AN ARTICLE was published in The Sangai Express titled “Article 371-C aggravates ethnic divide and stalls progress of Manipur” by Captain (Rtd) LB Singh of Indian Navy on 12th February 2024. He has blamed the provision of Article 371-C of the Constitution of India and the Presidential Order dated 20th June 1972 for many problems faced by Manipur. This is to point out that the facts on which Captain Singh has based his assertions are factually wrong.
Manipur was an independent kingdom and was earlier known as “Kangleipak” prior to the advent of Shantidas Gosai who converted the Maharaj into Hinduism and also influenced him to change the name of the independent country to “Manipur”. This was in the early 1700’s when forcible conversion of the subjects were made by the King. The extent of the suzerainty of the kingdom is assumed from the fact that none of the tribes in Manipur were converted to Hinduism. This may be on account of the fact that the writ of the King did not extend to the tribes living in the hill areas of Manipur.
Must read | Abnormal population growth of Chin-Kuki-Zo in Manipur since 1881
From 1819 to 1825 Manipur was under the rule of Burma. Manipur then became a protectorate of the British East India Company from 1825 and a princely state of British Raj in 1891. On 14th August 1947 Manipur became briefly “independent” till the implementation of the Merger Agreement with the Union of India which took effect on 15th October 1949 and it became a Part C state of Indian Union. Manipur was dependent on foreign power after 1819 till it became briefly independent from 14th August 1947 to 15th October 1949. It was only during the reign of British India that rudimentary form of governance was extended to the Hill Areas of Manipur and not during the days of Kangleipak.
The Manipur State Constitution Act 1947, which was implemented during the brief two year period of independence, was abolished when Manipur became part of the Indian Union. However, as a Part C state, Manipur was given a local self-government under the Territorial Councils Act of 1956, then a legislative body and council of ministers in 1963 under the Government of India Union Territories Act, 1963 and full statehood in 1972.
The contention made by Captain Singh that in the past there was no restriction for the Meiteis to settle in the Hill Areas was because lands in the hills belong to the tribes and it was only informal transactions that the tribal chiefs sometimes allowed usage of forests for extraction of firewood in the hills adjoining the Imphal valley and in that case people were allowed to stay as tenants on payment of tax. The Captain’s lament that there is restriction on tribal lands in the hill areas now is on account of the fact that the Constitution of India came into force in 1960 and it provided that lands of the tribes across the country, not only tribes of Manipur, are protected from land alienation.
Must read | Manipur Violence: 1 killed, Army JCO injured in 2 separate incidents in Imphal East
Article 371-C was incorporated in the Constitution in 1972 as a policy of the Central government to secure continuation of the spirit of the “Special provision for Hill Areas of Manipur” provided under section 52 of the Government of India Union Territories Act, 1963. This provision was made to safeguard the Hill Areas and the tribes living there to ensure they continue to have same protection after Manipur is conferred the status of a full fledged state. The genesis of Article 371-C comes from the legacy of section 52 of “The Government of India Union Territories Act, 1963”. It was not designed de novo in 1972 when the Constitutional amendment took place but the spirit of section 52 of the Government of India Union Territories Act, 1963 and its various provisions were extracted and suitably incorporated, almost verbatim in some cases, under three different documents viz. Article 371-C, the Presidential Order dated 20th June 1972 and the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971.
The Government of India Union Territories Act, 1963 was in force before Manipur, a Part C state, became a full fledged state on 21st January 1972. This Act had a special provision for Hill Areas of Manipur under section 52 which is reproduced below for understanding how the spirit of the said Act was incorporated in Article 371-C, Presidential Orders dated 20th June 1972 and the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act 1971:-
“52. Special Provision for Hill Areas of Manipur:
(1) There shall be a Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly, of the Union territory of Manipur consisting of all the
members of the Legislative Assembly who for the time being represent the constituencies situated in the Hill Areas of that territory:
Provided that the Chief Minister and the Speaker shall not be members of the Standing Committee.
