Since the outbreak of ethnic violence in Manipur in 2023, the Kuki-Zo society has endured displacement, insecurity, and deep trauma. Over 60,000 people have been uprooted, and hundreds of lives have been lost in a conflict rooted in land, identity, and political representation. In such a climate, it is understandable that communities turn toward armed groups (UGs) for protection and survival. But what begins as self-defence can gradually redefine the nature of the struggle itself.
The Rise of the Gun
vs. The Voice of the People
Public movements
derive legitimacy from collective will - civil society, student bodies, women’s
groups, churches, and intellectual leadership. Historically, Kuki-Zo resistance
and identity have been shaped not by the barrel of a gun, but by unity, customary
institutions, and moral authority.
However, the prolonged
conflict has created a dangerous shift. Armed actors - whether under Suspension
of Operations (SoO) or outside it - have increasingly become central players in
shaping narratives, decisions, and even political expectations. While some groups
have entered peace agreements with the government to stabilise the situation,
the ground reality remains fragile, with periodic violence and mutual distrust
continuing.
When public
aspirations are mediated through UGs, two consequences emerge:
- Erosion of democratic voice: Civil society becomes secondary.
- Distortion of demands: What the people need may not align with
what armed actors negotiate.
The Crisis of
Legitimacy
A movement gains
strength when it is seen as just, inclusive, and people-driven. But when it
appears dependent on armed backing, its legitimacy weakens - both internally and
externally.
Even within the
broader Kuki-Zo umbrella, fractures are visible. Diverging identities,
competing narratives, and disagreements among organisations have surfaced in
recent times. This fragmentation is further aggravated when armed groups - each
with its own structure and interests - become central to the political
discourse.
The result? A struggle
that risks losing its coherence.
Security vs.
Strategy
There is no denying
that in conflict zones, security is paramount. With continued threats,
segregation between communities, and a lack of trust in state protection, UGs
often fill a vacuum. For many, they are not symbols of militancy but of
survival.
Yet, survival cannot
be the end goal of a people - it must be the beginning of a future.
If the Kuki-Zo
movement is to achieve long-term political, social, or territorial aspirations,
it must transition from a security-driven approach to a strategy-driven
approach rooted in:
- Civil leadership
- Intellectual engagement
- Political negotiation
- Mass-based democratic mobilization
The Way Forward:
Reclaiming the People’s Movement
The strength of the
Kuki-Zo society has always been its community institutions - youth organisations,
women’s groups, churches, and village authorities. These must once again become
the nucleus of the movement.
UGs may play a role in
security, but they cannot define the political destiny of a people.
A meaningful movement
must:
- Speak through the people, not over them
- Unite diverse voices, not silence them
- Build legitimacy, not fear
Dialogue initiatives
already being initiated to bridge trust deficits show that a political solution
is still possible. But such dialogue must be backed by a strong, unified, and
visible public mandate - not one overshadowed by arms.
Conclusion
The statement is
harsh, but it reflects a truth that must be confronted.
A movement that relies
solely on UGs risks becoming a struggle of power, not a struggle of
people. And when the people are no longer at the centre, the movement loses
its soul.
For the Kuki-Zo future
to be meaningful, it must be reclaimed - not by force, but by the collective
voice, wisdom, and will of its people.
No comments:
Post a Comment