Manipur 2023: Violence unaddressed eight months after conflicts erupt CJP’s Manipur report examines the many facets of the mass crimes that were allowed to break out

19, Jan 2024 | CJP Research Team

As we go forth into the New Year, 2024, Manipur saw its fourth incident of gun violence and firing; the state has seen unaddressed conflict for the past seven months since May 3, 2023; January 16-18, 2024 constant firing in Moreh has left the people of the state, again at the mercy of gun violence.

CJP’s Manipur report examines the many facets of the mass crimes that were allowed to break out: gender-based violence, internet ban, curbs on free expression and inquiry, also examining how India’s constitutional courts finally responded

At the start of the 2023 summer, on May 3, violence exploded in the tiny state of Manipur. By mid-January 2024, over 200 persons are reportedly killed and over 50,000 still cower under threat and fear in the state’s relief camps. Both the state and union government, dominated by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have been accused of allowing violence to fester, unaddressed and allowing unaddressed, the weaponisation of armed gangs in civil society. Aspects that point to the violence being “state-sponsored”, weaponisation of gender-based violence, usage of sophisticated and deadly ammunition, mass forced displacement and arbitrary killings have marked the violence here.

While at the start it was clearly the Kuki Zo tribes that were at the receiving end of the violence, as the conflict festered, Meiteis too were targeted. A demand for tribal status to the Meiteis, largely ethnically Hindu, that received an okay from the Manipur High Court in March of last year is oft stated to be the reason for the outbreak of discontent. Attacks on close to 200 churches, across the ethnic divide have also given the conflict a communal colour.

On the evening of July 19, 2023 a video of Kuki-Zo women being paraded naked and thrown to a mob surfaced finally jolting the Supreme Court of India to act. The incident was from two months earlier –the Print had reported that an FIR on the crime had been registered a fortnight after the assault on May 18; it had taken the Manipur police more than a month before it took some tentative steps. Anyway, before July 2023, for two months before that, while concerned citizens and independent journalists raised the festering targeted violence in the hapless state, India’s institutional response was initially laggard.

By early September 2023, experts from the United Nations had flagged “reports of serious human rights violations and abuses in the Northeast State of Manipur in India, including alleged acts of sexual violence, extrajudicial killings, home destruction, forced displacement, torture and ill-treatment.” The short but detailed statement flagged non-response by the police and law enforcement especially on physical attacks, sexual violence and hate speech in the state. While welcoming the fact finding teams visits by lawyers and human rights defenders, the UN expert’s statement remarked that responses from India’s SC could have been more prompt. 

Today, mid-January 2024, eight months since the “conflict” began in the state, bouts of violence have engulfed the North-Eastern state, with fresh violence taking place in Thoubal district of Maharashtra on January 1, 2024 where four people were allegedly shot dead while five others suffered critical injuries. 

Read ‘How and when the Supreme Court moved on Manipur’

The conflict that has been flaring in the state has highlighted the inefficiency (read: unwillingness) of our state and centre to take charge of the law and order situation and the fires that still rage in the state. Even after employing tools such as internet bans, imposing curfews and authorising the issue of shoot at sight orders in extreme cases, the State failed to bring the situation under control, and rather focussed on muting the journalists, human rights activists and advocates that were visiting the state and portraying the on-ground story. 

Muzzling free expression: cases against journalists, advocates and academicians:

On multiple occasions, the Supreme Court also came to the rescue of the journalists, academicians, human rights activists and advocates who were brazenly targeted by the state for carrying our inquires and fact-findings; the state filed FIRs filed against them. Even tweets on Manipur were reason enough for the state to take action against individuals. It was nothing short of an attack on both freedom of movement, expression and inquiry (Article 19, article 21).

In one particular instance, during a hearing before the Supreme Court itself, the bench defended Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora from adverse comments made by Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta. Arora, who was representing the three retired women judge committee, took objection to certain adverse statements made against her in the affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary of the Manipur Government. Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud was compelled to respond at this aggressive tactic even previously applied by this counsel. “Mr SG, next time let’s keep the counsels out of it,” the CJI had stated.

A snapshot of varied instances when protection was provided by the Supreme Court to individuals from the state’s coercive actions may be read here 

The Manipur High Court, too heard a slew of cases related to the outbreak of violence and the snatching away of fundamental freedoms.

When the Manipur High Court stepped in may be read here

Banning the Internet, censoring free flow of and access to information, Manipur Govt style

As soon as news of violence in the state of Manipur surfaced on May 3, the government implemented an internet shutdown in the state. Multiple reports had highlighted that the internet ban in Manipur has had a substantially negative impact on a number of sectors of daily life, including social media, business, health, education, and business. Additionally, it has come under fire for allegedly violating access to information, freedom of speech, and other fundamental rights. 

Widespread and vocal voices within and outside Manipur have spoken out against the ban and asked for it to be lifted, which others have also petitioned the courts but little relief has come out of it especially with the Supreme Court. On June 9, when the Supreme Court was approached on the said issue through its vacation bench, it had chosen not to intervene. Again, on July 17, the Supreme Court had refused to interfere with the Manipur High Court’s order which directed the Manipur Government to restore internet in a limited fashion in the State affected by ethnic conflicts. However, the Court had granted liberty to the State of Manipur to approach the High Court in case any difficulty was faced by them in implementing the order of the High Court.

