by Dr. Angomcha Bimol Akoijam/ A K Shiburaj
Dr. Angomcha Bimol Akoijam, hailing from Imphal, Manipur, is an Associate Professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University’s School of Social Sciences and a filmmaker. In 2024, he entered politics and joined the Congress Party and was elected to the 18th Lok Sabha, representing the Inner Manipur constituency.
With a longstanding career in academia and public service, Dr. Akoijam focuses on analyzing the root causes of the enduring conflicts in Manipur. He emphasizes that the Meithei and Kuki communities are victims of historical divisions imposed by colonial rule and subsequent Indian governance, rather than a case of ethnic cleansing against the Kukis. Recently, he was in Kerala to inaugurate the three-day International Film Festival held at Kadamakudy, Kochi.
Given your background in academics and filmmaking, how did you transition into politics and become a Member of Parliament?
My journey from academia and filmmaking to becoming a Member of Parliament was driven by my deep concern for the ongoing crisis in Manipur and the widening rift between communities. While I was actively engaged in writing columns, participating in public movements, and attending public meetings, I became increasingly disillusioned with the existing political culture. Despite my efforts in lobbying and advocating for change over the years, I saw little progress. The severity of the situation compelled me to enter politics, believing that my voice would carry more weight as a politician. In late January 2024, I decided to connect with the Congress leadership and formally entered the political arena.
In your film “Kumhei Punshi Wari’’ (Festivities: The Life Story) you delve into the historical and socio-political complexities that have fueled the ongoing violence in Manipur, highlighting that it is not a recent development but rather one with deep-rooted origins. Could you elaborate on the root causes of this violence?
The violence in Manipur stems from a long-standing confrontation between the Indian state and various political armed groups. Historically, Manipur was a princely state, and its controversial merger with India has been a point of contention, with some questioning the legality of this union. This discontent has given rise to armed movements opposing Manipur’s inclusion in the Indian state. Additionally, the Naga nationalist movement, with its influence extending into northern districts of Manipur, and the aspirations of southern tribal groups influenced by neighboring Myanmar, have further complicated the situation. The Indian counterinsurgency efforts have only added to these tensions.
Colonial-era issues have also played a significant role in the conflict, as the Indian state has perpetuated exclusionary practices rather than reversing them in the post-colonial period. While these historical factors are deeply implicated in the current conflict, the present violence has unique aspects as well. The increasing involvement of drug trafficking, plantations, and smuggling, with possible international connections to Myanmar, Thailand, and Laos, has exacerbated the situation, especially in the last decade.
Recent events, such as the emergence of grievances from southern regions like Churachandpur and Pherzawl as none of the MLAs elected from both districts could not find a place in the cabinet for the the first time, demographic changes due to settlement in forest border areas, have also contributed to the crisis. The situation in Manipur is the result of multiple, intertwined factors.
Given the claims of curbing the drug mafia, do you believe the State’s vested interest in seizing land from tribal communities played a significant role in the current violence?
In my view, this narrative is part of a broader misinformation campaign. The restoration of reserved and protected forests under the Indian Forest Act of 1927 dates back to the colonial era, with no recent changes. Some actions were taken before 1966 when Manipur was under Union control, but the idea that the Meitei-led government is grabbing land by declaring forest areas as wetlands is unfounded—no water body has been declared a wetland. Much of this is myth, serving the agenda of ethno-nationalist projects rather than addressing the real inter-community grievances. The government has also contributed to the confusion by promoting different narratives, such as illegal immigration, demographic shifts, and narcotic cultivation. However, these issues alone do not fully explain the conflict.
The Meitei community primarily inhabits the valley, while the Kukis occupy the hill areas. As the population grows, does the land relationship play a significant role in the ongoing violence?
Manipur is fundamentally a hill state, and the perceived division between the valley and hill areas is a constructed reality. This division, rooted in a flawed topographical perspective, was established by the British and has been perpetuated by the post-colonial Indian state. The idea of separate hill and non-hill areas is misleading, as it fails to recognize the interconnectedness of these regions. For example, Nagaland is classified as a hill state, yet areas like Dimapur, which is barely 100 meters above sea level, are considered hill areas, while Imphal, at 800 meters, is labeled as a plain area. This inconsistency highlights the absurdity of the current land classifications.
