Amid the backdrop of Kuki-Meitei violence, a distinctive trend unfolded at the heart of Manipuri society, giving birth to a ‘society of vigilance,’ where the aftermath saw a proliferation of vigilante activities like street patrols, border patrols, and militias, especially in the valley districts of Manipur.
Vigilantes in the valley claimed they would do what the state police and other authorities were either unable or unwilling to: maintain public safety and secure streets and borders against alleged threats from Kuki populations. In the realm of vigilante endeavours, where intimidation tends to outweigh direct violence, occasional instances of brutality and small-scale acts of terror unfold, all in the purported mission of safeguarding society, as advocates rationalise their participation by asserting the government’s inadequacy in addressing pressing issues through its established mechanisms and institutions.
In mainland India, vigilantism is primarily associated with Hindu dogmatic religious extreme rightist ideology, particularly against minorities. With the onset of violence in the state, diverse political affiliations in national politics have crafted narratives, each embracing partisan positions in the recurring blame game against the other.
Even the mainstream media did not spare their habitual practice of sidelining, indulging in exacerbated narratives that often correlate with the unrelated when covering stories from this region. However, the question of how specific cases in Manipur are linked to Hindu right-wing extremism remains an empirical matter that requires further investigation.
While numerous vigilante groups that emerged initially targeted entire categories of “others,” often under the pretence of defending the Meiteis, the current vigilantism environment extends its focus beyond specific communities. It encompasses those who dissent against prevailing trends of enmity.
Instances of insulting the minority Pangals (Manipur Muslims), though they remain neutral in the conflict, are frequently found on social media. Furthermore, instances of moral policing targeting Meitei women by vigilantes, including some who are women themselves, have been reported.
Within the domain of public discussion, a series of unsettling events unfolded, revealing a disconcerting pattern where individuals, initially vocal about their convictions, found themselves ensnared in a web of coercion and compelled to retract their statements.
Babloo Loitongbam, a human rights activist known for challenging the state’s immunity for decades, suddenly became a casualty of the ominous trend as violence erupted in the state. The turning point occurred when Loitongbam, who had voiced his concerns through the digital news platform NewsClick when the violence just started, found himself in the crosshairs of public threats following his bold questioning of the BJP central authorities’ decision to retain N. Biren Singh.
As the consequences of Loitongbam’s words reverberated, it became evident that the reprisals he faced were intricately linked to his audacious challenge to the status quo.
Brinda Thounaojam, a former police officer and daughter-in-law of the former UNLF chief R.K. Meghen, found herself entangled in a web of coercion that extended far beyond the confines of her private life. The pressure to retract personal opinions made through Zoom and telephonic calls became an unnerving ordeal, as she was compelled to do so not once but twice. The consequences of this forced compliance reached a disturbing crescendo, with acts of vigilantism targeting her private properties.
In a parallel incident, the spotlight turned to the progressive singer and lyricist Akhu Chingambam, who became the latest victim of this insidious coercion. His outspoken social media posts and comments triggered a chain of events that saw him forcibly abducted. Despite the gravity of his situation, Akhu later emerged on social media, releasing a statement that seemingly contradicted the apparent threat he faced. He insisted that nothing untoward had transpired and reassured the public of his current safety.
Beneath the surface, these incidents uncovered a shadowy reality of unreported cases unfolding daily. The events surrounding Babloo Loitongbam, Brinda Thounaojam, and Akhu Chingambam offered glimpses into a world where coercion, silence, and the manipulation of narratives operated in the shadows, leaving a trail of untold stories waiting to be brought to light.
Amidst the evolving landscape, a poignant question lingers: Is the recent development of vigilantism in Manipur either the consequence of a neoliberal withdrawal of the state from public security services or an extension of the state to counter-insurgency? Delving into the fabric of this societal transformation, a historical exploration becomes imperative, unveiling the intricate threads woven before and after the onset of the ongoing Meitei-Kuki conflict.
The Evolution of Vigilantism in Manipur
Vigilantism, characterised by taking the law into one’s own hands without legal authority, holds a longstanding tradition in Manipur. The once-relevant non-state or traditional justice systems among the Meitei inhabitants have waned, creating a contrast with the enduring pluralistic dynamics among the state’s tribal communities. The Meitei community tends to perceive any attempt at dispute resolution as having vigilante undertones. This includes various actors, ranging from civic volunteers and insurgents since the 1980s to present-day organisations addressing issues like drugs, substances, and social disputes. This intricate interplay between historical traditions and current challenges emphasises the necessity for a nuanced approach to justice and governance in Manipur.
