Many have wondered why abrogation of Article 370 for Jammu
& Kashmir was not enough when another decision, adding insult to injury,
was taken. J&K State was downgraded to a Union Territory and Ladakh became
a separate Union Territory too.
This article is an attempt to understand the similarities
between J&K and Manipur situation and ponder if the solution to the Manipur
crisis is drifting towards downgrading to Union Territory (UT) status to remedy
regional developmental disparities within Manipur, reduce corruption, empower
the tribes and accelerate balanced development for all communities and areas.
On August 5, 2019, the Government of India abrogated Article
370, to fulfil an election manifesto promise of the ruling BJP party. Along
with this decision, the Government of India (GoI) reorganised the state of
Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories which caught everyone by surprise
- Jammu & Kashmir (UT with legislature) and Ladakh (UT without legislature).
Official reasons stated by the Government of India include -
1. Better Governance and Development:
The government argued that Article 370 had prevented the
full application of Indian laws in J&K, hindering development and
governance. Union Territory status allows for direct central control through
the Lieutenant Governor, which the government claimed would improve
administration, reduce corruption, and accelerate development.
2. Security and Integration:
The region had witnessed decades of militancy and political
instability.
The move was positioned as a way to integrate J&K more
closely with the rest of India, both legally and symbolically.
3. Equal Rights and Opportunities:
The government said it wanted to ensure equal rights for
women, dalits, tribal groups, and refugees (e.g., West Pakistan refugees), some
of whom were historically disadvantaged under the state-specific laws of
J&K.
4. Demand from Ladakh:
Many in Ladakh had long demanded separation from J&K,
arguing that their cultural and geographical concerns were neglected under the
J&K government.
The reorganisation granted Ladakh separate UT status,
acknowledging their distinct identity.
To many, downgrading J&K State to a UT was a lesson to
teach the Muslim-majority community that they need to stop sectarian politics
and embrace inclusive development and governance. There is no official
statement from the Government of India indicating that the move was intended to
target or punish the Muslim-majority of the region, but critics and analysts
(especially from Kashmir or opposition parties) argue that the unilateral
removal of autonomy as a State was perceived by many as a form of political
disenfranchisement, especially for the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley.
Some believe that the reorganisation was intended to dilute
the political dominance of the Muslim majority in the region and reshape its
demographic and political structure over time.
On the other hand, supporters argue that it was necessary to
ensure equal treatment for all communities, including Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists,
and dalits, who they claim were often marginalised under the earlier state
setup. So, while some may perceive it as a political message to the dominant
community, that interpretation is subjective and politically charged and not
officially confirmed.
There is a question now whether Jammu & Kashmir will
ever regain statehood.
The government of India has stated multiple times that
statehood will be restored to Jammu & Kashmir, but at an "appropriate
time". Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Prime Minister Narendra Modi have
said that statehood is not off the table, but it will follow
"normalisation" — including the successful conduct of elections,
reduced militancy, and improved law and order.
Key factors that may influence this are -
1. Security Situation:
Ongoing insurgency or militancy can delay statehood
restoration.
2. Political Climate:
The central government’s confidence in a more balanced and
impartial political environment; a change in the mindset of political leaders
embracing inclusive development and governance.
3. Elections:
Conducting free and fair assembly elections could be a step
toward restoring statehood.
4. Administrative Performance:
If UT governance under the oversight of the Lieutenant
Governor is seen to improve standard of life and reduce corruption, promote
inclusive development and governance, the GoI may delay restoration of
statehood.
There is also the question whether it is the
"mindset" of the dominant community for its inability to be
impartial, unbiased, inclusive, just and fair towards the minority and
marginalised population that may figure as an important factor to decide if the
situation is right for restoring full statehood to J&K. While there is no
official policy linking the mindset of the Muslim majority to the return of
statehood, it’s often implied in political discourse that the central
government expects a more inclusive, non-sectarian governance structure in
future. The GoI may be wary of returning power to leaders or parties who are
seen as sectarian by favouring one group over another. Will the appropriate
time come when such mindset is diluted and losses it predominance.
It appears that the GoI’s decision to the reorganisation of
J&K was aimed at improving governance, ensuring equality, and integrating
the region fully with India. It also had political and strategic goals,
including reducing perceived regional bias. Although there is no official
indication that it was done to punish the Muslim majority; this perception
exists in some quarters. Statehood may return to J&K, but it will be tied
to political stability, law and order, and the central government’s assessment
of administrative fairness.
Now, consider the situation in Manipur. Despite President's
Rule being imposed, the absence of meaningful conversation between the warring
communities (Meitei and Chin-Kuki-Zo) seems to indicate that the root causes of
the conflict remain largely unaddressed and the demand for the formation of a
new government seems to be at odds with the reality on the ground.
Current Situation in Manipur:
1. Political and Administrative Impasse: The demand for a
new government by the MLAs is understandable from a democratic perspective.
