Manipur’s civil society organisations, in recent times, have started reposing their faith and belief in the power and attractive sparkle of a ‘special political status’.
This new-found faith and belief comes against the backdrop of ostensible hiccups in the more-than-two-decade-old political negotiations between the Nagas and the Union government on one hand; and the Union government reading down Article 370 of the constitution – which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir – in 2019, on the other.
Article 370 is described as a “temporary provision” that grants the (erstwhile) state of Jammu and Kashmir a special autonomous status within the Indian union.
Under Section 1 (b) of the article, the Parliament could only make laws for the state “in consultation with the government of the state” on certain matters that were specified in the Instrument of Accession; namely, defence, foreign affairs, and communications. Other matters in the legislative subject lists could apply to Jammu and Kashmir only with the “concurrence of the government of the state” through a presidential order.
Section 1 (d) stipulated that other constitutional provisions may be applied to the state from time to time, “subject to such modifications or exceptions” made by the President of India, also through a presidential order, as long as they did not fall within the matters referred to above and done with the concurrence of the state government.
Meanwhile, Article 371A is a special constitutional provision with respect to the state of Nagaland which says that no Act of Parliament, in respect of religious or social practices of the Nagas; Naga customary law and procedure; administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Naga customary law; or ownership and transfer of land and its resources, shall apply to the state unless the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland, by a resolution, so decides.
For the moment, we can take a break from discussing Article 370, Naga political settlement or even Article 371A and focus on some key issues raised while staking claims for greater autonomy by way of seeking a ‘special status’ for the state of Manipur.
‘Special status’, ‘special category status’ or ‘special constitutional provision’
Before we embark on this discussion, let us be clear that the constitution of India provides ‘special status’ through an Act that has to be passed by a two-thirds majority in both the houses of Parliament, whereas ‘special category status’ is granted by the National Development Council, an administrative body of the Union government.
For example, Jammu and Kashmir enjoyed a special status as per Article 370 as well as a special category status. But now that Article 370 has been scrapped and the erstwhile state was reorganised into two Union Territories, – Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh – special category status does not apply to Jammu and Kashmir anymore.
Also read: There Is Only Fear and No ‘Freedom’ in the Northeast and J&K
As per the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, 11 states, namely, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura and Uttarakhand, were granted special category status.
Special category status for plan assistance was granted in the past by the National Development Council to the states that are characterised by a number of features necessitating special consideration. However, following the recommendations of 14th Finance Commission, the special category status ceased to exist.
The preceding cursory bits of information make succinctly clear what the executable ideas of special status, special category status, special constitutional provision and the like, are. These terms are not theoretical or philosophical ideas, as many unscrupulous observers would like you to believe.
The terms mentioned here need further dispassionate scrutiny in light of broader concepts like autonomy, devolution of power and administrative decentralisation and mechanisms and so on, which had been invoked in the Sixth Schedule (Articles 244(2) and 275(1)) of the Constitution.
Demands for a ‘special political status’ for Manipur
Requests for a special political status for Manipur are, more or less, guided by the renewed confidence that numerous issues confronting the state would be comfortably resolved if the state were to enjoy special political autonomy and improve its political relations with India.
On January 19 this year, the Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI) submitted a representation to Prime Minister Narendra Modi reiterating its demands for a special status for Manipur and amendments to the Constitution of India.
COCOMI apparently believes that granting special status to Manipur will correct “historical blunders” that the Union government has inflicted on the state in the past, leading to a trust deficit.
The representation recounted the history of Manipur – from being an Asiatic kingdom to coming under British rule after 1891 – and also detailed how Manipur was “controversially merged” with India in 1949.
Recalling the events between 1949 to 1972, – from being a ‘Part C State’ (comprising both the former chief commissioner’s provinces and some princely states) to statehood – the representation maintained that as a consequence of these events, the statehood accorded to Manipur could not meet the aspirations of the people.
Also read: Has Military Rule in Myanmar Affected India’s ‘Act East’ Policy?
“The post-statehood period saw increased political movements with different methods, including armed struggles. The quest for past political and cultural glories; defending human rights; the establishment of bicameral legislative system with an aim of providing proportional representation to minor, micro-ethnic communities/tribes; and a permit system to protect indigenous people self-guarding the territorial integrity, were dominant in the public consciousness, ” said the representation submitted to the prime minister.
The representation further demanded amendments to Articles 2 and 3 of the Indian constitution so as to ensure Manipur’s territorial integrity and to assuage the feelings of hurt and neglect.
“A new contour for reshaping the Centre-State relationship needs to be put in place, not only to meet modern challenges but also to assuage the feeling of hurt of its citizens. A provision for Special Status for Manipur in the Constitution and a provision in Article 3 that in respect of Manipur, any changes will be with the concurrence of the Manipur State Legislative Assembly, will do wonders to restore the historical pride of the people of Manipur and will have a salutary effect on the various challenges which are cropping up and staying, which are inimical to inclusive development in the state,” COCOMI proposed.
