We arrived in Manipur in north-east India at the invitation of our partner organisation Brot fuer die Welt and UNMM from Manipur (United NGO Mission to Manipur) in order to hold a training in dealing with the past for representatives of UNMM member organisations. We have not in the habit of organising or holding international trainings, but our partners believed that our specific war and post-war experience from the Western Balkans would be particularly useful to initiate dialogue and build trust between the ethnic communities in Manipur. The training team consisted of Ivana Franović, Nenad Vukosavljević and Davorka Turk.
Our visit to Manipur included a brief study visit where we got better acquainted with representatives of civil society organisations and the social context in which they work, and the five-day training for a group of participants. Before our arrival, we had read up on the concrete circumstances and nature of the conflict[1], so we were somewhat prepared for seeing army troops on the streets. The various levels and types of conflict flaring up in Manipur and the special status of Manipur within India is something its inhabitants feel as continuous violence of lower or higher intensity and that the Indian state treats as “implementing law and order” in the border area.
In that sense, the strong army and police presence and their broad authorisations are interpreted as necessary for the sake of security – in order to control the border area with Myanmar and fight against armed rebel groups. The law that has been applicable since 1958 – AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Power Act) has become a symbol of oppression and an instrument of discrimination with which the army and police maintain an atmosphere of fear and terror and commit grave human rights violations. Namely, this Act regulates the response in the event of insurgence against the authorities and other situations involving armed rebels. According to the AFSPA, the armed forces have the discretion to resort to armed force against persons or groups suspected of being insurgents or sympathisers, they do not require a warrant to search persons and homes and can use force when making arrests. Since this law ensures the immunity, or rather the impunity of members of the army and police, it is used to justify a host of brutal human rights violations, including murder, rape, kidnapping, disappearances, torture and maintaining an atmosphere of fear and terror. The right to freedom of movement, freedom of association and assembly are also endangered by this Act. AFSPA particularly targets women, and civil society organisations have submitted a report on this issue to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). [2]
Little to nothing is know about human rights violations in Manipur, both in India and the rest of the world, with the exception of the struggle of Irom Sharmila. She started her nonviolent protest as an activist 15 years ago, going on hunger strike until the AFSPA is abolished. For the past 15 years, the Indian authorities have kept her locked up for violating the law (treating the whole case as a suicide attempt) and in order to keep her alive.
If we add to this the problems of a weak and inefficient administration, corruption and unemployment, ethnic strife and other forms of violence, in particular sexual violence against women and children, a picture of the social framework presented to us by civil society organisations begins to emerge.
UNMM, the network that invited us, brings together numerous organisations of local communities from north-east India across ethnic, religious and other divisions – Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim organisations as well as organisations of the Meitei, Naga, Kuki and other tribal communities. There are women’s organisations working on protecting women and children from sexual, domestic and other forms of violence (and providing assistance and support to victims from minority communities, and defending their rights within the legal system), human rights organisations, organisations protecting local communities and their rights, etc. We also met with activists and community leaders from Moreh, a town on the border with Myanmar, which was the scene of inter-ethnic conflicts, and is also an important trade and smuggling node for drugs, gold and human trafficking. During our study visit, we were particularly impressed by a meeting with a group of women, widows who lost their husbands in armed incidents and conflicts and now face social stigmatisation, but are nonetheless trying to find ways to feed themselves and their children[3].
In addition to structural violence (colonial heritage, state-imposed violence, racism and patriarchal violence, as well as still effective caste divisions), there is also the problem of traditional ethnic strife, such as that between the Naga and Kuki communities, but also between the Hindus and the local communities, as well as the attitude of the majority community towards the Muslims. All these conflicts are long-lasting, materially and humanly exhausting and contribute to a general state of insecurity, fear and frustration. During our stay in Manipur, we often heard how ethnic conflicts were instructed and stoked “from outside” (irrespective of who is considered to be the outsider – colonial Britain, the Indian government, armed groups mostly clashing to take control over the trafficking of drugs, gold or human beings, or neighbouring Indian states such as Nagaland, due to assumed or real territorial claims). This interpretation of conflicts from the inside sounds familiar, as well as many other matrices we use to try to make sense of the conflicts that have affected or are still affecting our lives. During our eight days in Manipur, we said a lot about Yugoslavia, about how our wars progressed, what they were fought over and whether and how they could have been foreseen or pre-empted. But we also remembered many things. For example, what it is like when the army holds important locations or natural resources (such as the Loktak Lake). As we pass by the long barrels on the roads, checkpoints and on the streets, we hope that something can be learned from another’s experience, which is why we came all this way.
