Instrumental Inclusion and Ethno-National Hegemony: Th. Muivah, NSCN-IM, and the Political Logic Behind the Kuki Tribe Union (KTU)
Dr. TS Haokip,
Independent Researcher
Abstract
This article examines the political philosophy and organisational strategy underlying the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak–Muivah) [NSCN-IM] leadership's role in encouraging the formation of the Kuki Tribe Union (KTU). It argues that KTU functioned not as a genuine representative body of Kuki political aspirations, but as an auxiliary organisational instrument within NSCN-IM's hegemonic ethno-nationalist project. Drawing on theories of insurgent governance, inclusionary domination, and ethnic conflict, the paper demonstrates how selective incorporation of Kuki elites was deployed to fragment Kuki political unity, neutralise independent leadership, and symbolically erase the distinct Kuki political question. The study situates this strategy within the broader historical context of NSCN-IM's antagonistic posture toward Kukis, particularly during the ethnic violence of the 1990s.
Keywords: NSCN-IM, Thuingaleng Muivah, Kukis, Kuki Tribe Union, ethno-nationalism, insurgent governance, inclusionary domination
1. Introduction
Ethno-national insurgencies often employ contradictory strategies of exclusion and selective inclusion toward neighbouring ethnic communities. In Northeast India, the relationship between the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak–Muivah) [NSCN-IM] and the Kuki people exemplifies this duality. While NSCN-IM has been implicated in sustained violence against Kukis during the 1990s, it simultaneously encouraged the formation of the Kuki Tribe Union (KTU) as a purported representative body (South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre 1996; Author Interviews 2018–2022).
This apparent contradiction raises a central question: why would an organisation engaged in anti-Kuki violence support a Kuki political institution? This article contends that the answer lies in a concealed political logic of hegemonic management rather than reconciliation.
2. Theoretical Framework: Inclusionary Domination and Insurgent Hegemony
This study draws on scholarship that treats insurgent movements as proto-states engaged in governance, legitimacy construction, and population management (Mampilly 2011). Inclusion and coercion are understood not as opposites, but as complementary instruments of control (Kalyvas 2006).
The concept of inclusionary domination is particularly useful here, describing situations in which marginalised groups are symbolically represented through controlled institutions while being denied substantive political autonomy (Mamdani 2012).
3. Thuingaleng Muivah's Political Philosophy: Sovereignty Without Pluralism
Muivah's political writings and public statements consistently emphasise Naga historical sovereignty and territorial integrity, leaving little conceptual room for competing ethnic political claims within the same geography (Muivah c. 1990s). This unitary vision of sovereignty contrasts sharply with federal or consociational models of ethnic accommodation. Kukis posed a distinctive challenge because colonial records, customary institutions, and post-colonial political mobilisation demonstrate their long-standing territorial presence and autonomous political identity (British Library IOR 1907–1919; Assam State Archives, Hill Administration Records). As a result, they represented not merely a minority but a rival political subject.
4. The Genesis of the Kuki Tribe Union (KTU)
The emergence of the Kuki Tribe Union must be situated in the aftermath of widespread inter-ethnic violence and international scrutiny of human-rights abuses in the Indo-Myanmar borderlands (Amnesty International 1995). Field interviews with Kuki civil society leaders indicate that KTU's leadership did not emerge from traditional Kuki decision-making institutions but through selective endorsement by external armed actors (Author Interviews 2018–2022).
KTU thus provided NSCN-IM with a controlled interlocutor capable of projecting an image of Kuki participation without engaging autonomous Kuki political bodies.
5. Structural Subordination of the KTU
Organisational analysis reveals that KTU lacked the defining attributes of an autonomous political institution: territorial jurisdiction, independent security capacity, and freedom in external negotiations (Author Interview 2021). Its operational space remained contingent upon NSCN-IM tolerance, rendering it structurally subordinate. Comparable patterns have been documented in other insurgent contexts (Mampilly 2011).
6. Fragmentation as Strategy: Dividing Kuki Political Unity
Archival and oral sources indicate that the elevation of KTU contributed to internal fragmentation among Kukis by delegitimising traditional chiefs and independent civil organisations (Author Interviews 2019–2023). This process mirrors colonial administrative strategies that categorised and divided hill peoples to facilitate indirect rule (Dirks 2001). Ironically, an anti-colonial movement thus reproduced colonial modes of ethnic management.
7. NSCN-IM's Historical Hostility Toward Kukis
The political function of KTU cannot be separated from NSCN-IM's historical antagonism toward Kukis. Human-rights reports and contemporaneous administrative records document targeted violence, village destruction, and mass displacement during the early and mid-1990s (Government of Manipur, Home Department 1992–1997). Interviews with displaced Kuki villagers consistently describe these events not as spontaneous clashes but as organised campaigns linked to territorial consolidation (Author Interviews 1995 narratives recorded 2019–2020).
