Manipur crisis needs a rule-of-law reset

At times, an act of bravado can simultaneously reveal one's prowess and vulnerability. The June 7 violent protest in the Imphal valley was one such act. Though a bit different, it can be seen as a sequel to act one of the bravado displayed on January 24, 2024. That time, 38 Meitei legislators, under the aegis of the Arambai Tenggol (AT), had blamed the Kukis for fomenting violence and taken a six-point public oath to aggressively push the partisan and majoritarian agenda of the AT and the powers that be to protect Meitei identity and lebensraum (territory/land).Unlike then, in the June 7 act, the AT and its sympathisers were mobilised to wreak violence against the Indian state across several streets in the five valley districts, including an attack on a police outpost in Imphal. This was done to exert pressure on New Delhi to secure the release of AT commander Ashem Kanan Singh, who is a former police head constable. Singh is implicated along with top AT leaders Kourounganba Khuman and Robin Mangang for their alleged attempt to murder and abduct the serving additional superintendent of police of West Imphal district. Interestingly, Singh was dismissed from the police three months ago for his alleged role in the smuggling of arms across the Indo-Myanmar border.While the first instance was enacted inside Kangla Fort, the symbolic royal seat of Kangleipak (the name for Meitei kingdom), the choice to enact act two of this bravado across the five valley districts was a ploy to showcase the AT's prowess to act with impunity as also signal to New Delhi that the arrest of its leaders would be met with a violent and popular backlash. It was also conveniently used as a subterfuge by some ambitious political leaders to project their power. The call by the AT's Kakching unit that it would intensify its protest if a popular government was not restored by June 10 in the state is a clear pointer to the latter.The involvement of 25 Meitei legislators, who, along with Leishemba Sanajaoba (titular king and incumbent Rajya Sabha member), met the Governor on June 8 to plead the AT's case for the release of Kanan Singh and 10 of its cadres, bears this imprimatur. Though 25 legislators might not match the numerical weight of 38 legislators summoned at Kangla Fort a year ago to do the AT's bidding, this act of bravado seems to have signalled a disturbing message to New Delhi. It was apparent when Union Home Minister Amit Shah summoned two of AT's formidable patrons — former chief minister Biren Singh and Leishemba Sanajaoba — for discussion in Delhi on June 9.Even as the valley districts remain tense and the agenda/outcome of this meeting is yet to have any tangible bearing on the restoration of normalcy in the state, New Delhi seems to be seized of the dangerous portents entailed by this political messaging.At the same time, this act of bravado exposes the dark underbelly of the AT's radical transformation from a self-professed socio-cultural organisation committed to reviving the Meiteis’ indigenous past to a violent rag-tag armed militia. That the AT broods no dissent and presents a threat to the democratic and rule-based constitutional order was apparent even in act one of this bravado last year.It had come to the fore when three legislators (including Manipur Pradesh Congress Committee president Meghachandra) who held contrarian opinions were physically assaulted during the oath-taking ceremony inside Kangla Fort. The violence committed by the AT against journalists and activists in the valley areas who hold dissenting opinions is well documented.The proximity and criminal nexus nurtured by some legislators with the AT and other armed militants in insurgency-ridden Manipur and the hands-off approach by New Delhi towards this end amounts to a tacit — if not an open — endorsement of collective violence and lawlessness. If no course correction is made, it will lead to the inversion of the democratic-constitutional order and the foundational values of liberty, equality, justice and fraternity.Given that barely a fraction of the thousands of sophisticated arms given to the AT have been surrendered so far — a situation compounded by the easy availability of arms across the Indo-Myanmar border — allowing the AT to violently hold the Indian state to ransom is unacceptable and far too dangerous a fire to play with. Any attempt to condone the serious crimes committed by Kanan Singh and other armed groups on the pretext of defending one's identity and land or reviving one's indigenous past, culture and religion just because they help the party in power to electorally consolidate itself in the short run runs the risk of perpetuating lawlessness.Securing Manipur from its degeneration into a dystopian state since the outbreak of the violence on May 3, 2023 requires a time-bound determination to disarm all armed groups in the state. Our political system and legal-constitutional order should not be allowed to be easily hijacked by their whims and fancies. Pandering to majoritarian sentiments and emotions just because it serves the electoral interest of some parties and the powers-that-be is a recipe for disaster. It is especially so in an insurgency complex, where the lines between foot soldiers (politicians, civil society leaders, activists, etc) and underground armed militants are often blurred.That Kanan Singh could seamlessly switch from being a head police constable to an AT commander is a grim reminder of the formidable task of restoring normalcy and sustaining a rule-based order in the state. Against this backdrop, Singh's arrest and his subjection to the rule of law should be seen as a trial on the efficacy and robustness of our justice system and democratic-constitutional order. It should be a reminder that however powerful one may be, no one can be placed above law in perpetuity. While the jury is out on such cases, it remains to be seen if the imposition of President's rule in the state on February 13 leads to course correction in policy framework and political practice.Views are personal Kham Khan Suan Hausing is a Professor of political science, University of Hyderabad.

Punjab ▾

Haryana ▾

Himachal Pradesh ▾

Features ▾

Business ▾

World ▾