The British and the post-colonial state introduced the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act (MLRLR) of 1960, which divided the state into hill and revenue land areas and further categorized people into Scheduled Tribes (ST) and non-Scheduled Tribes (non-ST). These forced categories have led to a perception of division among the people. While the Meitei community is not seeking land in the hill areas, people from the hills have moved into fertile regions like Churachandpur, which is actually a valley, not a highland. It clearly reveals the fact that the narrative of tribal land alienation does not hold up under scrutiny.
The issue is further complicated by the tribal, non-tribal, majority, and minority classifications. Some Meitei feel that decision-making power in the bureaucracy is dominated by the tribal community, particularly southern tribes, due to reservations, leading to heightened anger among the Meitei. This has intensified the current conflict, as the Meitei community, which played a key role in the state’s evolution, feels marginalized. Journalists should explore the realities on the ground rather than relying on narratives of tribal versus non-tribal conflict. While there are legitimate grievances among ST communities, these have not been adequately addressed by the government. A committee should be formed to investigate and address these issues comprehensively.
Do you believe the Union Government’s decision to grant Scheduled Tribe (ST) status to the Meitei community was driven by dubious intentions?
This notion arises from the deliberately constructed narrative of tribal versus non-tribal conflict, which fails to consider the socio-economic status of tribal communities in Manipur compared to those in other Indian states. Tribal communities in Manipur hold significant influence in the decision-making bodies of the cabinet and the bureaucracy, which is very powerful in India.
The movement of people from the hill areas to more fertile regions is natural, leading to land contestation between the Meitei and Kuki communities, though this conflict is not deeply rooted in the highlands. The Meitei demand for ST status is driven by a different motive—they feel increasingly marginalized as their population has declined from 60% to 45% in recent censuses, and their lands are being occupied by outsiders like Marwaris and Punjabis. The Meiteis fear that without ST status, they will lose their land and identity. This anxiety about survival is being exploited by ethno-nationalist divisive forces that create narratives without acknowledging the legitimate concerns of the Meitei community
Do you believe that either the Manipur state government or the Union government played a role in instigating the violence?
There are indications that some of the armed forces from the Kuki community openly supported the BJP in the 2017 and 2022 elections. This was revealed in an affidavit filed in the high court by one of the armed groups, which stated that they expected their demands to be met in exchange for supporting the BJP. The leader of this armed group even discussed this in a video interview. I suspect that the BJP may have made certain commitments, which could explain the silence of BJP leaders in Delhi. It seems they are trying to neutralize the political armed forces dominated by the Meitei community, which has consistently refused to engage in talks with the Indian government. Some are pushing a narrative that demonizes the Meitei community, but I urge people to analyze the situation logically.
Regarding the deployment of armed forces to address the deep-rooted socio-political issues in Manipur, I agree that this approach has only deepened the historical conflicts. The state’s counter-insurgency strategy is indeed implicated in the recent violence. Many of the armed forces within the Kuki community were likely supported by state forces to aid in the fight against the Naga armed groups and later the Meitei-dominated groups. Notably, the Kuki armed forces have never directly fought against the Indian armed forces. The Indian state appears to be using these insurgent groups to further its objectives rather than addressing civilian concerns. The Suspension of Operation (SOO) agreement with Kuki insurgent groups is part of this broader strategy. The recent shifting of the Assam Rifles unit out of Manipur, which was welcomed by the Kukis and protested by the Meiteis, further illustrates the complex dynamics at play.
How can we break the nexus between the political class and insurgency groups?
This is a complex, multi-layered issue. In many cases, leaders of Kuki insurgency groups have close relatives holding powerful positions, such as MLAs, which blurs the line between insurgency and politics. The media often fails to address these realities, instead choosing to communalize the issue. In some instances, it’s not just a nexus but rather two sides of the same coin.
Regarding the special powers granted to the armed forces, should they be revoked?
I have been advocating against the militarization of conflict areas for decades. While security considerations are important in border regions, this should not justify the blanket imposition of military measures. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) should be repealed. Under AFSPA, there have been severe human rights violations, and if the forces cannot protect civilian lives, its relevance is questionable. The state should move away from a purely militaristic approach and address conflicts through more humane and effective mean
Why have both the state and union governments failed to take effective steps to curb the violence?
