Jump to content

Talk:2023–2024 Manipur violence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lairencha (talk | contribs) at 11:06, 27 September 2023 (→‎Latest Govt data on lives and property losses). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2023

Either in top section or in casualties and victim section add this.

This is about homes destroyed.

1,988 Meitei homes, 1,425 Kuki homes, 325 temples and 221 churches destroyed- https://www.indiatodayne.in/manipur/story/manipur-files-1988-meitei-homes-1425-kuki-homes-325-temples-and-221-churches-destroyed-569676-2023-06-02

The church and temple is already mentioned but details of homes destroyed is not mentioned. John Edgerlosy (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: This is official data (WP:PRIMARY). We need more corroboration. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Govt data on lives and property losses

In the first para, the data on lives and properties lost can be perhaps updated as Manipur Police held a press conference on Sep 15.

On September 15, 2003, Manipur Police held a press conference in which IK Muivah, IGP Operations announced that 175 people have lost their lives; 1,118 people have been injured and 32 people were reported missing since the violence broke out. He also stated that 5,132 cases of arson took place, in which 4,786 houses have been burnt and 386 religius structures - 254 churches and 132 templates -  have been vandalized.

https://indianexpress.com/article/north-east-india/manipur/manipur-violence-deaths-houses-burnt-police-8941007/

https://www.timesnownews.com/india/175-killed-4786-homes-set-ablaze-manipur-police-data-sheds-light-on-scale-of-conflict-article-103683991

https://thewire.in/government/manipur-death-toll-violence-missing-arms Lairencha (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2023 (2)

Meeteitruth (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"On 4 May, fresh cases of violence were reported. The police force had to fire several rounds of tear gas shells to control the rioters."

Please change this to :

"On 4 May, fresh cases of violence were reported. The Police and Army forces had to fire several rounds of tear gas shells to control the Meitei mob in the valley area.

The Central forces nor the State forces has never fired a single tear gas to the Kuki mobs even to this day during this violence. "

Why are they protected so much? Gy9$y (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Violence FIRST erupted in the Kuki dominated area, Churachandpur

During the violence on 3 May, residence and churches of the mostly Kuki Tribal population were attacked in the non-tribal areas. According to the police, many houses of the tribal population in Imphal were attacked and 500 occupants were displaced and had to take shelter in Lamphelpat. Around 1000 Meiteis affected by the violence also had to flee from the region and take shelter in Bishnupur.

This paragraph says that violence was first started by the Meiteis in Imphal which is absolutely false. It all started in Churachandpur after which the Meiteis had to flee for their lives leaving behind their burning houses and properties. After news of the violence in Churachandpur spread, Violence erupted in Imphal.

Violence was observed in Churachandpur, Kakching, Canchipur, Soibam Leikai, Tengnoupal, Langol, Kangpokpi and Moreh while mostly being concentrated in the Imphal Valley during which several houses, places of worship and other properties were burnt and ... Violence was observed in Churachandpur, Kakching, Canchipur, Soibam Leikai, Tengnoupal, Langol,

It was first and foremost observed in CHURACHANDPUR and it was started right after the rally. Please state this first to be more transparent.

This prompted protests, mostly by Kuki student groups, which were met with violence and by early May, it had escalated into all-out violence. In the state capital, Imphal, Meitei mobs began targeting Kuki homes and attacked Kuki people who tried to flee the city for the hills, where they control much of the land. Kuki villages were also burned to the ground by Meitei militias numbering in their hundreds, sometimes thousands. (The Guardian)

It all started on May 3 when a tribal solidarity march organised by tribal civil society bodies in Churachandpur turned violent. The purported cause for the clashes appears to be the dominant and politically stronger Meitei community’s demand for ST status. (Outlook)

-- Gy9$y (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How the violence started is mired in confusion because there were very few news reporters in the area. Nothing can be stated with confidence without analysing all the available sources. We cannot make definitive statements based on wordings here and there. Please note that Sangai Express, an Imphal-based newspaper, which had reporters/correspondents in all the districts published this under the Moirang section:

It is reported that the properties were torched for launching a counter agitation against the Solidarity March of ATSUM.... Later, a large number of people from Churachandpur side stormed towards Bangla and Torbung along Tiddim Road and destroyed several shops.[1]

