these eight full length research papers - one each from the eight states in the north-east of india...
TRANSCRIPT
Leverhulme International Network
Continuity and Change in Indian Federalism
Timeline Papers
The North-East of India: Political Dynamics and Issues
Eds. Harihar Bhattacharyya and Katharine Adeney
2
Editorial Note on the Timeline Papers
Professor Harihar Bhattacharyya, Burdwan University
Professor Katharine Adeney, Nottingham University
These eight full length research papers - one each from the eight states in the north-east of India - are based on both research and insider knowledge. They are written by scholars who are intimately familiar with the field and mostly based in the region. During the course of our three year-long detailed empirical survey research (2014-17) funded by the Leverhulme Trust UK, we commissioned these timeline papers as part of the research strand on ‘Ethnic Conflict Management in India’s North-east’. They are designed to help the readers place the elite interviews carried out as part of the project into context.
In writing these timeline reports, each contributor was given a template to follow, which has given the papers a reasonable level of consistency. Since the states in the region have had different and complex (and often doubtful) trajectories of integration with the Union of India, each contributor was advised to address this issue within the timeline. Thus these timelines demonstrate the different state trajectories and how they have operated within India. We also advised the authors to reflect upon the current issues in the states with respect to the rise of ‘Hindu nationalism’ and its import in these States. The authors also were requested to reflect on the state specific context in India’s economic liberalization.
3
Harihar Bhattacharyya, Ph. D, LSE (London) is Professor of Political Science, the University
of Burdwan, West Bengal (India). He was Baden-Wurrttemburg Fellow at the South Asia
Institute (1998), Heidelberg University; DAAD Fellow at the South Asia Institute, Heidelberg
University (2007) and Visiting Professor at Heidelberg University (2009-10); M L Singhvi
Fellow at Hull University, UK (2002); Visiting Research Professor at the Institute of
Federalism, Fribourg, Switzerland (1998-99). He has published single authored/jointly edited
11 books, and more than 100 journal articles/book chapters. His single authored books include:
(2010) Federalism in Asia: India, Pakistan and Malaysia (London: Routledge); (1999)
Communism in Tripura (Delhi: Ajanta); and (2001) India as a Multicultural Federation etc
(Fribourg: Switzerland). He published articles in India Review (2017)(USA) and Regional
Federal Studies (UK) (2015), Economic and Political Weekly; and South Asia Research
(London). His forthcoming books are: (2018) Radical Politics in India’s North East (London:
Routledge), and (jointly with Subrata K Mitra) Politics and Governance in Indian States:
Bihar, West Bengal and Tripura (Singapore: World Scientific, 2018). He has been engaged in
global level collaborative researches since 1996 including those on policy studies,
peacemaking, and constitution drafting. (email: [email protected])
Katharine Adeney is Professor of Politics and Director of the Institute of Asia and Pacific
Studies (IAPS), University of Nottingham, UK. She joined the School in 2013, having
previously held positions at Sheffield, Balliol College, Oxford and the LSE. She is also the
editor of IAPS Dialogue, the knowledge exchange platform of IAPS. Her principal research
interests include: the countries of South Asia, especially India and Pakistan; ethnic conflict
regulation and institutional design; the creation and maintenance of national identities; the
politics of federal states, and democratisation in South Asia. She is co-editor of Government
and Opposition (Cambridge). You can follow her @katadeney. She has just completed her
involvement in the Leverhulme funded project on Continuity and Change in Indian federalism,
particularly on the management of ethnic diversity in India over the last 20 years. She is a
Visiting Senior Fellow at the Centre for Multilevel Federalism in New Delhi and was a Visiting
Professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University. She continues to monitor contemporary events in
Pakistan, and was Lead Consultant for the Forum of Federations' program in Pakistan which
ran between 2009-2011, funded by the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs. She is a member
of the Management Committee of the Rights and Justice Research Priority Area, a research
4
grouping involving over 700 staff and 250 postgraduates from 18 different University
centres/institutes.
Jhumpa Mukherjee (Gold Medalist), PhD, is Assistant Professor of Political Science at St.
Xavier’s College, Kolkata, under Calcutta University. She is the author of Conflict Resolution
in Multicultural Societies: The Indian Experience (Sage 2014) and The World of Human Rights
(Concept 2014). She has contributed chapters in edited books and has published articles on
contemporary social and political issues in nationally and internationally acclaimed journals
and has participated in national and international seminars. She supervised a project on the
north east which was a part of the three year International Research project on Continuity and
Change in Indian Federalism in the Age of Coalition Governments funded by the Leverhulme
Trust, UK. She is an Advisory member of the Centre for Decentralization and Rural
Development, Rabindra Bharati University, Kolkata.. Her areas of research interest include
federalism and regional movements in India, identity politics and human rights. Email:
Kenilo KATH, Ph. D (Nagaland University) is Assistant Professor of History at Sao Chang
College, at Tuensang Nagaland. His publications include “Traditional Religious System of
Rengma Nagas (2005) and “Indigenous People and the Climate Change with Special Reference
to the Nagas” (2012) (contact: [email protected])
Sajal Nag is currently Professor, Department of History, Assam University, Silchar, Assam.
A recipient of Commonwealth Fellowship at Northern Ireland (2004-05), Charles Wallace
Fellowship at Cambridge (2008) and Senior Fellowship at Nehru Memorial Museum and
Library, New Delhi (2013-2014, he was the first Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Distinguished
Chair Professor in Social Sciences at Presidency University, Kolkata. He is the author of The
Uprising: Colonial State, Christian Missionary and Anti-Slavery Movement in North East Indi
1908-1954 (Oxford, 2016), Bridging State and Nation: Politics of Peace in Nagaland and
Mizoram, with Rita Manchanda and Tapan Bose, Sage, 2015, The Beleaguered Nation: Making
and Unmaking of the Assamese Nationality, Manohar, Delhi, Contesting Marginality:
Ethnicity, Insurgency and Sub nationalism in North East India, Manohar, New Delhi, 2002.