Because of all of the above, UNMM believed our experience in peacebuilding in the former Yugoslavia could help them constructively deal with their own past and establish dialogue and trust among the various sides in the conflict, believing these tools to be applicable and needed in their own communities.
The group for which we organised the training, and which numbered 34 people at one point, comprised representatives of women’s organisations and human rights organisations from different ethnic and religious communities. Thanks to prior preparations and the study visit, we designed the training to respond to the given circumstances and the needs articulated over these few days through meetings and conversations. Our intention was to encourage interaction among participants and create conditions for constructive dialogue on burning social issues, mutually exclusive attitudes, presumptions and prejudices. But we also sought to encourage each other for further efforts in peacebuilding, seeking out things that we can achieve together or through mutual support.
In our work, we start from the premise that it is impossible to copy solutions without taking into account the specific social context of each particular conflict. Furthermore, based on our own experience, we are, to say the least, weary of solutions coming from the outside. However, it also seems that a view from the outside can be a catalyst to start discussions on some of these issues. Apart from that, it seems that concrete experiences from the Western Balkans can be used to analyse or at least recognise some aspects that, notwithstanding their specific contexts, remain universal: the way we perceive our “enemies”, how and along which lines discrimination against groups and individuals is established, how injustice is institutionalised and how violence is instigated, as well as the ways to counteract such tendencies, both within one’s own group and in society as a whole. A great advantage of these workshops was that, much like in our case, they were a meeting place, where the “other” can not just be seen but also heard, and where much can be learned from the process itself. We were surprised by the readiness for self-reflection, dialogue and cooperation. Most of the participants that spoke to us about this, felt a great relief that there was readiness to discuss contentious issues and identify areas for cooperation and joint action. Personally, I perceived most of the participants as very political, aware of the complexity of the problem and the political moment, but also prepared to seek alternative solutions to bridge the deep-seated animosities, which is a quality we often lack in the post-Yugoslav context.
The training surpassed all our expectations, and the participants assessed these few days in much the same way. Although we had anticipated various problems due to the large size of the group, they were avoided thanks to the high level of motivation among the participants and their dedication to this process. We realised that the age differences among the participants may pose an obstacle due to the different social roles ascribed according to age (with older persons having authority). This did affect the dynamics of the group, but also gave us important insights to be used for any future cooperation.
We went to Manipur feeling sceptical, we doubted our visit would be meaningful given our lack of familiarity with the context. We decided to go only because our friends from Brot fuer die Welt and UNMM were very persistent. At the end, we realised that the trip to Manipur proofed useful in many ways. Apart from having learned a lot ourselves, we managed to create a space for dialogue among members of different communities on painful subjects, on things that are not talked about for fear that the conversation would be uncomfortable or might even lead to a new cycle of violence. Most of the participants told us that this was the first time that they had spoken to someone from another community about these matters and in this way. There is no better path towards empowerment than the feeling of relief following a conversation about difficult and painful topics.
We hope that our friends in Manipur will use this opportune moment when they have the right climate, courage, enthusiasm and motivation to continue their dialogue. And we hope that this will help them construct a society where they will be proud of the wealth of their diversity and where no one will be made to feel like a second-class citizen. We particularly hope that they will not decide to resolve the problems between the different groups as we did in the Balkans, by force. Because we did not solve anything, we just amplified the problem as many times as the number of lives lost.
[1] In order to understand the social context of north-east India, the book by Sudeep Chakravarti “Highway 39” – Journey through a Fractured Land (Fourth Estate, New Delhi, 2012) was of great help.
[2] This is one in a series of reports that local civil society organisations have submitted to international bodies, requesting protection. https://www.ecoi.net/file_upload/1930_1415203563_int-cedaw-ngo-ind-17527-e.pdf
[3] In Manipur, women and children are directly affected at all levels of the conflict, either as direct victims or as widows of those executed or gone missing during military interventions against armed groups, the actions of armed groups to seize resources, as victims of sexual violence committed by members of the army, the police, armed groups, as well as family members. Due to their low social status, these women are often stigmatised and targeted by violators, given that, after the death of their husbands, or as victims of violence, they are outcast as socially unneeded, completely unprotected and reduced to struggling just to stay alive.