Does ‘separate State’ agenda drive violence or vice versa?
|
Any attempt to deliver justice to the mayhem which erupted on May 3, 2023 must start with booking and penalising of all those people who ignited the violence by attacking Meitei people and their houses in Churachandpur. It was this incident which sparked a chain reaction. Organisers of the so called tribal solidarity rally which was conveniently transformed into a launch pad for attacking unsuspecting Meitei civilians cannot feign ignorance or innocence. Those people who organised the so-called tribal solidarity rally in Kuki dominated areas owe an explanation to the whole State. They must give a convincing explanation on how and why heavily armed militants were allowed to take part in the march. Else it would not be wrong to assume that they either abetted or were complicit in planning and executing the unprecedented aggression. Many have already made it clear that the violence could have been prevented had the security forces stopped the rally at Churachandpur. Security forces did not stop the rally. They watched silently when a large number of war-mongering people, dressed in combat fatigue and armed with sophisticated weapons, joined the rally and marched all the way to Torbung Bangla, only to unleash terror upon Meitei civilians and ignite a vicious cycle of widespread violence. This was one huge failure of the State which has far reaching consequences. As demanded by MLA Lourembam Rameshwor Meetei, any process to deliver justice to the victims of the months long violence should start at the starting point, that is, the infamous Churachandpur rally of May 3, 2023. The State as well as all the conscientious citizens need to question the belligerence of the aggressors. Addressing the belligerence of the aggressors would go a long way in resolving the crisis. Any keen observer would have certainly noticed that the violence which erupted on May 3 was more of an act of war rather than any sporadic conflagration.
There had been other cases of communal violence in the past too. Each and every case of communal violence puts the inter-community relationship under enormous strain. Every blow or assault made by one group on another leaves a deep scar and it takes years and sometimes decades to heal. For this very reason, every section of the society needs to exercise maximum restraint to avoid communal conflicts. While some cases of communal conflicts were caused by circumstantial misunderstanding and/or sheer communication gap but many others were unfortunately fuelled by ethnic aspirations for exclusive domains. Although the banner of separate administration was raised soon after Manipur was plunged into the violent crisis, we cannot help but question whether the violent attack on civilian population was driven by the political objective of separate administration or the violent crisis gave birth to the demand for separate administration. But the violent attack on civilian population was neither spontaneous nor sporadic as manifested in the multiple and well-coordinated attacks launched on a single day and sometimes almost simultaneously. A preplanned and premeditated military offensive can only be driven and sustained only when there is a political goal, whether hidden or obvious. At the same time, one cannot miss the fact the violent attack on civilian population had all the characteristics of a premeditated military offensive. The demand for separate administration is highly communal in the sense that it is basically and exclusively for Kukis only. This has been proven beyond doubt by how Meiteis were driven out of Kuki dominated regions like Churachandpur, Kangpokpi and Moreh. But the exponents of the Kuki separate state overlooked the fact there are still many other communities within their imagined homeland who do not subscribe to the idea of separation. It is indeed a serious setback to the military offensive and the political campaign for separate administration.
There had been other cases of communal violence in the past too. Each and every case of communal violence puts the inter-community relationship under enormous strain. Every blow or assault made by one group on another leaves a deep scar and it takes years and sometimes decades to heal. For this very reason, every section of the society needs to exercise maximum restraint to avoid communal conflicts. While some cases of communal conflicts were caused by circumstantial misunderstanding and/or sheer communication gap but many others were unfortunately fuelled by ethnic aspirations for exclusive domains. Although the banner of separate administration was raised soon after Manipur was plunged into the violent crisis, we cannot help but question whether the violent attack on civilian population was driven by the political objective of separate administration or the violent crisis gave birth to the demand for separate administration. But the violent attack on civilian population was neither spontaneous nor sporadic as manifested in the multiple and well-coordinated attacks launched on a single day and sometimes almost simultaneously. A preplanned and premeditated military offensive can only be driven and sustained only when there is a political goal, whether hidden or obvious. At the same time, one cannot miss the fact the violent attack on civilian population had all the characteristics of a premeditated military offensive. The demand for separate administration is highly communal in the sense that it is basically and exclusively for Kukis only. This has been proven beyond doubt by how Meiteis were driven out of Kuki dominated regions like Churachandpur, Kangpokpi and Moreh. But the exponents of the Kuki separate state overlooked the fact there are still many other communities within their imagined homeland who do not subscribe to the idea of separation. It is indeed a serious setback to the military offensive and the political campaign for separate administration.