On Wednesday, Union Home Minister Amit Shah condemned Manipur violence and urged Meitie and Kuki communities to engage in dialogue. Shah also slammed the opposition parties for politicising the Manipur violence.
“I agree with the Opposition’s claim that ethnic clashes have taken place in Manipur. Manipur violence is shameful, politicising it is even more shameful,” Amit Shah said while speaking about Manipur clashes in Lok Sabha.
Shah provided a comprehensive explanation of the reasons behind the clashes in Manipur and explained the measures undertaken by the central government to manage the situation in the northeastern state. The region had witnessed an outbreak of violence between two communities, namely the Meitie and Kukis, which began on May 3.
While addressing the no-confidence motion in the Lok Sabha, Shah highlighted that up until May 3, Manipur had experienced a peaceful environment over the past six years without the need for imposing a curfew. The state had been free from bandhs and blockades, and insurgent violence had significantly diminished.
However, the scenario took a turn for worse when Myanmar, the neighbouring nation, underwent a leadership transition marked by the emergence of the Kuki Democratic Front party within the military. This alteration, coupled with the lack of adequate border fencing along the Myanmar border, facilitated the entry of Kuki individuals from Myanmar into the areas of Mizoram and Manipur. The resulting surge in the Kuki population sparked a sense of insecurity within the Meitie community.
During his speech in the Lok Sabha, Shah underscored these occurrences as he delved into the subject, illuminating the series of events that played a role in the conflict and highlighting the government’s reaction to the situation.
Providing further detail about the factors that played a role in the clashes, Shah elaborated on how the unrest originated when rumours began circulating on April 29. These rumours suggested that specific refugee settlements in wooded regions were being categorized as villages. Despite the government’s declaration refuting the existence of any such village designations, the rumours endured due to a prevailing lack of trust. The Home Minister also highlighted the situation’s escalation, attributing it to a directive from the Manipur High Court. This directive required the state government to contemplate conferring Tribal status upon the Meities. Regrettably, this particular directive culminated in a clash on May 3.
Addressing the allegations from the opposition that PM Modi showed apathy towards Manipur, Amit Shah informed the parliamentary assembly that the Prime Minister had contacted him at both 4:00 am and 6:30 am following the outbreak of violence. Shah further revealed that the central government closely monitored the situation on May 3, 4, and 5. He emphasized that a total of 16 video conferences were conducted, 36,000 personnel from the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) were deployed, Air Force planes were utilized, the chief secretary and Director General of Police (DGP) were replaced, and a security advisor was dispatched. All of these measures were put into effect by the evening of May 4, just a day after the violence had erupted, as recounted by the Home Minister.
Shah also addressed the question of why the Central government did not resort to invoking Article 356 for imposing the President’s rule in Manipur. He clarified that Article 356 is typically utilized when the state government fails to collaborate with the Central government during times of unrest. Furthermore, he provided the reasoning behind the decision to retain Chief Minister Biren Singh, explaining that changing a state chief minister is warranted when there is a lack of cooperation, but in this case, Chief Minister Biren Singh has shown a willingness to work closely with the Centre.
In addition, the Home Minister also spoke on the distressing video wherein two women were publicly humiliated and paraded naked. Shah condemned the incident as deeply shameful and unacceptable. He, however, pointed out that the video emerged just a day prior to the commencement of the parliamentary session. He expressed scepticism about the timing of the video release, suggesting that if the video had been in someone’s possession for a month, it should have been made public earlier.
