Vasudev Phurailatpam

The demand for separate administration did not suddenly come to the forefront; it has been actively propagated for years. The intensity may have increased recently, but the agenda has always been there, with organizations consistently advocating for it, even at the cost of civilian lives. As for the Meitei ST demand, it is not a new strategy but a decades-old issue backed by historical records and past political support, even from tribal leaders. But saying, 'the dominant community is using this opportunity to resolve the ethnic conflict as a leverage to bargain for land in the hills. One of the strategies is the ST demand, amendment of Article 371-C, extension of the MLR&LR Act, and offering only amendments to the state district council law' is misleading at best and deliberately manipulative at worst. Unless you are pretending to be ignorant and innocent, the Census of India 1881, 1891, 1901, and 1931 recorded the Meitei as a forest tribe, Hindu tribe, main tribe, etc. Only from the Census in 1951 was the Meitei delisted without any explanation, neither to the Manipur government nor to the general public through gazette notifications. Political leaders like R. Suisa, a Tangkhul Naga MP from Outer Manipur, were among the first to urge the Meiteis to join the ST category. R.V. Mingthing, another Tangkhul politician, also encouraged Meiteis to opt for ST and even participated in several meetings of the ST Demand Committee. Rishang Keishing, a Tangkhul Naga and then Chief Minister of Manipur, attempted to pass a resolution in the Assembly for Meitei ST status on October 31, 1981. If the way you are portraying the Meiteis were true, do you think they would be living in their rightful, Meitei-dominated Assembly Constituencies of Thoubal, Kakching, and Jiribam, yet be unable to contest or field candidates in every Lok Sabha election through no fault of their own? You still cannot acknowledge that the Meiteis are living like political prisoners under house arrest, confined to just 6% of the total land, unable to move beyond Awang Sekmai, and burdened with double taxation on essential goods due to multiple extortion checkpoints imposed by hill-based militant groups on transport routes. How 'minority' are these tribes you claim to be victims of 'continued suppression and subjugation' when they have the power to impose such restrictions on the largest community? The lack of basic necessities and infrastructure you mentioned is a genuine concern, not just in the hills but in the valleys as well. Just look at Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya, and Arunachal Pradesh. Remote areas lack basic amenities, while development remains concentrated primarily in their capitals. This is true, and I agree. But scapegoating the Meiteis as if they are deliberately responsible is completely manipulative. You cannot ignore the role of hill-based pressure groups in influencing development policies. The brutal murder of Meitei SDO Dr. Thingnam Kishan and his associates, a Bamon driver Aribam Rajen and a Meitei mandal Yumnam Token, on 17 February 2009 by NSCN-IM cadres is one such example. Self-determination can only come from a legitimate cause, not from an attempt to carve out a piece of Manipur based on ethnicization, the illusion of a promised land, and the cost of civilian lives.