Rejoinder to the rebuttal by Shri Ngaranmi Shimray
|
Oinam Nabakishore Singh (Retd)
In his rebuttal published on the 3rd September, 2024 in The Sangai Express editorial page, Shri Ngaranmi Shimray made a few inaccurate statements regarding my article published in this paper. Without any supporting arguments and facts to prove me wrong, he started his rebuttal by stating that there were factually incorrect submissions by me. It would have been better and enlightening had he pointed out the incorrect sentence or paragraph and provide the correct ones for the benefit of all. Instead, he made a very general and blanket statement as to the article penned by me. He attributed the genesis of Article 371C of the Constitution to Section 52 of the Government of the Union Territories Act, 1963, whereas that section reads as “52. Authorisation of expenditure by President. Where the Legislative Assembly of the Union territory is dissolved, or its functioning as such Assembly remains suspended, on account of an order under section 51, it shall be competent for the President to authorise when the House of the People is not in session expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of that Union territory pending the sanction of such expenditure by Parliament.” From this provision, it is clear that there is no relation between Article 371C and Section 52 as claimed by Shri Shimray.
While I referred to the “Rules of Business of the Government of Manipur” and the requirement to address specific interest of hill areas in Manipur as a positive suggestion, Shri Shimray stated the same was modified by the Third Schedule of the “Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972. In fact, the said modification is cosmetic and does not have much bearing on the transaction of business by the State Government of Manipur. During my career in Manipur Secretariat holding different capacities like Commissioner, Principal Secretaries, Additional Chief Secretary and Chief Secretary of the State Government, there was no instance of invoking the amendment referred to the Third Schedule mentioned above. Instead of appreciating my proposal to be more sensitive and inclusive in respect of hill areas, Shri Shimray, being a habitual sceptic of the intention of Meitei questions my suggestion.
He may do well to understand that the Rules of Business of Manipur is framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India by the Governor, which is reproduced here as “166. Conduct of business of the Government of a State (1)All executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor. (2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor, and the validity of an order or instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the Governor. (3) The Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion.”
Shri Shimray goes on to blame the Chief Minister of Manipur and Speaker of Manipur Legislative Assembly for not allowing the Hill Areas Committee to function.
In fact, no one including the Chief Minister or Speaker stops the Hill Areas Committee to function. In both legislative and administrative matters, the Hill Areas Committee is competent to make recommendations to the legislature or the Government, as the case may be, which may be accepted or rejected by the competent authority. Shri Shimray in all his writings paints a grim picture of hill areas in Manipur, being neglected in all aspects of development by the State Government.
Any development including economic development is a function of several variables like geographical location, terrain of the area, historical reality, education and entrepreneurship of the local people, investment by both Government and private sector. The cost of providing infrastructure required for development is much higher in the hills as against the plains. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and Manipur Government are investing much higher funds for road construction in the hills now. Road connectivity in the hills is also being strengthened by accessing funds from multilateral institutions like Asian Development Bank (ADB). The new road between Kangchup in Imphal West district and Tamenglong is funded by Asian Development Bank with investment of about Rs 1000 crore, while the improvement of road from Thoubal to Kasom Khullen in Kasom Khullen district was funded by the same ADB.
Shri Shimray blames both politicians and bureaucrats in Manipur for the backwardness of hill areas. Two past Chief Ministers, namely late Shri Rishang Keishing and Yangmasho Shaiza, are from the hills of Manipur. Similarly, most of the IAS officers in Manipur Secretariat have been from the hills as they have been enjoying reservation in recruitment to civil service as members of Scheduled Tribes.
Till 2000, only three Meitei officers qualified for IAS under the general category-Shri Rajkumar Falguni in 1972, this author in 1984 and Shri RK Dinesh in 2000. After the benefit of reservation under OBC was made available, some more Meitei officers qualified for IAS. If the bureaucrats of Manipur are to be blamed for the backwardness of hill areas in Manipur, Shri Shimray may better point his figure to the large number of tribal IAS officers from the hills.
