Abstract

Knowledge production and literature around the domain of Tribes in India is still very limited. There are huge volumes of socio, economic, political and cultural reality which remains unexplored and unrepresented in mainstream discourse till today. Also, some works which are systematically done are mostly outsider’s perspectives grounded from a colonial lens mostly stemming from dominant narratives. Undeniably there are political prejudices against the tribes and tribal society in India; the imposition of state political institution has created confusion and chaos in the governance structure in many tribal areas. Today “Governance” has become a point of concern. At the same time, contentious vis., state processes. This is observed particularly in Hill areas (Tribes) of Manipur. Since time immemorial, tribes have predominantly governed themselves framed around their traditional forms of social and political institutions. That was witnessed in the pre-colonial era and even in the post-colonial era with the village being seen as the highest form of political institution (republic). This article engages with these complex issues concerning governance especially in those areas in which traditional governance systems intersect with state systems.

Introduction

Among the Tangkhul tribe, the village council is the basis for governance and is represented through clan system under the village chief or headman. The system of representation is hereditary in nature following permanent membership. Till today it is still practiced and remains relevant in most of the villages inhabited by the Tangkhuls. It is generally believed that the system is democratic and accountable. On the other hand, Tangkhuls are witnessing the entry and working of democratic political institution through various laws and legislations like; Manipur village authorities (hill areas) Act, 1956 and Manipur (hill areas) district council Act, 1971. No matter how we look at it, this structure is external and sometimes viewed by Thankhuls as an imposition by state to produce some homogenous concept of a nation state.

In this paradigm shift from the traditional to the ‘modern’ (if I may use the word), where the notion of development and concomitant development models are perceived as way to empowerment, it becomes imperative to revisit the two intersecting historical trends of governance structure. This article is an outcome of a study that examines the different elements of traditional political institutions, governing processes and the aspects of relevancy today. It further also explores the emerging trends of ‘modern’ democratic political institution, debates and contestation concerning social, economic and political rights.

Laying the Context

Tribal governance constitutes a unique place in the Indian context at both the field reality as well as in the constitutional domain. Therefore, the issues of governance, concerns and elements of contention are often generated in relation with the state process. Similarly, Tribal’s in Manipur experience a huge debate witnessing a series of contentious legislations and harsh political de facto since the dawn of India’s independence. The empirical study of governance in respect to hill areas of Manipur is iterative despite of the fact that a number of literatures being written by a number of scholars, policy makers; yet nothing valid rational legislation and policy reformation has brought in which serve the interest of the tribal people as well as for the government within the actual framework of democratic participation and decentralization. The reason may be least has done a holistic research considering on both the standpoint and aspirations of the two categorizing domain and complication of associating factors. The asymmetrical federation of power structure of governance in Manipur which is heavily debated and contested today and have created tensions between the tribal’s and Meitei(majority dominant community) has need to be studied and deliberately discuss within a unit of rationality without any content of communal elements and biasness. The need of studying the Power structure, laws and legislation of the federal state of Manipur in relation with the tribal’s socio-cultural and political reality which has a contestation with the state legislation has resulted several political unrest in the state over the few decades. Thus there is a need to relook and revisit the minute details and aspects of asymmetrical federalism as a political framework of accommodating diverse ethno-minorities groups.

Manipur as a modern state, posit a contested differences between different ethnic communities viz, Meitei, kukis and the Nagas for certain political, economic and cultural interest and aspirations. Meitei’s constitute a dominant community in the state whereby they had a greater political holds of power and vantage so as compare to hilly tribal’s because of their larger population, ruling history of Meitei maharaja and closer associatedness with the British political agents during the colonial era. Economically they are in better position due to its geographical location, better accessibility to markets, better educational status; enjoy better political power as compare to the hill tribes. Meitei resides in the valley area of the state occupied roughly a 10 percent of total geographical area which constitute 53 percent of state population. They belong to OBC category in the Indian constitutional categorization while the hilly people both Nagas and Kukis lived the hill areas of Manipur occupied roughly the 90 percent of total geographical area with approx 45 % of state population. They both belong to a ST category. Since colonial rule, Manipur represent unique features of political legitimacy; enjoy the status of princely state even during and after the colonial administration. In the late 1930s, the princely state of Manipur negotiated with the British administration its preference to be part of India, rather than Burma due to continuous invasion from Burma in fact British help them in sending the Burmese troops back. These negotiations were cut short with the outbreak of World War II. Later after the colonial rule, On 21 September 1949, Maharaja Budhachandra signed a Treaty of Accession merging the kingdom into India. This merger has resulted in a 50-year insurgency in the state for independence from India, as well as in violence between ethnic groups in the state. This merger is heavily disputed by various tribal groups in Manipur as having been completed without consensus from them. In 1972 Manipur attained statehood in Indian nation. With the attainment of statehood new structure of governing system and institutions were formed to run the government. Hence Manipur legislative assembly was deliberately instituted adopting the Indian constitution as a supreme law. The representation in the assembly was again sort of sensitive concern due to ethnic feelings of different ethnic groups claiming that they are merged with the Indian nation without their consensus constitutes to be minority in the state. Nevertheless, the formation goes ahead shared by total number of population occupied within a geographical area. As a result, out of 60 MLAS 40 MLAS are represented from the Meitei (the dominant majority groups) and 20 are represented from the Tribal minority group shared between Nagas and Kukis. This is one of the basic fundamental root causes of today’s instability of governance and communal tension. The ascension of Manipur to the Indian state without the proper consensus of the Tribal’s groups was summed up by the unequal representation without any consideration to ethnic diversity and aspiration considering number as an ultimate deciding factor of power representation.

The more contesting domain in the state of Manipur was the provision of Manipur hill areas district council act 1971 in hilly areas without any legislative and financial power; where tribal were denied the implementation of six schedules in the hill areas of Manipur precluding the notion that it may affect the integrity of the state. Despite of continuous demands for the implementation of 6 th schedule by the tribal’s, recommended from HAC (hill areas committee), and appointed committees from the central government, it was not implemented it is denied having a paternalistic and managerial control over the administration of the hill areas. Moreover, the traditional political institution which is the basis for political accountability and responsibility in every independent village is further denied in the eyes of the state legislation considering it as undemocratic. This denial has created deeper communal tensions and division between Tribal’s vs. Meitei. However among the two ethnic groups i.e. Naga and Kuki has their own ethnic aspiration and demands which again another complicated one from the state vantage whereby the existing legislation and provision of the state is incapable of accommodate their demands.

