The unfolding Kuki–Meitei conflict in Manipur
|
Pushpita Das (Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses)
Contd from previous issue
The State Government dominated by the Meiteis is, however, against the creation of Kukiland Territorial Council as they see it as the first step towards creation of a separate Kuki State. In fact, when 10 MLAs including seven from his own party, demanded separate administration for the Kuki community in May 2023, Biren Singh categorically rejected the proposal and asserted that “the territorial integrity of Manipur will be protected at all costs.”
The ongoing conflict between the Meitei and Kuki communities is also a manifestation of the larger Valley-Hill divide which has bedevilled the process of peace and reconciliation in Manipur.
The Valley-Hill Divide
Manipur has two distinct geographical features—the Imphal Valley and the Hills which surround the Valley. The Valley constitutes the five districts and the Hill constitutes 10 districts.The Imphal Valley covers 10 per cent of the land area of Manipur and rest 90 per cent is covered by the Hills. Ethnically, Manipur has three main groups—the Meiteis, the Nagas, and the Kukis. The Meiteis constitute 53 per cent of the total population and are primarily settled in the Valley districts of East and West Imphal, Thoubal, Kakching, Bishnupur and Jiribam. The Naga (17 per cent) and Kuki communities (26 per cent) which together constitute 41 per cent of the population are categorised into 34 Scheduled Tribes in the State. The Nagas are concentrated in the North consisting mainly of Senapati, Ukhrul, Tamenglong and Chandel districts. The Kuki tribes primarily populate the southern hills comprising Churachandpur, Kangpokpi, Chandel and Tengnoupal districts.
This disproportionate spatial distribution between the Meitei community and the Tribes people is the crux of the problem. The Meitei community feels that even though they constitute 53 per cent of the population, they are confined to only 10 per cent of the land in the valley.
Even in the valley, they argue that they are getting squeezed because tribes people are buying land and settling there, while being non-tribal, they cannot buy land in the hills because of the protection provided to the tribes people under Article 371 (c) of the Constitution. The Meitei community further claims that in addition to the tribes people, many ‘outsiders’ including illegal migrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar and people from rest of the country are settling in their land. They, therefore, argue that if the community has to “preserve” and “save the ancestral land, tradition, culture, and language”, they need the ST status.
The Tribal communities, as evident, are opposed to the demand of the Meitei community for ST status on the grounds that Meiteis are a dominant community in the State with 40 of the 60 legislative seats occupied by them. They further argue that Meitei language is included in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution and they are educationally, socially and economically better off than the tribes people. Therefore, if ST status is bestowed upon the Meiteis, they will not only corner all the Government jobs and other benefits, hitherto granted to the tribes by the Constitution, but also grab land belonging to the tribes people as restrictions on purchasing land in the hills will not apply to them.
The fear of losing their land has become so prominent among the Meitei community that they started demanding the extension of Inner Line Permit (ILP) in the State to protect the rights of Manipuri ‘indigenous’ people. Subsequently, in December 2019, the Union Government extended the ILP in the State. The State Government in June 2022 decided that 1961 shall be the ‘base year’ to decide who is a ‘native resident’. This Government order is opposed by the tribes people. They assert that in 1961, hardly any census official visited their villages because of poor connectivity. In addition, during that time, most of the village chiefs were illiterate and therefore did not keep records of the villagers. As a result, the tribes people do not have the required documents to prove that they are native residents of Manipur.
The Hill-Valley divide is most evident in the administration of these two geographical entities. During the colonial times, the British deliberately introduced the ‘hill-valley divide’ by separating the administration of the hills from the plains.19 This divide was also accentuated by the religious divide between the two wherein the Meiteis embraced Vaishnavism patronised by their Kings of Manipur and the hill people were converted to Christianity by the missionaries who were allowed to function in the hill areas. The British policy of keeping the tribes administratively separated from the valley finally ended with lapse of British paramountcy and the enforcement of the Manipur State Constitution Act in 1947, wherein the responsibility of administering the hill areas was entrusted to the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers had two elected persons from the hills who were in charge of hill affairs, forests and agriculture.