(2) The President may by notification determine the area which shall be regarded as the Hill Areas of Manipur and specify the constituencies situated in the Hill Areas.
(3) Every Minister shall have the right to speak in, and other wise take part in the proceedings of, the Standing Committee, but shall not, by virtue of such right, be entitled to vote at any meeting of the Committee if he is not a member thereof.
(4) The following matters in so far as they relate to the Hill Areas of Manipur shall be within the purview of the Standing Committee to the extent and in the manner provided by this section, namely:—
(a) the allotment, occupation, or use, or the setting apart of land (other than any land which is a reserved forest) for the purposes of agriculture or grazing or for residential or other non- agricultural purposes or for any other purpose likely to promote the interests of the inhabitants of any village or town situated within the Hill Areas:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall be deemed to require the reference to the Standing Committee of any proposal for compulsory acquisition of any land for a public purpose;
(b) the management of any forest not being a reserved forest;
(c) the use of any canal or water course for purposes of agriculture;
(d) the regulation of the practice of jhum or other forms of shifting cultivation;
(e) the establishment of village or town committees or councils and their powers; and any other matter relating to village or town administration, including village or town police and public health and sanitation;
(f) the appointment or succession of chiefs or headmen;
(g) the inheritance of property;
(h) marriage; and
(i) social customs.
(5) Every Bill which is not a financial Bill and contains mainly provisions dealing with matters specified in sub-section (4) shall, upon introduction in the Legislative Assembly of the Union territory
of Manipur, be referred to the Standing Committee for consideration and report to the Legislative Assembly.
(6) If any question arises whether a Bill attracts the provisions of sub-section (5) or not, the question shall be referred to the Administrator and his decision thereon shall be final.
(7) Any Bill referred to the Standing Committee under sub-section (5) may, if so recommended by the Standing Committee, be passed by the Legislative Assembly with such variations as may be necessary in its application to areas other than the Hill Areas.
(8) When a Bill as reported by the Standing Committee is not passed by the Legislative Assembly in the form in which it has been reported but is passed in a form which, in the opinion of the Speaker, is substantially different from that as reported by the Standing Committee, or is rejected by the Legislative Assembly, the Speaker shall submit to the Administrator.
(9) The Administrator shall, as soon as possible after the submission to him of the Bill, return the Bill to the Legislative Assembly with a message recommending either that the Bill be withdrawn or that it be passed in the form in which it has been reported by the Standing Committee or in the form in which it has been passed by the Legislative Assembly and the message received from the Administrator shall be reported by the Speaker to the Assembly and accordingly, the Bill shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, or as the case may be, be deemed to have been passed by the Assembly in the form recommended by the Administrator.
(10) The Standing Committee shall have power to consider and pass resolutions recommending to the Administrator any legislative or executive action with respect to matters specified in sub-section (4), so however that the executive action relates to general questions of policy and the legislative or executive action does not involve any financial commitments other than expenditure of a routine and incidental character.
(11) The Council of Ministers shall normally give, effect to the recommendations of the Standing Committee under sub-section (10) but if the Council is of the opinion that it would not be expedient to do so or that the Standing Committee was not competent to make any such recommendations, the matter shall be referred to the Administrator whose decision thereon shall be final and binding on the Council and action shall be taken accordingly.
(12) The Administrator shall have special responsibility for securing the proper functioning of the Standing Committee in accordance with this section.”
(The Presidential Order dated 20th June 1972 and section 2 and 29 of the Manipur (Hill Areas) Act, 1971 are not reproduced here as it is very lengthy and interested persons may download it from the internet)
A plain reading of section 52 of the Government of India Union Territories Act, 1963 will show that almost all the provisions have been suitably incorporated in Article 371-C of the Constitution, the Presidential order dated 20th June 1972 (including The First Schedule, The Second Schedule, The Third Schedule and the Fourth Schedule) and the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971. For ease of understanding, sections of the Act of 1963 corresponding to Article 371-C, paras of Presidential Order dated 20th June 1972 and the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971 are given below:-
“Standing Committee” under section 52(1) has been substituted by “Hill Areas Committee” in the Orders dated 20th June 1972 and mention of such a committee has been made in Article 371-C. It is also defined under section 2(g) of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1972 as “Hill Areas Committee” means the Standing Committee referred to in section 52 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963)”
Section 52 (1) & (2) are suitably incorporated under Article 371-C of the Constitution.