The Indian Express reported later that two people were killed in Kangvai between 2 and 3 pm.[2] These are the first killings as far as we know.
Please provide WP:full citations for all sources you cite, and place quoted text in "talkquote" blocks just like I have done above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is reported that the properties were torched for launching a counter agitation against the Solidarity March of ATSUM.... Later, a large number of people from Churachandpur side stormed towards Bangla and Torbung along Tiddim Road and destroyed several shops.
First line... counter allegations were launched by Meiteis. Please read carefully. So who torced the properties first?
2nd line ...a large number of people from Churachandpur..these are the kukis who came from churachandpur and destroyed shops in Torbung bangla.
Two dead bodies.. not mentioned specifically from which community.
Kindly refer the news articles I mentioned in the previous reply.
There are many versions of the violence. Please read them carefully and not stick to just your preferred news articles. Gy9$y (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a debating shop or social media. You need to be clear and specific about what claims you are making and what changes you are requesting.
The claim you made in the title of this section is contradicted by the ground report from Sangai Express. The Imphal Free Press, which also filed a ground report from the area, agreed: There were no reports of any untoward incident till 1 pm.[3] It was later learnt that some forest beat offices were set fire to in Churachandpur. They were not incidents of communal violence. The communal violence occurred at the villages of Kangvai, Torbung and later Bangla, which are about 7-10 km north of Churachandpur. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer this article.. latest from Sangai Express and kindly make the changes.
https://www.thesangaiexpress.com/Encyc/2023/9/24/By-Our-Staff-ReporterIMPHAL-Sep-23-Churachandpur-district-the-epicentre-of-the-violent-conflict-between-M.html
This is a report after months of research. Gy9$y (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEWSORG are not considered reliable sources for "research", but only for "news", i.e., for reporting informatioin that they see, hear and observe. I will read it, but I don't expect it to give much WP:WEIGHT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now rewritten the initial riots section, which took me also "months of research". Most of the national and international media outlets just got their 3-May information from PTI and ANI newsfeeds from Imphal. This report[4] published in The Hindu is typical. The lead image and the embedded ANI video (published at 3:17 pm on Twitter) represent the Kangvai village (visible within the video), but they were mislabelled as "Churachandpur". As per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, pretty much all the reports filed from Imphal in that time period should be discounted for inaccuracy (could be misinformation or disinformation, which is rampant in this conflict).[5] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I ran into this interesting tidbit:

The police told PTI that during the march in the Torbung area of Churachandpur district, an armed mob allegedly attacked those belonging to the Meitei community. This led to retaliatory attacks and the situation turned volatile across the state.[6]

So, misinformation wasn't accidental or erroneous. It was actively generated by the state police itself! The PTI faithfully issued this misinformation for the whole country.[4]

It is clear that it is misinformation because there was no march in Torbung at all. It was entirely within the Churachandpur town, as described by three separate local newspapers: Imphal Free Press, Sangai Express and EastMojo.

Secondly, ANI published a video at 3:17 pm (linked from The Hindu story), showing the violence starting at Kangvai. (India Today published testimony claiming that this happened around 2:30 pm,[7] corroborated by EastMojo journalist[1]) The video also shows the mob accompanied by police who apparently arrived in two separate vans, and we can also see a police officer arrive on a motor cycle. The mob was completely non-plussed, and continued their vandalism unhindered and undisturbed.

It was only after the distress calls from Kangvai went out that the Kuki groups came down from Churachandpur, as per India Today testimony. The police must have known all this, since they later revealed that two dead bodies were "discovered" at Kangvai. But they chose to paint a wrong picture calling it the "march". This also explains why almost all journalists even today believe that the violence started "during" the march/rally. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Initial riots section

@Kautilya3
"a counter-agitation in the surrounding valley areas (Moirang subdivision), where houses were torched by Meitei groups...
"These events caused a large number of Kuki-Zo people from Churachandpur side to rush to the clash site and participate in the clashes, including the burning of the Bangla village in Churachandpur district."
-The source cited makes no mention of these. In fact, it mentions the opposite: "Several houses, shops and vehicles have been torched at Torbung, Bangla, Kangvai and Phougakchao Ikhai situated along the adjoining areas of Churachandpur and Bishnupur districts. It is reported that the properties were torched for launching a counter agitation against the Solidarity March of ATSUM."
Also, your other arguments for your synthesis (there's no other way of putting it) are extremely weak.
-The ANI video timestamp shows 7:47pm. Where is your source that says it happened at 3.17pm?
-We can't use testimonies here.
-We can't use Chongloi's and K.K.Suan's articles, the same way we can't use Pramot Singh's articles, if any. Tms369 (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I got the time of the video wrong. But the other two sources have 2:30 pm recorded.
I will address the "Meitei groups" issue later.
The source cited has this line:

Later, a large number of people from Churachandpur side stormed towards Bangla and Torbung along Tiddim Road and destroyed several shops.

