JTICI Vol.3, Issue 3, No.3 pp.21 to 30, June 2016
Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council and Peoples’ Responses
Abstract
This paper unravels peoples’ experiences and their response to the framework that was legally proposed to protect the minority tribal community. The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council was formulated with the intention of giving self-governance to the tribals aiming at protecting their land, culture and tradition. The disappointing experience of the tribal people with the District Council resulted in widespread demands for improving the law as well as in implementing the existing law in letter and spirit. The paper looks at the various provisions and functioning of the ADC amidst amendments. It also explores the political unrest that unravels the realities which crumple the state by series of resistance and contestation by the tribal community.
Introduction
After the British conquest Manipur in 1891, the hill areas came under the rule of British Political Agent. The British introduced the system of Indirect Rule over the hill tribes who were divided into two major ethnic groups such as, the Nagas and the Kukis. The British laid down a policy that they were to look after the interest of the hill tribes and protect them from the oppression of the administrators of the valley or the Raja of Manipuri (Meitei) (Gangmumei, 2011). They had to act as a saviour or the protector of the hill tribes. The administration of the hill tribes was separated from that of the valley. This separation of administration on ethnic lines was greatly resented by the Raja of Manipur who was not allowed any intervention in the hill areas.
Though the Political Agent was a colonial officer, the direct contact with the hill people was made by petty officials recruited from the people of the valley. The British rule ensured law and order; peace was maintained, taxes were collected, justice was administered. The hill people suffered greatly; they could not bear the financial burden of the house tax which was Rupees Three per household. The levy of tax on hill areas was more than the tax levied on the valley house tax, which was of Rupees Two per household. The monetization of the economy by the introduction of the house tax was to the great hardship of the hill tribes who never experienced such suffering under the pre-colonial rule. Traditional laws and customs of the different tribes were the basis of administration in the hill areas and this continued with some modifications for all intents and purpose, even after India gained independence.
With the introduction of the Government of India Act 1935, the then principality of Manipur immediately joined the negotiation for hammering out the terms of federation with the Government of India. One of the main subjects of the controversy was the administration of the hill which cover over 7,000 square miles out of the State’s total area of about 8,000 square miles. The British adjudged it unsafe to leave the administration of the hill areas within the jurisdiction of the then Manipur Durbar. After a lengthy negotiation, on 21 July 1939, the Maharajah of Manipur agreed “to federate on terms which covered the exclusion of the hill from his direct control.” The signing of the Standstill Agreement and The Instrument of Accession both on the same day on 11 August 1947, and the Merger Agreement on 21st September 1949, through which the Manipur principality became part of the Indian Republic, did not change this scheme of governance (Gangmumei, 2009).
In the 1960s, when the demand for the Union Territory of Manipur to be converted into a full fledged state was gaining momentum, the need for maintaining a separate administration for the tribals in the hill areas was acknowledged. From 1967 onwards, the drafting process of a law applicable to the hill areas of Manipur commenced. The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act was enacted by the Parliament of India on 26th December 1971 when the present day Manipur was still a Union Territory 1. The Act, amongst other, established six Autonomous District Councils in the hillAreas of Manipur, namely (i) Manipur North Autonomous District Council (ADC), now Senapati ADC, (ii) Sadar hill ADC, (iii) Manipur East ADC, now Ukhrul ADC, (iv) Tengnoupal ADC, now Chandel ADC, (v) Manipur South ADC, now Churachandpur ADC and (vi) Manipur West ADC, now Tamenglong ADC.
On 21 January 1972, Manipur became a full-fledged state. Subsequently, in 1972, in an exercise of its rule-making powers, the Government of Manipur (GoM) through the Governor, framed the Manipur Autonomous District Council (Election of Members) Rules, 1972 to facilitate the process of electing Council members. The Rules of 1972 governed the election process and no alterations were made to the Rules until 2010.