The conglomeration of civil society organisations also told the Prime Minister that in order to mitigate the various challenges that Manipur has been facing, the proposal should be considered, in the larger interest of the state and the country.
It may be recalled that COCOMI had met Union home minister Amit Shah on December 27, 2020 when he visited Manipur and had demanded the granting of special status to Manipur, as per the resolution of the ‘Public Convention for Special Status to Manipur’ held on December 26, 2020 at GM Hall, Imphal.
A snap observation
While the points raised and demands made by COCOMI can certainly be appreciated given that their primary rationale is the exclusive set of political, social and economic conditions that Manipur has experienced over the last seven decades, it would not be difficult for any informed individual to dissect the issues related to ‘special political status’ in conjunction with bigger concepts like autonomy, devolution of power, administrative decentralisation and mechanisms, and so on.
Masked by the new idioms of ‘modern institutions’, the ethnic communities in Northeast India had been demanding an assortment of administrative mechanisms to serve the interests of their own communities.
Several autonomy movements came up as early as the 1950s and the same have carried on till date, with the objectives being to carve out new states, Union Territories and Autonomous District Councils. The earliest of these autonomous councils include the North Cachar Hills (Dima Hasao) Autonomous Council (1951) and Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (1952).
These movements, and even the formation of Autonomous Councils, have their own stories of success, failure and points of negotiation. Even today, attempts are being made to initiate the division of administrative institutions and citizens’ privileges along ethnic lines, across the region. This is turning out to be a never-ending story, even in a state like Manipur, though the current demand is not directly related to seeking autonomy in the form of autonomous councils.
Also read: Manipur: Magistrate Astonished as Police Seeks Custody of Man But Then ‘Cancels’ FIR
Along with the demand for autonomy, the region has also seen a mushrooming of new identity assertions. While one may see ethnic assertions as a positive search for self-rule, inter-ethnic conflicts point to a different reading and understanding of the concept of autonomy.
Often, these conflicts arise out of control over land; each of these communities requires not only land to claim as their own, but also to have governing and administrative mechanism in operation. While larger ethnic communities take to consolidating their hegemonic presence in the region, the smaller communities are constantly in alliance and in the process of re-negotiating their identities.
More than once, this writer has argued that most of these renegotiations/reconfigurations are seemingly headed towards a larger process of political formations. These are some strands of the intriguing cobweb of political practices clearly visible now, and may linger on until a holistic vision of the region is carved out of collective anxiety.
It is, indeed, interesting to observe how the quest for autonomy has been unfolding around the world since the 1940s, when the decolonisation process began to raise its novel head. The decolonisation of Asia and Africa between 1945 and 1960 is truly significant in this context, even though autonomy movements are not necessarily analogous to movements for total self-determination, freedom or sovereignty.
Plainly defined, political autonomy is the ability of a group of people with a territory to invoke and practise self-rule without the control of a higher level of government.
However, our understanding, in the Indian context, is hinged on the granting of ‘special status’ to states and regions and in effect, empowering or disempowering them to exercise their wisdom as an autonomous political entity.
When one executes a textual analysis of the language used in the provisions for special status given in the constitution, it becomes clear that hardly any effort has been made to translate these provisions to enable self-rule. One finds them as mere administrative decentralisation mechanisms, to prolong an uneasy political relationship through the all-encompassing process of spawning little dependencies inside one huge political entity.
Here, it would be noteworthy to point out that the push for more political and economic freedom can be propelled either by sheer financial resource-weakness of those seeking greater autonomy while acknowledging the presence of richly endowed natural resources in their respective regions.
The desire for autonomy, devolution of power, administrative decentralisation and mechanisms can be either an end to the struggle for greater political status or the beginning of a deceptive-yet-real mechanism of extending the administrative power of the Union government over the states and regions in India.
The inability of the special constitutional provision with respect to the state of Nagaland provided in Article 371A to solve the decades-old Naga issue, is a case in point.
While seeking ‘special political status’ for the state of Manipur, it is indeed a necessity to dissect all past and existing models/provisions in an effort to, at least, minimise possible political inabilities.
It is to be noted here that in all the so-called ‘special status’ provisions devised since the adoption of the constitution of India, one can read the role of a nominal head appointed by the Union government – the governor. Embedded within these constitutional texts are the powers conferred to him to act as the agent of the Union, rendering the concept of autonomy ambiguous and irrelevant.
At best, most of these provisions are purely administrative mechanisms and not autonomy mechanisms.
Dhiren A. Sadokpam is editor-in-chief, The Frontier Manipur.
This article was first published on The Frontier Manipur and has been lightly edited for style and clarity.