8. Representational Erasure and the Denial of a Kuki Political Question
By projecting KTU as a representative Kuki body, NSCN-IM could assert that Kukis had already been politically accommodated within the Naga framework. This enabled the denial of a distinct Kuki political question and reframed opposition as illegitimate or marginal (NSCN-IM 1996–1998). Such representational erasure is a recognised technique in hegemonic projects, where recognition is granted only to neutralise claims (Mamdani 2012).
9. Comparative Perspective
Similar strategies are observable in the LTTE's treatment of Muslims in Sri Lanka, the PLO's management of non-Palestinian minorities, and ethnic "front" organisations under Maoist insurgencies (DeVotta 2004). These comparisons underline the broader analytical relevance of the KTU case.
10. Conclusion
This article has argued that the Kuki Tribe Union functioned as a political technology of control within NSCN-IM's ethno-nationalist project. Thuingaleng Muivah's political philosophy toward Kukis was characterised not by pluralism, but by managed incorporation aimed at neutralising a rival political community. The KTU experience demonstrates that representation without autonomy institutionalises marginalisation rather than resolving it.
References
1. Amnesty International. 1995. India: Human Rights Violations in Manipur. London: Amnesty International.
2. British Library, India Office Records (IOR). 1907–1919. Political Department Files on Kuki Hills.
3. DeVotta, Neil. 2004. Blowback: Linguistic Nationalism, Institutional Decay, and Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
4. Dirks, Nicholas. 2001. Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
5. Government of Manipur, Home Department. 1992–1997. Situation Reports on Inter-Ethnic Violence. Imphal: Government of Manipur.
6. Kalyvas, Stathis. 2006. The Logic of Violence in Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Mamdani, Mahmood. 2012. Define and Rule: Native as Political Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8. Mampilly, Zachariah. 2011. Rebel Rulers: Insurgent Governance and Civilian Life during War. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
9. Muivah, Thuingaleng. c. 1990s. "The National Question of the Nagas." NSCN-IM publication.
10. NSCN-IM. 1996–1998. Public Statements, The Sangai Express, Manipur.
11. South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre. 1996. Human Rights in Northeast India. New Delhi: SAHRDC.
12. Author Interviews. 1995 narratives recorded 2019–2020; 2018–2022 field interviews with Kuki civil society leaders, Churachandpur and Kangpokpi; 2019–2023 interviews with Kuki traditional chiefs; 2021 interview with former KTU functionary, Imphal.
13. Assam State Archives. Hill Administration Records, Kuki subdivisions.
_______________________
Dr. TS Haokip,
Independent Researcher
Abstract
This article examines the political philosophy and organisational strategy underlying the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak–Muivah) [NSCN-IM] leadership's role in encouraging the formation of the Kuki Tribe Union (KTU). It argues that KTU functioned not as a genuine representative body of Kuki political aspirations, but as an auxiliary organisational instrument within NSCN-IM's hegemonic ethno-nationalist project. Drawing on theories of insurgent governance, inclusionary domination, and ethnic conflict, the paper demonstrates how selective incorporation of Kuki elites was deployed to fragment Kuki political unity, neutralise independent leadership, and symbolically erase the distinct Kuki political question. The study situates this strategy within the broader historical context of NSCN-IM's antagonistic posture toward Kukis, particularly during the ethnic violence of the 1990s.
Keywords: NSCN-IM, Thuingaleng Muivah, Kukis, Kuki Tribe Union, ethno-nationalism, insurgent governance, inclusionary domination
1. Introduction
Ethno-national insurgencies often employ contradictory strategies of exclusion and selective inclusion toward neighbouring ethnic communities. In Northeast India, the relationship between the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak–Muivah) [NSCN-IM] and the Kuki people exemplifies this duality. While NSCN-IM has been implicated in sustained violence against Kukis during the 1990s, it simultaneously encouraged the formation of the Kuki Tribe Union (KTU) as a purported representative body (South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre 1996; Author Interviews 2018–2022).
This apparent contradiction raises a central question: why would an organisation engaged in anti-Kuki violence support a Kuki political institution? This article contends that the answer lies in a concealed political logic of hegemonic management rather than reconciliation.
2. Theoretical Framework: Inclusionary Domination and Insurgent Hegemony
This study draws on scholarship that treats insurgent movements as proto-states engaged in governance, legitimacy construction, and population management (Mampilly 2011). Inclusion and coercion are understood not as opposites, but as complementary instruments of control (Kalyvas 2006).
The concept of inclusionary domination is particularly useful here, describing situations in which marginalised groups are symbolically represented through controlled institutions while being denied substantive political autonomy (Mamdani 2012).