Tribal Resistance
The Act met with severe opposition from its inception on the grounds that it posed a danger to the rights and autonomy of the tribal communities enjoyed under their traditional systems of self-governance. The unified demand of all tribal communities (Kuki’s and Naga’s organisations) was that the Act be modified to include in the provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. The tribals in Manipur have been actively participating in this grassroots democracy till the early eighties. But the last elections being 1984 and 1987 the process come to an abrupt hold with hill People of Manipur working out from the Autonomous District Councils demanding more autonomy (Power). The next two decades, council elections were successfully boycotted. The government responded by taking one step forward and two steps backwards: in 1975 the First Amendment Bill was passed with some changes, followed by a more substantial move towards making the District Councils ”autonomous” by passing The Manipur Hill Areas Autonomous District Council Bill in July 2000. However, no further progress was made on this and a Second Amendment Bill was passed in March 2006 effectively revoking it. After another two years of silence, the Third Amendment Bill was presented in the Legislative Assembly on 19 March 2008 (Bhatia, 2010). However there were allegations of irregularities in the processes that followed, and the Bill was eventually withdrawn. Two irregularities were pointed out:
(i) The State Assembly constituted an extra constitutional body called the Select Committee to work on [the Principal Bill 2008] introduced by the HAC. Three of the five members …are not elected from the Hill Areas of the state. (ii) Many clauses in the report of the Select Committee …were found in bad taste. [It] wanted to delete the word “Autonomous” from the title …. [replace] ‘Self Government” [with] “Local Self Governance”, “Tribals” [with] “People of the Hill Areas’’ 6
Despite the legitimate claim for the Sixth Schedule, and the rejection of the Act, it became clear to the tribals in March-April 2010 that the state government was planning to hold the ADC elections soon. This led to a revival of the earlier agitation on the issue. The Manipur Tribal Joint Action Committee and All Manipur Tribal Union declared the day as ‘Black-Day’ in the history of the tribal people of Manipur, accusing the Chief Minister of attempting to get the ADCs in place ‘manipulatively’. 7 Other tribal organisations like the United Naga Council and Kuki Inpi Manipur (the apex body of the Kukis) reiterated the objection and demanded that the elections be held under the provisions of the Sixth Schedule “to fulfill the aspiration of the tribal people of Manipur and to protect the integrity of the State.”
The tribal organizations then approached the Governor, Prime Minister and Home Minister and sought their urgent intervention. The Governor told them to cooperate with the election process and said that all necessary amendments would be made after the elections. This was unacceptable to these organisations who maintained that nothing short of the Sixth Schedule would be acceptable. They believed that once the elections were held under the Act, the tribal people would be victims of economic and political exploitation and stagnation for another generation to come.
The All Naga Students Association, Manipur (ANSAM), called a 6-day blockade of the two National Highways leading to Manipur and on all the State Highways from the midnight of 11 th April till the 17 th. Despite taking such drastic steps, the GoM failed to respond and instead, on 22 nd April 2010, announced its decision to go ahead with the ADC elections. ANSAM responded to this by calling a lightning indefinite economic blockade of the two National Highways on 24 th April. This was quickly followed by the GoM’s announcement on 26 th April 2010 the detailed schedule for holding the elections.
The Naga frontal organisations’ sponsored ‘chakka bandh’ on April 6, 2011, the People’s Democratic Alliance (PDA) a political party based in Manipur hill, urged the GoM to amend the “Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act and said that the 12-hour Manipur hill areas ‘chakka bandh’ on 6 April called by the United Naga Council (UNC), All Naga Students’ Association Manipur (ANSAM), Naga Peoples’ Movement for Human Rights (NPMHR), Naga People Organisation (Senapati), Zeliangrong Interim Body (ZIB) and Tangkhul Naga Long (TNL), has been to protest against the imposition of election on the basis of the status of the Act of 1971 i.e 3rd amendment, 2008. PDA urges the state government to review the decision for holding an election in view of the agitation. The Committee on Protection of Tribal Areas, Manipur (CoPTAM) called a 60 hour strike on June 24, 2011 against the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Fourth Amendment stating that it has failed to provide judicial, legislative and financial autonomy to the Tribal people in Manipur and also is a threat to protect the Tribal land, culture, customs, values and traditional institutions.
The resistance from the tribal organisations is justifiable as the governance mechanisms to protect and uphold the tribal communities turn out to be the exploiter of their rights. The central government and the state government of Manipur are constitutionally responsible for the injustice done to the hill people in Manipur under the Act of 1971 and as such onus to respect the cultural, social, religious and political rights of the hill people heavily casted upon the two governments by immediately bringing the hill areas of Manipur within the purview of the Sixth Scheduled to the Constitution of India. The tribals since then have been carrying out different agitations and demands (since the inception of the Act) to include the Act under the Sixth Schedule. Though many amendments to the Act have been made but in reality nothing ‘Autonomy’ is being made to the Act. After the last election of the district council (1987), the tribal people have formed a committee called Six-Schedule Demand Committee Manipur (SDCM) under the aegis of both the Kuki and Naga Tribes. Though the genesis of the movement of the Sixth Schedule can be traced back to 1975, it has been realized of late than even the Sixth Schedule as it is, is not the proper instrument for the hill autonomy. So, the SDCM which is enthusiastically leading the demand for the extension of the Sixth Schedule in the hill areas of Manipur is of the opinion that there should be certain important modifications to the provisions of the Sixth Schedule. Hence in 1991, the SDCM prepared a Draft on Modality on Sixth Schedule.