The Manipur hill areas district council act 1971 is one a most contentious legislation in the light of the above discussion, where the idea and concept of autonomy and governance is hugely debated at the level of politics, policy making, academia between the Tribals and state process which the state process is strongly hold by the majoritarian politics of Meitei. This has also brought to huge losses and unrest in the state. However till today, the ultimate solution is still at blurred and is seen nowhere in a healthy political dialogue discussion and policies. Extreme oppose to one another has dilute the space of rationality. The politics of governance in Manipur particular with the hilly areas of Manipur is something a matter to look closely at, when one talks o governance, autonomy, development within the premise of state processes.

The concept of democratic decentralization though widely used in other parts of India loses its strength in hilly areas of Manipur as there was strong foreground of traditional structure of governance at the village level which resist and fail to accommodate the modern democratic structure which is more of top-down and has an elements of paternalistic control. On the other hand, the state democratic structure also fail to recognized and incorporate the existing traditional structure for the fact that, the state process intends to indirectly control through certain legislations and developmental schemes and programs. In the course of this contestation various political assertion and realities have emerged; the debates and the incorporation of the election system at the village level, debates on women participation, strengthening ethnic politics etc. leaning onto the universal social-economic and political rights, which in fact challenge the traditional customary structure. The division of political beliefs and principles among the tribal people brings confusion and inexplicability in the light of power structure in governance.

Development is seen as the inseparable part of the governance system within its framework. Without an accepted structure of governance and the tribal friendly service delivery system, development in hilly will take place in different discourse which may witness a continuity of political unrest and further debates of dissolution. The concept of autonomy or the so called 6 th scheduled which has been demanded by the hilly tribal’s and the plain people (Meitei) have been so much driven by extreme viewpoint of understanding which is inexplicable on both the sides. The rationality of understanding and explanation has to hold on to these two viewpoints.

Manipur: land and the people

“Manipur” which is also known as a jewel of India is one of the small states in north east India bordering with international boundary of Myanmar. It is surrounded by Nagaland in the north, Mizoram in the south, Assam to the east and the entire eastern border shared to Burma (Myanmar). The state covers the area of 22,327 square kilometers which constitute 0.7 percent of India geographical area with 3 million people sharing roughly 0.27 percent of total population of the country. The state is composed of three major ethnic communities namely, Meitei, Nagas and Kukis. Meitei as a dominant ethnic group has OBC (other backward classes) status in the Indian constitution and the Nagas and Kukis who are considered tribal’s enjoy the status of ST(schedule tribe) in the Indian constitution. Yet within the Nagas and Kukis identity, there are other number of Tribes and sub tribes.

Meitei constitute the population of 53 percent of state population and the Tribal’s constitute the population of 43% (shared by Nagas and the Kukis) and the remaining population are from outside like; Bengali, Bangladeshi Muslims, Nepali etc. 90 % of total geographical areas are hilly terrain known as the homeland of ethnic tribal groups and only 10% is plain known as the homeland of Meitei’s which the capital city (Imphal) is located. The main language of the state is Meitei (also known as Manipuri) and English as a common language however in hilly areas ethic tribal language like Tangkhul in Ukhrul, Rongmei in Tamenglong, Poumai and Mao in senapati, Mizo, paite and Kuki chin in Churachanpur district are nevertheless English is spoken everywhere due to early Christianization in the tribal areas. According to 2011 census, Hinduism is the major religion largely practices by the Meitei in the state closely followed by Christianity majorly in hill tribal areas . Other religions include Islam, Buddhism, “Tinkao Rawang” (indigenous religion practice by Rongmei tribe), etc.

The literacy rate of Manipur is 79.21 percent according to 2011 census. Geographically Manipur has a viability been at the crossroads of Asian economic and cultural exchange for more than 2,500 years. It has long connected the Indian subcontinent to Southeast Asia, enabling migration of people, cultures and religions and now the trade and business with the south East Asian countries under the act east policy India.

Political administration

After the contentious merger with India in 1949, it was a single administrative unit up to October, 1969 but after the attainment of full-fledged statehood in 1972, Manipur has 9 districts comprise of 5 hill districts and 4 valley districts. Namely, Ukhul district, Senapati district, Churachanpur district, Chandel district, Tamenglong district, bishnupur district, thoubal district, imphal-east and imphal-west. Recently in 2016, in purview of administrative convenience and changing nature of federal demands and structure the state government announces another 7 new district viz, Kamjong district, Jiribam district, kakching district, kangpokpi district, Noney district, Tengnoupal and Pherzawl district. Now altogether Manipur state has 16 administrative districts. According to 2001 census, there are 38 subdivisions (24 in the five hills district, 14 in the valley districts), 33 towns and 2391 villages in Manipur

The four districts in the valley are governed by the nine Municipal Council and 18 Nagar Panchayats under 73 rd amendment act (PRIs) for local self government; while the five hill districts are governed by six Autonomous District Councils of 1971 which in fact is the most contentious legislation till today. Manipur is divided into 60 Assembly Constituencies, 40 are in the 4 valley districts while 20 are from the 5 tribal hill districts. This unequal distribution of constituencies in plain and hills simply based on number is one of the fundamental points of contention in the federal politics of Manipur between the Meitei’s and the tribal’s.

Tangkhul’s and their political administration

Tangkhuls are one of the Naga tribe living in the area of Indo-Myanmar border occupying the Ukhrul district of Manipur and the Somra Tangkhul hills (Somra tract) in Upper Burma, despite this international border, many Tangkhul have continued to regard themselves as “one nation. The Tangkhuls, as with other tribes on the hills, came to stay in today’s state like Manipur, Nagaland, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh from China through Myanmar entering their present habitats in successive waves of immigration. The Tangkhuls came together with the Maos, Poumei’s, Marams and Thangals because all of them have references to their dispersal from Makhel, a Mao village in Senapati which they also had erected megaliths at Makhel in memory of their having dispersed from there to various directions. This is the one of the basic premises which they claim today a “Naga identity” for them.

According to the latest research there are approximately 280 Tangkhul villages which Every Tangkhul village is a small republic like the Greek city states. Every village had an unwritten constitution made up of age-old conventions and traditions. The Tangkhul tribe has more than a hundred dialects – each village has its own dialect. Although they speak more than a hundred dialects, the lingua franca is the Hunphun (Ukhrul) dialect.

