending the complexities of Manipur, which houses 34 distinct tribes with a history of coexistence spanning over 2,500 years, the mainstream media has hastily jumped to conclusions, exacerbating the conflict. The unofficial and indirect application of Article 355 is undermining the federal principle, further alienating the government from Manipur. The national media has not fully grasped the intricacies of the situation, compounding the challenges faced by the region.
Dr. Bimol concluded by offering a thoughtful suggestion: the resolution of this complex and emotional conflict can be achieved relatively swiftly by establishing a second chamber in the Manipur embly with equal representation from all districts. Consolidating identities will not provide a solution; instead, autonomy in development and forest affairs can contribute to the collective well-being of the region.
Conclusion:
In this peak of the 21st century, often referred to as the age of instant information, it is futile to propagate misleading and fabricated stories and lies. Such tactics cannot create any lasting impact, given that people today are self-aware and educated. The process of nation-building is a complex and challenging endeavor that requires active participation, co-creation, and collaboration of all stakeholders within and outside.
While we cannot undo the damage caused by the sudden conflict between two communities (tribes), we must view this as an expensive lesson and a rare opportunity for Manipur and its people. Regardless of our tribal backgrounds, we, as citizens, bear the responsibility for not thoroughly considering the qualifications and character of those who represent us as leaders.
Hence, it is time to embark on building a new, inclusive Manipur by abandoning outdated vote bank strategies and the politics of buying votes. We must distance ourselves from individuals who seek power through deceitful means.
Let us unite to identify and bring all the intellectuals Manipuri (tribes), regardless of their location. Introducing an inclusive platform is crucial for fearlessly sharing their ideas and contributions. Within our intricate social structure, I strongly believe that such inclusive endeavors can rectify past injustices and pave the way for a progressive future Manipur. In this envisioned Manipur, differences and diverse identities will no longer elicit fear; instead, we will all be acknowledged as Manipuris, bound together by our shared homeland. This collaborative, co-creative, and progressive ecosystem of Manipur can serve as a global exemplar, demonstrating the potential of a harmonious society. By taking this small step of transitioning from "I" to "we" and embracing the Manipuri (tribe) as equals, we can foster a spirit of coexistence and development throughout a unified Manipur. If you like and agree to this idea, kindly DM me so that we can progress together to the next level. #ManipurFirst #OneManipur
#Meitei #Naga #Kuki #Aimol #Anal #Chiru #Chothe #Gangte #Inpui #Hmar #Kharam #Khoibu #Koirao #Kom #Lamkang #Liangmai #Mao #Maram #Maring #Mate #Monsang #Moyon #Paite #Poumai #Purum #Ralte #Rongmei(Kabui) #Simte #Suhte #Tangkhul #Tarao #Thadou #Thangal #Vaiphei #Zeme, #Zou
#PersonalSpace
8+ mins read
loading.....