Pied Pipers in North East India: Bamboo Flowers, Rat Famine and the Politics of Environment
in North East India, Manohar, New Delhi, 2008. Nationalism, Separatism and Secessionism,
5
Rawat, New Delhi, 1999. He has edited, Making of the Union: Merger of Princely States and
Excluded Areas with India, New Delhi, Akansha, 2007 Bridging Region and Nation: Essays in
Honour of Prof Amalendu Guha: Professor Amalendu Guha Commemoration Volume,
Primus, Delhi, 2017, Playing With Nature: Essays on Environmental History and Politics with
special Reference to North East India, Manohar, Delhi, 2016, Force of Nature: Essays in
Environmental history and Politics, Manohar, 2015 (email: [email protected])
Lalnundika Hnamte is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science in ICFAI
University Mizoram and Research Scholar in the Department of Political Science in Mizoram
University. Authored Prohibition: A Socio-Economic Assessment of Gujarat and Mizoram in
2014. His latest work, a joint article with Ivaturi Ramabrahmam entitled, “Institutional
Framework for Development of North-East India: The Role of the North Eastern Council,” was
published by Indian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. LXII No.4, October-December
2016. E-mail: [email protected]
Satyabrath Sinha, M. A., M. Phil., Ph. D (JNU) is Assistant Professor in the Department of
Political Science, Presidency University, Kolkata. Before joining the Presidency University,
he was Visiting Faculty, Malaviya Centre for Peace Research, Benares Hindu University,
Assistant Professor (Security), Centre for Research in Rural and Industrial Development
(CRRID), Chandigarh. April 2012- November 2012, and Assistant Professor, Department of
Peace and Conflict Studies and Management, Sikkim University, Gangtok, Sikkim, October
2008- March 2012. He was an Assistant Editor, China Report, Institute of Chinese Studies,
November 2005- May 2010. He was a Research Officer (Military Security), Institute of Peace
and Conflict Studies, New Delhi, India, November 2004-August 2005. In 2005 he visited
Maryland University, USA as External Analyst (South Asia), Ijet Risk Consultancy. His
research articles include: “Security Challenges of a Rising Asia”, China Report, 45:4, October-
December 2009; “India Pakistan Peace Process: Incremental Progress?” in Anjali Ghosh et al
(edited) Indian Foreign Policy, Jadavpur University and Pearson 2009. “China in Pakistan’s
Security Perceptions” in Swaran Singh, edited, China-Pakistan Strategic Cooperation: Indian
Perspectives, Centre De Sciences Humaines and Manohar, New Delhi, 2007. Contact:
6
Arunachal Pradesh: From NEFA to Statehood in Indian Federalism
Jhumpa Mukherjee
Geography and Demographics Arunachal Pradesh, India’s land of the rising sun, is acknowledged to be one of the most splendid, variegated and multilingual tribal areas of the world. It is a sparsely populated hilly tract lying on the extreme north-east of India comprising approximately 83,573 square kilometers. Among all the north east states, Arunachal Pradesh has the largest land area but, its population is 0.11 per cent of India’s population and only 2.85 per cent of the population of Northeast India. All the States of Northeast India, except Mizoram, have larger populations than that of Arunachal Pradesh. It is bordered by Bhutan on its west (160 km), the Tibet region of China on its northern and north east border (1080 km) and Myanmar (440km) on the eastern border and by Assam and Nagaland in the south. Located at the foothills of Himalayas, it has varied topography—snow capped mountains, innumerable rivers, rich vegetation and wild life. The Pradesh is known to be rich in flora, fauna, minerals and is acclaimed to be one of the most important biodiversity hotspot of the world. The majestic beauty of Arunachal can be seen in the way the great Brahmaputra river curves around the Himalayas, to enter Arunachal as the Siang. It meets the Lohit, another great river that originates in China, shortly after it moves into the plains; A number of big rivers like the Kameng, Subansiri and Dibang flow into the Brahmaputra; shaping out distinctive valleys to form the natural divisions that make up the hilly state.
During the British colonial rule in India, the region was known as the North East Frontier Agency (NEFA) and constituted a part of the state of Assam. At the time of independence in 1947, the territory which comprises present day Arunachal Pradesh was under Part-B of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution as tribal areas within what constituted then Assam. It included Baliapara
7
Frontier Tract, Tirap frontier Tract, Abor Hills District, Mishmi Hills district and the Naga tribal areas. Together, these districts were called the North-East Frontier Agency in 1951.1
Arunachal Pradesh achieved statehood within Indian federalism on 20 February 1987. Mostly inhabited by tribal groups, Arunachal Pradesh is divided into 20 districts---Tawang, West Kameng, East Kameng, Papum Pare, Kurung Kumey, Kra Daadi, Lower Subansiri, Upper Subansiri, West Siang, East Siang, Central Siang, Upper Siang, Upper Dibang Valley, Lower Dibang Valley, Anjaw, Lohit, Nansai, Changlang, Tirap, Longding. Earlier Arunachal Pradesh comprised of 16 districts; however, the enactment of the Arunachal Pradesh (Re-Organization of Districts) (Amendment) Act, 2013, led to the creation of four new districts - Kra Daadi, Namsai, Siang and Lower Siang.
Arunachal Pradesh is a multi linguistic, multi religious and multi ethnic state. According to the Census of 2011, Arunachal Pradesh has the population of 1.38 million. The density of population is 17 per sq km and sex ratio is 938 in 2011 as compared to 893 in 2001. The population density stands in sharp contrast to the all India population density of 382 people per square kilometer in the country. The rate of literacy as per the 2011 census is 65.38 %, an appreciable increase of 11 percent from the 2001census (54.34%) but far behind the national average of 74.04%. Arunachal is predominantly a tribal state. The State’s main ethnic communities, each having its own distinctive customs and cultural traditions, are: Abor, Aka, Apatani, Dafla, Galong , Khampti , Khowa , Mishmi, Idu, Taroan ,Momba , Sherdukpen , Singpho , Hrusso , Tagin , Khamba and Adi. These tribes have a lot of ethnic similarities but due to geographical isolation certain distinctive characteristics in terms of customs, dresses and traits have developed. Moreover different tribes follow different religions like the Monpas and Sherdukpens follow Buddhism, Adis, Akas, Nishing, Apatanis, Mishmis, Tangsas worship sun and moon as their God, the Noctes practice Vaishnavism.2 The total Scheduled Tribe population of the State, according to the Census of 2011, is 95,1821 which is 68.8% (in 2001 census the ST population was 64,2% of the total population, thus a marginal increase in population). Being multilinguistic the different tribes speak myriad languages and dialects and possibly 30-50 distinct languages and dialects and most of them belong to the Tibeto-Burman language family like Nyishi, Dafla, Miji, Adi, Gallong,Wancho, Tagin, Hill Miri, Mishul, Mohpa, Nocte, Aka, Tangsa, Khamti.3 A considerable number of Assamese and Nepali speakers can also be found. Most languages do not have a script of their own and use either the Roman script or the Assamese script. In such a sparsely populated state, six different scripts are in use – Assamese, Devanagri, Hingna, Mon, Roman, and Tibetan. English is the official language of the state. The 50th Report of the Commissioner for Linguistic Minorities in India (2012-2013) states that because of the existence of large number of linguistic minorities (the Census of 2001 identified
1 http://arunachalpradesh.gov.in/rural/html/glance.htm
2 http://arunachalpradesh.gov.in/rural/html/glance.htm 3 http://mdoner.gov.in/content/arunachal-pradesh-2
8
the following linguistic minorities in the state: Nissi/Dafla (18.97%), Adi (17.6%), Bengali (8.85%), Nepali (8.64%), Hindi (7.39%), the State government is advised to take effective policy measures for promotion and protection of linguistic minorities. The State Government should ensure translation and publication of Rules, Regulations, Notices, etc. in the relevant minority languages for the benefit of linguistic minorities where the speakers constitute 15 percent or more of the District/Tehsil/ Taluka/Municipality population. The Commission, however, expressed its anguish at the non availability of response on behalf of the state of Arunachal Pradesh regarding measures taken for them.4 The state is multi-religious, with Christian followers slightly higher than the Hindus. Many of the tribes practice animism. Table1: Major Religions Religion Percentage of followers
Christian 30.26%
Hindu 29.04%
Muslim 1.95%
Sikh 0.24%
Buddhist 11.77%
Jain 0.06%
Other Religions 26.20%
Census of India 2011 Most popular is Donyi Polo which involves the worship of the sun and the moon. Over the years there has been a fast decline of tribal indigenous faith. According to the 1981 census, the State had 51.6% Donyi Polo followers which have come down to 26.20% in 2011. A large number of the tribal communities practicing indigenous faith have converted to Christianity. In 2001 Christianity was followed by only 18.7 % but in 2011 Christianity believers increased to 30.26%. One of the possible reasons for this conversion to Christianity, as said by the new converts, is to “escape from elaborate expensive pujas that Donyi Polo priests demand”.5
Ethnic Composition
The state is inhabited by a number of tribes and sub-tribes having their own distinct languages and dialects, belonging mostly to the Tibeto-Burmese language family. The tribes have been
4 50th Report of the Commissioner for Linguistic Minorities in India (2012-2013) http://nclm.nic.in/shared/linkimages/NCLM50thReport.pdf 5 Hindustan Times, Nov. 18, 2016.