Section 52(3) is suitably incorporated under para 3(2) of the Orders dated 20th June 1972.
Section 52(5) is suitably incorporated under para 4(2) of the Orders dated 20th June 1972.
Section 52(6) is suitably incorporated as a proviso under para 4(2) of the Orders dated 20th June 1972.
Section 52 (10) is suitably incorporated under para 4(3) of the Orders dated 20th June 1972.
Section 52 (7) is suitably incorporated under para 5 of the Orders dated 20th June 1972.
Section 52(12) is suitably incorporated under para 9 of the Orders dated 20th June 1972.
As provided in the “Explanation” given under Article 371-C, the “Hill Areas” of Manipur is notified under “The First Schedule” appended to the Order dated 20th June 1972.
Paras (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) & (8), (9), (10), (11) and (12) under “The Second Schedule” of the Order dated 20th June 1972 corresponds to the provisions under section 52(4)(a), 52(4)(b), 52(4)(c), 52(4)(d), 52(4)(e), 52(4)(f), 52(4)(g), 52(4)(h) and 52(4)(i) of the 1963 Act respectively.
Rule 12A of the Rules of Business of the Government of Manipur, 1972 brought out under Para (2) of “The Third Schedule” of the Order dated 20th June 1972, is extracted from section 52(11) of the 1963 Act.
Similarly, Rule 157 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, 1964 brought out under Para (5) of “The Fourth Schedule” of the Order dated 20th June 1972 is extracted from section 52(8) and 52(10) of the 1963 Act.
Likewise, some functions of the Standing Committee under “The Government of India Union Territories Act, 1963” are extracted from section 52(4)(a), 52(4)(b), 52(4)(d), 52(4)(e), 52(4)(f), 52(4)(g), 52(4)(h) and 52(4)(i) and they correspond to section 29(1)(xiv), 29(1)(xv), 29(1)(xvi), 29(1)(xi) in respect of public health and sanitation, 29(2)(a), 29(2)(b), 29(2)(c) and 29(2)(d) of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971 respectively.
These facts that the origins of Article 371-C and its concomitant documents emanates from section 52 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 are pointed out to show that the idea for having a special provision for the Hill Areas preceded the insertion of Article 371-C of the Constitution. The genesis of this policy for a special provision for the Hill Areas of Manipur in 1963 is derived from the perception of threat of exploitation of the Hill Areas and the tribes by the relatively more advanced Meiteis and this fact was not lost to the policy framers that they had provided safeguards in the Act of 1963. This provision of safeguards were merely extended, without any substantial modifications, to ensure that similar protection continued for the Hill Areas after Manipur is granted a full fledged state. The threat of exploitation remains even to this day as is seen from the various strategies adopted by the dominant Meitei community to grab tribal lands in the Hill Areas.
The assertions made in the article by Captain Singh can be viewed as an attempt to suggest policy changes for grabbing lands of the tribes in the Hill Areas. Similar suggestion for modification of Article 371-C was made by the Union Minister of State Dr. RK Ranjan Singh who wrote a letter to the Hon’ble Prime Minister suggesting removal of the safeguards given to tribal lands to enable non-tribals to buy tribal lands in the Hill Areas. Currently, there is a demand by the Scheduled Tribe Demand Committee of Manipur (STDCM) for inclusion of the Meitei community in the list of Scheduled Tribes (ST) which will enable Meitei community, if they become ST, to buy tribal lands in the Hill Areas. There is another letter sent to the Hon’ble Prime Minister by Union Minister of state Dr. RK Ranjan Singh asking for a special administrative zone with security arrangement for Moreh including Kwatha Meitei village to protect the commercial interest of the Meitei traders whose cross border business has been disrupted by their evacuation from Moreh border town. The suggestion of continuing commercial activity by use of security force and special arrangement for Meitei business persons in Moreh town could be interpreted as Meitei-centric policy which is becoming a norm these days. All six demands set by Arambai Tenggol are also Meitei-centric making the tribes who represent about 41% of the state’s population wonder whether they have any voice in the current governance system of Manipur.
