By Prof. Yaruingam Awungshi & Dr. Pamreihor Khashimwo
THE HUNPHUN-HUNPUNG land dispute in Ukhrul district of Manipur in Northeast India is not merely a contretemps over territorial lines or ownership claims. It is a profoundly layered conflict in which questions of history, identity, prestige, and collective memory converge, making it one of the most enduring land disputes in the Tangkhul area. The twin villages, bound together by centuries of kinship, shared traditions, and the overarching Tangkhul identity, have nevertheless been separated by a dispute that reflects deeper tensions within the community’s psychological and cultural fabric.
Traditional conflict-resolution approaches, whether redistributive justice or strict legal adjudication, have failed to bridge divides or restore social cohesion. In the Tangkhul context, particularly within a Christianised ethos, land disputes extend beyond ownership to questions of communal coexistence—how do neighbours, kin, and co-witnesses to the gospel of reconciliation live together? Restorative justice offers a more apt framework, emphasising repair of relationships, restoration of dignity, and cultivation of trust rather than allocation of blame or material entitlements.
The significance of this approach is evident when the dispute is situated within Tangkhul social psychology. Land embodies not only property but also ancestral honour, village prestige, and the inheritance of memory. Conceding land risks undermines identity itself, rendering legal or redistributive remedies as either humiliating or hollow. Here, conflict becomes a zero-sum struggle of pride, where losses are experienced as irreparable, highlighting the limits of transactional resolutions and the moral, psychological, and spiritual dimensions that restorative justice seeks to address.
Also Read | Re-envisioning the Hunphun-Hungpung Land Dispute in Manipur’s Ukhrul
The Hunphun-Hungpung border dispute illustrates a paradox—prolonged unresolved conflict deepens the scars in the Tangkhul collective identity, undermining moral authority at a moment when the Tangkhul community faces external pressures from economic and political marginalisation. The impasse reflects a broader dilemma: balancing strong village identity with collective belonging. Efforts by various agencies or authorities, framed in distributive terms of boundaries, rights, or historical claims, and legal adjudication have failed to yield a lasting resolution. The conflict is less about material allocation than moral injury and psychological ownership. Restorative justice theory emphasises that healing requires acknowledging not only the tangible loss of land but also the relational harm, mistrust, and humiliation endured over generations, recognising both villages as victims of a decades-long cycle of contestation.
Restorative justice underscores the need to engage the broader community, not just the disputing villages. In Tangkhul society, where Christianity is central, biblical metaphors of reconciliation, emphasising forgiveness, humility, and stewardship, can recast land as a sacred trust rather than private property. This framing shifts the conflict from an adversarial ‘us versus them’ to a collective reflection on Tangkhul Christian identity and the ethical call to peace.
Also Read | Will the Nagas Accept Border Fencing?
Practically, restorative processes involve structured dialogues in the form of storytelling, lament, and collective prayer, rather than adversarial hearings. Restorative justice emphasises creative compromise over binary ownership. Rather than debating who owns the land, two villages under the aegis of the Tangkhul Naga Long (TNL) Peace Committee could explore how it might serve as a space for coexistence. Joint stewardship, such as designating disputed areas as peace zones or co-managed heritage sites, recasts contested land as shared, aligning with Tangkhul customary traditions that treat land as a communal resource rather than a commodity.
Healing also requires symbolic acts. Apologies, reconciliation rituals, and communal ceremonies, such as joint church services, feasts, or tree planting, can confer moral legitimacy on compromises. In a Christian context, these acts transform the land from a site of division to one of unity, reshaping collective memory and replacing grievance with restoration.
The effectiveness of the TNL Peace Committee depends less on judicial authority than on moral legitimacy. Rather than acting as a quasi-court, it must function as a facilitator and custodian of Tangkhul unity, grounding its authority in fairness, trust, and moral persuasion. This requires patience and deep listening, since hasty settlements risk silencing grievances for political convenience. Although critics argue that restorative justice is too idealistic for entrenched disputes such as Hunphun-Hungpung, its purpose is not to erase conflict but to transform it. By reframing disputes as manageable tensions within a framework of coexistence, restorative processes can shift the narrative from hostility to kinship.
The significance of this approach extends beyond the two villages, indicating that Tangkhuls can address deep-seated conflicts without state intervention, violence, or enduring mistrust. Successful reconciliation would reinforce the moral authority of the TNL as a custodian of peace and demonstrate that Christian principles function as lived practices. The dispute concerns not merely land but the moral and social fabric of the Tangkhul community, long cultivated with bitterness and pride. Restorative justice offers an opportunity to sow humility, forgiveness, and shared identity, virtues essential to Christian faith that could yield enduring social cohesion. If Hunphun and Hungpung exemplify this, it could become a model of ‘reconciliation of the Tangkhul.’
This border dispute illustrates the limitations of traditional reconciliation when conflicts are rooted not merely in territory but in historical dispossession, patriarchal norms, and psychological insecurities. While both villages assert rights and land claims, most land claims by both parties are already held and owned by outsiders, making the dispute less about resources than about identity, memory, and authority. The fixation on ownership, absent economic or social gains, reflects a psychological adherence to a lost territorial past.
Ultimately, the Hunphun-Hungpung border dispute reflects the broader challenge of balancing local identity with collective cohesion. Restorative justice approaches offer an alternative to adversarial contestations by privileging dialogue, symbolism, and shared stewardship. One possibility is to reimagine the contested territory as a Tangkhul Peace Heritage Zone (Tang), co-managed under the aegis of the TNL, thereby situating reconciliation within the cultural and institutional framework of Tangkhul society. While not a panacea, such an arrangement could serve as a constructive experiment in turning a contested space into a shared resource, anchoring unity and peace while respecting difference and history.
Dr Pamreihor Khashimwo is a scholar of international relations and political science with a focus on foreign policy, security, ethnic politics, energy security, and environmental politics. He can be reached at khashimwo.jnu@gmail.com. Prof. Yaruingam Awungshi is Head of Department, Department of African Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Delhi. He can be reached at yaruingam1265@gmail.com
(The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ukhrul Times. Ukhrul Times values and encourages diverse perspectives.)