9
residing here for centuries and have their own unique culture, traditions and follow their own customary laws and dispute-resolution mechanisms, which, to our greatest surprise, are highly democratic in nature. The principal tribes are Adis, Nishi, Apatani, Tagin, Mismi, Khampti, Noite, Wancho, Tangsha, Singpho, Monpa, Sherdukpen and Aka. These tribes speak their own tongues.
The tribal population believed in varied cultural ideals, for instance, the Daflas, Bangnis, the Monpas were influenced by Buddhist ideals. The Miri along with the Daflas and Tagin lived in the hills. The Apatanis were believed to be more advanced. They were agriculturists. Besides this the Abor who called themselves as Adi lived in the valley of Arunachal Pradesh. Besides them, the Membas, Ramos and Boris formed minor groups. The Mishmis exists as Idus, Taraons, and Kamans. They excelled in handicrafts.
The Adis are the major group of tribes inhabiting the West Siang district. The different sub tribes groups of the Adis are Gallong, Janbe, Karka, Memba, Ashing, Bori, Bogum, Bagi, Pailibo, Minyong etc. In the Adi society descent is traced through the father and the property devolves on the male line and the children belong to the father’s clan. The elder son generally set up their separate house-holds even while the father is alive though on principle. They have equal shares on the parents property. They do not dispute with the youngest brother who stays with the parents and inherits the ancestral house by common consent. The Adis by nature are democratic and have a unique sense of history. They have well organized village council called 'Kebang'. The Nishis, one of the major tribes of Arunachal Pradesh inhabiting in East Kameng, Papum Pare,Lower Subansiri, Kurung Kumey districts of Arunachal Pradesh, belong to the Indo-Mongoloid group.6 The nishis speak the Nyishi language which belongs to the Sino-Tibetan family. They are primarily agriculturalists and practice jhoom cultivation. They are believers of the Donyi-Polo faith, a religion which commemorates their ancestors. The Apatanis belong to the Tibeto-Mongoloid stock. They draw their lineage from the patriarchal side. They are divided into two classes---the Gyuchii and the Gyutti who do not intermarry. The Apatanis are agriculturalists but unlike the Nyishsis , they practice permanent type of cultivation. They are governed by traditional village councils consisting of one or two Buliyang representative from each clan whose position is hereditary. The Mishmis live along the valleys of the Debang and Luhit rivers. Each family group is autonomous and they draw their descent through the paternal line. The Khampti are found in the Sagaing division and they are followers of Theravada Buddhism. They are divided into classes, each signifying a distinct status in the social hierarchy.7
Table 2: Population of Major STs census of India 2001
Sl.No.
Name of the ST Population returned in 2001 census
6 arunachal.adivasi.in 7 arunachal.adivasi.in
10
1 All Scheduled Tribes 705,158
2 Abor 19,927
3 Adi 32,582
4 Adi Gallong 48,126
5 Adi Minyong 33,984
6 Adi Padam 11,625
7 Aka 5,140
8 Any Naga Tribes 6,978
9 Apatani 27,576
10 Bangni 7,870
11 Dafla 45,276
12 Deori 5,693
13 Galong 27,239
14 Idu/Chulikata Mishmi 9,350
15 Khampti 12,890
16 Miji 5,721
17 Mishing/Miri 13,591
18 Mishmi 25,161
9 Monpa 41,983
20 Nishang 21,907
21 Nissi 87,656
22 Nocte 33,680
23 Tagin 39,091
24 Tangsa 20,962
25 Tawang Monpa 7,500
26 Wancho 47,788
Source: Census of India 2001
11
Arunachal Pradesh: The Journey to Statehood
Not much studies have been found regarding it, but that during the British colonial rule, Arunachal Pradesh was included within the ‘Backward Tracts’ and special laws were made for the administration of these areas in view of the backwardness of these areas. Before independence Arunachal Pradesh was a part of the North East Frontier Tracts administered by the Governor of Assam in his discretion. After independence, the Advisory Committee on the rights of citizens, minorities and tribal and excluded areas of the Constituent Assembly set up a Sub-Committee under the Chairmanship of Gopinath Bordoloi to recommend the pattern of administration that would satisfy the aspirations of the tribal areas and their people without disturbing their indigenous culture and tradition.
The Sub-Committee after intense deliberations recommended that the North East Frontier areas should be directly governed by the Government of Assam. However, the Government of India decided that these areas would be regarded as ‘Excluded Areas’ and would be governed by the Government of India with the Governor of Assam as an agent of the President of India. In 1950, by a notification the Balipara Frontier Tract, Tirap Frontier Tract, Abor Hill District and the Mishimi Hills District became a part of Assam. In 1951, the units of the tracts were reconstituted again and Tuensang Frontier Division was created which later merged with Nagaland.8 In 1954, the North East Frontier (Administration) Regulation was enacted by virtue of which the remaining areas were constituted together to form the North East Frontier Agency, the NEFA. In fact the NEFA was the outcome of the Nehru Elwin policy of tribal development which was chiefly aimed at integration of the NEFA with the Indian mainstream thereby enabling the tribes to develop their own culture without any forcible imposition from others. Nehru’s foreword in A Philosophy of NEFA outlines five fundamental principles of development for the tribal areas 9which are:
1. People should develop along the lines of their own genius and we should avoid imposing anything on them. We should try to encourage in every way their own traditional arts and culture.
2. Tribal rights in land and forests should be protected. 3. We should try to train and build up a team of their own people to do the work of
administration and development. Some technical personnel form outside will, no doubt, be needed, especially in the beginning. But we should avoid introducing too many outsiders into tribal territory.
9 Jawaharlal Nehru’s Foreword to Verrier Elwin’s A Philosophy of NEFAng the Civilized, Verrier El in Ramachandra Guha , Savagwin, Tribals, and India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2005,P. 268.
12
4. We should not over-administer these areas or overwhelm them with a multiplicity of schemes. We should rather work through, and not in rivalry to, their own social and cultural institutions.
5. We should judge results, not by statistics or the amount of money spent , but by the quality of human character that is evolved.
Inspite of the integrationist role played by the Centre it failed to subsume the movement for cultural and political identity among the tribes of Arunachal Pradesh such as Nishing, Tagins, Hill Miris, Adis, Apa Tanis and Mishmis The tribal people apprehended that their language and religion would be destroyed primarily due to the political events taking place in India-The Indian debacle in the Sino-Indian border conflict in 1962, and the demise of Nehru and Elwin in 1964, led to the gradual abandonment of Nehru Elwin policy and introduction of new modern political institutions, like the PRIs. Panchayati Raj regulation was implemented in 1969 which led to superimposition of these institutions on the traditional autonomous socio-political institutions of the tribes thus giving them a sense of insecurity; added to this was the penetration of Christian missionaries from Assam to NEFA.