The current conflict in the name of fighting illegal poppy cultivation, drug trade and illegal immigrants around the foothills of the Imphal valley is mainly directed towards usurping Kuki-Zo tribe lands in the Hill Areas surrounding the Imphal valley. The real intention of land grab behind the current conflict is getting exposed as the conflict lingers on and attempts are made by armed Meitei village volunteers to cleanse Kuki-Zo tribes from the foothill. The current target of the ongoing conflict may be the Kuki-Zo lands in the foothills of the Hill Areas, but a time may come very soon when the Nagas who are settled similarly on the foothills may be targeted and sucked into the conflict. The potential of the conflict gradually turning into a tribal vs non-tribal conflict is increasing as fear permeates amongst the non-Meitei people.
Arambai Tenggol volunteers masquerading as police personnel are openly allowed to roam around in look-alike police vehicles in across Imphal city without being accosted by the local police, Central Armed Police Forces and the Army. The state of current affairs in Imphal city is disturbing as it is common knowledge that the radical elements are in possession of majority of the arms looted from the state police, but no efforts are made by the local police, Central Armed Police Forces and Army to recover the looted guns. Whatever is happening in Manipur is illegal, but the local police, Central Armed Police Forces and Army are stopped from discharging their duties. This raises the question whether the state government can informally allow so called village volunteers to be armed with looted police guns? This has been going on for nine long months without end in sight. It is reported that more guns have been snatched from the police on 13th February 2024. Why is looting only happening from the local police? At this rate a day may come when all the guns of local police will fall in the hands of radical elements.
The free hand given to the radical elements is beyond comprehension. Why is the government turning a blind eye to extortion in Imphal which is happening openly everyday. How is it possible that the police, Central Armed Police Forces and Army are not taking any action to recover the looted police guns? Does the policy of leniency towards the radical elements have the sanction and approval of Ministry of Home Affairs?Are the police intelligence, IB, SIB, NIA and RAW not sending any reports to the centre about the state of lawlessness in Manipur. Such state of affairs should not be allowed to go on and it could boomerang on the Meitei leadership of state when looted guns are not returned. It is also incomprehensible as to why the looted guns are not recovered and handed back to the police to enable them along with other security forces to fight perpetrators of violence. Doing so will transform the conflict into a fight between perpetrators of violence and the state government. Manipur is sitting on a tinder box which may get ignited anytime if such lawlessness is allowed to linger on. Persons in power, who have been emasculated by Arambai Tenggol should be wary of the high possibility of the current conflict enlarging into a conflict of civil war proportion which could spread throughout the north eastern region.
Article 371-C, like other Articles under category from A to H and J have been made for different states taking into account their historical legacies, unique circumstances and regional demands of the states. For instance in respect of north eastern states – Article 371A grants special provisions to Nagaland, protecting social practices, land ownership etc. Article 371B provides for the special provisions for the state of Assam under which the President is empowered to provide for the creation of a committee of the Assam Legislative Assembly consisting of members elected from the Tribal Areas of the state and such other members as he may specify. Article 371C for Manipur provides for special provisions to safeguard that matters related to the Hill Areas of the State are ensured. Article 371F gives special provisions with respect to the State of Sikkim as it transited from an independent kingdom to become a full fledged state in the Indian Union. Article 371G – provides the State of Mizoram for a special provision to protect Mizo religious and social practices, customary law, civil and criminal justice, and land ownership. Article 371H – Special provision is given to the Governor with respect to law and order for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. When the Constitution was adopted in 1950 the Hill Areas of Manipur were relatively under developed and backward. Their situation has not changed much compared to that of Imphal valley which has developed by leaps and bounds. Article 371-C is a special provision provided for the Hill Areas of Manipur as done for other states in the north eastern region to protect the interest of the vulnerable tribes living in the Hill Areas and any attempt to remove it or to amend it would have severe consequences.