This remains a significant mystery. There is suspicion that the BJP government may have made certain promises to insurgency groups, or that Indian state leaders are caught in the complex situation, or ‘chakravyuha,’ as Rahul Gandhi mentioned in parliament. It’s as if the people of Manipur are being treated as guinea pigs for these mysterious intentions. Otherwise, why would a democratic country allow violence to escalate in this manner? Would such prolonged violence be tolerated in states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, or Madhya Pradesh? The fact that this is happening in Manipur, a part of India and not a foreign country, is deeply concerning.
Do you suspect that the BJP-led union government has a hidden development plan in Manipur, supported by corporates?
In a state with severe law and order issues, capital investment is unlikely. I am currently working on forming a committee led by an economist from outside Manipur to assess the economic impact of the ongoing conflict. Extortion is rampant, businesses and hospitals are shut down, and lawlessness prevails. In such a scenario, development is improbable. While the government talks about floods in Bihar, Manipur has suffered severe flooding as well, including in Imphal, yet there’s no mention of relief or reconstruction in the budget. The union government is responsible for supporting Manipur, but due to the violence and flooding, people are unable to pay loans or meet their daily needs.
What is the status of those displaced and living in refugee camps?
The situation is dire. Having researched the 1947 partition, I now see similar conditions in my home state. Over 60,000 people are homeless due to community conflict, a situation unprecedented in independent India. Even the chief minister cannot visit certain areas, and bureaucratic appointments are made on a communal basis. One cabinet member cannot even come to Imphal. How can the country allow such chaos?
The state government has utterly failed to manage the conflict. While Article 355 is imposed in Manipur today, it could be used in any other Indian state tomorrow. The Unified Headquarters, responsible for law and order in Manipur and previously headed by the Chief Minister, has been replaced by someone with no experience in Manipur. This raises questions about who is in charge of law and order—Manipur’s Chief Minister N Biren Singh or the Indian government? There’s something suspicious about this situation. Law and order is a state subject, yet the union government’s actions erode the federal structure. Security advisor Mr. Kuldeep Singh was appointed by the union government without the Chief Minister’s consent. This situation is unique to Manipur and indicates an erosion of constitutional norms. I don’t blame Biren Singh; he’s merely a puppet. This is an extra-constitutional, extra-judicial erosion of power.
How can Manipur overcome this historical conflict?
To resolve the conflict, we must change the narrative that the liberal class in this country has been promoting without addressing fundamental issues. We need to move beyond the simplistic divisions of hill vs. valley, tribal vs. non-tribal, and Christian vs. non-Christian. For example, the Meitei community has a significant Christian population, larger than other Christian groups in Manipur. Yet, if Meitei Christians were to go to Churachandpur, they would be in danger, not because of their religion, but because they are Meitei. Similarly, a non- Christian Kuki who is a Jewish would be at the same risk, not due to their faith, but because of the broader communal conflict.
We must hold the Indian government and the Manipur state government accountable for every failure. If the national media focused on the reality of the issue rather than perpetuating binary narratives, the situation might have improved. We should denounce the state government not only for its failure to manage the conflict but also for its inability to defend its jurisdiction.
Was there ever a period in history when the Meitei and Kuki communities lived in harmony?
Yes, there were times when the Meitei and Kuki communities lived in harmony. While minor conflicts over issues such as ideology, caste, and religion are common in any society, they do not justify the current violence. There were moments when members of both communities shared meals, celebrated together, and coexisted peacefully, despite occasional disputes.
How do you view the democratic process inside Parliament, given your academic background and your experience as a first-term MP?
Having studied the evolution of the Indian Parliament, I’ve observed significant changes in both its composition and style of debate. In the past, the debates were more measured and formal, akin to the elite nature of early Indian cricket team. Today, Parliament reflects a broader democratization, similar to how cricket team has become more inclusive. Now, MPs from diverse backgrounds, including people like me, participate actively.
However, if Nehru and his generation were to observe Parliament today, they might be surprised by the current culture. Despite using polite language to address the chair, debates often become noisy and contentious. On the positive side, there is greater visibility and active participation from younger politicians from across India, including MPs from the North East who were previously less represented.
A.K Shiburaj is an independent journalist
Originally published in Keraleeyam Masika