However, the fundamental problems remain unchanged — particularly the ethnic
violence and lack of trust between the Meitei-majority in the valley and the
tribal-majority in hill areas. The tribes (Nagas and Kukis) have been clubbed
together as the primary agenda of the Meitei-majority has shifted to ownership
of tribal lands in “hill areas” through various strategies; becoming ST,
extension of MLR&LR Act, redrawing district boundaries, amendment of
Article 371-C etc. This is a dangerous move as it has potential to ignite a
wider conflict between the non-tribals and the tribes.
2. Under President's Rule, the administration is essentially
being run by officials and the Governor. While this can offer a more impartial
governance model in theory, the ground-level issues of ethnic tensions and
territorial disputes are not easily solved by administrative intervention
alone; it needs political settlement.
3. Rapprochement is Still Elusive: As of now, there's no
significant rapprochement between the Meitei and Chin-Kuki-Zo tribes. The
violence and mistrust between these groups continue to shape the political
landscape of Manipur. The core issue — separate administration (territorial
claims, autonomy demands), religious/ethnic divide, and the question of
political representation — remains unresolved. Inter-community negotiations
have hardly started and are not yielding substantial results, with neither side
willing to make significant compromises.
4. Political Control and Bias: Even if a new state
government is to be formed, power would still likely remain concentrated in the
hands of the dominant Meitei community without any systemic change, which is
the core of the issue. A new political leadership solves nothing. Historically,
political power in Manipur has been Meitei dominated, and the concerns of tribal
groups (both Kukis and Nagas) may once again be sidelined. A new government and
leader will only perpetuate and accentuate existing problems and is best
avoided. What is needed is a systemic change not leadership change. Systemic
change should include an oversight person above the Chief Minister who can
advice whether the allocation of resources, projects, infrastructure,
institutions, etc between the valley and the “hill areas” have been done
equitably and seek remedial reconsideration by the state government. The remedy
to Manipur crisis should also include giving the “hill areas” empowered
autonomous district councils under the Sixth Schedule which may mitigate their
grievances substantially. Even in the formation of the council of ministers
there should be oversight to ensure that the legislators from “hill areas” are
given adequate number of ministership and respectable portfolios.
5. The lack of inclusive governance remains a major
challenge — the perception among the tribal communities is that the Meitei
political elite hold most of the levers of power in the state, which often
leads to feelings of disenfranchisement of the tribes and of not belonging to
the state. They fear that they will be denied the benefits of Delimitation
exercise based on population data of census 2001 ordered by the Supreme Court
of India as it is opposed by the dominant community. The tribes feel that they
have been held captive in the state without any emotional attachment with
Manipur. Systemic change is necessary to bring about real change in governance
that will ensure equity in funds, infrastructure, institutions, political power
sharing, local self governance for “Hill Areas”.
The parallels between J&K and Manipur is difficult to
miss. The main issue in Manipur is the partial, sectarian and bias mindset of
the leaders of the dominant community who can think of only one thing - to keep
dominating and subjugating the tribes. Their sectarian mindset stops them from
being magnanimous to share political power, pursue inclusive development and
governance. The Muslims in J&K State behaved similarly when it came to
dispensing inclusive governance and development by keeping everything for
themselves and neglecting other communities.
The dominant Meitei community has been refusing to extend
the Sixth Schedule to Hill Areas which the tribes have been demanding from mid
1970s. After 50 years of demand, the state government has tricked the tribes
again by recommending Sixth Schedule to the GoI subject to certain
conditionalities. The rider has effectively stalled the proposal. From the year
2022, the dominant community has started to aggressively pursue the strategy of
trying to facilitate processes for grabbing tribal lands in Hill Areas. The
tribes have lost trust of the dominant community and do not expect them to
dispense any form of justice.
The parallels between J&K State and Manipur are uncanny.
Similar to J&K, there is imbalance in regional development; unequal rights,
opportunities and treatment of communities; demand for separate
administration/Sixth Schedule; security/law and order situation caused by gun
violence; and lack of inclusive development or governance between valley and
“Hill Areas”. Only a situation under the oversight of a LG in a UT (with
legislators) will provide equitable distribution of funds, location of
institutions, projects, infrastructure etc. in “Hill Areas”, and remedy the
ills currently faced by Manipur. The downgrading to UT should be accompanied by
grant of Sixth Schedule to the “Hill Areas” of Manipur which will give the
tribes a truly workable local self-government system they have been demanding
for 50 years. All their counterparts in north eastern states have autonomous
district councils for different tribes and similar treatment is being sought by
tribes of Manipur for the “Hill Areas”. This system will help formalise and
stabilise traditional practises relating to customs, land, religious matters,
village councils, village courts, forests, water etc (which is being practised
in all villages) and especially help insulate tribal lands in “Hill Areas” from
alienation.
Just like the treatment J&K UT is witnessing now,
Manipur would require a period for stabilisation and normalisation of the
situation to remedy the current situation of intransigence and high handedness
of the dominant community and ensure grievances of the tribes are fully
addressed before statehood is restored.
This strategy needs contemplation as one of the way forward
for Manipur to survive as a political entity with coexistence of all
communities in a pluralistic society. The other route, which is demanded by the
Chin-Kuki-Zo tribes and is avoidable, is divorce.
