The Role of Political Rhetoric in Escalating Communal Violence in Manipur
Preview
Political rhetoric has played a significant role in escalating communal violence in Manipur, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict between the Meitei and Kuki communities. Here are several ways in which political rhetoric has contributed to the violence:
1. Dehumanization and Othering
Political rhetoric often involves dehumanizing language that portrays the opposing community as inherently dangerous or inferior. This kind of rhetoric can exacerbate existing tensions and make violence seem more acceptable or even necessary. For instance, the use of terms like "anti-national" or "illegal immigrants" to describe the Kuki community can foster a sense of otherness and justify violent actions against them.
2. Inflammatory Statements by Political Leaders
Statements made by political leaders can directly incite violence. For example, if a leader from one community makes inflammatory remarks against another, it can provoke retaliatory actions. This was evident when Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma's remarks in the United States advocating for a "Christian nation" for the Kuki-Zo people were perceived as a threat by Meitei groups, leading to increased violence.
3. Failure to Condemn Violence
When political leaders fail to condemn violence or take decisive action against perpetrators, it sends a message that such actions are tolerated or even encouraged. This lack of accountability can embolden violent elements within communities and lead to further escalation. The central government's tepid response to the violence in Manipur, including Prime Minister Modi's reluctance to visit the state or make strong public statements, has been criticized for failing to curb the violence effectively.
Political parties often engage in partisan policies that favor one community over another, which can deepen divisions and provoke violence. For instance, the BJP's support for the Meitei community and its policies, such as the "war on drugs" targeting Kuki-majority districts, have been seen as biased and have contributed to the conflict.
6. Historical Context and Longstanding Tensions
Political rhetoric often taps into historical grievances and longstanding tensions between communities. In Manipur, the conflict has deep historical roots, and political rhetoric that exploits these historical issues can reignite old animosities and lead to new violence. The demand for Scheduled Tribe (ST) status for Meiteis, which was opposed by Kuki groups, is an example of how political rhetoric can exploit historical issues to incite violence.
7. Lack of Trust in Authorities
When political rhetoric undermines trust in authorities, it can lead to a breakdown of law and order. Communities that feel their grievances are not being addressed by the government may resort to violence as a means of seeking justice or protection. The failure of both central and state governments to effectively address the violence has eroded trust and contributed to the ongoing unrest.In summary, political rhetoric in Manipur has significantly contributed to the escalation of communal violence by dehumanizing opposing communities, making inflammatory statements, failing to condemn violence, using social media to spread hate speech, engaging in partisan policies, exploiting historical grievances, and eroding trust in authorities. Addressing these issues requires a concerted effort from political leaders to promote inclusive and peaceful discourse and take decisive actions to protect all communities from violence.