What and whys of Manipur’s Internet ban:

On June 20, almost one and a half month after a complete internet ban had been imposed in the state of Manipur, a bench of Justices Ahanthem Bimol Singh & A. Guneshwar Sharma of the Manipur High Court had directed the State authorities to provide limited internet service to the public in some designated places under the control of the State authorities. The bench had noted the necessity of internet for the public to carry out urgent and essential services, especially in regards to the ongoing admission process of students. Additionally, the court had also asked the private telecom service providers to file affidavits explaining the feasibility of providing limited internet services to the public by blocking social media websites in order to safeguard the state government’s concern for maintaining law and order.

This nudge by the Manipur High Court had resulted in the State government constituting a 12-member expert committee on June 29 in order to assess the feasibility of blocking VPN servers as a means to safely restore internet connectivity while maintaining restrictions on social media platforms.

On July 9, the bench of the Manipur High Court issued an order to the state government asking them to lift the internet ban on Internet Lease Line (ILL) connections in the state after ensuring that all the stakeholders have complied with the safeguards suggested by an Expert Committee. The court had further directed the government to consider restoring Fiber To The Home (FTTH) connections on a case-by-case basis, provided that the safeguards put on record by the expert committee are complied with. As a result of this order, on July 25, the Manipur Government had lifted the ban on broadband services after an 83-day of Internet shutdown in the state, however, the mobile internet had remained suspended.

A month after the ILL order, on August 10, after almost 100 days of a mobile internet blackout in the state, the same bench of the Manipur High Court had asked the State Govt to consider devising a mechanism for providing internet services through mobile phones by “whitelisting” the mobile numbers on a case-to-case basis. A period of two weeks had been granted by the Court to the government to devise a method. 

Barring a few days in September, a ban on the mobile internet had remained imposed in Manipur since the beginning of ethnic clashes in the state that is since May 2023.

On November 6, the Manipur High Court directed the state government to operationalise such mobile towers in districts that have not been affected by ethnic strife on a trial basis. The said direction was issued by a Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Golmei Gaiphulshillu Kabui after the Manipur government extended the mobile internet ban in the state till November 8. Notably, the bench also directed the state to upload the copies of all the orders issued in relation to the suspension or curbing of mobile internet data services on its official website. The Commissioner (Home) of Manipur government had issued the said order following apprehensions that “anti-social elements might use social media extensively for transmission of images, hate speeches and hate video messages, inciting the passions of the public which might have serious repercussions for the law-and-order situation in the state”.

On December 1, the bench of Chief Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Golmei Gaiphulshillu Kabui had reiterated that the government could not continue with the ongoing mobile internet ban in the entire State, since internet services formed a part of the right to free speech of residents, under Article 21 of the Constitution. This observation was articulated by the bench subsequent to the State’s notification prolonging the prohibition on mobile internet usage until December 3, with the exception of regions where it had previously been lifted. The Bench further noted that although it understood the risks for national security should internet connections be restored in the impacted areas, residents of other parts of the State would have their rights too which had been denied. The order stated that, albeit with appropriate limitations, no one could argue that internet services today were a part of freedom of speech.

Where does Manipur stand today?

A re-look at the judicial interventions made by the Supreme Court and the Manipur High Court shows that while the State and Centre repeatedly proved inept, unwilling and incapable of deescalating the violence prevailing in the North-Eastern state and bringing peace back, the constitutional courts took it upon themselves to at least start paving the way for restitution and reparation in the beleaguered the state. 

Manipur is yet to be visited by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The state has been reminded of its constitutional and statutory duty to protect the lives and dignity of all citizens, especially after the disturbing July 2023 video of Two Kuki women being paraded naked and “handed over to a mob.” The violence, destruction and anarchy continues and on January 17-18, 2024 as we go to press, firing has broken out in Moreh town, incessantly. Fresh reports of missing arms and ammunition, in addition to the looting from security forces in the months of flagrant violence, and rising “numbers” of those killed, raped, displaced and affected leads us to question on how long Manipur’s agony must continue. 

Did the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) that has both during the Pubjab disappearances and thereafter during the Gujarat carnage of 2002 intervened, and done so decisively, move an inch on Manipur? What explains the relative myopia that marks that institution in the past decade?

Did our constitutional courts, especially the Supreme Court of India, do enough, is a question that has dogged the institution whenever state involvement and complicity in acts of targeted violence have been involved. Arguably, a response from the Supreme Court with stern directives (like those that emerged in July 2023) at the outset in May, when petitioners had first moved the Court, may have cautioned a brazen state machinery, union and state?

The roles played by the Union and State in misleading the Courts—both the High Court and the Supreme Court– by painting a rather “rosy” picture cannot be overemphasised. The reluctance of statutory institutions to intervene suo moto when such conflict is allowed to fester has also become a defining moment of our times

Related:

An exploration of Manipur’s incessant internet ban – a violation of fundamental freedoms

“Gross Constitutional Violations” | Supreme Court of India on Violence in Manipur

How and when the Supreme Court moved on Manipur: 2023

When the Manipur High Court stepped in

Snapshot of Manipur Govt’s coercive actions against citizens: 2023