MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED
TO
THE HON’BLE UNION HOME MINISTER,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI
DEMANDING FOR THE CREATION OF AUTONOMOUS TRIBAL STATE IN MANIPUR,
UNDER THE PROVISION OF ARTICLE 244(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
BY:
THE ZOMI COUNCIL,
HEADQUARTERS, MANIPUR.
(AN APEX BODY OF THE ZOMI TRIBES)
DATED: LAMKA | THE 26TH MARCH, 2011
———————————————————
Hon’ble Sir,
In pursuance of the Memorandum submitted to Your Honour during your historic visit to Churachandpur District on 15th December, 2010, the Zomi Council and its constituent Bodies, would like to draw your kind attention to its Proposal to create an „Autonomous Tribal State‟ within Manipur to pave the way for the road to attainment of tribal aspirations.
That, the Government has made sincere efforts to resolve conflict through dialogue, and the subsequent conducive atmosphere created has raised the general feeling of hope and optimism amongst the tribals for an honourable solution to their decades-old grievances.
That, as you are aware, the majority community have proposed and mobilised themselves for a plebiscite mechanism to solve what they call the “Indo-Manipur political conflict”, of which it was recently reported on the front page of The Imphal Free Press, 17th March, 2011 issue that: „Chief Minister maintains demand for plebiscite by certain state insurgent groups could be a good beginning.‟ That, the Naga in Manipur, under the leadership of United Naga Council (UNC) decided to sever all ties with the State Manipur and demanded an “Alternative Political Solution”. That, the Kuki National Organisation (KNO) explicitly stated their demand for a separate “Kuki Statehood”. That, the Zomi Council too had earlier demanded for “Zomi Political Autonomy”.
Now, while maintaining the spirit of Autonomy, we the Zomi tribes do appreciate the concerns of the majority Meitei community for maintaining „territorial integrity of the present State of Manipur‟ and propose for „a non-communal approach‟ to Tribal issues. The Zomi Council, after consultation and investigation, has finally decided to demand for “Creation of an Autonomous Tribal State in Manipur, under the provision of Art.244A of the Constitution of India’’. The Council arrives at Autonomous State status as it considers it to be the most workable solution, if not the best, to solve the present problems besetting the State.
Hon‟ble Sir, we beseech Your Honour to kindly initiate steps for the creation of an Autonomous Tribal State in Manipur.
With profound regards.
Yours Sincerely,
(KHAMLIANKHUP LIANZAW)
Secretary, Zomi Council.
(L.B.SONA)
Chairman, Zomi Council.
ENCLOSED:
(i) Justification for the Creation of an Autonomous Tribal State (Annexure-I).
(ii) Basic Facts on Autonomous District Councils (Hill areas), Manipur. (Annexure-II).
(iii) Copies of Memorandum submitted earlier by the Zomi Council (Annexure-III).
(iv) Proposed Power and Status of the Autonomous Tribal State (Annexure-IV).
—————————————————-
Annexure-I
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CREATION OF AN AUTONOMOUS TRIBAL STATE IN MANIPUR.
(i) UNIQUE EXISTENCE AND HISTORICAL BLUNDER:
In the past, when the tribal communities of present day Manipur led a life which was both primitive and isolated, the question of neglect by the dominant powers of the region (namely the Manipur Maharajas and the Ava Kings of Burma) did not arise at all, simply because neither could govern them. The fact is that before the advent of British rule all the tribes enjoyed uniquely independent existences. The best proof of this unique independence is the total absence – from time immemorial – of any fort/ garrison, out-post or even a hunting-lodge in the entire tribal areas of Manipur. That such a huge expanse of land was for thousands of years without as much as a ruler‟s symbolic structure, or even a statue, declares the baseless-ness of the claim of these two kingdoms over the region. Therefore, in the light of this age-old „independence‟, the drawing up of the Indo-Burma boundary in 1894, particularly that which pertains to the so-called Chin State-Manipur boundary, without the knowledge and consent of the affected tribesmen, was and is a historical blunder.