A scholar like Shri Shimray should not indulge in espousing the hill and valley, tribal and Meitei divide and disparity through his writings. Any provocative and emotive statements blaming the Meiteis for all the ills in hill areas will further widen the gap. If he wants the unity and integrity of Manipur, where all communities have a history of mutual respect and interdependence, he should refrain from adding fuel to the fire already lit between the Kuki-Zo and Meitei communities.
In regard to Constitutional protection of Meiteis in Manipur, Shri Shimray should not forget that the tribals from hills have liberty to buy land and settle in the valleys without any restriction, whereas the Meiteis are not allowed to purchase any piece of land in the hill areas by the tribal chiefs under threat from insurgent groups.
Article 371 C does not prohibit the Meiteis from buying land in the hills-Manipur Land Reforms and Revenue Act, 1960 requires permission of Autonomous District Council. It is in the interest of all to appreciate the needs of all communities. How long can Meiteis be confined to the small valley areas of less than ten percent of the whole State when the pressure on the land is increasing day by day.
In the twenty-first century, when opportunities for employment and settlement are available across the world, it will be imprudent not to look beyond land in the hills or valleys. For those who are educated and ambitious, either from the hills or plains, the whole of India and the world is available to grab any opportunity. Thousands of people from Manipur have found employment and homes in cities like Delhi and Bangalore. Will they come back to Manipur to claim their agricultural land ? It is reported that many landowners in Bihar leave their agricultural land to the tenants to till them when they get better jobs in cities of India and abroad.
Globalization opens new opportunities to everyone. It will be good to change the feudal mindset, where the land ownership is the source of everything. Financial returns from agriculture is, indeed, minimal now considering the input cost, as compared to that from other occupations. Rather, one should focus on development of human capital. Any fund allocated for development of hill areas should be utilized for the best result. Tribal leaders, politicians, bureaucrats and CSO leaders should work in the interest of their people. It will be a disservice to their people if they look after themselves only and enjoy all luxuries.
In his rebuttal published on the 3rd September, 2024 in The Sangai Express editorial page, Shri Ngaranmi Shimray made a few inaccurate statements regarding my article published in this paper. Without any supporting arguments and facts to prove me wrong, he started his rebuttal by stating that there were factually incorrect submissions by me. It would have been better and enlightening had he pointed out the incorrect sentence or paragraph and provide the correct ones for the benefit of all. Instead, he made a very general and blanket statement as to the article penned by me. He attributed the genesis of Article 371C of the Constitution to Section 52 of the Government of the Union Territories Act, 1963, whereas that section reads as “52. Authorisation of expenditure by President. Where the Legislative Assembly of the Union territory is dissolved, or its functioning as such Assembly remains suspended, on account of an order under section 51, it shall be competent for the President to authorise when the House of the People is not in session expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of that Union territory pending the sanction of such expenditure by Parliament.” From this provision, it is clear that there is no relation between Article 371C and Section 52 as claimed by Shri Shimray.
While I referred to the “Rules of Business of the Government of Manipur” and the requirement to address specific interest of hill areas in Manipur as a positive suggestion, Shri Shimray stated the same was modified by the Third Schedule of the “Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972. In fact, the said modification is cosmetic and does not have much bearing on the transaction of business by the State Government of Manipur. During my career in Manipur Secretariat holding different capacities like Commissioner, Principal Secretaries, Additional Chief Secretary and Chief Secretary of the State Government, there was no instance of invoking the amendment referred to the Third Schedule mentioned above. Instead of appreciating my proposal to be more sensitive and inclusive in respect of hill areas, Shri Shimray, being a habitual sceptic of the intention of Meitei questions my suggestion.
He may do well to understand that the Rules of Business of Manipur is framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India by the Governor, which is reproduced here as “166. Conduct of business of the Government of a State (1)All executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor. (2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor, and the validity of an order or instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the Governor. (3) The Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion.”
