For a peripatetic prime minister — his numerous admirers insist that both India and the world form the proverbial stage that Narendra Modi lords over — the visit to Manipur was a case of too little, too late. The allegation of lateness cannot be denied. It has taken Mr Modi 864 days — nearly 28 months — to set foot in a state that has been singed by ethnic violence for over two years in which more than 250 people have lost their lives and thousands of internally displaced persons are eking out a miserable existence in camps. This delay definitely amplified the sense of alienation that Manipur’s embattled people from both the Meitei and the Kuki-Zo communities have suffered in the last two years. Mr Modi’s refusal to visit or even frequently refer to the challenges faced by Manipur — the prime minister’s references to the state were as rare as his press conferences — spoke poorly of Central outreach and empathy.
The visit has now taken place — finally — with Mr Modi, quite sensibly, addressing two public engagements in Kuki-Zo-dominated Churachandpur and the Meitei stronghold of Imphal, respectively. But as is often the case with the prime minister’s visitations, this pit-stop too was high on rhetoric and low on substance. In Churachandpur, Mr Modi underlined the fact that peace is the only way forward and that his government will continue to work to return normalcy to the troubled state. He also inaugurated development projects worth Rs 7,000 crore for Manipur’s hill districts. In his speech in Imphal, he described the violence as “unfortunate” — is any bloodshed fortunate? — and proceeded to describe Imphal as a city of “possibilities”. But for Imphal and, indeed, Manipur to realise these possibilities, significant chasms need to be bridged first. These include the rehabilitation of the IDP. The announcement of housing, as
Mr Modi did, for this constituency is not enough. Kuki-Zo people have been displaced from Imphal while Meiteis can no longer call the hill districts their home. Such a spatial segregation is a complex issue. And this is not the only stiff challenge for Manipur. The hardening of territorial boundaries between the Kuki-Zo and the Meitei, complemented by the rise of securitised buffer zones, has impeded free movement within the state. The most challenging aspect, arguably, is the resumption of spontaneous dialogue between the two ethnic adversaries. The social polarisation runs so deep that even stakeholders and facilitators who could have played a role in resuming dialogue — Manipur’s civil society is an example — cannot claim to be objective any longer. The prospect of the resumption of the political process —Manipur is under president’s rule at the moment — remains sketchy. Each of these obstacles, in turn, has an impact on Manipur’s international border, which is already on alert given the violence in Myanmar next door.
Manipur and India wanted their prime minister to elaborate on a way out of these tricky, prickly problems. What they got instead was rhetorical balm for real, festering wounds.