For no reason on earth but that of the arrogance and exclusivity of these two Kingdoms, the arbitrarily drawn boundary lines led to the separation of cognate tribes in such a way that, till today, the victimised tribes have remained marginalised minority communities in each nation/country/state they were appended to by the unfair stroke of a pen. That this unfortunate historical blunder was later realised by the British is evident from their comments-
(a) “The (whole) tribes seem to be practically independent and not to have been affected at all by the Treaty of 1834” in Alexander Mackenzie, “History of the Relations of Government with the Hill tribes of the North East Frontier of Bengal”, 1884.p.173.
(b) In 1856, Col Mullock said, “…the southern portion of Manipur had never been explored; and that the Manipur authorities had never tried to bring the tribes inhabiting it into subjection.” in Alexander Mackenzie, “History of the Relations of Government with the Hill tribes of the North East Frontier of Bengal, 1884”.
British wisdom, born of the experience of ruling much of the modern civilized world of the 17th-20th centuries unintentionally set, for us tribals, the foundations of the global village of today. Further, the British forewarned of the danger of putting the tribals of the Manipur region under the Manipur Maharaja: “To place the Manipur Hill Tribes under the direct administration of His Highness and the Darbar would be far more dangerous than to place the Assam Hill Tribes under ordinary administration of the Assam Legislature” in C.S Mullan to C.L.Corfield, 29 Jly, 1937, File No.G.S.2753 of 1940, Assam Secretariate(AS). This was a sequel to the confidential Leaving Notes written by Col.Maxwell, Col.Woods and Col.Shakespeare where they strongly remarked that: “Manipuries are unfit to control the Hill Tribes” in Bimal J Dev & Dilip K. Lahiri, “ Manipur:Culture and Politics, Mittal Publications, 1987”, p.112.
Truly prophetic are those words. Almost a century and a half later, the said Hill Tribes of the State of Manipur find themselves seeking alternatives, searching for good administration and governance. The past, especially the last few decades, have revealed that their principal State is failing fast. It is unable to resolve any issue to the satisfaction of the aggrieved parties. Its approach to all issues and matters is mere fire-fighting. Where there is no fire, it kindles one for a brief counter-productive respite. It has no time and thought for basic and clear administration, let alone good governance. Pointedly, all its state-level policies cater only the interests of the majority, in this case the Valley people. Worse, it has time and again shown it has no intention of simply sharing the Central Institutions or largesse with the tribal areas. Thus, there isn‟t a single State-level Central Institution in the Hills. Everything is Imphal Valley centric. Hence, such one-sided circumstances compel the Hill Tribes‟ to look for ways and means to administer and govern themselves so as to move out of the shadow of an old historical blunder.
Times have changed, as they must. Truth, too, must out in a world evolving into a global village. So today‟s much transformed tribal society – now exposed to modernity, technology and having tasted the richer and fuller life of a globalised citizen – seeks a far larger canvas to express themselves in. Their appetite for growth and keenness for a better life – altogether a healthy manifestation of this transformation – is not being met under the prevailing dispensation, particularly in present-day Manipur. This is in spite of having their own State Legislators, numbering 20 in a House of 60, along with a lone Member of Parliament.
(ii) VICTIMS OF NUMBERS:
Significantly, beyond the perceived State‟s indifference, fed by the impotence and myopia of their own elected representatives, a handful of tribal individuals, have been able to show their hill-brethren and the world that they are no less capable than others. But these individual stories – a 5-times World-Champion boxer in Mary Kom; a Scientist Lianchinthang Shoute at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, a H.T. Sangliana, IPS (Retd) and Member of Parliament returned from Bangalore, a so-and-so at such-and-such, besides a fair number of All-India Central Service bureaucrats…..this handful are exceptions rather than the rule. They, rightly or wrongly, feel their wings are clipped, on seeing the scope to grow according to their own genius, being smothered by the numbers game of democracy. The painful truth is that beyond the said few exceptions there is a larger negative fallout, evident in the high rate of drug abuse, drop-outs, rebellion and the taking up of arms by compulsion.
The remedy to all these shortcomings, from the tribal point of view, lies in having their own numbers. These numbers can be provided by the creation of an Autonomous Tribal State (ATS) in Manipur. If created, the search for a road to carry tribal aspirations forward would end. The search would end if there are no majority-induced „local adjustments.‟ If there are to be „local adjustments‟ they must be proposed by the Tribals themselves.
