'We're Not Anti-Nationals'

'We are not secessionists, we want to coexist with our countrymen but not on the terms that will strip us off our dignity and a right to peaceful existence.'

Senior Kuki National Organisation leader Seilen Haokip shares with Prasanna D Zore/Rediff.com details about the tripartite dialogue between the KNO, Manipur government and Centre and why the KNO is now demanding that the hill districts of the state be structured as a Union Territory.

"Article 3 (of the Constitution) allows (Parliament) for creation of new states, changing the boundaries of existing states, but all for the strengthening of the country, the Union of India," says Haokip.

You've been in a dialogue with the Government of India and government of Manipur seeking devolution of powers for the Kukis in the hill areas.
When did this dialogue start? Who are you speaking with and what's the main purpose of this dialogue?

I'll have to give you a little bit of background information. The Kuki National Organisation and other umbrella organisations called the United People's Front have been engaged in a dialogue with the government (of India) since 2008.

Although we're an armed organisation, our demands are not anti-national; we signed a tripartite agreement with the Government of India and the state government of Manipur which is legally binding on all three constituents.

We have the suspension of operations (SoOs) which pertains to ground rule issues, for example, the behaviour of the security forces towards our cadres and vice versa.

The idea is there should be no incidents of firing or violence so that talks can take place in a peaceful environment conducive for negotiations.

From 2008 our political demand was that we should have our own self-administration by way of autonomous territorial council within the state.

In the north east, as you would be aware, the Government of India implemented the Sixth Schedule for the tribals in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.

But in Manipur, the majoritarian population, the Meiteis objected to it. The assembly has 40 elected members (from the valley, predominantly Meiteis) and 20 hill people, and they (the Meiteis) suppressed it.

Despite numerous efforts from the Centre, the Sixth Schedule was not implemented in Manipur.

Alternatively, the government of India, when Manipur gained statehood in 1972, when V V Giri was President, Article 371C was created for Manipur, where a hill area committee was established so that the hill people, the tribal people, could have a voice in the state assembly where they are a minority.

As you must be aware that in the state assembly of 60 seats, the Meitei population, the dominant group, which constitutes about 53 of the population, hold 40 seats and the remaining 47 per cent are the hill people, primarily the Kukis and Nagas, have been given 20 seats.

This imbalance and inequality has been the bane of our existence in terms of socio-political issues, development issues, the whole works.

Article 371C, guaranteed as a Constitutional provision endorsed by the President of India, simply did not work out on the ground.

Letter couldn't translate to spirit because the majoritarian dominated government successfully suppressed it and partly because they were able to manipulate, take advantage of the ignorance of the tribal people from the hills, who, of course, in terms of civilisational aspects, have been way backward than the valley people, who are the Meiteis, who have over 2,000 years of culture, as they claim.

Be that as it may, the Kuki National Organisation and the United Front engaged with the Government of India to find a solution within the state where there is the evolution of power so that we can also, as part of the state and part of the country, be developed if not at par with the rest of the country, at least to a point where government has, for example, earmarked whatever in the budget for the hills should come to us as planned by the government so that we also contribute to the growth and prosperity of the state and the country.

This simply did not work out and Article 371C became totally toothless. In this reality, our demand for the autonomous district councils under Article 371C was completely pointless.

So we were asking for an upgrade from autonomous district councils to an autonomous territorial council for our areas where we would have better prospects as planned by the government.

However, on May 3 last year over the demand for the status of a tribe by the Meitei population, who are also OBCs, which get 29 per cent reservation, Scheduled Castes get 17 per cent, while the STs (the Kukis belong to the ST category) actually get only 7 per cent (reservation) but they (the Meiteis) now wanted ST status also, to which the Kukis and Nagas objected (and took out a rally on May 3, 2023 following which violence began in the state and has since been continuing although sporadically now) because that (the Meiteis getting the ST status) would have only allowed the Meiteis to come into our lands in the hills although they are, in terms of productivity, not comparable to the 7 per cent of the valley which has all the government institutions, all the funds that come for the state and are managed by the majoritarian government dominated by the Meiteis.

All the turmoil began when the hill people, on May 3, all over the hill districts, in the districts where Nagas and Kukis carried out a peaceful rally demonstrating against the Meiteis' demand for ST status.

Unfortunately, in Churuchandpur, all hell broke out and led to ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Kuki-Zo people by the state sponsored Meitei radicals.

Following this genocide and ethnic cleansing our demand shifted from autonomous territorial council, which would have been within the state of Manipur; we now want our own political autonomy within the Constitution of India, comprising the areas we inhabit in the hills.

We cannot be a part of Manipur where the majority dominated population and the government have treated us this way.

We are in an existential crisis. Our lives matter. For our security, we want Constitutional safeguards. And they (10 hill MLAs) submitted a representation asking for a separate administration for Manipur.

We -- the suspension of operations groups, the KNO and UPF, who are in dialogue with the government -- also reinforced the demand of our elected members for a SA (separate administration).

Over the next three months that followed in June, July, August, SA was defined or crystallised within the Constitutional provisions as a Union Territory, because we are of the view that we will be ruled directly from the Centre and then we will have Constitutional safeguards.

In India, there are eight UTs and they are small, the population is also small, and we (the hill areas) are also small, our population is also small.

And if we have direct rule from the Centre with, of course, (an elected) legislature, then we won't be in the same situation as the Leh-Ladakh people, who have no legislature, so their land is under threat and it's like back to square one for them. We don't want to make that mistake.