Peoples’ Responses
The tribal organisation who boycotted and declared the 2010 Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council election as ‘null and void’ stated that in the latest 2008 amendment there is no autonomy, no legislative, judicial and financial powers and with very limited administrative power (The Telegraph, 2010). On the other hand, some of the tribal organisations who supported the election opined that though the ADC is not empowered enough with the power they believed that it will be conferred after the election. Without financial power nothing can be done by the District Council and there is no autonomy at all in ADC Act. The 2008 amendment is no appreciable as the power and function of executive committee are not clearly point out and from the parent act of 1971 the amendment has deleted some of the power and functions. Further one of the dominant tribal organisations leader stated that the present ADC of Manipur cannot protect the tribal rights.
There are many loopholes in the Act which disempowered the district council. For instance the council did not have a separate budget and thereby depended totally on the government. In this way, the ruling party has the power over the ADC members and interferes in the functioning of the council. A leader of an apex body of tribal students’ organisation stated,
“We support the District Council election of 2010 as it had suspended for the past more than 15 years and Government of Manipur has been taking the share of District Council. Even though the 2008 amendment did not make any major changes in terms of Power to the District Council, the elected Members of District Council (MDC) and MLAs from Hill areas should now work towards ensuring more power and autonomy to the District Council. As an All tribal body of Manipur, we are also pressuring the Government of Manipur for devolution of Power to District Council.”
In contrast to this demand by the tribal organisation, the non-tribal organisation based in Imphal valley was strongly of the opinion that the District Council is empowered enough to protect the tribal rights in Manipur and all the tribal should cooperate in the proper functioning of the District Council. They also stated, “There is no need for different mechanism for hill areas and there should be uniformity in the administration of both the hill and the valley areas.”
The data revealed from the field highlighted that there is an opposite response by the tribal and non-tribal organisation in regards to District Council. The tribal organisations strongly demand granting more power and autonomy to the District Council and rejected the present District Council amendment stating that there is no real autonomy and power to protect the rights of the tribal people. On the other hand the non-tribal are of the opinion that the District Council is empowered enough to protect the tribal people. This is the contradicting issue which is being presently faced by the people in Manipur. The tribal are the minority and the non-tribal organisation that is the Meitei community are the majority in Manipur and in this way the non-tribal dominates the political representative in government of Manipur too.
As stated by one of the elected members of the District council,
“the State Government should not interfere in the functioning of the District Council but unfortunately the Government is the one who amended the District Council Act and did not ensure enough power and autonomy. When I said the government it refers to the majority community who represent 40 members out of 60 in legislative assembly of Manipur. In this way whenever decision are taken in regard to tribal or the minority community it is always the majority community who takes the decision and is always against the demand of the tribal or minority community.”
One of the tribal organisations leader informed that the problem in Manipur is political in nature and there is a failure of the political system. The system should change by increasing the representative of the tribal MLAs from the present 20 out of the total of 60 members. One has mostly observed that the Legislative Assembly has always been dominated by the non- tribal leaders who have often been criticised for tampering with the development processes in the state. This shows the power of politics whereby the majority can easily manipulate the minority and the minority has been marginalised in the development process. He further said that if the system cannot be changed better live separately. This data reflects the politics of representation in the political affairs whereby the dominant political party dominates the minority groups and subjugated their voices. This kind of response is sought by all the tribal organisations and strongly opined that if the state cannot address the issues it is better for them to have separate state or live separately.
The third amendment of 2008 did not bring changes to ensure autonomy and power to the District Council Act but there are few minor amendments in terms of administration and operation areas. The amendments incorporated in the third Amendment 2008 are merely administrative powers to be exercised by the elected District Council members under the dictates of the ruling political party of the State. The strength of the members of District Council was increased from 18 to 24 numbers. In the administrative areas more functions were inserted from the existing 17 to 26. The new functions that were inserted in 2008 amendment are rural housing scheme, fisheries, adult & non formal education, non-conventional energy sources, cultural activities, sports & youth affairs, horticulture and floriculture, village and cottage industries, small scale industries and library. It is interesting what the Chairman of District Council stated,
“The increase of Department from 17 to 26 is just a namesake. I called the District Council a percentage District Council because only a few percentage are given to District Council and the large percentage are taken by the state Government. For example, according to the amendment of 2008, Horticulture Department has come under the District Council but in practice only 20% of the fund was given to District Council and the rest 80% is taken by the State Government. Same for the Agriculture, only 54.5% is given to District Council where it should have given hundred percent.”
The Chairman of the ADC informed about his limited powers in the functioning of the District Council, and informed how the power is controlled by the State government and the MLAs. Another respondent who is a present member of the District Council said that though the number of Department has increased in 2008 amendment the field realities in the present context shows that there is not much worked done by the District Council. The Joint Secretary of the Hill Areas and Tribal Affairs, Government of Manipur stated,
“The devolution of power is in phase manner and it is still in the process. The elected members of the District Council are not mature enough to implement the programmes of District Council and need more maturity among the elected members to run the District Council programmes”.