In contrast to the prevailing unsatisfactory situation, governance/ administration through the ATS in Manipur would certainly be closer to satisfying the new-age tribal aspirations. This is to plainly say that the present culture of announcing occasional developmental lollipops – unaccompanied by substantial political and administrative changes – is at the root of the growing tribal dis-satisfaction and discontent.
(iii) COMMON SOLUTION FOR DIVERSE PROBLEMS:
At present there are 32 (Thirty Two) recognised Tribes in the State of Manipur, majority of which were recognised during the 1950s. Although there is no major racial and cultural differences amongst the tribes, official recognition on the basis of minor differences, unfortunately generated tribe-based mobilisation in diversified fields. Such unhealthy contestation could be seen even in the Churches, Literatures, Electioneering, Sports, etc. The continued tribe-based mobilisation led to bitter inter-tribal conflicts in the past; for instances, Kuki-Hmar (1960s), Kuki-Naga (early 1990s), Kuki-Zomi (mid-1990s) conflicts…..etc. We also observed tribe-based or clan-based armed-mobilisation which often led to internecine skirmishes between the warring groups.
Subsequently, different armed Organisations raised diverse political demands. Giving favourable consideration to such exclusive communal agenda or diversified demands and dealing them differently would be a never ending process. It is bound to create more troubles, confusions, and simply multiply the problems. There is also the danger of fuelling inter-tribal conflicts that once led to a bitter conflict in the past.
The process of healing and reconciliation is going on smoothly and the signing of Ceasefire and SoO Agreement facilitate to a large extent. Yet, in spite of their differences, all the tribes experienced the same administrative atmosphere, generate similar aspiration, if not shared destiny, and had expressed their desire to grow and develop peacefully.
In order to avert future discord and arrived at a durable peace, it is imperative to adopt non-communal approach to tribal issues. The shared aspiration could take us to a shared solution, for which the Zomi Council proposed a non-communal Autonomous Tribal State within Manipur, under Art.244A of the Indian Constitution. The Council is convinced that creation of Autonomous Tribal State is an answer to the diverse demands raised by different Groups. It will also solve the inter-tribal conflicts and immensely neutralised the intra-tribal discord in the State of Manipur as it requires a mere administrative re-arrangement within the State itself.
(iv) SOLUTION TO THE HILL-VALLEY DIVIDES:
If Manipur as a State is to continue to exist, the first ground reality for all stakeholders to acknowledge, accept and embrace is the fact that there is a deep divide between the Hills and the Valley of Manipur – two distinct geographical entities that have given birth to people fed, shaped and nurtured differently. But, till now, not so different as to be called peoples. Significantly, this divide and differences are deep, but not so huge and wide that bridges – even if single span – cannot be built, and maintained.
Secondly, the State‟s festering trust deficit fed by Valley-based suspicion of every tribal move or demand, even if made with the best of intentions, has only led to bad blood between the people. Thirdly, the State‟s un-ending anti-tribal policies and stands – both overt and covert – have pushed the tribals to the extent of believing that- “It is
far better to live separately in peace than to live together in a mixed set-up with the possibility of incessant discords”.
Yet, one ground reality that all stakeholders must accept is that the economic development of the hill/tribal areas is not possible in isolation, nor vice-versa. Thus, the creation of an Autonomous Tribal State shall give the different communities of Manipur the needed space, scope and opportunity for a healthy competition in diverse aspects of development and modern life, without disturbing the geographical and economical realities. However, the State‟s reluctance to be accommodating and large-hearted is at the core of tribal discontent and frustration.