As mentioned above, Tangkhuls occupied the Ukhrul district of Manipur which is located in the north eastern part of Manipur bordering Myanmar covering 4544 square kl. and it is the second largest district in terms of size in the state. It lies about 84 kilometers north east from Imphal capital . According to the 2011 census Ukhrul district has a population of 183,115. Its population growth rate over the decade 2001-2011 was 30.07%. Ukhrul has a sex ratio of 948 female for every 1000 males, and the literacy rate of 81.87% which is 2% higher than the literacy rate of the state (79.85 percent). The official language of the district is Tangkhul Naga which is one of the first Tribal languages recognized under CBSE from north east.

As Tangkhul Naga are uniquely known by their republic nature of every village with absolute socio-cultural and political power in a true sense. Tangkhuls does have their own written and unwritten constitutions (customary laws) which are locally known as “Riyan” unwritten are those laws which have been practice and govern by every village since time immemorial. Written constitutions are the modified laws of former one which was written down with the coming of modernization. They are known same with the former as Riyan. As aforesaid, every Tangkhul village was considered to be a village-state constituted by its inhabitants belonging to different clans adhering to the fundamental principles of Riyan. Riyan in Tangkhul traditional sense means those customary laws and practices that manifested and regulated the village entity. It includes the structural organs, functions and their powers and hierarchical relationship, and the basic rights of the people and perhaps the community rights which was earlier known as right of the village.

Interestingly, every Tangkhul village was considered a sovereign, socialist and democratic village-state. The administrative, executive and judicial functions of the village is vested with the village authority or council known as Hanga in native term which is a composite representative body of different clan-heads also known as Pipas. The nature of succession or coronation to the headmanship of the village and the Pipas (head/eldest of the clan) is hereditary and permanent. There is no election system. Therefore, the village government although democratic in nature is not a republic government in its true sense of the term. But there have seen lots of changes with the coming of modern institutionalization of the Indian democratic state and the political processes.

The Tangkhul customary law (riyan) sanctioned a unicameral legislative system in the traditional Tangkhul village-state. It has only one House with direct form of democracy. The village legislative House is known as village longshim. This village longshim is the highest legislative body in the traditional village setup. It was also considered to be the apex policy decision and rule making body of the village. It does not have indirect form of democracy wherein the villagers can elect or select their own representatives from each clan of the whole village who would only represent them in the village longshim.

The native term for a citizen is “Ruichumnao”. There was no common citizenship of the Tangkhul villages before the arrival of the Britishers and more particularly that of Christianity in the region. Each village had its own citizenship. Inter-village citizenship right was not available. A citizen of a Tangkhul village according to Tangkhul (customary) riyan means a person who has been permanently residing in a particular village with the intention to reside permanently there at and belonging to the descendants of the forefathers of the village who had founded it since time immemorial. This means and includes a person(s) who acquired citizenship by converting a member of one of the clans. Therefore, every member of the clan and sub-clans born and brought up in the village is considered to be a bonafide citizen (ruichumnao) of the village.

The village “Hanga” (councilor) was vested with the power to make certain oral rules in the form of resolutions to meet the changing need of the society. They also made certain norms to regulate the working of village activities. If necessary, the villages Councilors were to express their opinion, even if it was in opposition to that of the village headman. It was also the duty of the councilors to restraint a capricious headman going astray and giving wrong decision.

The village “hanga” were vested with quasi-judicial powers having both executive and judicial power. The village judiciary was not separated from the executive. Disputes between the families of the same clan were, as far as possible, decided by the clan elders. However, if the individual or the parties concerned are not satisfied with the decisions of the clan tribunal the matter is referred to the village court which is locally known as “kalangshim”. The village court is the highest court of justice for civil and criminal cases among the Tangkhuls. The village council shall admit, hear and Examine cases brought before the village court. Interestingly though village court is the highest court for village disputes, disputes of inter village was settled by regional organization (Longphang) which today has grown to greater height due to interconnectedness of villages. Today Tangkhuls has regional bodies which has executive and judicial functions which is commonly known as “Longphang” and Tangkhul Naga Long (TNL) at the entire community level which was constituted to preserve and function and govern the customary laws and governing system as an apex body. This body has legislative, executive and judicial function for any customary laws, governing and institution at the community level. However the ironic political features among the Tangkhul is that village council is the highest political institutions in which TNL also cannot interfere in the decision and functioning of the village council unless it has certain concern on the larger community as a whole.

The issues and concerns of governance in hill district of Manipur can be also theoretically projected from the proposition of social exclusion. Social exclusion is a multi-dimensional concept which encompasses social, economic, political and cultural spheres. Exclusion is linked with the recognition of social identities, resource allocation and power relation (Bijukumar, 2013 ). The hilly tribal’s constitute a minority position in the state dominated by the Meitei’s which is the basis of social exclusion for this theoretical proposition. Further hilly tribals are again divided into number of groups and sub-groups. The hilly tribal’s both the Naga’s and kukis consider that, the Meitei dominate the power relation of the state, resource allocation is unequal and discriminatory as to the hilly people, cultural dominance like the imposition of Meitei Mayek to the tribal’s and non-recognition of Tribal’s mother tongue etc. which make them that fell they need to protect their culture and traditions. Moreover, adequate legislative, executive and financial power is not devolved to the hill district council neither implementation of 6 th schedule is permitted. These give a sense of identity formation for the hilly tribal’s for gaining political power on one hand and protection of their land, custom, language and culture on the other hand. The sense of social exclusion is articulated with the emergence of new social forces; educated elite, students and youth groups etc among the tribal’s. The demand for implementation of six schedules, demand for power devolution of MHADC Act 1971 leading to number of political unrest is basically the result of social exclusion.

Grassroot Governance Structure Among The Tangkhuls :-

Family :

Family is seen as one of the most basic unit and structure of governance among the Tangkhuls. Any matters pertaining to decision making, socio-economic and political lives begins from the family and then goes to clan and then village. The basis to governance; participation, empowerment, development, accountability and responsibility begins through family. Family represent at the clan level and clan represent at the village level.