The movement for recognition of religious identity based on the indigenous traditions also forms an important aspect of the movement for cultural identity. 10 “The proselytisation to Christianity and the presence of outside religions created a sense of ‘other’ among the people of Arunachal Pradesh, especially the Adis”.11 They vehemently resented such activities and demanded positive measures for preservation of their indigenous faith and culture. The tribal communities were apprehensive of the imposition of outside culture and religion on their traditional ways of life. Therefore, the movement essentially focused upon protection from cultural imperialism. Interestingly, while these tribes did not revolt against the British regime did so when the country became independent.
Along with religion, the movement for cultural identity also gave rise to the issue of “indigenous people’s right of self determination on the question of language”12 Movement started for the adoption of alternative script for the people other than Hindi or Assamese. Thus, the cultural identity movement revolved mainly around the issue of religion and language and the different tribes peacefully “evolved their own agenda of resistance against the officially sponsored ‘cultural hegemony’ and carved out their own space of forging a process of identity formation”. 13 Thus the linguistic reorganization and imposition of Assamese had a direct
10 Jagadish Lal Dawar, Cultural Identity of Tribes of North-East India (Movement for Cultural Identity Among the Adis of Arunachal Pradesh), Commonwealth Publishers, New Delhi, 2003, p. 53. 11 Ibid, p.55. 12 Cited in Jagadish Lal Dawar, Cultural Identity of Tribes of North-East India (Movement for Cultural Identity Among the Adis of Arunachal Pradesh), Commonwealth Publishers, New Delhi, 2003, p.118. 13 Jagadish Lal Dawar, Cultural Identity of Tribes of North-East India (Movement for Cultural Identity Among the Adis of Arunachal Pradesh), Commonwealth Publishers, New Delhi, 2003, p. 129.
13
bearing on the autonomy movement. Ultimately to preserve their indigenous culture the North Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act of 1971 converted NEFA into a Union Territory with a change of name as Arunachal Pradesh, and ultimately on 20 February 1987, it acquired the status of a full-fledged State.
Unlike other states of the north east which were reorganized purely on ethnic lines, the case of Arunachal Pradesh is different primarily for its geo-strategic location and conflicts with China. The ‘Chinese factor’ did play a significant role in the process of state formation. The reports of Chinese troops intruding into Wangdong in Sumdorang Chu river valley in Tawang district of Arunachal Pradesh in September 1986 which was considered an integral and indivisible part of India according to Mac Mohan Line of 1914 brought in the fear of 1962 Chinese aggression and it became clear that the situation was not in India’s favour.14 The Government of India enacted a bill in the Parliament in December 1986 to establish Arunachal Pradesh as a state. Thus state formation was more a strategic move on the part of the Rajiv Gandhi led Congress government rather than a response to statehood demand by the people. Surprisingly, All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union (AAPSU) strongly objected to granting of statehood till Arunachal attains a “desired level of political and economic development”.15 It also seems pertinent to point that in other cases of formation of statehood in the north east- Manipur, Meghalaya, or in the case of very recent Telangana, the Centre was quite reluctant to grant statehood but for Arunachal Pradesh it was a swift upgradation.
LEGISLATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL ENACTMENTS
The North-Eastern Area (Reorganization) Act, 1971 (Act No. 81 of 1971) transformed NEFA to the status of a Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh as a part of re-organization of the existing State of Assam. Thus it acquired a separate political status and ceased to be a tribal area within the state of Assam. The Agency Council which was the highest government institution was replaced by the Pradesh Council. It was to be a centrally administered territory with a legislative assembly and representation of one seat for the Scheduled Tribes in the Lok Sabha. The Government of Union Territories Act 1963 provides for 30 seats in Union Territories and Arunachal Pradesh also was allotted 30 seats in the legislative Assembly. Out of these, only 2 Assembly seats were reserved for Scheduled Tribes. 16 Although a predominantly tribal state yet only two seats were reserved for STs in the Arunachal Pradesh legislative Assembly primarily because Union territories are uniformly administered under the Government of Union Territories Act 1963. The Act does not make any special provision for tribal vis-a-vis non tribal majority states when it comes to representation of the population in the legislative assembly.
14 Nani Bath, Article 371(H) and Sensitive Location of Arunachal Pradesh, The Arunachal Times, Jan 16, 2016 15 Nani Bath, Article 371(H) and Sensitive Location of Arunachal Pradesh, The Arunachal Times, Jan 16, 2016. 16 http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/SE_1978/StatisticalReport%20Arunachal%20Pradesh%2078.pdf
14
Subsequently, Arunachal Pradesh was upgraded to a state as per the State of Arunachal Pradesh Act 1986 and it provided for 2 seats in the Lok Sabha. The number of assembly constituencies were increased from 30 to 60; 59 seats was reserved for Scheduled Tribes and one for general candidates. The Constitution 55th Amendment Bill, granting statehood to Arunachal Pradesh, has brought in a controversial provision in the form of Article 371(H) of the Constitution. Article 371H of the Constitution of India provides for special provision with respect to the State of Arunachal Pradesh. It vests the Governor with special discretionary powers as Article 371(H) (a) provides that the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh shall have special responsibility with respect to law and order in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and in the discharge of his functions in relation thereto, the Governor shall, after consulting the Council of Ministers, exercise his individual judgment as to the action to be taken. This provision has been widely criticized as being unconstitutional.
The Act further strengthens the powers of the Governor by providing that “if any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the Governor is under this clause required to act in the exercise of his individual judgment, the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in the exercise of his individual judgment”.
This special power seems justified when Arunachal Pradesh was a Union Territory but after the transformation to statehood, continuance of article 371 H seems inconsonance with the powers of the Governors of other Indian states. Late Bakin Pertin, founder of People’s Party of Arunachal (PPA) called it “a most undemocratic measure” which “casts a serious reflection on the capacity and truth worthiness of the Council of Ministers”.17 It is “an uncalled for encroachment on the liberty” of the people of Arunachal Pradesh. He went on to add, “We fail to see why the elected representatives of the people of Arunachal Pradesh cannot be trusted with the responsibilities for law and order, unlike all other States in India, many of which have also common frontiers with foreign countries”. 18 The then Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, expressed that this provision was necessary because of ‘very sensitive’ location of Arunachal Pradesh and assured that the special power would not be used to encroach upon the autonomy of the state.19
The clause though seeks to give special priority to law and order situation in the predominantly tribal state yet the incident of 2016 where the Governor, J P Rajkhowa exercised his discretion by bringing forward the winter session of the Assembly without consulting the Chief Minister
17 Nani Bath, Article 371(H) and Sensitive Location of Arunachal Pradesh, The Arunachal Times, Jan 16, 2016 18 Ibid 19 Nani Bath, Article 371(H) and Sensitive Location of Arunachal Pradesh, The Arunachal Times, Jan 16, 2016
15
and imposing emergency in the state certainly raises question on the prudent exercise of this discretionary power.
