Beyond the question of territory : The ghost of Art 371 (A)
- The Sangai Express Editorial :: February 16, 2013 -

When push comes to shoves then it is time to take a tough stand.

Chief Minister O Ibobi certainly seems to have adopted this line of thought when he spoke out his mind to Union Home Minister Shushil Kumar Shinde during a recent meeting at New Delhi.

There may be different takers to the .ready to step down from the post of Chief Ministership if the interest of Manipur is compromised at the altar of the political negotiation between the Centre and the NSCN (IM). stand of Mr Ibobi.

A political gamble ? A sham ? Or sincerely and honestly airing one.s political stand ?

Whichever way one may interpret it, a point seems to have been delivered. And not unexpected too.

For ultimately, what the Chief Minister conveyed to the Union Home Minister was not only his personal beliefs but reflected the collective stand of the people of Manipur, sans the cadres of the NSCN (IM), who are from Manipur, as well as the United Naga Council.

The political prudence of striking such a tough pose at this juncture may be open to different interpretations but the geo-political reality of Manipur should be understood. Article 371 (A) is a Constitutional provision and hence there is nothing illegal about it.

It may be implemented or granted to any parts of the country. It may work in States like West Bengal or Assam.

But can this model work in a State like Manipur, where the hills constitute about 90 pc of the total geographical areas and about 70 pc of the population live in the valley area, which constitute only about 10 pc of the land ?

Top this off with the existing land law, which clearly lays down that while the non-tribals, that is the majority community, the Meiteis, cannot buy and own land in the hill areas, the tribals are free to settle down anywhere in the valley area.

It is against this backdrop that the proposal of the Union Home Minister to extend Article 371 (A) of the Constitution to the hills should be viewed and understood.

Rigidity should not only be equated with the stand taken by the State Government or by Chief Minister O Ibobi. The principle of give and take should not be applied only to the geo-polit ical entity called Manipur. It should apply to all the stake holders.

The cry or the demand that the territorial integrity of Manipur should be maintained should be seen beyond the question of boundary. It is about a State of the Union of India.

A State Government whose writ will run in only 10 pc of the total area of the State defeats the very idea of the existence of a popularly elected Government. It is also important to keep in mind that asserting one.s stand for Manipur should not be seen as being anti- other community or people.

It is about the sanctity of a place, which territory alone cannot define. It is also about the people, it is about the existence of a Government.

On the other hand, the NSCN (IM) and the UNC too have made their stand very clear and it also needs to be understood that while one may disagree with their political stand, it should not be disrespected. Agree to disagree should be the principle.

It is a different matter that in the course of the political debate that has been raging for years now, hate mongers have emerged across the divide first spawned by the Lim demand. Imphal via its Chief Minister, the NSCN (IM), the UNC and even Nagaland Chief Minister Nephiu Rio have made their stand clear.

What however is not clear is the stand adopted by Delhi. Perhaps it may be in the fitness of things to tell Delhi that a place or a geo-political entity is not only about territory.

Promising to protect the territorial integrity of Manipur and trying to divide it administratively or politically would amount to talking in two tongues.