Clanship:

Clan is seen as another minute structure of power for governance among the Tangkhuls. Clans are composed of multiple families normally formed by consanguineous relationship. It also has the elements of accommodation from outsiders (which means people who came and take citizenship from other villages). The bond of clanship and its operation in the realms of socio-economic and political process is remarkable. Every clan has its own name, nature of association, land and financial resources and perhaps stand in political participation and process at the village level, community level clan has a major role play. In fact the representation in the traditional political structure at the village level is represented through clan; mostly one clan one membership. The representatives of the clan at the village council are done either by a man who holds the eldest title of the clan or sometimes through capability/quality of a person depending upon the interest and decision of the clan members. Therefore every clan has a hierarchical division among them like the eldest, second eldest, youngest based on origination, years associating with the clan. Every individual holds the name of the clan in their name therefore they are known by their clan.

Locality:

The termed locality is also another concept in the structural contours of governance in particular with the Tangkhuls. This new concepts is seen more visible with the coming of urbanisation, converting village into heterogeneous one from various factors like; coming of outsiders (migration), urbanisation, community development programmes etc. The concept of Locality locates within the jurisdiction of the village however cuts across clanship generally define by geographical proximity. Every locality has its own committee for locality development run by a chairmanship and the members are elected through democratic representation. Any matters pertaining to locality development, issues, conflict are brought before the eyes of the locality committee and look into the matters accordingly. If some issues/cases reach is beyond their capacity the matters is referred to the village level. Various community development programmes are implemented through locality under the village council. e.g., like NREGA, total sanitation campaign, campaign on tree plantation, swatch Bharat Abhiyan etc.

Village:

Since time immemorial, Tangkhul villages have been living as an independent republic alike the ancient Greek state. The village is constituted by a number of clans unite by genealogical roots and by the process of accommodation of people. The village is headed by the chief of the village; inherently the founder of the village or the first settler of the village and each village has a village council represented by the eldest of each clan. They are hereditary in nature. They are the decision makers. Each and every affairs of the village is decided and manage by the village council. Generally they don’t treat loyal/not welcomed to the outsiders influence in any of their political affairs/matter. This structure, practices even today in most of the villages among the Tangkhul despite of the fact that, the people of the community witness the modernism state with democratic political institution under Indian state. However, today one can see contours of changes in the village structure. Some villages are adapting with semi-democratic structure which consist elements of both hereditary and modern democratic principles; some villages have completely assimilated with the liberal democratic institutions but majority of the villages still follows the same traditional structure.

Region (longphang):

At the regional it has a structure called longphang. At earlier times, in the entire Tangkhul territory, they are broadly categories into three regions namely, raphei for north, kamo in the south and kharao in the west. Long before there some sort of regional associations within the neighbouring villages which can be called today as zone. These zone wise bodies exist within the three- four villages or more. Now this zone wise body is replaced by regional body called longphang. The main purpose of this zone wise body or the regional bodies like longphang is to look into the matter of land conflict between villages and build relationship and cooperation among villages maintaining peace and fraternity in the region. Slowly with the institutionalization of this regional bodies (longphang) alongside with TNL they laid down several constitutions and regulatory functions in regards to matters of land and resources, customary laws and court, crime and punishment, customs and marriage, property inheritance, preservation and development of culture and tradition etc. nowadays they function as a full fledge regulatory social institutions holding the primary functions mentioned above.

Tangkhul Naga Long (TNL)

TNL which is commonly known as Tangkhul Naga Long is one of the culturally and traditionally mandated Apex institution among the Tangkhul tribe. It is governed and bound by the customary laws and tradition; notably it is a non political institution. Though it is customarily mandated institutions, the members are elected through democratic representation having a vote from each village depending on the size of the village. That is why it is called semi democratic institutions. it emerge only back in 1929 in response to the rise of modern institutions and state system aimed to preserve and practice their own cultures and customary practices at the community level which has been governing the people and the land since time immemorial. Initially it was called Tangkhul Long and later changed and renamed it to Tangkhul Naga Long (TNL).

Regionally, Tangkhul tribe is classified broadly into four regions. The region has its own social institutions alike TNL with similar roles and function. They are called “Longphang” which means region/sub-division. There are “Raphei” on the north, kamo-in the south, zingsho in the east and kharao on the west. However the institutional functioning begins after the formation of Tangkhul Naga Long (TNL). Long before zone wise among the neighboring villages is seen more relevant among the Tangkhuls before the emergence of TNL as a social institutions. The consciousness of zone wise comes due to geographical proximity, helping each other in times of need and problems. The neighboring zone wise also look into inter-village conflict, peace and resolution.

Tangkhul Naga long (TNL)

Longphang (region)

Village (Kha)

Locality (Tang)

Clan (Shang)

Family (Shimkhur)

Structure of Governance Among The Tangkhul

Women Participation in the traditional Institution (Tnl, Longphang, and Village Council):

Tangkhul society is a patriarch cal society where women has no place in the traditional political institutions like village council, Longphang, TNL etc. this trends has been endorsed and following as a part of the culture and customary practices since time immemorial. The simple fact is that, this traditional political institution has to deal with land, conflicts resolution, certain customary laws and practices where women are being subjected to perform on land issues and customary administration. According to customary law, women are not inherited property in terms of land (inherit only movable property), and moreover they are certain kind of roles and functions they are assigned by the societal norms and culture making them to engaged with domestic chores. Therefore there is no doubt Tangkhul society is highly patriarchcal in a political sense. However all agreed they indirectly participate and make it strong their political institutions. In olden times, Women play an important role in a situation of conflicts and war between villages. Women play a mediator role between their brothers’ village and husband village which every member of the two villages waited her for peaceful negotiation and solution. They were called Harkhonla (Tangkhul Dialect). By culture and law of the land protected her. If anyone laid hand upon her both the villagers will punish the doer or in case if one village laid hand to Harkhonla /women the entire neighboring villages of the region will punish that village.