Captain Singh stated that Article 371-C sowed the seeds of narrow ethnic politics and failed to promote harmony among the various ethnic communities. As already stated above, Article 371-C and its concomitant documents provided for continuation of the spirit of safeguards given in the Act of 1963. Article 371 A to H and J have been provided for many north eastern states and some states in mainland India to safeguard and protect historical legacies, unique circumstances and regional demands of the states. Article 371-C, if it is allowed to function properly with the support of the state government, Speaker and the Governor, has potential to be a bridge between the people of the Hill Areas and the state government. The dominant community who controls the government should be aware of the dangers of suggesting the removal or amendment of Article 371-C which would be detrimental to the interest of the tribes and the Hill Areas. Attempts of this nature has the risk of it being construed as an assault on the rights of the tribal people of the state; an attempt to take away the only protection given to them by the constitution and could be viewed as an act of aggression. Acting on such idea could trigger a larger conflict between the tribes and non-tribes engulfing the region in flames.
The Order dated 20th June 1972 under para 4(5)(b) states that the Hill Areas Committee (HAC) in its functioning shall endeavour to:- “promote unity between the people of the Hill Areas and other areas of the State by aiming at an integrated and evenly based economic growth of those areas and augment the resources of the state as a whole.” The irony is that the HAC has not been allowed to function properly by the state government and the Speaker of the Assembly. The HAC is mandated by the Order dated 20th June 1972 to “promote unity between the people of the Hill Areas and other areas of the state” apart from the functions listed under The Second Schedule, but it has not been supported sufficiently rendering it ineffective and non-functional. The state government and the Speaker should entrust the task to the HAC for bringing about unity between the warring Meiteis and Kuki-Zo entangled in the current conflict by allowing it to convene its meetings in a suitable location outside Imphal valley within the state or even outside the state as Imphal city for the moment is out of bounds to the ten Kuki-Zo MLAs. This task needs to be assigned as soon as possible in the interest of resolving the ethnic clashes and bringing about communal harmony and coexistence of different communities in the state.
Also Read | Gunfights in Manipur between armed groups continue; 2 killed, 4 injured
Captain Singh has stated that on account of non-availability of land and resources in 90% of Manipur’s geographical area the development process of the state has been paralysed. The Meiteis by virtue of being the relatively advanced community, with the largest population and state capital situated in the centre of Manipur have been able to get whatever they want. They got Manipuri script included in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution and the Meiteis have an advantage now as many government service recruitments are allowed in Manipuri language. But when it comes to the demand of the tribes for extension of the Sixth Schedule to the Hill Areas it has been obstructed under one pretext or the other. All major infrastructures and institutions are located in Imphal valley while the hill district headquarters have hardly anything worth mentioning. If development has to take place henceforth it should be in the hill district headquarters with special economic zones at the border areas and not in Imphal valley or the foothills surrounding Imphal valley. Everything cannot be concentrated in the Imphal valley and the foothills. There has to be decentralisation to decongest Imphal valley and set up infrastructures and institutions in the district headquarters, but this thought is not in the minds of the Meitei leadership. They cannot fathom anything beyond Imphal valley and it’s immediate vicinity.