Arunachal has been a predominantly Congress ruled state and after the 2014 assembly elections, Congress enjoyed a comfortable majority with 47 MLAs in the 60 member House. However, a section of the Congress MLAs defected leading to their disqualification by the Speaker. Governor Rajkhowa brought forward the Assembly session by a month and even sought the removal of the Speaker, an unconstitutional gesture on the part of a Constitutional head of a state. Rajkhowa however contended that he had the power to summon and prorogue the sessions of the House. With the tacit approval of the Governor in the Assembly session the defected MLAs passed a no confidence motion against the Chief Minister, Tuki. Subsequently Mr. Rajkhowa imposed President’s rule in the state thus dissolving a majority House without a valid reason.20
Governing Institutions: Modernity combined with Traditions
Arunachal Pradesh is perhaps the only State in the country which has a peculiar blend of multiple representative institutions—some traditional and hereditary, some elected. This is predominantly because Arunachal Pradesh is a tribal majority State with around 26 major tribes each having their own established principles of governing their own communities. The State has a unicameral legislature. Elections are held regularly after every five years and the state legislature is dominated by the national parties especially Indian National Congress and BJP (in recent years) since the first assembly elections. Along democratic institutions of governance like the Governor, Chief Minister and council of ministers, there are traditional institutions of governance based on customary rules governing the socio-political lives of the tribal clans and groups. There are as many types of traditional self-governing institutions in the state as there are tribes. The most prominent among them are the Kebang of the Adis, the Builiang of the Apatanis, the Nyele of the Nishings, the Mele of the Hrussos, the Tsorgan system of the Monpas, the Jung of the Sherdukpens, the Abbala of the Idu Mishmis, the Pharai of the Kaman Mishmis, the Mockchup of the Khamtis, the Ngojowa of the Wanchos and Mungphong or Nockthung of the Tangsas.21 Some of them are oligarchic, some democratic. The Kebang of the Adis represent a sort of direct democracy while the Tsorgan of the Monpas or the Mele of the Hrussos is a representative democracy. The Apatani Buliang or the Sherdukpen Jung provides a clan oligarchic model. The village council systems found among the Singphos, Noctes, Wanchos, Khamtis and the Tangsas can be called Chieftaincies.22 The Monpa Tsorgan system is theocratic in nature as its elected head also acts as the religious head in the village. Each of them has well defined customary rules which govern the lives of the communities and they have their own evolved justice delivery mechanisms too. These institutions have survived 20 For details see The Hindu, Sept 12, 2016 21 Arunachal Pradesh Human Development Report 2005. 22 P.C.Dutta, Tribal Chieftanship, Himalayan Publishers, Itanagar and New Delhi, 2003.
16
along with modern democratic institutions and there has not been any conflict between the functioning of the Assemblies and these tribal institutions. While traditional customary institutions are dominated by the tribal chieftains, the Legislative Assembly of Arunachal Pradesh is dominated by national parties. Unlike other north east states, the state does not find a fully developed competitive tribal/ regional party and what is more, the national parties have a stronghold in the predominantly tribal majority state. Again, Arunachal Pradesh has been unable to influence national politics much because there are just two parliamentary constituencies in Arunachal Pradesh – Arunachal east and Arunachal west and the Congress has consistently won from both these seats. In the Rajya Sabha there is one seat from AP. Unlike the other north east states, Arunachal has never witnessed the popular growth of regional parties apart from the People’s Party of Arunachal (PPA) but it is too weak to wrest power from the Congress ; more so it has never been able to shape regional politics or uphold the concerns of the state.
Although the first General Election in India was held in 1952, the right to vote remained unexercised by the people of Arunachal for long. The voting right was withheld till 1977 by a special provision of the Representation of People Act, 1951. 23 Moreso, the Bordoloi sub committee which was appointed to recommend special administrative measures for tribals did not favour extending franchise to the people of NEFA as it found that the level of consciousness among the tribals was very low. Nevertheless it seems pertinent to point out that some of the traditional tribal institutions were highly democratic, not to forget of the Kameng of the Adis. Democratic practices have always been a norm within most of the tribal communities. The North-East Areas (Re-organization) Act, 1971 also did not provide for election of the representatives to the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Rather it provided that one seat in the Rajya Sabha and another in the Lok Sabha will be filled by the nomination of the President. However it was only in the first General Election in 1977 that the people of Arunachal Pradesh got a chance to exercise their franchise in which an electorate of 2,15,657 were called upon to elect their members of Parliament in place of the previous practice of their nomination by the President of India. However, the first Assembly Election in 1978 ensured a popular participation of the people of Arunachal in electoral politics with a turn out of 73.20 %. The Indian National Congress was the only political party to participate in the first ever General Election in Arunachal Pradesh.24 The enactment of the 37th Constitution Amendment Act 1975 led to the reconstitution of the Pradesh Council under NEFA to a separate Legislative Assembly and a Governor was appointed for Arunachal Pradesh. During 1975-1978, the Legislative Assembly consisted of 23 members. However, in March 1978 the first elected Legislative Assembly was formed with 30 members and the Janata Party winning 17 seats to form the
23 The Constitutional (Removal of Difficulties) Orders VII and VIII withheld from NEFA the right of representation to Assam and Central legislatures. 24 A.C. Talukdar, "Electoral Politics and Political Change in Arunachal Pradesh," Journal of NECSSR, Vol.9, No.2, Oct. 1985, p.3.) Electoral Politics in Arunachal Pradesh A Study of Voting Behaviour NANI BATH http://www.inflibnet.ac.in/ojs/index.php/SHSS/article/viewFile/3608/2836
17
government. Interestingly, this coincided with the formation of first Janata Party led coalition at the Centre. The People’s Party of Arunachal (PPA), a regional party won 8 seats. The Government lasted for only 20 months and in November 1979, the Assembly was dissolved and President’s rule was imposed which continued till Jan 1980.
TABLE 3: 1978 Assembly Elections (Union Territory)
POLITICAL PARTY NUMBER OF SEATS WON
PERCENTAGE OF VOTES POLLED
POLL PERCENTAGE
IND 5 27.23%
JANATA PARTY(JNP) 17 42.08%
PEOPLE’S PARTY OF ARUNACHAL (PPA)
8 30.24%
TOTAL 30 73.20
http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/AE2014/Stat_Rep_Arunachal_Pradesh_1978.pdf
In 1980 Vidhan Sabha elections both the INC(I) and PPA won 13 seats and the government was formed by Indian National Congress (INC) in coalition with the 4 Independent candidates.
TABLE 4: 1980 Assembly Elections (Union Territory)
POLITICAL PARTY
NUMBER OF SEATS WON
PERCENTAGE OF VOTES
POLLED
VOTER’S TURN OUT
INC (I) 13 42.58%
IND 4 11.54%
PPA 13 40.98%
TOTAL 30 69.76
Source: http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/AE2014/Stat_Rep_Arunachal_Pradesh_1980.pdf
The 1984 elections witnessed the INC coming to power with 21 seats. The Indian National Congress won with a huge margin, owing to the infrastructural development and other social indices brought about by Gegong Apang and his rule.25 The PPA could not compete with the
25 http://www.elections.in/arunachal-pradesh/assembly-constituencies/1984-election-results.html
18
INC and percentage votes polled in its favour came down from 41 % in 1980 to 15 % in the 1984 elections.