(v) TWO SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION IN MANIPUR:
What is now being proposed – the creation of an Autonomous Tribal State within Manipur – is not strange or unique, because the fact is that the Hill Tribes and Valley Dwellers of Manipur were governed differently by the British. This dual administrative policy/practice and differing circumstances, including treatment continued well into the post-colonial administration. The following comparative statements plainly reveal the differences that made dualism necessary:
| Sl.No | VALLEY DWELLERS | HILL TRIBES |
| 01 | Signed Treaty of Yandaboo, 1826 & Agreement regarding Kabaw Valley, 1834Manipur was annexed in 1891 | The tribesmen remain unaffected by the Treaty & Agreement. The tribes were annexed separately by the British. |
| 02 | Boundary Commission, 1894 and demarcation of Manipur-Chin State boundary. | It fragmented the tribes without their knowledge and free consent. They continue to fight the British. Eg. Zogal, 1917-1919. |
| 03 | Paid Land Revenue to British @ Rs.2 per Household since 1891 | Paid Hill house tax @ Rs.3 per annum which was share between British, Maharaja and Tribal Chiefs at Rs.2, Rs. 0.75 paisa and Rs.0.25 paisa respectively. The Maharaja and Chiefs were paid for being facilitators. |
| 04 | Created Manipur Darbar and administered through the Maharaja of Manipur. | Hill tribes were excluded from the jurisdiction of the State Darbar and administered by the V/President, a British Officer. |
| 05 | Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947Manipur State Courts Act, 1947 | Manipur State Hill Peoples (Administration) Regulation, 1947 & existence of separate Hill Court/Bench. |
| 06 | Manipur Merger Agreement, 1949 | The tribes are excluded from the Agreement. Tribal Chiefs continue to maintain Land rights whose records are originally given by the British. |
| 07 | UT status granted in 1963 | Manipur (Village Authority) Act, 1956. |
| 08 | Statehood granted in 1972 | Autonomous District Council (Manipur Hill Areas) Act, 1971 & Special Provision for creation of Hill Area Committee under Art.371 C. |
| 09 | Land is surveyed under MLR & LR Act, 1960 and is privately owned by individualpattadars. | Un-surveyed hill Land that belongs to the Chiefs or Community. No Governmentkhasland in tribal areas. |
| 10 | Enjoy full benefits of full-fledges State. | ADCs function at the mercy of State Government. Repeated attempt were made to Amendment the provisions, yet fail to satisfy the tribal aspirations. |
(vi) AUTONOMOUS STATE WITHOUT AFFECTING INTEGRITY OF THE STATE OF MANIPUR:
The proposed Autonomous Tribal State in Manipur, as the name itself goes, is not a demand for full statehood or complete severances of ties with Manipur. Unfortunately, the opposite shall be the interpretation preferred by the State. This is expected to be the course, judging from its infamous instances of subtle yet manipulative insertions of ambiguous and/or innocuous sounding words/terms that turn out to be spanners in the works, like, „local adjustment‟ or „hill areas‟. The former killed the tribal preference for Sixth Schedule, the latter is a misnomer for the more truthful and real „tribal areas‟ or „tribals‟ for hill people, in particular. It is apparent there is an unreasonable fear in the mind of the State, which must put in place defence mechanisms and clauses where simple trust and large-heartedness would have sufficed. And done wonders for emotional integrity (that would have ensured all other integrities). Even the Preamble of the SoO Agreement is learnt to have an explicit clause on keeping the entire State together.
Having taken all precautions, even in the SoO, one can assume that there should be no aversion to a progressive form of autonomy within the State. Especially when the creation of the Autonomous State will not only meet the aspirations of the tribal, but also help in maintaining the integrity of the State of Manipur.
Therefore, the Government should provide for changes and administrative re-arrangements which would allow the fullest scope to the hill tribes to develop and advance according to their genius, while at the same time maintaining the integrity of the State of Manipur.
(vii) SPECIAL SOLUTION FOR A SPECIAL PROBLEM:
Special problems necessitate special attention and special/unique solution(s). The hill tribes of Manipur enjoyed unique „independence‟ from the hoary past, as well as suffered unique political marginalisation ever since the Colonial period. Although their identity, culture, and traditional institutions remain intact till today, they continue to be one of the most disadvantaged communities when compared with their counterparts in North-East India itself.
