1 The State and Societies in Northeastern India: Explaining Manipur’s Breakdown and Mizoram’s Order Mohammad Sajjad Hassan PhD in Development Studies London School of Economics & Political Science 2007 UMI Number: U615518 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615518 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 2 T o my parents, for their constant support. 3 Abstract The conflicts and disorder in North East India have mostly been explained using the grievance narrative - referring to the alienation of communities in the region due to post­ colonial nation making and because of people’s poor access to power, resources and opportunities. But these explanations fail to account for the large variance in political outcomes within the North East. An exploration of the political history of the region demonstrates that disorder accompanies a contested and weak authority of state agencies and the fragmentation of society. This state-society reading of politics may help in unraveling the differing success with political order in two States in the region - Manipur and Mizoram. Understanding the differing capabilities of the two States with political order, then, requires delving into history to study the process of state making in colonial and post colonial times and how state elites used political organisations to construct and mobilize collective identities to acquire legitimacy. My research, which is a comparative case study and is based on archival research, study of newspaper reports, use of public and private documents and conduct of in-depth interviews, demonstrates that in Mizoram the process of state making - involving both the establishing of state and political apparatuses that could mobilize State-wide inclusive politics - was such that it consolidated and strengthened the authority of the state and the capability of its agencies to provide services, manage contestations and avoid breakdown. In Manipur, it was traditional centres of authority with their localized manner of organization that characterised state making. Persistence of traditional centres of power has resulted in weak social control on the part of state actors and poor capability of its agencies to provide services and establish order. The crucial difference between Manipur and Mizoram, then, and which has a bearing on conflict outcomes, is the centrality of the state in the lives of people. These findings have implications for both future research - how to enhance the institutional capability of the state in situations of multiple authority systems - and for policy interventions - restoring order demands that, among other things, the state is made the central pillar of society. 4 Contents Title Page 1 Dedication 2 Abstract 3 Table of Contents 4 Acknowledgements 7 List of abbreviations 9 Glossary of Terms 12 List of Tables 13 List of Maps 14 Map of Northeastern India, showing State boundaries 15 Map of Manipur, showing district boundaries 16 Map of Mizoram, showing district boundaries 17 Note on Terminology 18 Introduction 1.1 Introduction 19 1.2 The Problem 20 1.3 Background 24 1.4 Prevailing explanations 28 1.5 Breakdown as state failure 35 1.6 Argument and organization 44 Section I Crystallization of the state 47 2. Contested state power in Manipur 2.1 Introduction 49 2.2 Pre-colonial state formation 50 2.3 Colonial practices and patchwork state making 52 2.4 A disconnected democratic state 57 2.5 Accommodation and compromise in the Hills 66 2.6 Localised political organisation and the crisis of legitimacy 75 2.7 Conclusion 78 5 3. A Cohesive state in Mizoram 3.1 Introduction 80 3.2 Early consolidation of the state 81 3.3 Social conflicts and contests over state power 87 3.4 MNF rebellion and the repositioning of state power 94 3.5 Inclusive political organisation and the resultant legitimacy 107 3.6 Conclusion 110 Section II Mobilising societies 111 4. The fragmentation of society in Manipur 4.1 Introduction 113 4.2 Class conflicts in the Valley and Metei mobilization 115 4.3 Counter mobilisation in the Hills 122 4.4 The intensification of conflicts 127 4.5 The institutional roots of Manipur’s divisions 129 4.6 A fragmented civil society 135 4.7 Conclusion 140 5. Building the Mizo nation: Include some, exclude some 5.1 Introduction 143 5.2 Reinventing the Mizo identity 144 5.3 MNF and the external boundaries of the Mizo identity 153 5.4 Heightened contestations and challenges to the Mizo experiment 158 5.5 Conclusion 169 Section III State capability 171 6. The Unravelling of the state in Manipur 6.1 Introduction 