Reading Gramsci in the Times of Manipur Violence

Antonio Gramsci’s writings are difficult to read but can be interpreted in various ways. However, his ideas are often held in ‘developed’ capitalist societies. This makes it difficult to apply his ideas in a state like Manipur, where class analysis of society is despised, and capitalist forces have not yet materialised. The people of the state are living in a highly ethnopolitical charged time. This essay attempts to interpret Manipur’s politics regarding ongoing violence by using Gramsci-inspired theories while prioritising ‘ethnicity’ over ‘class.’ 

During his public speeches, the Inner Lok Sabha candidate of Manipur, Dr Bimol Akoijam (now Member of Parliament), frequently refers to ‘Meeyamna,’ a vague translation of ‘common people’ in Manipuri. Upon reading Gramsci, I find that he often highlights the significance of organic intellectuals in treating ordinary people holistically and elevating them. In another sense, Akoijam amplifies Gramsci’s ideas about the roles that organic intellectuals should play during crises. He made a powerful case for the common people, or what Gramsci called the subaltern, as the marginalised social groupings in society. However, I am talking about the internally displaced people in the relief camps in this essay because they are now being shunned by society as others. 

Portrait of Antonio Gramsci on a background of the violence in Manipur (writers creation)

Akoijam’s position as an intellectual was assertive during the violence and could influence movements and public opinion. In this environment, he has played a significant role in organising common peoples, providing indirect advice to political leaders, and explaining the state’s politics to urban and rural masses. As a result, Manipur’s glorious past and rich political history were framed in sentimental and jingoistic narratives. It significantly impacts Meitei’s space trajectory and demonstrates the potency of ideas in neutralising violence’s momentum and challenging Kukis’ narratives. As a result, his ideas are institutionalised in society, serving as the state’s ‘common sense’ driven by the Meiteis. 

From this point on, I want to highlight Gramsci’s idea of hegemony, especially the idea of Meiteis’s ‘economy, culture and political leadership’ over the ethnic communities in the state. Despite not adhering to Gramsci’s class classification of societies, I have interpreted his concept of hegemony in the state by focusing on ‘ethnicity.’ The ethnic contestations between the Kuki and Meitei populations reflect the communities’ competing claims to resources, political representation, and ethnocultural identity as each tries to establish its voice and power. 

By carefully forming ethnopolitical alliances with the state’s numerous ethnic groupings, the Meiteis have used a combination of ‘coercion and consent’ to retain their control over the state’s cultural and political dynamics thus far. These hegemonic powers are upheld by its advantageous geographical position, the diversity of its institutions throughout the state, particularly in Meitei-inhabited districts, and its strong cultural, political and economic ties to mainland India. 

The Meiteis have dominated the state economy without serving their narrow economic interests. They have also created spaces for businesses owned by Shikhs, Biharis, and Jains, among others, in the state, moving away from merely using ‘force and coercion’ to dominate and instead forming alliances with various domestic and foreign businesses. The Meiteis, who traverse the state’s cultural and ethnopolitical spaces, have periodically recreated this type of ‘economic consent.’ As a result, Meiteis’ interests became widely distributed throughout society and are recognised as their own by other ethnic groups, legitimising them as a state’s ‘norm and value.’

According to Gramsci, the media, academic institutions, and religious organisations all have a role in ‘manufacturing consent’ and societal legitimacy. In civil society, many social forces interact, create ideas and oppose hegemony. Due to historical grievances, economic inequality, and political marginalisation, Manipur’s social interactions have grown increasingly fragmented, and civil societies have become a battlefield for competing ethnopolitical interests. 

The violence shows a breakdown in communication and trust between Meiteis and Kukis, pointing to the failure of civil society to mediate the violence. The activities of the Kukis through different exclusivist civil societies partially reflect the counter-hegemonic ideology of Gramsci, given the Meiteis’ ethnopolitical supremacy in the state. The community’s fight to alter Manipur’s ‘status quo,’ driven by ethnic homeland politics, might be interpreted as an effort to overthrow the Meitei’s hegemonic dominance. This signifies that Meitei’s hegemony is contested in a counter-hegemonic battle within the civil societies of Meitei and Kuki to create an alternative hegemonic bloc led by Kukis.

However, the Meiteis do not hold ‘genuine’ hegemonic power in Manipur due to complex ethnopolitical divisions between the Meiteis and Nagas of Manipur, which makes the Kukis’s counter-hegemonic struggle against Meiteis ineffective. Moreover, there is a growing ethnic division between the Kuki and the Zo peoples over exclusive ethnic homeland agendas. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Kuki organic intellectuals would win the war of position against the Meiteis and achieve their hegemonic manoeuvre in the state. Besides, these claims contradict Meitei’s organic intellectual mindset, which advocates upholding Manipur’s ‘status quo.’ The Kukis struggle also bears some similarities to Gramsci’s passive revolution. Still, it differs in that it is motivated by ethnic factors rather than being influenced by social forces. 

Lastly, the Kuki community should be capable of making alternative philosophies while upholding Manipur’s ‘status quo’ in light of their counter-hegemonic assertions. Perpetuating the violence as praxis will deepen ethnic divisions. The ethnic communities in Manipur should not attempt to dominate modern societies by merely advancing their hegemonic interests, nor can they dominate purely through force and coercion. Instead, ethnicities must demonstrate intellectual and moral leadership and make alliances with various ethnic groups.