In the course of time with changes in socio, economic and political paradigm, the picture of women today also has changed. The shift from illiterate to literate, pre-modern to post modern, development to right based, the standpoint of women has also seen a drastic change with ultimate realization on their rights, capabilities and their dynamism alongside with advocacy, activism and movements witnessing a radical change in many of the societies. Even among the Tangkhul community this realization has a far reaching impact in the nature of representation/participation in the traditional social institutions. Education of women along with modernization has lead to lots of change in the political de facto and de jure of the Tangkhul community and country at large. Today, Women participation in the decision making body (traditional political institutions) has become an important agenda which is at concern in the Tangkhul community level especially under Tangkhul Women league/ Tangkhul Shanao Long (local dialect) and Naga at large. In fact, a request letter has been submitted to the Tangkhul Naga Long (TNL), highest level apex body asking for women participation/representation ensuring reservation policy for women in the apex bodies like Longphang and TNL. Moreover the constitutions of the TNL are on constant evolution and amendment accommodation with lots of modern democratic values and principles in the constitutional realm of TNL. In fact TNL is semi-democratic they claimed. Thus, with the demand by women organization and burning discussion this year “drafting committee for review” discussed women participation as an important agenda at the level of Longphang and TNL. Interestingly at the village level as well, women has started fighting their space of participation in the village council. In fact for the first time in the history of Tangkhul, a village named Ringui has implemented women representation in their village council. And many more other villages have also constantly contesting with the traditional conservatives hugely boost by liberal democracy principles of post modernism.

The Advent of Christianity:

It was William Pettigrew, a Scottish missionary who brought Christianity to the Tangkhul in 1903. He came to India in 1890 as an overseas missionary. He came and stayed in Kolkata and studied Bengali and Manipuri and later with the permission of the Mr. A Porteous, acting political agent, Manipur of those time he entered into valley areas of Manipur for some literary works but he was refused by the Meitei due to fear of spreading Christianity. And he was sent to hill areas called the land of Tangkhul-presently the Ukhrul District by the chief political agent. Thus, the coming of Christianization comes along with the period of colonization.

When he reached Ukhrul, he was almost got killed by some villagers. However later he was welcome by the chief (king) of Hunphun village. And there he began to start his mission alongside with western education. In the first 5 years few people responded to his mission after five years, gradually lots of people from neighboring villages come and attend alongside lots of people were converted to Christianity. Even the wife of William Pettigrew starts education for the women. Those who were passed out from Ukhrul were sent to Jorhat and other place for their higher education and they came back with great quality and admiration of personality. These changes encourage the parents and families to send their children to schools and gradually along with education conversion takes place in a huge number. Thus the coming of colonization brings western education and Christianization, among the Tangkhuls.

With the coming of Christianization and western education, it gives an eye opening to the Tangkhuls to the outside world. In fact, Lots of their culture and traditional practices were abandoned with certain Christian beliefs and morality. Their dress code, lifestyle, speech and conduct were changed. In fact the impact has both merits and demerits. The bonus is the western education which makes the Tangkhul to move along with the waves of modernization. Lots of people started going out in search of education which has brought gradual transformation in the Tangkhul Society. Today Tangkhul have produce number 0f bureaucrats, missionaries, social workers, politician, doctors, engineers, academicians and others professionals. One of the notable impact was With this new dawn of transformation, Tangkhul have began critically articulating the values and principle of liberty, freedom, democracy, rights within their own context. In fact, the demand for greater Nagalim is greatly leading by the Tangkhuls to other smaller Naga tribes. Some scholars from mainland India claim that tribal’s were instilled by the western notions and principles of liberty, freedom, self-determination by the missionaries as they don’t want them to be part of Hindus so as a results it leads to number of extremist movement in north east. Today the demand of autonomy by the tribal’s in Manipur as a matter of their rights; articulating in a position that self governing is their inalienable rights practicing ages, resisting to imposition of certain laws, legislation which is of paternalistic control is one examples/incident. At this height of achievement in education bringing structural changes also which had a far impact on political achievement of the Tangkhuls, the impact of Christianization is extremely remarkable. The study of modern Tangkhuls would be incomplete without the study of Christianization and the western education.

The Role of Civil Society in Governance:

Locating the role of civil society in the political process of Manipur is undoubtedly noteworthy. In Manipur, Historically civil societies have remarkable records of agitating to dominant forces whatever is against the will of the society and citizen, for instances like the certain imposition to the citizens/people or the society by the state and tragic of misgovernance. Some of the notable civil societies and their movement are mass action for repealing AFSPA, the movement of Meira Paibi’s against armed violence conflict and for any social issue, the role of United NGOS mission Manipur, AMSU (Manipur student union, the role of ATSUM (all tribal student union Manipur), All Naga student association Manipur (ANSAM), UNC (united Naga council) etc. played a pivotal role for different cause for the citizens/people to the state power. The sole purpose for the existence of civil society is for citizen’s democratic rights and well being. Civil societies are critical and active which also mould and shape by the socio, political situation of Manipur marked by ethnic diversity, poor economic development, armed conflict zone, political unrest and misgovernance. There is no single monolithic concept of civil society. Different socio economic condition generates a different public space/civil society that are engaged in the continuous process of defining the relationship between the citizens and the state ( Muthukumara, Swamy, Molly Kaushal, 2014). Unlike The resistance in Manipur was more in the form of communitarian approached. Referring to Gurpajeet; “Analyzing the debate around state-civil society relationship in modern western and Indian political discourse, the brings points out the hiatus between the 18th and 19th century political thinking and later 20th century political thought. The second half of the 20th century is characterized by a loss of faith in the institutions of the state and looks towards civil society to preserve essential human and democratic rights” (Gurpreet Mahajan, 1999).

In relation with the governance in the hill areas of Manipur, “civil societies” play a pivotal role in determining the relationship of state laws and the expectations and aspiration of the society/citizens (Tribal’s) however to claim as being mediating role between the state and citizens is arguable and questionable. Civil societies were seen as a public sphere/platform for the citizens to raise voice and opinions against the state machineries and laws. Perhaps civil society is the part and parcel, in fact the product of liberal democracy. Today, the state has become so authoritarian and aggressive, conspire by the certain powerful sections of people and forces, the civil society has emerge in a new form taking a new root from mediatory role to being against/opposite stand to state. Citizenship is the parameters where the relation state and civil society can be definitely studied. But here Civil societies claims the space for the citizens rights and aspiration as against to the failure of state machinery and misgovenance. To contextualize the entire movement and demand for implementation of 6 th scheduled and power devolution to the hill district council by the hill citizens of Manipur is fought in the name of the civil society’s organization viz, like ATSUM, ANSAM, and UNC etc. so here citizenship and civil societies worked hand in hand in against to state power. One can also claim state that though modern state has become more authoritarian it has become so much weaken as citizens and civil society becomes more alienated from the idea of the state. To simply represent their voice through liberal political representation becomes a weak instrument as they were the minority in the state. Therefore, it projects that being minority means it also exist a strong civil society. Civil society is a strong and powerful tool for the minorities in fighting against with the state authotarianism. However, there is possible positioning of strengthening identity politics among the three major ethic groups which are unanswered. Concerns of t he certain citizens/people are raised and fought by civil societies of that very communnity or the group. There is a least open up of raising the concerns for the minorities by the other groups as a whole.