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.
(To be contd)
Contd from previous issue
The State Government dominated by the Meiteis is, however, against the creation of Kukiland Territorial Council as they see it as the first step towards creation of a separate Kuki State. In fact, when 10 MLAs including seven from his own party, demanded separate administration for the Kuki community in May 2023, Biren Singh categorically rejected the proposal and asserted that “the territorial integrity of Manipur will be protected at all costs.”
The ongoing conflict between the Meitei and Kuki communities is also a manifestation of the larger Valley-Hill divide which has bedevilled the process of peace and reconciliation in Manipur.
The Valley-Hill Divide
Manipur has two distinct geographical features—the Imphal Valley and the Hills which surround the Valley. The Valley constitutes the five districts and the Hill constitutes 10 districts.The Imphal Valley covers 10 per cent of the land area of Manipur and rest 90 per cent is covered by the Hills. Ethnically, Manipur has three main groups—the Meiteis, the Nagas, and the Kukis. The Meiteis constitute 53 per cent of the total population and are primarily settled in the Valley districts of East and West Imphal, Thoubal, Kakching, Bishnupur and Jiribam. The Naga (17 per cent) and Kuki communities (26 per cent) which together constitute 41 per cent of the population are categorised into 34 Scheduled Tribes in the State. The Nagas are concentrated in the North consisting mainly of Senapati, Ukhrul, Tamenglong and Chandel districts. The Kuki tribes primarily populate the southern hills comprising Churachandpur, Kangpokpi, Chandel and Tengnoupal districts.
This disproportionate spatial distribution between the Meitei community and the Tribes people is the crux of the problem. The Meitei community feels that even though they constitute 53 per cent of the population, they are confined to only 10 per cent of the land in the valley.
Even in the valley, they argue that they are getting squeezed because tribes people are buying land and settling there, while being non-tribal, they cannot buy land in the hills because of the protection provided to the tribes people under Article 371 (c) of the Constitution. The Meitei community further claims that in addition to the tribes people, many ‘outsiders’ including illegal migrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar and people from rest of the country are settling in their land. They, therefore, argue that if the community has to “preserve” and “save the ancestral land, tradition, culture, and language”, they need the ST status.
The Tribal communities, as evident, are opposed to the demand of the Meitei community for ST status on the grounds that Meiteis are a dominant community in the State with 40 of the 60 legislative seats occupied by them. They further argue that Meitei language is included in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution and they are educationally, socially and economically better off than the tribes people. Therefore, if ST status is bestowed upon the Meiteis, they will not only corner all the Government jobs and other benefits, hitherto granted to the tribes by the Constitution, but also grab land belonging to the tribes people as restrictions on purchasing land in the hills will not apply to them.
The fear of losing their land has become so prominent among the Meitei community that they started demanding the extension of Inner Line Permit (ILP) in the State to protect the rights of Manipuri ‘indigenous’ people. Subsequently, in December 2019, the Union Government extended the ILP in the State. The State Government in June 2022 decided that 1961 shall be the ‘base year’ to decide who is a ‘native resident’. This Government order is opposed by the tribes people. They assert that in 1961, hardly any census official visited their villages because of poor connectivity. In addition, during that time, most of the village chiefs were illiterate and therefore did not keep records of the villagers. As a result, the tribes people do not have the required documents to prove that they are native residents of Manipur.
The Hill-Valley divide is most evident in the administration of these two geographical entities. During the colonial times, the British deliberately introduced the ‘hill-valley divide’ by separating the administration of the hills from the plains.19 This divide was also accentuated by the religious divide between the two wherein the Meiteis embraced Vaishnavism patronised by their Kings of Manipur and the hill people were converted to Christianity by the missionaries who were allowed to function in the hill areas. The British policy of keeping the tribes administratively separated from the valley finally ended with lapse of British paramountcy and the enforcement of the Manipur State Constitution Act in 1947, wherein the responsibility of administering the hill areas was entrusted to the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers had two elected persons from the hills who were in charge of hill affairs, forests and agriculture.
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.
(To be contd)