UT, with a legislature, is our political demand now, comprising our inhabited areas.

Of course, we have Nagas in the districts where we are (in a majority). We (the Kuki-Zo people) are also in Naga-dominated districts. But these are fine because districts were not created on ethnic lines. The boundaries of the districts were drawn for administrative purposes.

In the UT model that exists in Puducherry, which has four districts, two districts are surrounded by Tamil Nadu, one by Andhra Pradesh and one by Kerala.

All these four districts which are not contiguous in terms of geographical landmass have their administrative headquarters in Puducherry. And since this is an administrative arrangement within the Constitution of India, it works.

Something similar could be applied for our UT where, for example, in Churachandpur where the Kuki-Zo people are predominant. Likewise, in the other ten hill districts of Manipur.

Article 3 (of the Constitution) allows (Parliament) for creation of new states, changing the boundaries of existing states, but all for the strengthening of the country, the Union of India.

The Meiteis although they kicked us out, now they want to have their cake and eat it too. Now that when we want to leave, they don't want us to have our political autonomy.

Who are the members participating in this tripartite dialogue?

The Centre chairs this (dialogue) and the talks are chaired by the advisor, North East, A K Mishra. He is a retired IPS officer, former special director, Intelligence Bureau.

The SoO representatives include members from KNO and UPF. The state sometimes sends the DIG, Intelligence.

For the last meeting they didn't send anybody and I don't know if they will send anybody for the next meeting.

Our objective is peace and coexistence. We are not anti-nationals, we are not secessionists, we want to coexist with our countrymen but not on the terms that will strip us off our dignity and a right to peaceful existence.

What's the current status of your tripartite dialogue between the KNO, the Union government and state government of Manipur?

After May 3, dialogue has not resumed because there were state elections followed by the parliamentary elections (in April-May 2024).Now that a new government is in place they have five years ahead of them and if they want they can resume the dialogue.

Last week, the SoO people were called for the extension of the suspension of operations -- because this is extended periodically, sometimes for one year and sometimes for six months. Now the last extension was due in February this year.

But again, the autocratic state government unilaterally abrogated suspension of operations when they took their decision in the state assembly, where the Kuki-Zo MLAs were not participants.

On January 24 this year, the Arambai Tenggol, the militant group, summoned state assembly members to Kangla Fort and issued a diktat that they should abrogate the SoO. So all the Meitei MLAs came together in the assembly and abrogated the SoO and refused to participate in the February 29 meeting called by the Union government to decide upon extension of the SoO.

This impacted the government's plan to renew the SoO in sync with the home minister (Amit A Shah)'s wish that there must be peace in Manipur before we can decide on political issues.

When the central government called for an extension meeting on February 29, we went, but the state didn't come.

While abrogating the SoO, these Meitei MLAs said that the SoO groups violated ground rules.

If there are violations of ground rules, normally it's addressed in the joint monitoring group meeting that takes place in Imphal, but there has been no joint monitoring group meetings for the last two or three years.

So how can there be any allegation of ground rules violation by SoO? It's a technical matter, but the point was raised on the 29th (of February) by the chairperson, the additional secretary of MHA (ministry of home affairs).

As we started the meeting (in Delhi on February 29), there was a chair empty next to him, which was supposed to be the representative of the state.

They didn't come, but the meeting started with the additional secretary saying that there are certain ground rules violations by cadres of the various SoO groups, which are usually petty matters.

Nothing that can compare with the CM, a Constitutional head, allowing state forces to lead Meitei mobs to burn Kuki-Zo settlements and attack our villages. It is a Constitutional violation of that enormity.

When is the tripartite dialogue likely to resume?

Violation of ground rules by SoO groups is dealt by the (Union) joint secretary, North east. There's a separate meeting for extension issues. Now talks are chaired by the advisor, North east (A K Mishra), and SoOs are signed so that talks can take place.

Since May 3, 2023, there was almost no government in place (at the Centre) because the model code of conduct had set in for assembly elections first and then Parliamentary election, and so were waiting for a government to take shape.

Now that the government is in place and when it wanted to go ahead with the SoO extension and resumption of dialogue, the state government became obstructive.

Apart from withholding funds that are due for us and exploiting us with the majoritarian Meitei-dominated government, they alleged violation of ground rules to abrogate the SoO.

When the additional secretary raised this at the meeting at the outset, our response was, what about the violations of the state forces? And he raised his hands acknowledging, understanding the situation. It was not elaborated upon.

The advisor North East requested us to give him a few days as they would talk to the state government and then bring them on board because it's essential for them to be a part of this dialogue, because the (Union) home minister (Amit A Shah) wants peace and the SoO is for peace.

The state is part of the tripartite agreement and they should participate, but they have not been compliant.

When is the next meeting likely to happen?

There is one group among us which is still trying to sort out their proposal and te government is waiting for it; that may happen sometime next week. They might be able to come up with their proposal and once that is communicated to the Centre they will decide when to hold the next meeting.

In an interview to the Press Trust of India Chief Minister N Biren Singh has revealed for the first time that he has appointed an emissary to hold talks with Kuki-Zo and Meitei leaders.
Who is this emissary and what is your position on this?

We are not aware of any emissary from the state government or from the CM. I don't think there is one.

He says a lot of things in the media and we take everything now with a pinch of salt.