Contextual Analysis of Governance Structure in Hilly Areas of Manipur; The Emerging Trends & Debates

The hilly areas of Manipur constitute a unique place in the constitution of India. Till 1990s, tribals in Manipur witness outside the framework of 6th schedule with asymmetric self-governing structure under central legislation of Manipur hill areas District council Act, 1971. However, the tribal’s were not satisfy and agree with the legislation after few years of implementation, rejecting that it doesn’t gives self-governing power due to power manipulation of paternalistic control by the state government. The fact is also that it brings to a notion among the tribal’s that the other tribal’s group in other state enjoy a full form of autonomy under the six scheduled however they were denied. Consequently, later they boycott the election of the district council and more than 20 years it does not function in the hill areas of Manipur. The HAC (hill areas committee) which is been the committee members of the legislatives members which gave special power under 371c also recommend for the implementation of six schedule also national commission to review the working of the constitution also recommended for implementation of six Scheduled. However, it doesn’t happen claiming it may lead to Tribalistan, Communistan which may affect the integrity of the state. But the fact is also that it involves the Majoritarian politics of the Meitei’s which actually Hegemonize the state government for their political gains and advantage; deep down attempting to have holistic share of land and resources of the Tribals as a state citizen through paternalistic control through government for they occupy and owned only a limited geographical area of the state (10%). The control over the land for the Tribals in hilly areas is one of the biggest assets which hold the Tribals unity, tribal politics and the identity.

The sad fact is that, the tribal’s traditional institutions, laws and customs of governing are considered as undemocratic and null and void in relation with the state process. Interestingly, Manipur have state laws to abolish the chieftainship and traditional political institutions but they don’t have laws to recognized, accommodate and strengthen the traditional institution (Tonsing 2015). The degree of autonomy and independence is taken away by the idea of modern state through the establishment of certain institutional structures imposing them. Gradually, the entry of state civilization has slowly controlled and manages over their institutional structure and their thinking pattern and their knowledge system are slowly assimilating towards the liberal democratic values and principles. For instances, number of villages among the Tangkhuls have adopted the system of people election, (voting system) chairmanship in forming a village council which is completely base on democratic values and principles abandoning the customary laws and belief. The state process recognized them through a very colonial approach; top down for the interest of state sovereignty, integrity and stability. The ethno-minorities (tribal) concerns are accommodated within the concept of federation through a paternalistic control and regulation. However, the question also those who holds the power of the state or who are at power in state structure determines the flow of power. Often state powers and operation are often driven by the dominant groups of a person who holds it; operates and regulated for their vested interest and privileges. However, the asymmetrical arrangement of governing institutions facilitates a broad consociational framework for accommodating the emerging tribal elites, ethnic aspirations and demands; they also open up new avenues of articulation, contest and negotiation of competing tribal interests.

The asymmetrical framework for self-governance of the tribal’s in Manipur is very weak with limited power as compare to the counterpart (6 th schedule). This has Created tension and contestation against the dominant government by the ethno cultural minority Groups (tribals). Further it has created division among the ethno cultural groups; and demand for secession from the state by different minority groups has increased and become more politically organized. The study shows that this is due to the failure of the framework for ensuring self-governance for the minority groups. It shows that the government dominates and intersects the provisions and its functionalities of the framework which revealed the weakness in the framework which some scholars also term as the conspiracy of majoritarian politics. There is a concern to relook the framework and ensure practical asymmetrical structure for the minority groups within the Indian Federalism. The contestations and resistances by the ethno cultural minority groups are not constituted by mere figments of imaginary existential threats; they are sublime articulations of real existence. While coexistence should remain the mainstay in any proposed frame of political decentralization, a fine balance must be arrived at to negotiate historical tensions that persist.

Crystallizing this flow of analysis, the issue of governance in Manipur is within this contextual asymmetrical setting. The structural provision of governance which is in the form of Hill district council act 1971 for the hill district of Manipur is state centric legislation (top down) that can be discuss within the lines of power of the state, majoritarian politics in the state, minority concerns (tribal concerns), how state becomes a base for any politics and development. In fact, there are lots of other factors unlike the movement of Naga integration, which also has been one of the fears of the majoritarian political discourse of the state that complete legislative, executive and judicial function to the hill district may disrupt the state integrity and lost their political privilege. But one can claim that it’s a blame game of political avarice. The fact is also that long before the formation of state communal tension between the three major ethnic groups; Naga, Kuki and Meitei were being rooted in the historical experiences. Thus, the politics of Manipur today which is one of the fundamental factors for the stable governance structure in hilly areas is still within the lines of communal politics where the people development, empowerment or the wellbeing is compromised in the name of power politics.

Limits of Asymmetric Federalism: Concern of Ethno Minorities in the State

As far as the politics of autonomy and the discourse of federalism in Manipur is concern it challenge the integrity of the state for the fact that the ethnic boundaries goes beyond the political boundary or territory of the state. For instances Nagas, cuts across Manipur, Nagaland and Assam and other states and Kuki Chin, across Mizoram and they also cut across international boundary of Burma. Thus, the matter to accommodate the multiple identities of different ethnic groups within the state premises is extremely complicated. Therefore, some scholars from Manipur quote that the Manipur posit the microcosm of the larger challenge of Indian federal polity.

The fact is also that the failure of the state; arguably dominated by the majoritarian politics of Meitei in implementing the governance system for self-governance and protection of the minority rights has witness a huge contestation to aspirations of the tribals. The framework that is designed under the Indian federalism for the protection of the ethno cultural minority communities of the tribal’s in Manipur under article 371C has been contested and resisted by the tribal community as it results a different functionality without any autonomy in reality. This has created a movement for autonomy demand and is gradually creating an ethnic boundary between the different communities especially the tribal’s and the Meitei’s (dominant community). The ethnicization has taken a stronger root with huge political mobilization and motives among the tribal’s. One can see the emerging political trends of situation where the so called tribal’s become politically mobilize and seek secession from the state not because of the ability to accommodate and ensure self-governance but because of the failure to accommodate and ensure self-governance by the state. Today the issue of secession from the state, the so called demand of separate state for kukis, or the issue of Naga integration has been an issue of federation processes or denial of autonomous governance system to them.