The tribes have many grievances and the main one is the opposition by the state government, which is controlled by the dominant Meitei community, to the demand for extension of the Sixth Schedule to the Hill Areas. This attitude of denying the legitimate demands of the tribes for half a century since the 1970’s is becoming unacceptable to the tribes. The tribes have seen the benefits reaped under the empowered Panchayati Raj system guaranteed now by the Constitution for the Imphal valley, the autonomy of Sixth Scheduled Areas in the north eastern states and now the Bodoland Territorial Council and are demanding for having similarly empowered local self government. But the demand for the Hill Areas of Manipur where the district council system is in place since 1972 has been refused and scuttled by the state government dominated by Meiteis for half a century. The tribes have been very accommodating to the Meitei community and did not raise any opposition when the inclusion of Manipuri script in the Eighth Schedule was made. But when it comes to the demands of tribes of Manipur the instinctive parochial reaction to keep the tribes suppressed and subjugated kicks in aimed at frustrating all demands of the tribes. Given this evolving situation, why should the tribes not oppose the demands of the Meitei community after having seen their response towards the demands of the tribes especially, for extension of the Sixth Schedule to the Hill Areas and the step-motherly treatment towards the tribes in all spheres of life?
Captain Singh has made an insinuation that the Nagas and Kukis were guided by church leaders to become ST in 1950. Look around the entire north eastern states and assess whether any indigenous hill tribes including plain tribes were left out in 1950 and 1951 Orders based on 1931 Census? None. Wherever there was lack of clarity of the names of tribes the Orders clearly indicate the word “Any” and the Orders for the states read as Any Naga tribes, Any Kuki tribes, Any Mizo tribes and Lushai tribes. None of the tribal groups were missed out as their attributes of tribal practises and their categorisation in 1931 Census left no doubts about their status. No community is to be blamed for the Meiteis not finding themselves in the ST list, but themselves. It is clear that the haughty Meitei elite in the 1950’s felt insulted by the very thought of being categorised as SC or ST. This is true even during the Chief Ministership of Nipamacha Singh when it was asserted that the Meitei people are Hindus and have assumed the status of Kshatriya Caste and are already listed as OBC. For reasons best known to the eminent Meitei personalities during the 1950’s it appears that they have not demanded ST categorisation for the Meitei community or did not protest when they were left out from the ST list. As for the Nagas and Kukis, there was no hesitation and the tribes of Manipur, including those living in the Imphal valley were included in the list of ST in the 1951 Order and subsequent amendments.
Must read | Mrs Hume’s Pheasant Community Reserve Opens In Jessami
The current demand for ST status for Meiteis do not appear to be based on scientific grounds, recent third party data and information bereft of ground realities. It appears to be based more on emotional consideration driven by their desire to grab tribal lands in the Hill Areas. Unconcealed intention to grab lands in the Hill Areas from the tribes has become an unhealthy obsession for the Meitei community and this relentless hunger for tribal lands could trigger a civil war in the state. Any aggressive move to take over tribal lands in the Hill Areas is likely to be perceived by the tribals as an attack on their lands which they hold dear to their hearts. No tribe worth its name will allow their lands to be usurped through subterfuge, force and devious methods. They would rather lay down their lives to protect it. The Meitei community need to understand the emotional attachment of land to the tribes and explore other ways of utilising tribal lands in the Hill Areas through dialogue and negotiation.
The current attempt to take over certain areas in the foothills by use of force in the guise of fighting perpetrators of violence should be stopped as it will not end in a happy note. The advise is to tread the path of reconciliation, peace, coexistence and think of another way to share the fruits of development with the tribes through dialogue and negotiation for peaceful coexistence.
Considering the current tenor of confrontationist policy by both sides, Manipur may soon become untenable as various forces are pulling the state in different directions and may eventually tear Manipur apart. The seeds of hatred are getting rooted deeply. Nothing can work if the attitude is only selfish greed and force to take benefits of infrastructure and institutions for the Imphal valley only with no magnanimous or generous consideration to give and share the benefits with the hill district headquarters. A change in attitude of the dominant community is desirable if the forces pulling Manipur apart has to be stopped for the sake of harmonious coexistence.
FOLLOW OUR WhatsApp Channel
Ngaranmi Shimray is an activist and political observer based in New Delhi. View are personal. Shimray2011@gmail.com. Feedback/comment @Aran Shimray on X.
This is not a Ukhrul Times publication. UT is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse its content. Any reports or views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of Ukhrul Times.
About The Author
