Today, the main discontentments of tribes of Manipur extend beyond just the Plan development fund allocation. It now covers several aspects – location of major infrastructures, institutions, projects etc for hill areas and other issues relating to sharing of ministership in the council of ministers, empowered Sixth Schedule local self government in the hill areas, and safeguards against cultural and linguistic domination by the dominant community. For the Kuki-Zo, they have been banished from Imphal valley; the centre of administrative, legislative and judicial systems; and they require a political settlement. Leaders from the dominant community, who were humiliated and gave up their leadership rights at the Kangla Fort, cannot guarantee their safety as the valley CSOs and radical elements having tasted success are unwilling to give up their leverage.
Under this intractable circumstances, the options before Manipur are – to allow tribal groups to break away from the state or to pursue a path of honourable coexistence of three communities as equal citizens within the state.
Breaking away has its problems and is an extreme step. Honourable coexistence within the state is a much easier path to take and should be achievable, but much depends on the stance of the dominant community who controls the state government.
The Bodos and Tripuri tribes fought for empowered local self governments for decades and they first got autonomous district councils under Acts of the state concerned. They found that the powers devolved under the state Acts were inadequate and insufficient making them renew their struggle and the Tripuris and Bodos got Sixth Schedule in 1985 and 2003 respectively. The Bodos, however, continued their struggle and got a better deal in 2020.
Article 244-A of the Indian Constitution empowers Parliament to create an autonomous state within the state of Assam, comprising certain tribal areas. This autonomous state would have its own legislature and council of ministers.
It was added to the Constitution through the Twenty-second Amendment Act in 1969. The powers and functions of the local self government given to the Bodos is akin to an ‘autonomous state within a state’ making the Bodoland Territorial Council one of the most powerful autonomous councils in the north eastern states and in the country.
The Tripuris however are still unhappy as they continue to suffer from political, cultural and linguistic domination under their state government dominated by the Bengalis. Their grievances are being aired by the Tipra Motha and inspite of a tripartite agreement between the central, state government and Tipra Motha, the state government is dragging its feet to implement the agreement.
Manipur is in a situation similar to the period the Tripuris and Bodos faced in 1979 and 1993 respectively when they were given autonomous district councils under the State’s Act. The tribes in the “hill areas” of Manipur had agitated for Sixth Schedule and succeeded in making Manipur government recommend extension of Sixth Schedule to “hill areas” in 2001, but with “local adjustment”.
The conditionality sabotaged the proposal as no response was sent subsequently by government of Manipur to Government of India inspite of repeated reminders.
However, in the course of demand for Sixth Schedule, the Nagas lost interest due to signing of “Framework Agreement” which held out lofty promises for a better deal. For the Kuki-Zo tribes the ongoing ethnic conflict which started in May 2023 has made them ask for a separate administration. Further, the betrayal and trickery of the dominant community have made both the tribal groups lose interest in the demand for Sixth Schedule and they seem to have developed greater interest in breaking away from Manipur.
Constitutionally, within a state the most powerful and enabling empowerment of local self government in the country is the Bodoland Territorial Council model. Strangely, the tribal groups, Nagas and Kuki-Zo has not demanded for extension of Sixth Schedule to “hill areas”. This is a bewildering development and appears to indicate their loss of faith in the Meitei leadership. While the Nagas are silently holding on to the hope of a final settlement under the “Framework Agreement“, the Kuki-Zo tribes have asked for a separate administration/state or UT. This is indeed disturbing as it appears that both the tribal groups have lost faith in the ability of Meitei leadership to deal with tribal demands with fairness and justice.
The future for Manipur may have two paths; disintegration of Manipur with the Nagas and Kuki-Zo groups breaking away from Manipur, or creation of enabling conditions for coexistence with both tribal groups and the Meitei community living together in peaceful harmony in a vibrant pluralistic society.
The formation of states in India after independence has been influenced by a variety of factors.
The process was not immediate or straightforward; it evolved over several decades, and the reasoning behind state formation involved a combination of political, linguistic, cultural, economic, and social considerations.
Demanding a separate state is not something that is impossible and has taken place on sole political consideration, Eg. Nagaland.