There is no clarity from the official what ‘maturity’ is meant to him and also most of the respondents from the government representative answer are ‘it is in the process and District Council is the right governance mechanism for the hill areas of Manipur.’ Though the District Council has completed three years of its tenure already, but there have been no visible developmental work done by them. Also the data shows that it is a kind of blame game that is being played between the GoM and the tribal organisations.
The 2008 amendment also came with a number of changes that sought to take away the power and rights from the people in the hill areas whose rights and interests it was suppose to protect and uphold. In this regard the data from all the tribal organisations shows that the Manipur (Village Authority in Hill Areas) Act, 1956 has taken away the traditional law and power of the village authority. The village authority is a very powerful and respectable body in the village which comprises of representative nominated from different clans. They are the one who look into the affairs of the village and whenever there is a problem or dispute in the village, they are the one who made the decision and judgment. These issues range from petty thefts, family disputes, etc. to the more intense ones like inter-village conflict, land disputes, inter-clan conflict, etc. The problem with the ADC Act of village authority is that the value to handle in village is only Rs. 250 where as the Sub-Divisional Officer is power with Rs.1000. This is totally not acceptable and traditional laws and rights have been strip by this Act. Further one of the tribal leaders stated, “In Section 29 (A) of 2008 amendment the recommendation for recognition of village is problematic as it will take away the traditional functions of the village system of tribal people.”
When asked on similar lines, the non-tribal organisations responded by saying that they do not have much idea about it and have nothing to comment on it. The GoM responded by saying that in the process of decentralization, it is peoples’ participation that is more important to ensure proper functioning. It is evident that conferring more administrative powers and functions to the ADC is not the right approach to safeguard and protect the interest of the tribals in Manipur. The data shows that this exercise (under the present Act of 1971) will open wider doors to the State Government to control and misuse the ADC as mere agents to implement the policy of the State Government. Instead of formulating tribal policy for uplifting the tribal people socially, economically, politically and culturally, it is very clear that the Third Amendment could not change the nature of the ADC created under the parent Act, 1971.
Conclusion
The tribals have been consistently demanding the extension of the provisions of the 6 th Schedule of the Constitution of India to the hill areas of Manipur since 1990. After agreeing to accede to the demand, the GoM, however maliciously stonewalled the process by inserting a rider that Sixth Schedule would be extended after ‘local adjustment and amendments.’ Instead of sincerely pursuing their commitment, after 20 long years the Manipur State Government came out with the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils (3 rd Amendment) Act 2008 and the latest fourth amendment of 2011, thoroughly doctored and stripped off of all the provisions that go into self governance and the rights of the hill people over their land and resources and removing the primacy of the traditional institutions of the tribals.
The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act of 1971 is such an example where it is witness by strong resistance and even boycotting for more than 20 years by the tribal itself. It is imperative therefore to determine what and under which conditions these diverse identities can be recognized and thereby accommodated. It is important to find out the aspirations of other smaller tribes in Manipur who are a minority within the ethnic line of Naga and Kuki like Zomi, Maring, Kom, lamkang, Gangte, Hmar, Tarao, Chothe, etc. It is also significant to look at the larger frame in the region and outside to understand the micro, Manipur experience in order to connect with the larger theoretical and conceptual frame.
To quote Suan (2009), “there is a need to devise a bottom-up autonomy model which would privilege communities’ rights and identities. This would look beyond the state-centric ‘top-down’ autonomy model envisaged by the District Councils.” Here, it is imperative to point out a framework i.e. the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act of 1971 that never works in reality since its inception for the past 35 years and which is also strongly resisted by the hill people. As also pointed out by Bhatia (2010) on the issue titling ‘Justice Denied to Tribal in the Hill Districts of Manipur’ where the author argued about the rights of the Tribal communities and discrimination made by the GoM and said that peaceful co-existence is possible only with the fulfillment of tribal rights.
It is rightly said that what goes around comes around in the case of Manipur, with the present demand for separate revenue district by the Sardar Hill District Demand Committee (SHDDC) and counter demand made by the Zeliangrong Naga for separate district called ‘Tongjei Marin’ to be carve out of the present districts of Tamenglong, Senapati and Churachandpur. The state has also been paralysed (Like before) for more than 70 days now with a general strike on both National Highway (NH39 & NH53) called by the SHDDC and a counter general strike by the United Naga Council on 21 st August 2011. Further, after the Manipur government issued notification for the by-elections to the Autonomous District Council (ADC) in six constituencies in Manipur in September 2011, the UNC has yet again issued a blanket boycott of the polls in the Naga areas.
The framework should be a devise to deliver the aspirations of different ethnics’ communities by ensuring their rights, dignity, identity and respect for their co-existence. If it fails to tackle the issues what is going around right now, it will definitely come around again.
References:
Have you like this article?
Was this article helpful?
(+2 rating, 1 votes)
Loading...