In the post-independence period, the Constitution of India has tried to be fair to hill areas/tribals of Manipur, among others. However, the State‟s practice of „local adjustment‟ and some such have diluted, if not altogether made redundant inclusive Acts like The Autonomous District Council Act, 1971 and the Special Provision under Art. 371 C that is unique in more ways than one. The State of Manipur must learn to accept, enact, and implement as other neighbouring States of the North East manage tribal areas with Acts and Provisions in the Constitution of India. In fact, with all its history Manipur should have led the way with even more far reaching inclusiveness inbuilt into the life of all its tribal/hill citizens, especially given the unique geographical and demographic realities that cannot be wished nor manipulated away.
Such a unique situation calls for a special solution like the creation of an Autonomous Tribal State within Manipur. In the opinion of the tribals this would be as easy as merely replacing the redundant Hill Areas Committee under Art. 371C, with a better Constitutional Provision under Art. 244A, while maintaining the Autonomous District Councils as a vibrant local-self governing institution in the tribal/hill areas.
(viii) AUTONOMOUS TRIBAL STATE FOR MAINTAINING NATIONAL SECURITY:
The Indo-Myanmar boundary passes through the tribal areas of Manipur, and as said arbitrarily separating cognate tribes. The Hills completely encircle the Valley areas of the State. Historical records point to the fact that these tribesmen were often engaged by the British administrator as a buffer-state. Bertram S. Carey and H. N. Tuck remark, “…..they became a buffer between the Soktes and Manipur, more substantial than McCulloch‟s “Sepoy villages” and more effective than Col. Johnstone‟s thanas ….” The security of British Manipur was largely determined by the contentment of the tribals of the encircling hills. The lesson from history is thus- the security, and or integrity of today‟s Manipur, shall be determined by the contentment of the tribals of Manipur!
Going a step further, the contentment of the all the tribals of the North-East would determine the security and integrity of the country. The geographical position of the hill tribes is such that it became one of the most sensitive frontier areas of India. The area is not only a frontier area but is also a backward area. All these facts called upon to deal with the area in a special manner. Because the security of the country on this area as well as internal security of the State of Manipur depend largely on the way the Government of tribal area is conducted. Engaging border communities is also important for effective border management.
We are convinced that creation of an Autonomous Tribal State is imperative for maintaining national security as well as internal security of the State of Manipur.
(ix) DISPROPORTIONATE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION:
Every 20 tribal MLAs from hill areas of Manipur represent 1004.45 sq.kms and 44107 person (2001 Census), whereas their counterpart in the valley area of the State represent 56 sq.kms and 35294 persons respectively. In spite of these facts, fund allocations are often made on the basis of the size of population where the valley dwellers naturally have advantage over the hill areas. Such unjustifiable justification and practices for decades (since 1971) systematically impaired the process of delivering real development to tribal areas.
In addition to the disproportionate representation, there is complete imbalance in the field of administrative set-up and development between tribal areas and valley Districts of Manipur. For instances, there is one Block Development Office (BDO) for every 837 sq.kms and 160 sq.kms in hill areas and valley areas respectively; one Police Station for every 670 sq.kms and 90 sq.kms in hill and valley area respectively; and in case of healthcare services, there is one PHSC for every 85.48 sq.kms catering the needs of 3754 person in hill areas whereas the figure for valley area is 11 sq.kms and 6887 person!!
There is also unfair allocation of funds for developmental works. The State Government discontinue the practice of preparing separate Hill Budget since the 1980s without giving substantial explanations. Moreover, the idea of having uniform rate for developmental projects or uniform amount of fund for each Assembly Constituency is
inconsistent with the ground realities. The amount required for construction and maintenance of, say, roads in hill areas is 50 to 80 times higher than valley area.
Under such circumstances, any piecemeal solution is not going to solve the critically disproportionate situation mentioned above. It requires a drastic re-organisation of administration in the State, for which instituting Autonomous Tribal State within the State is found to be the most viable options.
(x) INADEQUACY OF ADCs and HAC:
The tribals in Manipur‟s hill/tribal areas have been made to experiment with both Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) and Hill Area Committee (HAC) for over forty years and found both wanting, because when and where they matter most they continue to function at the whims and mercy of the State Government. They lack the bite and teeth that could empower and mean business. This is because, in reality, the subtle decisive control exercised by the State Government has rendered meaningless the theoretically sound provisions under ADC or HAC. They end up as toothless Institutions because they are shorn of the vital legislative and financial powers that could have made the difference. So, in the form they are implemented in Manipur, they neither safeguard tribal interests, nor meet their rising aspirations. For instance, the decisions of HAC are hardly honoured by the State Assembly, e.g. the HAC‟s recommendation for Sixth Schedule not being accepted is a clear example of toothless-ness and meaningless-ness.