Interestingly, the tribal in the state of Manipur or the so called ethno cultural minorities can be articulated as the “national minorities” as used by Kymlicka (1995). She further advocates that the national minorities entitled to special status like asymmetry to ensure that the national identity of minorities receives the same concern and respect as the majority national. But in the case of national minorities in Manipur as they are opposing against this asymmetry that it does not have any autonomy or power to ensure the identity of minorities receives the same concern and respect as the majority. Further the study shows that this asymmetry framework which was design for the national minorities is being controlled and manipulated in the favour of the national majority (meitei). However, Kymlicka also contradict by stating that federalism in accommodating self-government for national minorities will become politically mobilized and likely to seek secession. Thus the idea of federalism and autonomy for the tribes in Manipur propagated as national minorities (Kymlicka) has both merits and demerits if one simply leaves it for reality discourse to negotiate but certain limits/benchmark of negotiation of the tribal autonomy or kind of federation they enjoy with state process may need through certain constitutional mechanism.

In India institutional structure of asymmetric federalism is granted to give a certain differential autonomy to certain tribal groups in particular with the Manipur, other north eastern states and the states of Jammu and Kashmir which were referred as ethnic minorities by Kymlicka in context of Canada. They are bound to be territorially concentrated. To have a better understanding one can use the approach applied by the Hale (2011) Called “territorial approach” which is also called as ethno-federalism. According to this approach the territorial boundary of the state is co-terminus with the territory of the ethic boundaries. The primary idea is that the ethno minority would be the majority in certain constituent unit/region however they constitute a minority position in the larger framework of federation. It is to accommodate the diversity of linguistic, cultural and historical rights under certain constitutional recognition. One of the striking examples of accommodating the ethnic minorities can be seen in the states of Nigeria, India and Ethiopia. In Ethiopia constant administrative unit with certain autonomy are made due to national demands of ethnic aspirations. But one of the weakness of this territorial approach in context of north east India is the ethnic boundary deliberately cut across the territorial boundary of the state for certain ethic groups. Thus, ethno federalism is needed in the context with certain de jure constitutional autonomy. The complication is also experience the de facto not in provision with de jure. The context of north east in particular with the state of Manipur is commonly experiences indifferent political de-facto, the question is also that autonomy often precludes with the idea of self-determination by elites and extremist.

Another question is also that, since asymmetric federalism with certain degrees of autonomy is purportedly done to extend the nation-building project of the nation-state, it is likely to fall below the expectation and Demands of territorially concentrated minority groups who would be satisfied with no less than a more expansive degree of autonomy than what is prevalent across the system-wide polity (Joseph, 2004).

At a very normative sense, it is extremely important to see the context and nature of the autonomy demand by certain tribal groups or the ethno-minorities. A common theme which informed them from the idea of autonomy is also the idea of self-determination which they tend to have a legitimate and intrinsic rights to determine and govern, legislate and execute the affairs concerning to them. The debate of autonomy is often conflated with the idea of self-determination so as in the case of Manipur where the paternalistic and managerial control from the government is exercise as a remedy countering to that. The larger concern is also the fact that, Minorities cut across the state boundaries (Nagas) are in demand of separate state/administration where certain sections of the minority will be in secession from the state if this ethnic federalism/complete integration for the Nagas is granted. The concern of integrity of state becomes deliberately holding an ultimate thing for any kind of federation. But he questions is also that the idea of integrity without accommodating the ethnic aspiration and differences may likely to propagate the secession of the state in another radical ankle; because asymmetric federalism in another neighboring state has been working for several years for the Tribals who has similar aspirations and demands. So in context of Manipur, ethnic minorities unlike Nagas are in the position of state succession from the state of Manipur in two ways i.e. firstly finding a political and cultural space for Naga’s unique and recognition and other succession for not granting/accommodation their aspiration of autonomous self-governance. The idea of asymmetric federalism in the form of 6 th schedule which has been demand by the ethnic minorities (tribal’s) again opposed by the government/ethnic majority groups in partial conflating ideologies of autonomy with self-determination.

The ethnic minority’s demands and aspiration of self-government, self-determination etc. is also largely protected and aroused by various international conferences, laws and legislation in pursue of protecting the indigenous communities, ethnic minorities in various countries. Such treaties are like the treaty of Versailles 1919; UN nations charter (1945); Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (UNWGIP) set up in 1985 with UN declaration on rights of indigenous people which these various treaty, outcome and declaration in a way immensely advocate the right to self-determination, self-government of the ethnic minorities, tribal indigenous communities etc. this greatly lead to the discourse of federation, autonomy in a more extreme sense though within state.

Conclusion

One can pursue governance as which is both decent red, holistic and challenging mainstream. Governance can be also rationalized as an opportunity to redefine democracy. Governance consequently challenge with the modern view of political authority as a sovereign and political entity (Henrick paul, 2003) The subject of governance is empowerment, development and wellbeing. Different scholars, bureaucrats and leaders view governance in so many different ankle of understanding; some scholars try to understand governance from the ankle of federalism, autonomy at the same time some scholar looks through the lens of multiculturalism in postmodern era. Governance may be claimed as a response to modernization process for reorganizing the state to deal with the massive increase that result from the ongoing globalizing and localizing of power and knowledge and most importantly the multicultural diversity. The idea of integration and development after independence has gradually gave special attention to the idea of federation due to Indian diversity to outreach the developmental agenda at the grassroots level. The idea of welfare state also has so much lead to the development of democratic federalism, gradually results to concept of autonomy and governance for balancing the development among regions, caste, and tribe etc. federalism secure the idea of decentralization, in fact, the concept of autonomy, decentralization and governance are the by-product of federalism.

In a very normative sense, the prime indented results of governance are empowerment, development and well-being of the society in which the people themselves decides, implement and execute what is good for them. This also involves the matter of realizing rights discourse which need to theorized and articulate governance as a matter of right. However, to locate this proposition within the processes of the state is where complication lies and situation gets Problematize. The tyranny of the state has the legitimization of its own where the rights and liberty of being self-governed may not be served at the extent. It has its own agenda which tries to accommodate citizens and society within the dominant certain elite’s conspiracy in the name of the state. In fact, state itself is a kind of colonization often driven by vested interest of some powerful sections or the dominant ideologies etc. therefore If people are denied of their organic intellect, that is where the subjugation begins, the space of decision making, execution and their participation remains minimal. On the other hand, if the people/citizens are not given rights to decide and govern which is for their own development or holds power by the government and controls; the idea and concept of development is highly questionable in the liberal democracy. The question is also who are at power in the government? But at the same time it is also decided by the politics of the context. As far as the tensions and concerns of minority, ethnicity is present; the question to the power of the state and the majoritarian politics becomes equivocal for the ethno minorities. Therefore, the structure of asymmetrical arrangement for the state like Manipur is contextually driven within the horizontal viewpoint.

