Independent People’s Tribunal report on Manipur by PUCL: A shadow of partiality

Hareshwar Goshwami
Contd from previous issue
As for the Rajya Sabha, the single seat in Manipur is not reserved. In fact, Shri Rishang Keishing, a distinguished leader belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community, represented Mani- pur in the Rajya Sabha for two consecutive terms between 2002 and 2014. Equally important, the report fails to recognize a serious democratic limitation : voters from eight Assembly Constituencies in the valley, belonging to the General category in Manipur cannot contest in the Parliamentary elections, as their Constituencies are merged into the reserved Outer Manipur (ST) Constituency for the purpose of Parliamentary elections. This deprivation of right to contest Parliamentary Elections, which directly affects a section of the population, has not been considered at all in the chapter. Such omissions reveal not only a lack of depth but also a partial and imbalanced treat- ment of communities in the report.
Another highly contentious aspect discussed in Chapter Two pertains to the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, (MLR & LR Act) 1960 which has long remained a matter of grievance for the people belonging to the General category, particularly the Meitei. What is striking, however, is that this concern finds little meaningful representation in the report and, in many places, appears almost entirely brushed aside. To appreciate the depth of the issue, it is essential to recall the geographical composition of Manipur.
The State covers an area of about 22,327 sq. km (22,356 sq. km as per the 1971 Census), of which nearly 90%—approximately 20,089 sq. km—is classified as hill area. The remaining 10%, around 2,238 sq. km, constitutes the valley, where the bulk of the Meitei population resides. Under the provisions of the Manipur Land Revenue & Land Reforms Act, 1960, people belonging to the General category are practically prohibited from acquiring or possessing land in areas (except in some pockets) notified as “hill areas,” notwithstanding the fact that the Act is technically extended to certain hill tracts. This prohibition has created a rigid territorial barrier, confining the Meitei population to the narrow valley region, which already struggles with high population density and limited land availability.
In sharp contrast, members of the Scheduled Tribe category face no such restrictions in the valley. Being Scheduled Tribe, they enjoy full legal rights to purchase, own, and settle on land in the valley without limitation. This asymmetry has placed the Meitei at a clear structural disadvantage, both in terms of access to land and opportunities for expansion. The demographic and territorial implications of such an imbalance are far-reaching, contributing to a sense of exclusion and fuelling discontent that continues to resonate strongly within Meitei society. Over the decades, the habitable space available to the Meitei has steadily contracted, even as the settlement of Scheduled Tribe communities especially the Kuki-Zou in the valley has expanded rapidly. This shifting demogra- phic dynamic has fostered a deep and enduring sense of marginalization among the Meitei, who remain barred from accessing the vast hill regions that constitute the bulk of their own State, while simultaneously witnessing their already limited valley space becoming increasingly contested. No doubt there are tiny Meitei settlements in some hill pockets in Manipur where MLR & LR Act was extended in the past. To put this imbalance into perspective, the valley—comprising a mere 10% of Manipur’s landmass—housed approximately 16,33,672 people, i.e. more than 57% of the total population of 28,55,794 (2011 census), whereas the remaining 90% of the hill areas accommodated only 12,22,122 (2011 census).
No doubt, Imphal, as the State capital, must remain a shared space—an open heart that welcomes and accommodates all indigenous communities, where their voices, traditions, and aspirations find equal room to flourish. Yet, by the same principle of fairness and inclusivity, it is equally essential that those belonging to the General category are not confined or restricted, but are allowed the same right of habitation across the length and breadth of the state. True harmony lies not in selective openness, but in ensuring that every indigenous community, whether from the ST or from the General category, has the freedom to dwell, to live with dignity, and to contribute to the collective destiny of Manipur.
Chapter Three of the report concerns itself with the Accession of Manipur to India, the Constituent Assembly Debates, the question of Special Status for Manipur, the issues relating to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and the competing claims of the Meitei and Kuki for reservation. As stated earlier, my purpose is not to engage with every argument advanced in the report, but rather to highlight those aspects which, being easily visible, may mislead the general public—and particularly the mainland media and intellectual circles—into adopting misguided conclusions. In Section 3.2, while discussing the so-called Special Status of Manipur, the report asserts: “At the commencement of the Constitution, Manipur remained to be characterized as a former princely State as Part B State…” This claim is nothing short of astonishing. Manipur was never placed in the Part B category. Unless the report draws from some obscure and unverified source, this assertion appears to be an invention of the IPT report itself—one that is misleading and, more seriously, a distortion of established historical fact. Any earnest student of constitutional history can readily verify, from the authoritative document The Part C State Act, 1951 and the subsequent States Reorganization, that Manipur was firmly classified as a Part C State, not Part B as reported by the IPT. The confusion deepens further when the report turns to the Naga Hills–Tuensang Area (later Nagaland), which it describes as a Part B tribal area within Assam. This statement is factually erroneous. The historical record is unambiguous: Assam, along with eight other provinces, was classified under Part A States, governed by Governors appointed by the President. To suggest otherwise is not merely a matter of interpretative difference; it fundamentally muddles constitutional history and risks fostering a distorted narrative about Manipur’s political and constitutional position at the time of its integration into the Indian Union.
(To be contd)