TABLE 5: 1984 Assembly Elections (Union Territory)
POLITICAL PARTY
NUMBER OF SEATS WON
PERCENTAGE OF VOTES POLLED
VOTER’S TURN OUT
INC 21 43.07%
BJP 1 7.69%
IND 4 33.33%
PPA 4 15.54%
TOTAL 30 76.34
Source: http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/AE2014/Stat_Rep_Arunachal_Pradesh_1984.pdf
After the grant of statehood to Arunachal Pradesh, the number of members of the Legislative Assembly was increased to 60 and in the 1990 elections the INC formed the government with 37 seats, a comfortable majority where all constituencies except one are reserved for the STs. In a predominantly tribal state, interestingly a national Party, that is, the INC steered successfully with 445 votes polled by the tribals when the voter’s turnout was just 72%. Again neither the PPA nor any other regional party won seats the elections saw the domination of national parties in the Assembly.
TABLE 6: 1990 Assembly Elections (State)
POLITICAL PARTY
NUMBER OF SEATS WON
PERCENTAGE OF VOTES POLLED
VOTER’S TURN OUT
INC 37 44.25%
IND 11 20.14%
JD 11 33.34%
19
JANATA PARTY (JNP)
1 2.28%
TOTAL 60 72.84
Source: http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/AE2014/Stat_Rep_Arunachal_Pradesh_1990.pdf
The 1995 state legislative Assembly witnessed a total of 174 candidates contesting elections. INC formed the government winning 43 seats and the regional parties won none. The number of independents went up to 12. The Janata Dal in comparison to the 1990 elections declined in appeal, winning only three Assembly seats while the Janata Party won two seats. The BJP made a political entry in the state, contesting in 15 Assembly constituencies but not winning any.
TABLE 7: 1995 Assembly Elections (State)
POLITICAL PARTY
NUMBER OF SEATS WON
PERCENTAGE OF VOTES POLLED
VOTER’S TURN OUT
INC 43 50.50%
IND 12 26.35%
JD 3 17.24%
JANATA DAL (JP)
2 2.53%
TOTAL 60 81.21
Source: http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/AE2014/Stat_Rep_Arunachal_Pradesh_1995.pdf
While the national government saw the NDA coalition coming to power in the Centre in 1999, in the state of AP, the Congress won with an absolute majority of 53 seats. However, the subsequent elections saw BJP eating into the vote share of the Congress and the seats dropped to 34 in the 2004 state elections. Since 2004 the number of political parties contesting the Vidhan Sabha elections has gone up and this coincided with the period of multi party contests and even the remote hilly Arunachal Pradesh was not out of this trend.
TABLE 8: 1999 Assembly Elections (State)
20
POLITICAL PARTY
NUMBER OF SEATS WON
PERCENTAGE OF VOTES POLLED
VOTER’S TURN OUT
INC 53 51.78%
IND 2 11.87%
NCP 4 8.74%
ARUNACHAL CONGRESS
1 16.68%
TOTAL 60 72.95
Source: http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/AE2014/Stat_Rep_Arunachal_Pradesh_1999.pdf
TABLE 9:2004 Assembly Elections (State)
POLITICAL PARTY NUMBER OF SEATS WON
PERCENTAGE OF VOTES POLLED
VOTER’S TURN OUT
INC 34 44.41%
IND 13 28.43%
BJP 9 19.00%
NCP 2 4.28%
ARUNACHAL CONGRESS
2 3.88%
TOTAL 60 61.43
Source: http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/AE2014/Stat_Rep_Arunachal_Pradesh_2004.pdf
The 2009 elections saw many new players in the state elections like Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), All India Trinamool Congress (AITMC) and the elections also saw the decline in the number of seats won by the Independent candidates. While the Independents got 12 seats in 1995 elections, in 2009, just one independent candidate got elected.
TABLE 10: 2009 Assembly Elections (State)
21
POLITICAL PARTY NUMBER OF
SEATS WON
PERCENTAGE OF
VOTES POLLED
VOTER’S TURN OUT
INC 42 50.38%
IND 1 2.15%
BJP 3 5.21%
NCP 5 19.33%
PEOPLE’S PARTY OF ARUNACHAL
4 7.27%
AITMC 5 15.04%
TOTAL 60 76.83
Source: http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/AE2014/Stat_Rep_Arunachal_Pradesh_2009.pdf
While the 2014 elections saw the INC clinching to their seats, the BJP received 11 seats, the highest since the formation of the state in 1987.
In the 2014 elections the INC though formed the government with an absolute majority, yet could secure only 49.5 % of the votes. On the other hand, the BJP with just 30.97% of the vote share secured 11 seats. The BJP s vote share has gone up significantly from 5.21 % in 2009 Assembly elections to 30.97% in 2014 elections.
TABLE 11: 2014 Assembly Elections (State)
POLITICAL PARTY NUMBER OF SEATS WON
PERCENTAGE OF VOTES POLLED
VOTER’S TURN OUT
INC 42 49.50%
IND 2 4.92%
BJP 11 30.97%
PEOPLE’S PARTY OF ARUNACHAL
5 8.96%
22
TOTAL 60 67.36
Source: http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/AE2014/Stat_Rep_Arunachal_Pradesh_2014.pdf
Till 2015 Arunachal Pradesh legislative assembly was quite uneventful. However 2016 has been a roller coaster for the otherwise peaceful hill state. 2016 witnessed President’s rule and 3 Chief Ministers assuming office and opportunistic politics at its peak. Nabam Tuki of the INC became the Chief Minister after the 2014 assembly elections. However, on Jan 27 2016, President’s rule was imposed in Arunachal Pradesh and it continued till 19 Feb 2016. Kalikho Phul of People’s Party of Arunachal formed the government on 20th Feb till July 12, 2016. Thereafter INC came back to power but it was short lived. The factionalism within the congress resulted in the 18 members of the Congress leaving and joining the Phul camp as it was alleged that Tuki, the Chief Minister was highhanded in decision making. The Governor of Arunachal Pradesh has special discretionary powers (Article 371(H)) and Governor JP Rajkhowa, the then Governor of Arunachal Pradesh, used his capacity to not only bring forward the Assembly session but also sending an adverse report for the imposition of emergency in the state. The recent happenings in AP and the imposition of Governor’s rule questions the role of the Governor as the Centre’s representative. Questioning the role of the Governor, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the Governor does not have the power to topple a democratically elected government at the behest of the Centre. Dissident leader Kalikho Pul was sworn in as the ninth Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh with the support of 18 rebel Congress MLAs, and two Independents and 11 BJP MLAs who gave outside support. The game of floor crossing did not end here and on March 3,2016, 30 rebel Congress MLAs who sided with CM Phul merged with People’s Party of Arunachal (PPA), leaving no scope for the Congress to take any legal action against them. In July The Congress stages a big coup by bringing back all the rebels into the party fold. The move thwarted BJP plans to form a government in the state. In a surprise move, the entire Congress Legislature Party except Tuki resigned from the party and moved to the People’s Party of Arunachal (PPA). It should be noted here that PPA is a member of the NDA’s North East Democratic Alliance (NEDA). 43 of the 44 Congress MLAs have also defected to the PPA. With the inclusion of BJP MLA Tamiyo Taga in the council of ministers, the PPA government officially became an NDA government. Pema Khandu is the present Chief Minister , a Congress leader but backed by NEDA. It is interesting to note how centre’s politics shapes the states electoral outcomes. While Khandu was the CM of the Congress Legislature Party in 2016, in 2017 he is the Chief Minister but representing the PPA. Mr. Khandu justified his decision of switching camps as the need for resources for development. This justification seems too hollow in the face of massive defections just for gaining power. CONTEMPORARY ISSUES AND CONCERNS
23