Shri Shimray goes on to blame the Chief Minister of Manipur and Speaker of Manipur Legislative Assembly for not allowing the Hill Areas Committee to function.
In fact, no one including the Chief Minister or Speaker stops the Hill Areas Committee to function. In both legislative and administrative matters, the Hill Areas Committee is competent to make recommendations to the legislature or the Government, as the case may be, which may be accepted or rejected by the competent authority. Shri Shimray in all his writings paints a grim picture of hill areas in Manipur, being neglected in all aspects of development by the State Government.
Any development including economic development is a function of several variables like geographical location, terrain of the area, historical reality, education and entrepreneurship of the local people, investment by both Government and private sector. The cost of providing infrastructure required for development is much higher in the hills as against the plains. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and Manipur Government are investing much higher funds for road construction in the hills now. Road connectivity in the hills is also being strengthened by accessing funds from multilateral institutions like Asian Development Bank (ADB). The new road between Kangchup in Imphal West district and Tamenglong is funded by Asian Development Bank with investment of about Rs 1000 crore, while the improvement of road from Thoubal to Kasom Khullen in Kasom Khullen district was funded by the same ADB.
Shri Shimray blames both politicians and bureaucrats in Manipur for the backwardness of hill areas. Two past Chief Ministers, namely late Shri Rishang Keishing and Yangmasho Shaiza, are from the hills of Manipur. Similarly, most of the IAS officers in Manipur Secretariat have been from the hills as they have been enjoying reservation in recruitment to civil service as members of Scheduled Tribes.
Till 2000, only three Meitei officers qualified for IAS under the general category-Shri Rajkumar Falguni in 1972, this author in 1984 and Shri RK Dinesh in 2000. After the benefit of reservation under OBC was made available, some more Meitei officers qualified for IAS. If the bureaucrats of Manipur are to be blamed for the backwardness of hill areas in Manipur, Shri Shimray may better point his figure to the large number of tribal IAS officers from the hills.
A scholar like Shri Shimray should not indulge in espousing the hill and valley, tribal and Meitei divide and disparity through his writings. Any provocative and emotive statements blaming the Meiteis for all the ills in hill areas will further widen the gap. If he wants the unity and integrity of Manipur, where all communities have a history of mutual respect and interdependence, he should refrain from adding fuel to the fire already lit between the Kuki-Zo and Meitei communities.
In regard to Constitutional protection of Meiteis in Manipur, Shri Shimray should not forget that the tribals from hills have liberty to buy land and settle in the valleys without any restriction, whereas the Meiteis are not allowed to purchase any piece of land in the hill areas by the tribal chiefs under threat from insurgent groups.
Article 371 C does not prohibit the Meiteis from buying land in the hills-Manipur Land Reforms and Revenue Act, 1960 requires permission of Autonomous District Council. It is in the interest of all to appreciate the needs of all communities. How long can Meiteis be confined to the small valley areas of less than ten percent of the whole State when the pressure on the land is increasing day by day.
In the twenty-first century, when opportunities for employment and settlement are available across the world, it will be imprudent not to look beyond land in the hills or valleys. For those who are educated and ambitious, either from the hills or plains, the whole of India and the world is available to grab any opportunity. Thousands of people from Manipur have found employment and homes in cities like Delhi and Bangalore. Will they come back to Manipur to claim their agricultural land ? It is reported that many landowners in Bihar leave their agricultural land to the tenants to till them when they get better jobs in cities of India and abroad.
Globalization opens new opportunities to everyone. It will be good to change the feudal mindset, where the land ownership is the source of everything. Financial returns from agriculture is, indeed, minimal now considering the input cost, as compared to that from other occupations. Rather, one should focus on development of human capital. Any fund allocated for development of hill areas should be utilized for the best result. Tribal leaders, politicians, bureaucrats and CSO leaders should work in the interest of their people. It will be a disservice to their people if they look after themselves only and enjoy all luxuries.