Bibliography

Ghurye GS (Aug, 1943). The Aborigines– “So-called”–and Their Future, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics Publication No. 11

Verrier Elwin, (Jan 1990). Philanthropologist: Selected Writings.in edited by Nari Rustomji (ed), Oxford University Press

Varrier Elwin (1957) A Philosophy for NEFA (North Eastern Frontier Agency),. Published by, Gyan Publishing House -Isha Books (2009 )

Linda W Smith (2012) “Decolonizing methodologies; Research and Indigenous people” 2nd Revised edition (May 2012), first Published in 1999; Published by. Zed books

Anthropological Theory; An Introduction History. (2008), fourth edition, edited by Emily Barrosse (ed) Publisher, Frank Mortimer (New York)

Ambagudia, Jagannath (2007) “Detecting Discrimination: Discourse of Preferential Treatment for Scheduled Tribes in India”,ICSSR Journal of Abstracts and Reviews

Virginius Xaxa (May 2008) “State, Society, and Tribes: Issues in Post-Colonial India” Kindle Edition (1st edition), Pearson Longman Publication

Virginius Xaxa (1999) “Tribes and Indigenous People of India” Economic and Political week (EPW) vol.34, issue no.51

Virginius Xaxa, Usha Ramanathan and others (2014) “High level Committee report on Socio-Economic, Health and Educational status of the Tribals in India”, Ministry of Tribal Affairs Govt of india.

https://ruralindiaonline.org/resources/report-of-the-high-level-committee-on-socio-economic-health-and-educational-status-of-the-tribals-of-india/

Akhup Alex (2015), “Revisiting Tribal Studies in India; An Epistemological Perspective.in, Akhup Alex (ed). Identities and their struggle in northeast, adivaani Kolkata; page. No. 31-66

Raile Rocky Ziipao(2015). Tribes and Tribal studies; Decolonizing Epistemology from Naga Perspectives.in, Akhup Alex(ed). Identities and their Struggle in Northeast, Adivaani-Kolkata; Page. No. 67-107

Bhela Bhatia, 31 ST July (2010), “Justice Denied to Tribal’s in the Hill Districts of Manipur”- Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 45, No. pp. 38-46

V. Bijukumar (2013) “Social exclusion and ethnicity in north east India” NEHU Journal, volume X1 No.2 Page no- 19-35

“Governance as social and Political Communication” (2003), Edited by Henrik Paul Bang (ed) Published by, Manchester University Press.

Tonsing Thanglianmung, 2015 “Emerging Trends of Local Governance; special Reference to Zomia,s”; a dissertation for MPhil, School of Social Work, TISS-Mumbai

Haokip S. Shokhothang (December 2013) “Local self-governance in India: a study of Autonomous district council in Manipur and Mizoram” Voice of Research Vol. 2, Issue 3

Ministry of Minority Affairs Government of India (2012) “Baseline Survey of Minority Concentrated Districts; Ukhrul District Report.

Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury, (September, 2005) “Autonomous District Council and Panchayati Raj Institution in North East India” Volume. 7 No. 1

http://www.asthabharati.org/Dia_Jul%2005/dip.htm

Singh H. Bhuban “Annexation or merger of Manipur” (June 2015), Imphal free press, http://ifp.co.in/page/items/26940/annexation-or-merger-of-manipur

Kham khan Suan Hamsing (Sep 2003).Autonomy and the Limits of Asymmetric Federalism: The Case of the Hill Areas of Manipur; publish by, shodhganga Publication.

L. memo Singh, (Aug 2010) “Formation of autonomous district councils as a part of administrative reforms”, http://kanglaonline.com/2010/08/formation-of-autonomous-district-councils-as-a-part-of-administrative-reforms/

H.L Shangreiso (2010) “divide Manipur autonomous district council act; the deadlock burning issue”, Publication by, north east heralds.

Ngaihte Thangkhanlal (Oct 2014) “Manipur Hill Areas and the Demand for 6 thSchedule” -Imphal Free Press (article).

Sarah joseph (2012) “State vs Society; Civil society, Political Society and non-party political process in India” Published by economic and political weekly (EPW)

“Folklore, Public Space and Civil Society ” (symposium,2002) edited by M. D. Muthukumaraswamy Molly Kaushalv (2004); Published by Indira Gandhi national centre for the Arts & National folklore support Centre, Chennai, ISPN: 81-901481-4-1

Kyoko Enoue “Integration of the north east; the state formation process”http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Download/Jrp/pdf/133_3.pdf retrieved on 18 march, 2017

Johani Xaxa (2014) “regional political parties strengthening federalism in india: an analysis”International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research, vol-2

Rekha Saxena (2012) “Is India a case of asymmetrical federalism?” economic and political weekly (EPW), vol-47 issue no.02

Charles D. Tarlton (2014) “Symmetry and Asymmetry as Elements of Federalism: A Theoretical Speculation Author, the Journal of Politics, Vol. 27, Published by: Cambridge University Press

Will Kymlicka (2002) “Multiculturalism and minority rights; west and east” journal of Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, Queen University, Canada

Orlich (2004) “Theoretical and conceptual framework of asymmetrical federalism” shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/31029/9/09_chapter%202.pdf, retrieved on 2 nd march, 2017

“Tangkhul Customary Laws on Constitutional and Administrative Matters” http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/67537/10/10_chapter%203.pdf , retrieved on 21 st Feb. 2017

Narayanam P., Empowerment through Participation: How Effective is this Approach, Economic and Political Weekly, 2(14) 84-88 (2003)

Soreingam (2010) “Tangkhul Naga”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangkhul_Naga retrieved on 2nd March, 2017.

Contextualizing Asymmetrical Federalism within the Realities of Manipur; http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/55860/11/11_chapter%205.pdf

http://savemanipurtribals.blogspot.in/2016/05/sixth-schedule.html