The state is besieged with a number of issues, political, social as well as economic. The very territorial location of the state has been a major issue since independence. China’s territorial claim on Arunachal Pradesh has been a bitter zone of controversy between China and India. China emphatically maintains that the state is currently under India’s illegal occupation because it is located in between the MacMohan Line and the traditional boundary between China and India The 1962 Indo-China war was basically fought over this contentious issue of China’s territory. Since then the relationship has been unpleasant between these countries. China views Arunachal Pradesh as “Southern Tibet” that constitutes the areas of Monyal, Loyal and Lower Tsayal. and expressed dissatisfaction on visits by Union leaders to Arunachal Pradesh. For instance in 2009 when the then Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh visited Arunachal Pradesh as a part of his election campaign and promised central funds for development irked the Chinese government. Again, in May 2007, China denied visa to an IAS officer from Arunachal Pradesh during his study visit to Beijing and Shanghai as he was a native of Arunachal Pradesh and would require no visa to visit China.26 In 2009 China had expressed dissatisfaction over Dalai Lama’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh. There has been a war of words going between the two countries and each has a strong presence of army men along the borders. Very recently, one of China’s foreign policy spokesman made a media statement that the border dispute between China and India can be resolved if New Delhi accepts Beijing’s claim over Tawang region in Arunachal Pradesh. In response Indian officials dismissed it saying that it was not feasible. More so Tawang is an integral part of India and has sent representatives to the Indian parliament since 1950.27
In order to preserve the indigenous culture and autonomy of the tribals, the Sixth Schedule contains provisions for establishment of Autonomous District Councils (ADC) for tribal governance. Arunachal Pradesh unlike the other north east states does not have a single ADC and recently, demands have been made for the creation of two autonomous district councils (ADCs) in Arunachal Pradesh--the Patkai ADC covering Tirap and Changlang districts and Mon ADC covering Tawan and West Kameng districts. The region in focus forms a border with Myanmar, Assam and Nagaland and are highly underdeveloped. The demand for the formation of Patkai Autonomous Council was passed by the Assembly in 2004 and 2007 and the Cabinet approved it in the year 2013. The proposal was then sent to the Union home ministry and a committee headed by Joint Secretary (North East), Ministry of Home Affairs, was constituted by the then UPA government, which had visited the three districts in February 2014. Representatives of the two districts have cited reasons of ‘inclusive growth and development’28 as the rationale for the creation of ADCs. T.G Rinpoche, chairman of Mon Autonomous Region Demand Committee (MARDC) highlighting the need for the formation of Mon ADC said that “to highlight the need
26 Namrata Goswami, China’s Territorial Claim on Arunachal Pradesh,. IDSA, Occasional Paper, No.29, Nov. 2012. 27 Economic Times, March 3, 2017 28 http://arunachalpradesh.nic.in/csp_ap_portal/autonomous-council-tawang.html
24
for autonomy in planning, execution and monitoring of developmental processes in proper context, the dynamics of geographical isolation, cultural uniqueness and system of governance are to be properly addressed”.29 The delegates of the two regions contended that the creation of Autonomous District Councils would provide an opportunity to the people of the region to participate in planning and execution of development schemes.
Interestingly, the logic behind the demand for the creation of ADCs in Arunachal Pradesh happens to be in contrast to the other ADCs of the north east created under the Sixth Schedule especially in Meghalaya and Assam which were created for the protection of exclusive tribal identity and giving autonomy to tribals for self governance. It should be kept in mind that Arunachal Pradesh is the only state in the country where out of 60 assembly seats, 59 are reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. In the wake of Act East policy and introduction of neo liberal reforms the state is not outside the purview of the need for development. Concerns of development, growth are raised by the tribals in their aspiration to come out of their isolationist position and status of underdevelopment.
Despite thirty years of attainment of statehood Arunachal Pradesh has not been able to attain the desired levels of human and infrastructural development. Most of the districts lag behind in terms of lack of educational facilities, health care, sanitation and communication. The state falls under the special category status which entitles it to special funding arrangement from the centre. The flow of assistance from the Union government to Arunachal Pradesh and other states in India comprises of devolution of central taxes and plan and non-plan transfers. In recent years the Union government has been transferring a large quantum of funds directly to implementing agencies at state and district levels for implementing central schemes bypassing the state treasury route. During the period 1986-87 to 2001-02, the inflow of funds from the Centre constituted about 80 per cent of the total revenue of the State.30 Further, states in the NER have access to another layer of funding from North Eastern Council and under non-lapsable central pool of resources (NLCPR). In terms of the Human Development index, its position is the worst in the region. The Census 2011 (provisional) results shows that , there is a great degree of variation in the total literacy rates of North East States ranging from 66.95% (Arunachal Pradesh) to 91.58% (Mizoram). Arunachal Pradesh ranks 34th among 35 Indian States.31 In terms of enrolment, drop-out rates and school availability the states’ performance, in a comparative perspective, has hardly been satisfactory.32 As high as 68.83 per cent of all habitations in Arunachal do not have school facilities within a three- kilometer distance at the upper primary level. The absence of adequate schooling facilities both at the primary and upper primary levels results in large-scale
29 http://arunachalpradesh.nic.in/csp_ap_portal/autonomous-council-tawang.html
30 Arunachal Pradesh Development Report 2005 31 Human Development report of North east states, 2011,Ministry of Development of North east Region, Government of India. 32 Human Development report of North east states, 2011,Ministry of Development of North east Region, Government of India.
25
prevalence of dropouts and non-enrolment.33 Access to education continues to be a major cause of concern. Among the women in the age group 15-44, many of whom are in the workforce, 71.02 per cent were illiterate, 21.17 per cent had studied up to below matric level, 6.07 per cent had completed matriculation, and only 1.74 per cent had studied up to graduation and above. Again, in terms of Human Poverty Index, baring Mizoram, its position is the worst in the region. A poverty estimate made by the Directorate of Rural Development, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, showed that 54 per cent of families in rural Arunachal Pradesh were poor in 1992-93, and this percentage increased to 78 per cent in 1997-98, an increase of 24 per cent in the course of five years. 34 Despite receiving huge grants for development and poverty eradication, instead of alleviating poverty, it has increased within a five year period. In 2008-09 in terms of rural households having access to all the three facilities(drinking water, sanitation, electricity) 55.1% (higher than the national average of 18.4%) of rural households in Arunachal Pradesh having access to all the three facilities which is the only positive indicator amidst a dismal human development index. Table 12: Household with 3 basic facilities within premises—drinking water, latrine and electricity for domestic use (Arunachal Pradesh in relation to other northeast states) States 1993 2008-09
Rural Urban Rural Urban
Arunachal Pradesh 14.4 75.3 55.1 88.5
Assam 12.3 65.2 30.3 87.5
Manipur 20.4 49.1 17.8 46.2
Meghalaya 9.4 66.8 16.3 83.1
Mizoram 2.2 18.2 10.8 66.6
Nagaland 30.6 82.0 45.3 59.6
Sikkim 26.7 61.4 61.8 95.3
Tripura 15.1 64.0 27.9 77.3
All India 5.6 47.6 18.4 67.5
Source: Human Development Report of North East India Dec 2011, Government of India, MDONER, New Delhi.