173 6.2 Multiple rule systems 173 6.3 State agencies and their administrative capabilities 176 6.4 The persistence of exclusivist politics 185 6.5 Rival centres of coercive power 190 6 6.6 Conclusion 200 7. The Resilience of the Mizo state 7.1 Introduction 202 7.2 The consolidation of rule systems 203 7.3 State-society compact and administrative capabilities 208 7.4 Inclusionary politics 214 7.5 Providing security 222 7.6 Conclusion 225 8. Conclusion: 8.1 Introduction 228 8.2 States and political order in Northeastern India 228 8.3 Comparison with alternative explanations 237 8.4 States and their capabilities 243 8.5 Conclusion: Enhancing state capability amid crises 251 Bibliography / References: 255 Appendix I: Methodological note 268 i. Research design 268 ii. Case selection 269 iii. Data collection 272 iv. Sources of data 276 Appendix II: Key political and social organisations in Manipur/Mizoram 279 7 Acknowledgements I have been able to complete this thesis thanks to the help and guidance I received from a long list of people. I am grateful to all of them. Foremost, I would like to thank my PhD supervisor, Professor John Harriss for his guidance and for his generosity in helping me with critical insights to be able to bring the thesis to its present state of completion. I am thankful also for the advice I received from members of my research committee at LSE, particularly James Putzel. My understanding of conflicts and political order has benefited from my association with the Crisis States Programme at LSE and with research on post-conflict reconstruction at UNU-WIDER, Helsinki. I am thankful to them and to Tony Addison at WIDER who was most gracious with his time. Field research for this work involved my spending time in Manipur, Mizoram, Shillong and New Delhi. During those times, I enjoyed the hospitality and kindness of a host of people. The list is long and the following is only selective. In Manipur: O Ibobi Singh, Chief Minister; and officers of the State government - Jamail Singh, A.E. Ahmed, (Late) Raikhan Chhibber, Vijay Chhibber, A. Luikham, LP Gonmei, Dinamani Singh, Athui Pamei, Arun Sinha and GB Sharma. My thanks to O. Biren, Director Economics and Statistics and to Sushila Devi, Director and Abdul Kalam, RO, both of Manipur State Archives, for their help with data and materials. I am most grateful to Pradip Phanjoubam, Editor Tmphal Free Press’, Ibungchoubi of the ‘Manipur Mail’ and to the editor o f‘Resistance’ for opening their personal records for my use, and along with Laldena, E. Bijoy and TS Gangte of Manipur University, for their insights on politics and society of Manipur. I am grateful to the office bearers of different political parties and social organisations in Imphal, and in Tamenglong and Churachandpur, for being generous with their time, resources and insights. My special thanks are due to Huto in Tamenglong and to Nawaz in Imphal for their research support, and to staff at the State Guest House Imphal for making my stay pleasant. Manipur is also where I have spent the best days of my professional life, labouring, struggling, failing and trying. My gratitude to my colleagues, V. Ramnath, DS Poonia, Vijay Chibber, MH Khan, Prashant Singh, Rajesh Agarwal, Athui Pamei, Arun Sinha and Prem Singh among others, for their guidance and companionship. In Mizoram: I am grateful to officers of the State government - Haukum Hauzel, Lalmansawma, Ramthanga, P. Chakraborthy, Thanhawla and A. Lalthansanga for giving me access to public records and documents. My deep sense of gratitude is for David Thangliana, 8 editor of ‘Newslink’ and to Lalkholien, editor ‘Highlander’ for opening their archives for my use. David was most kind with his guidance and insights, and so were his staff members, particularly Zodin Sanga. I am also indebted to Rev. C. Rosiama, Executive Secretary of the Mizoram Presbyterian Synod and to Lianzuala, President of the Central YMA for giving me access to their records and papers; to Lawmkunga and PK Jaiswal of the Mizoram University for the free use of the library; and to staff at Mizoram State Archives for access to their rich records. I am grateful to JV Hluna, Sangkima and Vanlalchuuana, all academics, for their insights on politics and economy of Mizoram and to office bearers of various political parties and social organisations for access to their material. LL Doungel, LR Laskar and Sailen Haokip were most kind with their companionship and hospitality in Aizawl. I am thankful to them and to the staff at the Aizawl Circuit House, for their support.