The unfolding Kuki–Meitei conflict in Manipur
- Part 3 -

Pushpita Das *

Autonomous (Hill Areas) District Councils

A significant step towards the administration of the hill areas of the State was taken with the insertion of Article 371 (C) in the Constitution of India. This Article provided for the enactment of the ‘Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act’ in 1971, which was enforced in 1973 after Manipur attained Statehood.

Under the Act, the hill areas of Manipur were divided into six Autonomous District Councils (ADCs). In addition to the ADCs, the Hill Area Committee (HAC) was constituted under the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) order of 1972.

The members elected from the hill areas of Manipur comprise its members, who then elect a Chairman and a Vice Chairman. The HAC is the highest body “at the legislative level to oversee the planning, implementation and monitoring of all development activities in the hill areas of the State”. Furthermore, as provided under Article 371(C) of the Constitution of India, the HAC also vets all laws affecting these hill districts.

The ADCs of Manipur are, however, fundamentally different from that of the ADCs in the other four North Eastern States. Firstly, the ADCs in Manipur was established by an Act of Parliament and not under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India as Sixth Schedule was meant only for the Hill Districts of the undivided Assam. Secondly, unlike the ADCs under the Sixth Schedule, the ADCs of Manipur are not entrusted with judicial and legislative powers.

Thirdly, the ADCs were also given limited financial powers which means that the ADCs had limited ways to raise revenue. Fourthly, the 17 subjects that were supposedly under the ‘control and administration’ of the district councils were not so in reality because they were subjected to exceptions and conditions imposed by the Administrator.

As a consequence, the district councils were reduced to weak and ineffective executive and administrative agencies. In fact, between October 1988 and December 1990, the six ADCs were superseded and their administration was entrusted to the district officials due to continuous resistance by the tribal groups.

Meanwhile, the tribes people of the Manipur hill areas could see that the ADCs in the Sixth Schedule areas were much more powerful and autonomous, and, therefore the demand for extending the Sixth Schedule in Manipur as well was made. In response to these demands, the Manipur State Cabinet passed three resolutions in favour of extending the Sixth Schedule to the hill areas ‘with certain local adjustments’ on 13 May 1991, 17 August 1992 and 28 March 2001.

Despite committing to devolving greater autonomy to the ADCs, these resolutions could not be implemented because the State Government failed to respond to the Union Government’s query as to what constituted ‘local adjustments’.

Significantly, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution in its Report of March 2002 had recommended the extension of Sixth Schedule in the hill areas of Manipur. Here, it is important to note that the demand for the extension of Sixth Schedule in the hill areas apparently does not find favour with the Naga organisations such as the United Naga Council (UNC) and the NSCN (IM) because they view it as a hindrance in their aim of realising the goal of greater Nagalim.

Be that as it may, in October 2008, the Manipur Legislative Assembly passed the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils (Third Amendment) Bill. The amendment reiterated the need to continue with the 1971 Act with necessary amendments.

The amendment increased the total number of seats in the district council from 18 to 24 and provided that the elections to the districts councils shall be conducted and supervised by the State Election Commission. The Act also increased the number of subjects to be devolved to the ADCs from 17 to 26. The Act has been opposed on the ground that the new amendments do not provide any autonomy to the ADCs.

The tribes people persisted with their demands for greater autonomy. In 2021, the HAC drafted the ‘Manipur (Hill Areas) Autonomous District Councils Bill, 2021’ and sent it to the State Government in August 2021 for it to be tabled and enacted into legislation. The new Bill proposes an increase in the number of council members from 24 to 31, with the three members being nominated.

It further proposes that the delimitation of the 28 Constituencies be done in such a manner that three fourth of the seats are allocated according to the population and one fourth of the seats be reserved for socio-economically underdeveloped areas. It proposes greater autonomy and financial powers for the ADCs. The Bill also proposes creation of Hill Areas Secretariat for managing, coordinating and monitoring the working of all the ADCs.

The drafters of the new Bill argue that the proposed Bill has been drafted with the twin objectives of development of the hill areas and maintaining the territorial integrity of Manipur. As expected, the valley-based civil organisations appealed to the State Government to not table the Bill as it contained maximum provisions for the creation of ‘Naga Autonomous Territorial Council and Kuki Autonomous Territorial Council’, to which they were opposed.

Conclusion

Manipur is the most violence-prone State in the North East accounting for more than 50 per cent of the total incidents of violence in the region. Demands for greater Nagalim and separate Kukiland with overlapping territorial claims have generated tensions and distrust between the Meitei, Naga and Kuki communities.

These tensions and distrust are further accentuated by the fact that successive State Governments have been unsympathetic and uncaring towards the hill areas. As a result, the hill areas have remained economically underdeveloped with poor quality of life. In fact in 2021, the Manipur Government ranked quite low in Good Governance Index and was judged one of the worst governed States

If Manipur wishes to experience sustainable peace and maintain its territorial integrity, it is incumbent on all the communities to step back from their belligerent and rigid stands and work towards a compromise. In fact, it is the Meitei-dominated State Government which should lead the way by agreeing to give greater autonomy to the hill tribes in administering their own affairs.

The Kuki community on their part, should reconsider their demand for separate State or an autonomous territorial council because such a council will not contain contiguous Kuki-Chin-Mizo inhabited areas. In fact, this could be the cause for future ethnic clashes between communities residing in these districts.

In addition, the community also has substantial intra-tribe differences and rivalries, with the 1999 Kuki–Paite clash a case in point. These differences could potentially aggravate further in future thus defeating the purpose of a separate territorial council for the community.

The State Government should urgently focus on ushering in industry and service sectors-led development in the State which would provide more non-farm economic opportunities to the people of Manipur. This could potentially reduce people’s attachments to the land. Most importantly, the State Government should sincerely strive towards providing an effective, transparent and inclusive governance to the people of Manipur.

Concluded .....

** Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Manohar Parrikar IDSA or of the Government of India