Can you explain what you mean by "it mentions the opposite"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the arsonists.
Several houses, shops and vehicles have been torched at Torbung, Bangla, Kangvai and Phougakchao Ikhai situated along the adjoining areas of Churachandpur and Bishnupur districts. It is reported that the properties were torched for launching a counter agitation against the Solidarity March of ATSUM.'
The only group explicitly mentioned in the article to have torched houses were those supporting ATSUM, i.e. groups from the Kuki-zo community. Yet it has been attributed to the Meitei group. This is a glaring mistake.
Tms369 (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The agitators overpowered the locals and began attacking the Forest office at Phougakchao Ikhai before they were dispersed by the police who fired rounds of tear gas shells and resorted to blank firing. Reportedly, agitators coming from Churachandpur side also shot some rounds in retaliation and set on fire at least six houses and vehicles including a van, Maruti Alto, Honda Activa and two heavy vehicles (JCB) at Phougakchao Ikhai.
The meitei groups seem to have been credited for organising the counter-blockade. They also participated in the stand-off which resulted in stone-pelting between the two groups. But the arsonists are pointed out as "Churachandpur side" or supporters of ATSUM.
I therefore suggest improvement of the lines:
"Reports were received of a counter-blockade at Torbung near the Bishnupur–Churachandpur district border, and a counter-agitation in the surrounding valley areas (Moirang subdivision), where houses were torched by Meitei groups. Two dead bodies were discovered in the Kangvai village and tyres were burnt at the base of the Anglo-Kuki War Memorial gate at Leisang as an apparent provocation.
After the reportedly peaceful rally in the Churachandpur town in which 100,000 people participated, as the rallyists from the Torbung–Kangvai area were returning to their homes, they faced the "counter-blockade" by the Meitei groups. This resulted in stone-throwing and arson of vehicles and properties. The Kangvai village in the Bishnupur district was burnt down. These events caused a large number of Kuki-Zo people from Churachandpur side to rush to the clash site and participate in the clashes, including the burning of the Bangla village in Churachandpur district."''
I suggest the removal of the first paragraph since the mention of counter-agitation is made redundant by the second paragraph. My suggestion would be something along the line of:
"After the reportedly peaceful rally in the Churachandpur town in which 100,000 people participated, as the rallyists from the adjoining areas were returning to their homes, they faced a "counter-blockade" which had been organised by the Meitei groups in support of their ST demand. This resulted in stone-throwing which later escalated to vehicles and properties being targeted. Tyres had also burnt at the base of the Anglo-Kuki War Memorial gate at Leisang by unknown miscreants. These events caused a large number of Kuki-Zo people from Churachandpur side to rush to the clash site and participate in the clashes, which resulted in several houses, shops and vehicles being torched at Torbung, Bangla, Kangvai and Phougakchao Ikhai situated along the adjoining areas of Churachandpur and Bishnupur districts." "'' Tms369 (talk) 06:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I will address the "Meitei groups" issue later. For now, we are looking at The Sangai Express newsreport, Moirang section. It says properties were torched for "counter agitation". You claim this means "the opposite" of Meitei groups? What exactly does that mean? Who is the opposite? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"properties were torched for launching a counter agitation" . It clearly means the opposite side of the Meitei groups, i.e. the Kuki zo groups.
You are free to put the "meitei groups" when you address the issue. Right now, there is nothing to back it up. It should be removed. Tms369 (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain your logic. How does counter agitation against the Solidarity March of ATSUM mean the "opposite side of the Meitei groups"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is reported that the properties were torched for launching a counter agitation against the Solidarity March of ATSUM.
The properties were torched in retaliation of the counter agitation. It was hence kuki-zo groups burning the properties, not the meitei groups. So, the opposite of what is presented in this article is true. What is your logic and justification for this? Tms369 (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the properties were torched for launching a counter agitation against the Solidarity March of ATSUM is that they were torched for the sake of launching a counter agitation. If they wanted to convey your meaning, they would have said "in retaliation to" or "in response to", " in opposition to" or some such thing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of a blockade "launches" with the burning of houses?
Reports about a clash between people who had imposed a counter-blockade at Torbung and those returning from the rally started doing the rounds at Torbung.The stand-off that initially started with pelting stones soon escalated with vehicles and properties being targeted. Violence and arson rapidly engulfed the neighbouring Kangvai area as people were seen leaving their homes and running into an open field. With people rushing towards the clash site, it soon turned to arson.
