Features
Relevance of India’s ‘Look East’ policy for Manipur
From the viewpoint of the Indian centre’s ‘Look East’ policy, the country’s North-East is of vast importance to the development of even the totality of India. On the basis of this policy, progressive development of the North-East is seen as holding the key to the country eventually integrating more closely with the ASEAN region and of even penetrating markets of the Asia-Pacific in general. Besides, economic integration between the North-East and China’s South-west region is seen as having growth implications for India’s immediate neighbourhood.
Accordingly, the development of India’s ‘Seven Sister States’ of the North-East cannot be downplayed. These states are; Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. By the same token, ‘ethnic violence’ and disruptive tendencies of a like kind in these states cannot be glossed over as temporary phenomena either. The consequences of these setbacks could be grave from particularly the development viewpoint.
As is known, current armed clashes between some of Manipur’s ethnic groups over grievances relating to deprivation and perceived discrimination are costing the state most dearly in terms of lives lost and heavy material damage incurred. Such recurring conflicts would set back the developmental clock, unless resolved effectively.
What the on-going violence could mean for Manipur and eventually the North-East from the viewpoint of development prospects undermined, could be ascertained from some points that have been made in the past by specialists in North-East development, who have been making a case for stepped-up economic interaction between the region and its immediate neighbours.
For example, the following observations go to the heart of what is at stake: ‘A market of 400 million people is emerging, including neighbouring countries such as Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Myanmar and Nepal which can be tapped…. The region has the potential of developing into India’s powerhouse; the area is a vibrant source of energy, rich in oil, natural gas, coal and limestone, and India’s largest perennial water system – the river Brahmaputra and its tributaries – can be tapped for energy, irrigation and transportation purposes…Locational advantages make this region attractive to foreign investment; it has unique proximity to other countries in South and Southeast Asia regions.’ (See page 62, ‘India, China and Sub-regional Connectivities in South Asia’, Edited by D. Suba Chandran and Bhavna Singh, SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd., 2015).
Accordingly, considering that Manipur too is central to the North-East’s development prospects, it need hardly be said that rampant violence and chronic lawlessness in the state could hamper the overall development of the region and impinge negatively on India’s economic cooperation efforts with its neighbours. All measures, therefore, need to be taken by the state authorities and the Indian centre to resolve the grievances at the heart of Manipur’s ‘ethnic violence’.
Likewise, the vast economic and material benefits that could accrue to the South and Southeast Asian regions from stepped-up efforts by China and India to resolve their border dispute in particular should now be grasped by the states concerned. Clearly, India and China could not only be weakening their own growth prospects but those of the regions referred to as well by not working expeditiously towards resolving their differences.
The eruption of inter-communal violence in Manipur ought to serve as a reminder to the relevant Indian authorities and those at the helm of similarly troubled countries in South Asia that there could be no complacency over perceived successes in the task of managing inter-ethnic relations.
Not so long ago Manipur was in the thick of separatist violence of a highly virulent kind. In recent years the state has given the impression of ‘taking a breather’ as it were from such disintegrative tendencies but the current bout of ‘ethnic violence’ proves that not all is well in Manipur. Apparently, putting things right in divisive inter-ethnic ties is a long drawn out process.
In the case of Manipur, land and power issues are reportedly bedeviling relations between the state’s Meitei and Kuki groups. The Meiteis are the numerically superior group but they inhabit, apparently, only some 10 percent of the state’s land mass. On the other hand, the Kukis who are numerically inferior inhabit the state’s highland and hilly territories and live in a comparatively expansive land area. However, the Meiteis, in terms of existing practices, cannot buy land in the hilly, tribal regions. This disproportionality too is at the heart of inter-group hostilities.
Compounding these inter-group antagonisms is the perception that the Meiteis enjoy more power than the Kukis by virtue of the fact that they possess substantial political representation in the state assembly. An effort by the Meiteis to acquire Scheduled Tribe status, which attracts positive discrimination measures, reports indicate, has ignited the current strife in Manipur.
The foregoing background information indicates that the governments of the South cannot rest from their efforts at bringing reconciliation among their antagonistic communities. That is, reconciliation is an ongoing process. Nor is it only a matter of ironing out hostilities growing out of merely material issues, such as equitable access to land among communities.
Reconciliation, in truest sense of the word, results from the members of one community recognizing the dignity and worth of members of other communities. In the absence of such recognition of the dignity of ‘the Other’, no peace or reconciliation could be had.
However, the generation of economic equity within countries and among them could facilitate peace-building efforts among ethnic communities and countries. It ought to be plain to see that India’s North-East possesses the potential in ample measure to provide the material basis for intra-state and inter-state amicable relations, in respect of particularly South and Southeast Asia.
But there needs to be a focused collective effort among the countries concerned to discern the above potential and to initiate the relevant practical measures to make economic betterment among them a reality. Attaching primacy to achieving national interests at any cost could prove counter-productive.