With the onset of the Kuki-Meitei conflict, several political militias with a strong ethnocentric and religious agenda, are reportedly actively defending Meitei villages in the Manipur Valley from alleged Kuki threats, with some of these groups being accused of having state sponsorship. These entities have played a role in defending the Meitei villages within their neighbourhoods. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that there have been numerous reports of alleged excesses committed by these groups, some of which might have been intentionally omitted due to fear or other reasons.
Apart from the issue of human rights abuses, these vigilantes often prove to be unreliable, possess inadequate skills, and lack transparency and accountability. In the realm of law enforcement, their shortcomings become evident as they operate outside established systems, raising concerns about their effectiveness and the potential for unintended consequences. The absence of proper oversight and standardised procedures can compromise the overall reliability and integrity of vigilante efforts.
Response from the State
In response to the rise of vigilantism, characterised by a law enforcement approach, the state of Manipur took legislative action to regulate such behaviour. The Manipur State Assembly unanimously passed the “Manipur Protection from Mob Violence Bill, 2018.” This legislation proposes life imprisonment for individuals engaged in mob violence leading to the death of a person.
However, the legislation, while addressing the growing issue of vigilantism, carries an underlying agenda. It aims not only to curb crimes committed by vigilantes but also to challenge the legitimacy of non-state actors attempting to establish a dichotomy. The legislation strategically works to counteract the efforts of these actors, avoiding the systematic development of an alternative legal framework that could challenge the existing state structure.
Amidst the ongoing strife between the Kukis and Meiteis, there is speculation that this may be part of a larger strategic plan orchestrated by the central and state governments to counter Meitei insurgents. The involvement of vigilante militias in this scenario adds a layer of complexity. In the context of armed conflict, vigilantism seems to emerge from para-state organisations aiming to substitute themselves for the central government’s authority. Many define militias, in the context of counterinsurgency, campaigns and civil wars as armed groups linked to the government and separate from the regular forces.
The neighbourhood corps, adorned in uniforms and operating across all local areas in the Manipur Valley, fulfils formal policing functions. These functions encompass protecting communities, maintaining law and order, responding to emergencies, collaborating with law enforcement personnel, and exchanging information. This is evident from the narrative generated among the public in general. The role of these militias in the current situation remains unclear, contributing to the perplexity surrounding the conflict.
Public Opinion
In the quiet town, a palpable atmosphere of fear and terror had taken hold of the common masses. Strangely, the usual voices of opposition in the media and academic spaces, which should have vocally decried such a phenomenon, seemed to have inexplicably aligned themselves with the state. There was a conspicuous absence of dissent against the vigilante actions and, more specifically, the government of N. Biren Singh.
Within social media, where the breeding ground for hatred and anger is apparent, a diverse array of responses often emerges. This diversity is frequently marked by the conspicuous silence of those who dissent against vigilantism. Although many individuals express sympathy towards vigilante acts, instances of wavering opinions exist. These individuals, however, find themselves unable to openly articulate their changing perspectives due to the fear instilled by groups that assert their role in protecting society. Nevertheless, a considerable number of people advocate for becoming part of larger, more diverse vigilante groups.
Amidst the persistent violence, a prevalent narrative resonates through the valley, emphasising that the current moment is not conducive to blaming the government. Rather, it encourages taking immediate responsibility. The prevailing sentiment urges individuals to wield arms and defend the people, often manifesting in actions directed against their community, thus altering the trajectory from its original course.
Way Forward
In vigilantism, everyone will participate, whether consciously or unconsciously, independent of the state, until it directly affects themselves. In a society where lawlessness has been ingrained for many years, the normalisation of vigilance is not only extraordinary but rather a progression towards a degraded society.
At times, the insurgents in the valley frequently adjudicate disputes concerning the lives and properties of the general populace. However, their departure has resulted in vigilante groups filling the void once occupied by non-state entities. For the state, it represents a broader strategy of countering insurgency by extending hands to some unorganised groups, allowing them to utilise the apparatus of the state.
In response to the prolonged passivity of the state, civil society, often guided by valley insurgents in occupying these spaces, faces an urgent imperative to assertively engage within the realm of mass consciousness.
The author is a PhD. Scholar, Centre for the Study of Law and Governance, JNU.