Señor

1

Working Paper no.79

EXPLAINING MANIPUR’S BREAKDOWN
AND MANIPUR’S PEACE:
THE STATE AND IDENTITIES IN
NORTH EAST INDIA
M. Sajjad Hassan
Development Studies Institute, LSE

February 2006

Copyright © M.Sajjad Hassan, 2006
Although every effort is made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of material published in this Working Paper, the
Development Research Centre and LSE acceptno responsibility for the veracity of claims or accuracy of information provided
by contributors.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by
any means without the prior permission in writing of the publisher nor be issued to the public or circulated in any form other
than that in which it is published.Requests for permission to reproduce this Working Paper, of any part thereof, should be sent to:
The Editor, Crisis States Programme, Development Research Centre, DESTIN, LSE, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE.

1

Crisis States Programme
Explaining Manipur’s Breakdown and Mizoram’s Peace:
the State and Identities in North East India
M.Sajjad Hassan
Development Studies Institute, LSEAbstract
Material from North East India provides clues to explain both state breakdown as well as its
avoidance. They point to the particular historical trajectory of interaction of state-making
leaders and other social forces, and the divergent authority structure that took shape, as
underpinning this difference. In Manipur, where social forces retained their authority, the
state’s autonomy wascompromised. This affected its capacity, including that to resolve group
conflicts. Here powerful social forces politicized their narrow identities to capture state
power, leading to competitive mobilisation and conflicts. State’s poor capacity has facilitated
frequent breakdown in Manipur. In Mizoram, where state-making leaders managed to
incorporate other social forces within their authoritystructure, state autonomy was
enhanced. This has helped enhance state capacity and its ability to resolve conflicts. Crucial
to this dynamic in Mizoram was the role of state-making leaders inventing and mobilising an
overarching and inclusive identity to counter entrenched social forces. This has helped with
social cohesion.
Introduction
North East India, comprising the ‘seven sister’ states,1has experienced sustained conflicts.
This has mostly been along ethnic lines and has led to sustained violence and breakdown.
Manipur’s has been a particularly demonstrative example of this dynamic. In media and
policy circles, it has often been considered an extreme case of breakdown, even by Northeastern standards.2 On the other hand, Mizoram has been taken to be a peaceful state.3Commentators have attributed the violence in the North East region to identity politics. They
have interpreted Mizoram’s apparent peace as proof of the absence of identity politics there.4
A closer look at politics in the state will quickly dispel this notion.5 Much of the politics in
Mizoram, like that in Manipur, centres on the question of identity. Political parties and public
organisations ineither state have used ethnic identities to mobilise support among their
constituents. Yet ethnic mobilisation in the two states, indeed in the region, has not led to
similar outcomes.
1

Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura.
‘Violence on the rise in Northeast: Manipur the worst sufferer’, Times of India (Guwahati) 5 June 2003,
quoting Ministry of HomeAffairs, Government of India, Annual Report 2002-2003. The Ministry’s Annual
Report 2004-2005 demonstrates similar results (www.mha.nic.in). According to another report, “If the first twoodd months of year 2005 are any indication, the militancy-ridden state of Manipur appears to be moving into a
more vicious cycle of violence” (Bibhu Prasad Routrey, South Asia Intelligence Review, Weekly...