Again, although the parent ADC Act of 1971 was a Parliamentary Act, subsequent amendments were arbitrarily made by the State Government in 2000, 2006, 2008 & 2011, rendering the whole purpose of the Act pointless. The Rules and Clause were repeatedly manipulated and such twist and turns have become a regular fashion today. Many measures and policies which are repugnant to the tribals have been imposed without their consent, a victim of the power of numbers.
Peculiarly, it is only in Manipur State that the ADCs and HAC are neither under the Fifth Schedule (Administration of Tribal areas) nor the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. It becomes obvious that the small size of HAC members and the manner in which it is made fully dependent on the State Government through the elected representatives (MLAs) from Hill/Tribal areas are their greatest weakness. Furthermore, in contravention of democratic decentralisation, the entire functioning of ADCs is being centralised at Imphal under a single Department, the Department of Hills & Tribal Development with one Minister in charge of all the affairs. Thus, the State Government still maintains a stranglehold in the jurisdiction of tribal life and areas. Occasional lollipops only add to the State‟s failings in regard to the welfare work that these special backward tribal areas so desperately need. Judging from the backwardness of the people, not by the size of population or amount of money spent, the State government has so far failed miserably on all fronts.
Thus the creation of an Autonomous Tribal State is absolutely vital for accelerating the pace of development for the hill/tribal areas and for satisfying the legitimate aspirations of the tribesmen.
(xi) NEVER ENDING NEGATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE MAJORITY COMMUNITY TOWARDS THE TRIBALS:
The continuous ill-treatment and anti-tribal policies pursued by majority community in the State has its manifestation in myriad forms. Few instances may be cited hereunder:-
(a) The Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (MLR & LR) Act, 1960 has become a tools to exploit the tribal and systematically loot their land.
(b) The Manipur Reservation of Vacancies in Post and Service (for ST/SC) Acts, 1976 has been keep inoperative for one reason or the other. The State Government fail to formulate its Recruitment Rules, and never fully implement the “100 Point Roster‟‟ in reservation, however, it replaced the same with a new „„200 Point Roster‟‟ since 2007, against the wishes of the tribal.
(c) The State Government fail to formulate its own Forest Policy and Laws. In the absence of Nodal Forest Agency to redress forest related tribal grievances, the State Government has conveniently clubbed all tribal land under „community forest‟. The abnormal increase in area under forest simply implies that more tribal land is being encroached, because there is practically no forest area in Manipur valley.
(d) The State Government formulate „Manipur Cultural Policy‟ without giving due consideration to variegates presence of multi-tribal cultures. According to this Policy, everything Meitei is Manipur and Manipur is the Land of Meitei and Meiteilon speakers alone. Following this, Meitei Mayak script, which is completely foreign to the tribal, was imposed in all Government Schools.
(e) Large chunk of Tribal areas were appended to bordering valley District which have entirely different set of local-administration.
(f) In the on-going Census operation, 2011 strict directive were given to Census officials to limit the tribal decadal growth rate.
(g) The State Government often ignored the recommendations of ADC and HAC.
(h) The use of „Hill Areas‟ in lue of „Tribal Areas‟ in all the Acts and Regulations of Manipur deprived the tribal of their rights and privileges. This is practically the same as raping tribal identity.
(i) Failure to implement the Delimitation Committee‟s Report, 2001 on Assembly Constituencies as the valley stand to lost 3 seats in favour of the hill areas.
(j) Public mobilisation in valley areas against extension of Sixth Schedule in tribal areas and consequent State Government‟s backtracking on the issue is another sign of general indifferent attitude towards tribal issue.
(k) The State Government‟s failure to constitute ST/SC Commission in the State negates National norms for protection of Tribal interest.
ANNEXURE II
