The Hills and Valley Divide: A Way Forward for the Nagas and Meiteis

THE STATE of Manipur has been burning due to its political turmoil since 3^rd May 2023, with debates at the local, national and international levels, on what went wrong and which individuals or communities were responsible. While the trials on the crimes committed and unsettled/continuing issues take place simultaneously followed by various political developments that are uncertain and unpredictable with various hidden games and players involved without signs of improvement; and the central government is directionless on the measures to take, there is also a “spill-over” moment of old memories of conflicts between various communities in Manipur flashed-back and rekindling it with speculations and suspicions especially the Kukis and the Nagas on land; and the intensification of sensitive issues around contested historical interpretations and political claims between the Nagas and the Meiteis constituting a perennial source of conflicts and tensions.

Though the Nagas are not directly involved in the ongoing Manipur crisis as a neutral party, one cannot completely opine that Nagas are not concerned and involved, as reflected in the way Naga villages have mobilised and recruited “Lim-Guard” to defend and respond to any untoward incidences on Nagas’ land and people arising out of the ongoing crisis in the state. Nagas as fighters and lovers of the right to self-determination, this very violent conflict between the Meiteis and Kukis, have alerted and reminded them of the bitter memories of conflicts with foreign invasions since the advent of the British in Naga Hills in the early 18^th century and its continued resistance till today in various forms.

All these developments acted as the source of tensions, and one is compelled to re-evaluate the terms and conditions on which the two communities in Manipur state – the Nagas and the Meiteis – have drawn their age-old relationship; and why there is tension between these two communities- the Nagas and the Meiteis – despite closer affinities compared to others, and efforts from various civil societies from these two communities to bridge the gap. Certain faultiness which continues to act as structural constraints in addressing the ethnic conflicts in the NE region in Manipur needs to be identified to avoid what is called “repetitive patterns” or “historical mistakes”.

The present-day state of Manipur, is predominantly the ancestral homeland of two prominent Indigenous communities: the Meiteis and the Nagas. The Meiteis inhabit the fertile valley regions, historically known as Kangleipak, governed under the authority of their monarch. In contrast, the Nagas inhabit the hill areas, where they are autonomous village-states with complete sovereignty, with no single entity exercising authority over another. Their distinctive village-state democracy and egalitarian social structure—still in practice today—have been well documented by anthropologists studying the region during the British era. These records highlight the Nagas’ sophisticated political organization, characterized by collective decision-making and a deeply rooted commitment to equality, which distinguished their society from hierarchical systems elsewhere. Despite the historical inter-village wars among the Nagas, their cultural norms strictly prohibit the wrongful claiming or seizure of others’ land. This deeply ingrained taboo against land appropriation has played a significant role in fostering and maintaining the existence of independent village-states across the Naga Hills. Such cultural practices underscore the Nagas’ commitment to territorial integrity and mutual respect, which have historically defined their social and political organization.

For centuries, the Meiteis and Nagas have coexisted as geographical neighbours, cultivating a relationship marked by mutual respect and cooperation – with some exceptions – especially those Naga villages in the foothills. This historical bond is exemplified by the tale of ‘Nongda Lairen Pakhangba,‘ the first coronated king of Kangleipak, along with the tradition of inviting Naga guests from a Naga Village-State (like the Hungpung) to the Meitei King’s coronation ceremonies, symbolizing their enduring friendship and affinity. The recent case in 2020 where Manipur/Meitei Titular King Leishemba Sanajaoba right after his victory in election to the Rajya Sabha contesting against congress candidate T. Mangibabu as Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) took sacred blessing from Hungpung Chief Khayaiwo AS Peter Wungayung further explains the deeper connection between them. Additionally, the legendary story of King Paikhomba and Engallei, the daughter of the Maram chief, further illustrates this connection.

The introduction of Hinduism into Meitei society marked a significant turning point in the social dynamics between these two communities. Before this cultural shift, Meitei society was largely classless, with minimal social stratification. The adoption of Hinduism brought with it the caste system, which introduced hierarchical social structures that were previously absent. This transformation rendered the relationship between the Meiteis and Nagas socially untenable, as the egalitarian foundations of their interactions were undermined by the rigid hierarchies imposed by caste.

The advent of British colonial rule in the region further deepened the rift between the Meiteis and Nagas. For more than a century since the arrival of the British in the Naga Hills in the 19^th century, the Nagas have been resisting the intrusion of the outsiders and various rulers resiliently with thousands of lives sacrificed though unheard and uncared of by the world outside. Looking back at history, it is evident that Nagas had little contact with the world outside, and were confined to inter-village and inter-tribe interactions juxtaposed by occasional inter-village conflicts among them.

Following the Treaty of Yandabo in 1826, which established British control over the Kangleipak Kingdom, several Meitei kings provided logistical and administrative support to the British in their efforts to subjugate the autonomous Naga village-states. Under the command of two British officers Captain Jenkins and Pemberton, Maharaja Gambhir Singh along with his armies even raided Kohima Village in 1832. Despite strong resistance from the Nagas the British, somehow established its control and authority in 1879 over Naga Hills District in the aftermath of the battle between the Nagas and the British in Khonoma. The Nagas perceived this collaboration between the British and the Meiteis as a profound betrayal of their historically amicable and fraternal relationship with the Meiteis.