There was an intense confrontation between the supporters of ST demand for Meetei/Meitei and the rallyists and they pelted stones, used slingshots against each other in the evening. Later, a large number of people from Churachandpur side stormed towards Bangla and Torbung along Tiddim Road and destroyed several shops. The agitators overpowered the locals and began attacking the Forest office at Phougakchao Ikhai before they were dispersed by the police who fired rounds of tear gas shells and resorted to blank firing. Reportedly, agitators coming from Churachandpur side also shot some rounds in retaliation and set on fire at least six houses and vehicles including a van, Maruti Alto, Honda Activa and two heavy vehicles (JCB) at Phougakchao Ikhai.
It explicitly states that there was initially a counter-blockade, followed by a stone-pelting standoff. Arson came later, after the stone peltings, when a "large number of people from Churachandpur side" rushed towards the clash site and overpowered the locals. What part of the article makes you think burning of houses came first? Tms369 (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, this is from a Churachandpur correspondent:
Reports about a clash between people who had imposed a counter-blockade at Torbung and those returning from the rally started doing the rounds at Torbung.The stand-off that initially started with pelting stones soon escalated with vehicles and properties being targeted.
It clearly states that Torbung, a meitei village, first saw the escalation of the stone peltings to vehicles and properties being targeted. The Moirang reporter goes into more details. So again, I ask you, what is your justification for saying meiteis started the house burnings? Tms369 (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kangvai is a Kuki village.[8] The burning of houses (preceded by vandalism and looting) was carried out by counter agitation activists (not by "counter blockade" activists, who are known to be Meitei Leepun). According to The Wire, the counter agitators were "held up" at Kwakta till the 2pm timeframe (no explanation available) and then allowed to move forward to Kangvai and Torbung.[9] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please address my perceeding question first along with the statement from the Churachandpur correspondent. It states that the targeting of properties first took place at Torbung, a meitei village. We can discuss Kuki-authored The Wire commentaries later. Tms369 (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Churachandpur correspondent wrote what they knew and the Moirang correspondent wrote what they knew. Neither of them is necessarily sacrosanct. The Churachandpur version tells us about the standoff near Torbung, where the district border is, and then Kangvai getting engulfed in violence and arson. Kangvai is about 1 km to the north.[10] Nobody said that it was the site of the "standoff". The burning of Kangvai is an independent event, unrelated to the standoff. Two people were apparently already killed in Kangvai. People had left their homes and gathered in a field, as per the Churachandpur correspondent.
I am afraid you are trying to apply your own WP:OR with half-baked knowledge. You have been imagining Kangvai to be a "Meitei village" that was burnt by Kukis! You need to take time off and go read the sources more thoroughly. And you also need to read the so-called "Kuki-authored" soures. Wikipedia' is not going to WP:CENSOR them. If you want to contest the reliability of any source, take it to WP:RSN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tribal Solidarity March takes ugly turn; houses, offices, vehicles burnt, The Sangai Express, 4 May 2023.
  2. ^ Deeptiman Tiwary (26 July 2023). "An arrest, crackdown and deep distrust: Manipur fire had been simmering for over a year". The Indian Express. ProQuest 2841943429.
  3. ^ Thousands march against ST demand in Manipur hill districts, Imphal Free Press, 3 May 2023. Updated 4 May 2023. 4:17am.
  4. ^ a b PTI, in eight districts of Manipur over tribal stir, The Hindu, 3 May 2023. 10:26 pm. (Updated 4 May, 4:59 am) ProQuest 2808794185
  5. ^ Journalists in Manipur wrote ‘one-sided reports’, says Editors Guild fact-finding team, Scroll.in, 3 September 2023.
  6. ^ Manipur issues shoot-at-sight order in ‘extreme cases’ after stir against ST status turns violent, Scroll.in, 4 May 2023. 12:01 pm. Updated 5 May 2023.
  7. ^ Yudhajit Shankar Das, Manipur violence: State is burning, but what is the decades-old fuel behind the fire, India Today, 8 May 2023.
  8. ^ Krishn Kaushik, Bunkers, sniper rifles: Deepening sectarian war in India dents Modi's image, Reuters, 28 July 2023.
  9. ^ Lien Chongloi, Dispelling Some Misleading Claims About the Violence in Manipur, The Wire, 27 May 2023.
  10. ^ Deeptiman Tiwary (26 July 2023). "An arrest, crackdown and deep distrust: Manipur fire had been simmering for over a year". The Indian Express. ProQuest 2841943429.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2023

Hi,

Please refer to the topic, "Violence FIRST erupted in the Kuki dominated area, Churachandpur"

I have given two urls in this topic. Please refer and edit. The author hasn't replied to my topic

Thanks Gy9$y (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please establish WP:CONSENSUS before filing edit requests. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{Edit request}} Add about - "2 Meitei students killed"

Add this

103.251.217.210 (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: There were about 200 people killed in the violence. Individual details about some of them may be added in due course, but we can't just highlight one case. It would be WP:UNDUE. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manipur Violence 2023 is not a religious conflict

Reference: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/manipur-violence-is-a-tribal-conflict-not-a-religious-one-bjp-quotes-christian-priest/articleshow/102214962.cms?from=mdr

Request: Please remove "Anti-Christian sentiment" from "Caused by" section Cherry.pick.wiki (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 👍 117.211.220.140 (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023–2024_Manipur_violence&oldid=1177381658"