In an interview that will feel like two completely different interviews, because of the dramatic change of subject and atmosphere somewhere in the middle, one of Jawaharlal Nehru University’s most highly regarded experts on the North East says that “Modi is the epitome of the larger fault line between the North East and the rest of India”. Prof. Bimol Akoijam says that Modi’s deliberate silence about the crisis in Manipur, which is now in its sixth week, “hurts”. He agreed that it suggests the Prime Minister is unconcerned and indifferent. More importantly, it reflects the way India regards the North East and it also reflects the way in which the media has covered developments in Manipur. Rather than understand and douse the flames, Prof. Akoijam said the media has flamed passions without understanding the key underlying causes of the problem.In a lengthy interview to Karan Thapar for The Wire, Prof. Akoijam first began by explaining why he believes the roots of the present crisis in Manipur stretch back to a British policy of divide and rule in the state based upon what he calls a “contrived reality” and a “false topographical perspective”. He said the British deliberately decided to view the valley and hills in Manipur as separate topographical entities rather than as one interconnected topographical entity.To illustrate his point, he said whilst the Imphal Valley is at a height of 790 metres and Churachandpur, in the hills, at 922 metres – a difference of only 132 metres – the British saw them and treated them as separate topographical entities rather than as one. This led to people who are ethno-linguistically the same being treated as different people with different laws and different land rights.Prof. Akoijam said that rather than reverse what the British had wrongly done, independent India not only accepted this false topographical division but built on it with laws such as the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act 1960, which bar the Meitei from buying land in the hill area.Prof. Akoijam pointed out that whilst the British had used the false topographical division to distinguish between people, independent India had taken it further to also distinguish in terms of access to and right to buy land.I will leave you to get further details of this argument from the interview. Prof. Akoijam explains how this led people, who were the same, to think of themselves as different and separate. People who are brothers and sisters began to think of each other as opponents and rivals.Prof. Akoijam also explains how democratic politics has exacerbated this situation because politicians appeal to the communities they want votes from in terms that are specific to that community thus enhancing the divide between hill and valley people. All of this is in what I call the first half of the interview.In what I call the second half of the interview – although there’s no break or divide in between – the mood and subject change dramatically when we start to discuss allegations that the Kukis are not indigenous and outsiders. The question is are these allegations shown to be false by the argument that Prof. Akoijam has presented about how the British divided people who are the same by creating different laws? Now Prof. Akoijam argues that these allegations must be investigated. He says we need to know whether the claim made by Pramot Singh of the Meitei Leepun is correct or wrong when he says the majority of Kukis are illegal. We need to know the number of illegal people who have entered India from Burma. He calls for a proper methodical constitutional method of verification.Also read: Watch | Meitei Pride Group’s Threat: ‘Kukis Mainly Illegal, Modi Must Intervene or There’ll Be Civil War’It’s in this part of the interview that Prof. Akoijam speaks about the Prime Minister. It’s here that he says that Modi is the epitome of the fault line between the North East and the rest of India. It’s here that he says Modi’s silence “hurts”.In the first half of the interview, Prof. Akoijam says major land reforms (which would include removing the restrictions on Meitei buying land in the hill areas but a lot more as well) would be a critical step in resolving the crisis in Manipur. In the second half of the interview, Prof. Akoijam says a proper methodical constitutional verification of the legal/illegal status of people is also necessary to resolve the crisis.Towards the end of the interview, Prof. Akoijam suggests that one way of giving the hill tribes (Kukis and Nagas) a greater say would be to create a second chamber to the Manipur Assembly based not on population size but on the number of districts in the state (the majority of which, he says, are in the hill i.e. Naga-Kuki areas).I am only identifying the main points made in the interview as well as the main arguments presented in the first half.There’s enormous passion and anger – if I was to be figurative and colourful, like Vesuvius exploding – in the second half of the interview. This is very different to the calm, collected, measured manner and style of the first half.The first half explains how Prof. Akoijam sees the genesis of the crisis and how, over the last 70 years, independent India, as well as our democracy, has made the situation worse, even if that happened unintentionally.The second half of the interview will feel like an expression of Meitei’s anguish and angst. That, of course, is my personal impression. You must judge for yourself. But that angst is important to hear and understand if you want to understand “the truth” from both points of view.I have said enough. You must watch this interview for yourself. There’s a lot more in the interview. I have deliberately not mentioned many things Prof. Akoijam has said. I have left them for you to see and discover as you watch.