Exacerbating this sense of betrayal, the Meitei kings, in collaboration with the British, recruited and armed the Kukis with guns as mercenaries to subdue the Naga village-states. The harrowing accounts of armed Kukis massacring Naga villagers remain vividly etched in the collective memory of the Naga people. This strategic deployment of external forces not only destabilized the region but also further strained the relationship between the two Indigenous communities irrevocably altering the social and political fabric of the area. The British imposition of colonial authority over Naga territories, facilitated by Meitei cooperation, undermined the long-standing bonds of trust and solidarity that had historically defined Meitei-Naga relations. This period marked a critical turning point in the fragmentation of their once-cohesive social and political ties, laying the foundation for enduring tensions between the two communities.

The political landscape of the region underwent a significant transformation after the British departure in 1947. Influenced by changing geopolitical realities, the Meitei king decided to accede to the newly formed Union of India. Consequently, the Kangleipak Kingdom- the king alone with his subjects (the Meitei people) and land- was merged with the Union of India in 1949, establishing Manipur as a centrally administered province (called a ‘Part C’ state, later renamed union territory). In contrast, the Naga village-states intensified their efforts to reclaim their original autonomy, resisting integration into the Indian state. This divergence in political aspirations created a schism between the two communities, as the Meiteis aligned themselves with the government of India to forcibly annex the Naga Village States while the Nagas sought to preserve their independence.

The subsequent establishment of political and administrative institutions in the newly created state – designed to appease the majority population and prevent the Naga Village States from reclaiming their original status – facilitated governance based on a system of brute majority politics. This approach has resulted in uneven development, transforming the valley into a thriving urban centre while leaving the hills significantly behind in economic progress. Consequently, state institutions have altered social relations between the two neighbouring communities, creating a divide between “Valley-dwellers” and “Hill-dwellers” instead of fostering an environment for harmonious and equitable coexistence between the hills and the valley.

Also read | Tangkhul Villages: A Comprehensive Guide to Their Distribution and Heritage

Estrangement was further exacerbated by the assertions of certain Meitei intellectuals, who selectively reinterpreted historical narratives to construct a discourse that undermined the sovereignty of the Naga village-states. Foucault in “Order of Discourse” wrote: “In every society, the production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organised and distributed by a certain number of procedures whose role is to ward off its powers and dangers, to gain mastery over its chance events, to evade its ponderous, formidable materiality – – – discourse is not simply that which translates struggles or systems of domination, but is the thing for which and by which there is a struggle”. By cherry-picking historical accounts, these intellectuals advanced a narrative that distorted the historical autonomy of the Naga communities, deepening the political and cultural divide between the hills and the valley.

Their claim that the Naga Hills were historically part of the Kangleipak Kingdom – whose king voluntarily acceded to India in 1949 – is blatant historical revisionism aimed at casting the Nagas as subjects of the Meitei monarchy. It implies they are the kings, and the Nagas are their subjects but not as historical neighbours. This revisionist narrative not only deepened resentment and heightened tensions between the two communities but also reopened old wounds while dismissing the Naga village-state democratic traditions—a system that remains foundational to Naga society even today. 

Certain individuals, especially the political elites within the Meiteis, driven by hidden agendas, consistently deny irrefutable historical truths and promote narratives that undermine the foundations of peaceful coexistence. It is essential to recognize that, whether in the Medieval era or the 21^st Century, no meaningful dialogue can happen within a hierarchical framework of “rulers and subjects,” as this inherently contradicts not just the principles of justice and equality, but creates a forceful historical narrative (or historical violence) inconsistent with the narratives that inform the Nagas collectively. The path forward for Manipur must begin with a candid acknowledgement of its history, recognizing the distinct identities, struggles, wrong doings to each other and rights of its two indigenous communities. Rebuilding trust necessitates mutual recognition and respect for each community’s socio-political heritage while firmly rejecting any system that puts one over the other. The narratives of dominance and subjugation must be replaced by a new covenant founded on autonomy, dignity, and equal agency. As neighbours conflicts and tensions are inevitable. Vasquez in his book, “The War Puzzle” made a strong point that the idea of “war is very much associated with territorial contiguity”. Naturally, contiguities are sensitive to war and conflicts, and most conflicts are among neighbours. However, as suggested by Vasquez, conflicts and war are a social phenomenon, recurring in human experience, which can be addressed by treating the immediate issues through legitimizing culture, norms and rules.The same is a much-needed measure for Nagas and Meiteis.

The future of Manipur relies on four essential pillars:

1. Genuine dialogue – free from coercion or manipulation;
2. Recognition of the facts – honouring and respecting one another’s distinct histories, socio-political structures and geographical territories;
3. Self-Definition – Fairness demands that each of these two distinct Indigenous communities define itself, rather than impose one’s narrative upon the other as a know-it-all – especially when they have been separated since time immemorial by countless physical and socio-political barriers that prevent full or honest understanding of one another. This will help reduce mistrust and tension between these two communities;
4. Restructuring Political Framework – This involves establishing an inclusive political system where the valley and hills unite through sovereign choice rather than coercion or manipulation. This is not mere idealism; it represents the only viable foundation for a peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious Manipur and a win-win solution within the given context.

The writer is a research scholar based in Delhi. He can be reached at panphung@gmail.com

(This is not a Ukhrul Times publication. UT is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any reports or views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of Ukhrul Times.)