Security personnel deployed at Kangchuk in Manipur in view of the security situation in the state. , Photo Credit: ANI
IIn a press statement issued on May 12, 10 Kuki-zo MLAs of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, seven of whom belong to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), called for a “separate administration”, They said the Manipur government supported the “relentless violence” by the majority Meitei “against the Chin-Kuki-Mizo-Zomi hill tribesmen” who “have already divided the state and effected total alienation from the state of Manipur”. No wonder then that, in response to this, a new Meitei committee based in the Valley held a rally in Thoubal on May 20 urging it to protect the “territorial integrity” of the state. Belatedly, Media and public debate has centered around the “sanctity” and “inviolability” of borders.
The demand for a separate administration and the safeguarding of the territorial integrity of Manipur overshadowed the differences within and between the fragmented Kuki-zo and Meitei societies. The road to a separate administration will naturally be a bumpy one. And despite the grandeur of the Biren Singh-led BJP government and the stance taken by Meitei frontal organizations on the “inviolability” of the border, effecting changes to Manipur’s border is outside the exclusive preserve of the state. For this, Article 3 of the Constitution gives the Center the unilateral power to change state boundaries.
a popular demand
The central question then is: How will this demand for a different administration constitute a turning point in influencing or opposing border change? The answer is that the demand has unprecedented popular support among Kuki-zo groups. Earlier there was a demand by the tribal communities for a separate administration in the form of Union Territories or Territorial Councils or the Sixth Schedule, reports the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution constituted by the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government . In 2000, he was called “non-serious” because he lacked popular support. Also in the past, a sustained mobilization for a separate administration remained elusive, given the dissension within Kuki-zo groups and across various sectors. Now, faced with a common opposing “other” who is unlikely to change position on this demand in the short term, this version of the demand for a different administration is likely to sustain popular support and gain more political traction. Is.
Thus, this moment may constitute a turning point in the demand by Kuki-zo groups for a different administration. The widespread degradation of life and land titles, the destruction of property, and the unprecedented displacement of populations across the hills and into the valley suggest that the Rubicon of living under one political roof has already been crossed. As suspicion and mistrust deepen in Manipur, a return to the status quo is now widely seen as the Hobson’s choice. Noting that violence and ethnic cleansing against both sides of the divide since May 3 has come to the fore as a whole “demographic” and “geographical isolation” was pointed out by WL Hangshing, general secretary of the Kuki People’s Alliance. WireThe demand for a separate administration has become a fait accompli.
constitutional gear shifting
This may require a radical shifting of constitutional gears. Three possible institutional architectures are plausible. The first is to provide a separate administration not only for the Kuki-jos but also for the Nagas in the hill areas of Manipur. This includes the reluctance of some Naga groups to settle on their vast territorial project under the title of a sovereign ‘Nagalim’ and staunch opposition by the state and Meitei groups.
The second is to provide a separate administration for the Kuki-zo in the districts where they are dominant, and to resolve the Naga demand at an appropriate time. Implementing administrative convenience and economic viability, the two principal principles of state reorganization in India, cannot serve in this case as a counterpoint against this demand. This is because the institutional and administrative blueprint for this has already been laid down by the existing sub-state constitutional arrangements under the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971, where the territorial boundaries of the district councils roughly coincide with ethnic boundaries. There is overlap. In 2016, seven new districts were carved out of the existing nine districts in Manipur, further intensifying this overlap.
Editorial | Dangerous turn: on the situation in Manipur
Given that Pherzawal and Churachandpur, the two districts where the majority of Kuki-zoe are located, sit on a rich natural gas belt (Assam-Arakan Basin), any argument about the economic non-viability of effectively exploring and exploiting these resources can offset. The Kuki-zo-dominated districts of this demand for separate administration have two important strategic gateways to Southeast Asia (Beiyang and Moreh). This makes the demand for a separate administration a compelling economic proposition. Challenges to this template are districts such as Chandel, Kamjong and Tengnoupal, which are marked by a mix of populations and long-standing territorial disputes between the Kukis and the Nagas. However, this may not be insurmountable if a combination of regional and non-regional autonomy is drawn up in the future.
The third possibility is to maintain the status quo where the territorial integrity of Manipur is protected. Given the increasingly strident integrationist position by the state and frontal Meitei groups, this could lead to the dissolution of existing sub-state constitutionally heterogeneous arrangements under Article 371C, district councils and tribal land rights. Of course, this would require not only an amendment to the constitution, but also a re-look at Manipur’s regulatory and political foundations. The status of Kuki-Zo groups, powerless sub-state constitutional anomalous arrangements or acceptance of any political solution within the existing Manipur state suggests that this impasse is likely to continue.
This means that Manipur will remain a deeply divided society. If the experience of other such societies, including Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands and Switzerland, is to be used as any guide, federal politics or holding together politics would have required genuine recognition and accommodation of regionally mobilized groups. is – not as a matter of strategic convenience but of the majority as a matter of enduring value. The reluctance to do so and the lack of democracy and federalism common in Eastern European states in the 1990s led to the break-up of states, which Manipur may not like to emulate.
jury is out
The debate to protect Manipur’s territorial integrity is likely to give rise to a set of competing agendas, ideas and interests without any immediate solution. Or they may align in complex ways to influence or oppose changes to state boundaries. It is likely to revive the point that defenders of the rights of states and democracy, such as KT Shah, raised during the Constituent Assembly debate against Article 3, which BR Ambedkar had described as a flexible and democratic constitutional provision was envisioned. Shah argued that having the “power and authority at the Center” to effect change of state boundaries without requiring the “consent” of the said states would “not only cause grave prejudice to the units, but even That view would also have serious biases.” Democracy.” In their overarching ambition to protect the rights of the states and democracy, Shah and others forgot another influential member, K. Santhanam, who warned that mandating the “consent” of the states would harm “every province and state”. will have the advantage of “absolute tyranny of the majority”. when they vote down the demand of the minority for merger with an adjacent state or for the formation of a separate state of its own.
Read this also | Judicial commission to probe Manipur ‘caste violence’: Amit Shah
This debate remains unresolved. The jury is out on whether the conglomeration of agendas, ideas and interests of multiple actors in India’s multi-layered federal politics and processes fosters institutions that protect the “absolute tyranny of the majority” or regionally organized Promote and accommodate the rights of minorities. Groups within and across Indian states.
Kham Khan is Suan Housing Professor and Head, Department of Political Science, University of Hyderabad and Senior Fellow of the Center for Multilevel Federalism, Institute of Social Sciences, New Delhi. Thoughts are personal.