3. Thuingaleng Muivah's Political Philosophy: Sovereignty Without Pluralism
Muivah's political writings and public statements consistently emphasise Naga historical sovereignty and territorial integrity, leaving little conceptual room for competing ethnic political claims within the same geography (Muivah c. 1990s). This unitary vision of sovereignty contrasts sharply with federal or consociational models of ethnic accommodation. Kukis posed a distinctive challenge because colonial records, customary institutions, and post-colonial political mobilisation demonstrate their long-standing territorial presence and autonomous political identity (British Library IOR 1907–1919; Assam State Archives, Hill Administration Records). As a result, they represented not merely a minority but a rival political subject.
4. The Genesis of the Kuki Tribe Union (KTU)
The emergence of the Kuki Tribe Union must be situated in the aftermath of widespread inter-ethnic violence and international scrutiny of human-rights abuses in the Indo-Myanmar borderlands (Amnesty International 1995). Field interviews with Kuki civil society leaders indicate that KTU's leadership did not emerge from traditional Kuki decision-making institutions but through selective endorsement by external armed actors (Author Interviews 2018–2022).
KTU thus provided NSCN-IM with a controlled interlocutor capable of projecting an image of Kuki participation without engaging autonomous Kuki political bodies.
5. Structural Subordination of the KTU
Organisational analysis reveals that KTU lacked the defining attributes of an autonomous political institution: territorial jurisdiction, independent security capacity, and freedom in external negotiations (Author Interview 2021). Its operational space remained contingent upon NSCN-IM tolerance, rendering it structurally subordinate. Comparable patterns have been documented in other insurgent contexts (Mampilly 2011).
6. Fragmentation as Strategy: Dividing Kuki Political Unity
Archival and oral sources indicate that the elevation of KTU contributed to internal fragmentation among Kukis by delegitimising traditional chiefs and independent civil organisations (Author Interviews 2019–2023). This process mirrors colonial administrative strategies that categorised and divided hill peoples to facilitate indirect rule (Dirks 2001). Ironically, an anti-colonial movement thus reproduced colonial modes of ethnic management.
7. NSCN-IM's Historical Hostility Toward Kukis
The political function of KTU cannot be separated from NSCN-IM's historical antagonism toward Kukis. Human-rights reports and contemporaneous administrative records document targeted violence, village destruction, and mass displacement during the early and mid-1990s (Government of Manipur, Home Department 1992–1997). Interviews with displaced Kuki villagers consistently describe these events not as spontaneous clashes but as organised campaigns linked to territorial consolidation (Author Interviews 1995 narratives recorded 2019–2020).
8. Representational Erasure and the Denial of a Kuki Political Question
By projecting KTU as a representative Kuki body, NSCN-IM could assert that Kukis had already been politically accommodated within the Naga framework. This enabled the denial of a distinct Kuki political question and reframed opposition as illegitimate or marginal (NSCN-IM 1996–1998). Such representational erasure is a recognised technique in hegemonic projects, where recognition is granted only to neutralise claims (Mamdani 2012).
9. Comparative Perspective
Similar strategies are observable in the LTTE's treatment of Muslims in Sri Lanka, the PLO's management of non-Palestinian minorities, and ethnic "front" organisations under Maoist insurgencies (DeVotta 2004). These comparisons underline the broader analytical relevance of the KTU case.
10. Conclusion
This article has argued that the Kuki Tribe Union functioned as a political technology of control within NSCN-IM's ethno-nationalist project. Thuingaleng Muivah's political philosophy toward Kukis was characterised not by pluralism, but by managed incorporation aimed at neutralising a rival political community. The KTU experience demonstrates that representation without autonomy institutionalises marginalisation rather than resolving it.
References
1. Amnesty International. 1995. India: Human Rights Violations in Manipur. London: Amnesty International.
2. British Library, India Office Records (IOR). 1907–1919. Political Department Files on Kuki Hills.
3. DeVotta, Neil. 2004. Blowback: Linguistic Nationalism, Institutional Decay, and Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
4. Dirks, Nicholas. 2001. Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
5. Government of Manipur, Home Department. 1992–1997. Situation Reports on Inter-Ethnic Violence. Imphal: Government of Manipur.
6. Kalyvas, Stathis. 2006. The Logic of Violence in Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Mamdani, Mahmood. 2012. Define and Rule: Native as Political Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8. Mampilly, Zachariah. 2011. Rebel Rulers: Insurgent Governance and Civilian Life during War. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
9. Muivah, Thuingaleng. c. 1990s. "The National Question of the Nagas." NSCN-IM publication.
10. NSCN-IM. 1996–1998. Public Statements, The Sangai Express, Manipur.
11. South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre. 1996. Human Rights in Northeast India. New Delhi: SAHRDC.
12. Author Interviews. 1995 narratives recorded 2019–2020; 2018–2022 field interviews with Kuki civil society leaders, Churachandpur and Kangpokpi; 2019–2023 interviews with Kuki traditional chiefs; 2021 interview with former KTU functionary, Imphal.
13. Assam State Archives. Hill Administration Records, Kuki subdivisions.
_______________________
~ WKZIC
.jpg)
.jpeg)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments not related to the topic will be removed immediately.