Manipur crisis

 Manipur crisis

healing touch of constitutional accommodation is the only way out

संवैधानिक समायोजन का उपचार ही एकमात्र रास्ता है

another round of escalation of violence in Manipur

 led to the Chief Minister of the State making multiple demands that include greater control over security operations.

 This means that the Chief Minister has not been in charge for some time. 

Article 355 of the Constitution, where the Union has a duty to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance. 

The basis for ‘special provisions’

Diversity management is a unique feature of the Indian Constitution

 In keeping with the unique problems of different States, not just erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir, several others such as Maharashtra, Gujarat, Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Karnataka were considered entitled to “special provisions”.

 The circumstances warranting such “special” provisions 

• ensuring equitable development 
• provide safeguards to preserve cultural identities.

The purpose reconciliatory measures 

is to ensure a sensitivity to the concerns of group identities and their respective socio-political backgrounds, and allow the Article 371F(f) for political stability rather than sow discord and fragment society.

The accession of Sikkim to India in 1975 

led to the inclusion of Article 371F

These “special provisions” included Article 371F(f) which empower Parliament to protect “the rights and interests of different sections of the population”. 

Additionally, Article 371F(g) also provided that the Governor would have the special responsibility for a scheme of “equitable arrangement for ensuring the social and economic advancement of different sections of the population of Sikkim....” 

The broad import of Article 371F envisaged power sharing through representation and the preservation of cultural autonomy to achieve the goal of political stability.

 Reservations of seat in state assembly

The Representation of Peoples Act 1951 was amended to reflect the scheme of Article 371F(f) and seats were earmarked for different communities in the Legislative Assembly. 

This arrangement came to be challenged along with the constitutionality of Article 371F(f) in R.C. Poudyal (1993) before the Supreme Court of India as the increased representation of the Bhutia-Lepcha community was alleged to be in the teeth of norms of proportionate reservation. 

Bhutia-Lepcha community

In upholding / support the constitutionality of Article 371F(f) and the amendment to the Representation of Peoples Act 1951, the Court reasoned that the increased representation of the Bhutia-Lepcha community was an inheritance of the socio-political history of Sikkim, which necessitated the framing of Article 371F.

Resultantly, the proportionality of seats reserved for the Bhutia-Lepcha community was justified to protect the identity of the community and a political process to ensure political stability. 

The case of Tripura and peace

Tripura 

emerged as an example of peace brokered 

The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution 

This provides for the administration of tribal areas by devolving power to district and regional councils which are empowered to make laws on various areas such as 

• education, 
• social customs, 
• alienation / nomination of land 
• usage of forests, 
• establishment of village and town committees. 

legislative autonomy accorded by the Sixth Schedule devolved markedly greater powers to the district council to exercise discretion regarding the application of Union laws to Scheduled Areas. 

This was the result of the Tripura Accord signed 

in 1988 between the Union Government, the State government and the Tripura National Volunteers (TNV), a militant group which even sought secession. 

The accord reserved a third of the seats in the State Assembly to the Scheduled Tribe population — beyond the proportion of their population in the total population.

 Consequently, sub-article (3B) in Article 332 was inserted in 1992.

Challenging in courts

1 The disproportionate representation of the tribal population was challenged in Subrata Acharjee (2002). 

2 Supreme Court took into account the background of the accord which required violence to be abjured and efforts at securing stability in the region. 

3 The Court ultimately rejected the contention seeking proportional reservation based on “arithmetical precision” and reiterated the scheme of “accommodations and adjustments”.

4 It concluded that Article 332(3B) was inserted 

to give “greater share” in governance, as per the terms of accord. 

The Court ruled that the reservation scheme was not violative of the scheme in Article 332(3) and Article 170 as it was a temporary measure to ensure an inclusive scheme of governance in Scheduled Tribe-inhabited areas. 

Manipur and Tripura laws 

Significantly, as was the case with Tripura, the Sixth Schedule does not apply to the State of Manipur. 

Instead, Manipur is governed by Article 371C which provides for the creation of a Hill Area Committee consisting of elected representatives from such areas. 

Words that Manipur needs to ponder over

Moreover, unlike the Sixth Schedule, the establishment of a “District Council” in Manipur is governed under a separate statute, i.e., the Manipur Hill Areas Autonomous District Council Act, 2000. 

Under the statute, a “District Council” is required to be incorporated and membership to the council is based on classification as a “Scheduled Tribe”. 

Strangely, unlike the veto power possessed by the Scheduled Tribes in States such as Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura, no specific provisions exist in the case of Manipur.

In the background of tensions in Manipur, concerns over representation, allocation of resources, and perceived domination of any community have heightened anxieties and exacerbated social division.

source the hindu