It is a legitimate demand if large section of people in the state are treated like second class citizens and all benefits are cornered by the dominant community. The leaders of J&K were brought to their knees by Government of India by abrogation of Article 370, granting Ladakh a separate UT and downgrading J&K to UT under direct central rule. J&K is now on the road to recovery from an exclusive society to becoming an inclusive and pluralistic society.
If the challenges of Manipur crisis cannot be resolved by the communities in Manipur, the treatment meted out to J&K cannot be ruled out in respect of Manipur.
The other route, which will keep Manipur intact, is to offer the tribal groups sufficient self government powers, perhaps in ways greater than what has been given to Bodoland Territorial Council, even if they are not asking for it.
The provisions of Sixth Schedule under Article 244-A would resolve several issues of the tribal groups in “hill areas” relating to land practises and ownership, customary practises, village authorities empowerment etc.
There are other challenges relating to “hill areas” for allocation of equitable resource, equitable location of institutes/institutions of national and state levels, political power sharing and major department allocation in council of ministers, established mechanism to address cultural and linguistic domination, transparency in the implementation of reservation policy, etc which needs to be addressed as well.
One of the ways to address these issues could be incorporating them under Article 371-C through constitutional amendment.
The problems faced by the central government in dealing with the dominant community in J&K seems to be similar as far as treatment of the minority communities in Manipur by the state government, controlled by the dominant community is concerned. Manipur, like J&K was doing before it was brought under central rule, has been implementing exclusive development and exclusive governance only to benefit the dominant Meitei community. Manipur is currently faced with many challenges and they include demand by Meitei community to become ST to disadvantage and deprive the existing ST from jobs in state government and seats in higher education and enable them to purchase tribal lands; attempt by state government controlled by Meiteis to redraw district boundaries surrounding the Imphal valley to encroach on “hill areas” in violation of Article 371-C; attempts to extend land laws to the “Hill Areas” aimed at systematical alienation of tribal lands; demand for amendment of Article 371-C to dilute safeguards for “hill areas” and weaken the Hill Areas Committee; and brushing aside the 50 year old demand for extension of the Sixth Schedule to “Hill Areas” and instead offering to amend the existing weak and useless state law i.e. the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971.
The domineering approach of the dominant community is becoming unbearable and needs intervention of the central government.
Further, the ability of any leader under a popular state government in Manipur to handle the looming challenges likely to be thrown up by the census 2027 population data and the next delimitation exercise is doubtful. Manipur, with its unending problems on account of a domineering leadership advocating a policy of continuing marginalisation of tribals through oppression, suppression and subjugation needs insightful understanding and careful treading by the central government.
The actions taken against J&K is extreme, but it appears to be serving its purpose of bringing about inclusive development and governance in J&K UT.
The local leadership have to be weary not to invite the wrath of the central government by being intransigent and unreasonable.
Manipur is currently under President’s Rule (PR) and it has succeeded in restoring faith in the rule of law. The crop of politicians that brought grieve to the state by their inept handling of the various challenges have not changed.
They are the same lot and no one among them could emerge tall and non-partisan during the peak of the ethnic crisis.
They instead displayed spinelessness and subservient character when they paraded themselves before a radicalised group.
Such leaders do not instil any confidence that they have the character, ability and credentials to lead a popular state government that will result in dramatic improvement of law & order situation. In fact, installing a popular state government under any of the current leaders, who have lost all credibility, will embolden the already pampered CSOs and radical elements and negate all the gains made under PR.
These leaders have surrendered their right to rule and displayed their lack of leadership quality. In fact, barring a few, most of them could not convince the people/party cadre of their own constituency to protect them along with security forces when their residences were attacked by unruly elements. How can persons who displayed abject submissiveness and surrendered to radical and unruly elements rule the state?
Manipur crisis warrants a political settlement first before installing a popular government. The key to solving the Manipur crisis is in the mindset of dominant community.
Unless the dominant community condescend and acquiescence to agree to a political settlement for coexistence in a pluralistic society (in sincerity, not just lip service), the road block to reconciliation will persist and installation of a popular state government at this stage of uncertainties will not bear fruits, but invite more trouble. It’s just a ‘nod’ that is required to initiate resolution of Manipur crisis and thereafter the task towards coexistence will be taken forward by those in power. The alternatives need no elaboration and it may not exclude J&K methodology of bringing about inclusive development and governance in the UT.
Ngaranmi Shimray
X Aran Shimray
Saturday, July 12, 2025