33 Arunachal Pradesh Human Development Report 2005, p.35 34 Arunachal Pradesh Human Development Report 2005
26
In terms of connectivity, even today, the State does not have lateral roads connecting districts, sub-divisions and circle headquarters, since roads run vertically, connecting places in Assam with districts or sub-divisions or with circle headquarters in Arunachal Pradesh. In 2009, the then Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh granted a package of 24000 crore for building the 1500km Trans- Arunachal Pradesh Highway. This was administered by the Border Roads Organization which has expressed concern on the difficulty of building two lane highways on such a hilly terrain. This has resulted in a high transportation cost and the prices of all commodities are higher in Arunachal than elsewhere in the country. 35 In terms of Human Development Index (HDI) also, the position of Arunachal Pradesh has been at the lower level. The State’s HDI is only 0.501, a value which stands significantly below the national average of 0.577. Out of the 16 major states of the country whose HDI are available (HDR Report, Arunachal Pradesh, 2005), Arunachal Pradesh’s position was 14th only above Bihar (0.449) and Uttar Pradesh (0.489). Again, another major issue confronting the state is the expansion of insurgent activities. The state has seen the rise of insurgency in the last two decades. Close proximity to the Assam and Nagaland borders have made it a happy hunting ground for insurgent groups active in the neighbouring states. Geographical proximity to Myanmar makes Arunachal Pradesh a transit route for the insurgent groups the rise of the movement of the ULFA cadres between the easternmost districts of Assam and the outfit’s facilities in the Sagaing division in Myanmar through Arunachal Pradesh can be traced back to the late 1980s and these have set up transit camps and safe houses in the forests of the Lohit district. The rise of the Arunachal Dragon Force (ADF), which was rechristened as East India Liberation Front (EALF) in 2001 also led to violence and killings in the Lohit district.
Not only for the ULFA cadres, Arunachal Pradesh is also a zone of action for both the factions (NSCN-K and NSCN-IM) of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN). They have their own areas of influence and political extremism, extortion are their means of creating reign of terror in the regions. According to intelligence reports, every government employee and businessman in Tirap is forced to pay nearly 25 per cent of his or her gross income as a tax for the outfits.36 In 2001, the Oil India Limited stopped its activities in the Changlang district after the NSCN-IM demanded an amount of INR 6 million.37
To advance economic development of the north east region, the Look East Policy was launched in the 90s, subsequently rechristened Act East which sought to reintegrate the region and make it the pathway to South Asia. The popularization of Act East policy in making north east region a gateway to the south Asian countries whilst simultaneously advancing trade and development certainly provides opportunity for the north east region in general and Arunachal Pradesh in particular because of its proximity with Myanmar. As a part of the Look East Policy the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways has initiated mega road development
35 Arunachal Pradesh Development Report 2005, p 151 36 http://cdpsindia.org/arunachal_insurgency.asp 37 http://cdpsindia.org/arunachal_insurgency.asp
27
programme in North East with name "Special Accelerated Road Development Programme in North East (SARDP-NE)". The Government has given approval for 2/4 laning of 6418 km of various categories of roads under Phase 'A' and Arunachal Package of SARDP-NE in entire North East at an estimated investment of about Rs 33.500 crore. 38 The NITIaayaog Report of Jan 2015 emphasized on speedy completion of the project but the rate of progress seems bleak. No speech of a Minister visiting the state is complete without a mention of the LEP and the Prime Minister and the President have consistently emphasized the strategic location of Arunachal Pradesh in the LEP and it being regarded as an important stakeholder yet sadly, nothing concrete has come out till date.
References
1. Baruah, Sanjib Durable Disorder: Understanding the politics of North East India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2005
2. Chaube, S.K., Hill Politics in North East India, Orient Longman Ltd., Calcutta, 1973
3. Dawar Jagdish Lal, Cultural identity of Tribes of North-East Indis: Movement for Cultural identity among the Adis of Arunachal Pradesh, Commonwealth Publishers, New Delhi, 2003.
4. Dutta, P.C. Tribal Chieftanship, Himalayan Publishers, Itanagar and New Delhi, 2003.
5. Mishra Deepak K & Vandana Upadhyay, Governance and Development in Arunachal Pradesh: The Emerging Challenges, Dialogue April - June, 2004, Volume 5 No. 4.
6. Rao, V. Venkata, A Century of Tribal Politics in North-East India 1874 – 1974,
S.Chand and Company Ltd., New Delhi, 1984.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
PPA – People’s Party of Arunachal
AITMC- All India Trinamool Congress
AAPSU -All Arunachal Pradesh Students’ Union
INC- Indian National Congress
38 http://mdoner.gov.in/content/sardp-ne
28
IND- Independent
JD-Janta Dal
NCP-Nationalist Congress Party
BJP- Bharatiya Janta Party
NEFA- North East Frontier Agency
29
Assam: Unending State Contraction Sagal Nag
Professor of History
Assam University, Silchar (Assam)
Geography
Assam is one of the north eastern states of India. It lies between 240N to 280N latitude and 890 40’E to 960E longitude. Located south of the eastern Himalayas, Assam comprises the Brahmaputra Valley and the Barak Valley corresponding to two giant river valleys. The northern part of the state is encircled by the new state of Arunachal Pradesh, which separates it from China and Burma. In the south, it shares borders with Mizoram, Tripura and Meghalaya which separates it from Bangladesh. To Assam’s east, lie the states of Manipur and Nagaland. Finally, Assam shares its western boundaries with West Bengal and Bangladesh. It has an international border with Bhutan and Bangladesh.
Demography and ethnic composition
The state of Assam is vividly diverse. It has a predominantly Assamese speaking population in the Brahmaputra valley, whereas the Barak valley is dominated by a Bengali speaking population. However, both the valleys have a huge number of tea-plantation labourerswhich share the land with a large number of tribal communities. In Assam, the majority are the Assamese. The Barak Valley region of the state is dominated by the Bengalis.
Vital Statistics of Assam2011 Census
Area Districts Population Literacy rate
Decadal growth rate
Hindus Muslims
78438 sqkm
34 31,169,272 73.18% 16.93% 61.5% 34.2%
The major tribal groups of Assam are the Boros, Barmans, Chakma, Deori, Dimasa, Garo,
Hajong, Hmar, Hojai, Kochai, Khasi-Jaintia, Kuki, Lakher, Lalung (Tiwa), Man (Tai), Mech,
Mikir (karbi), Miri (Mishing), Rabha, Zemi (Naga), Rongmei (Naga), Oran, Khaira, Gond,
Munda, Santhal, Savara, and Thadou. Of these tribes, the Bodo, Karbi, Dimasa and Miris are
the most numerous. Bodos, Dimasas and Karibis on the strength of their demographic strength
are demanding separate states. Besides these tribes there are a good number of Manipuris
30
(Bishnupriya).The listed scheduled castes are the Bansphor, Bhuinmali, Mali BrittialBania,
BaniaBhupi, Dhobi Dugla, Dholi Hira JalkeotJhalo, Malo, Jhalo-MaloKaibartta,
JaliyaLalbegiMaharaMehtar, Bhangi, Muchi, Rishi NamasudraPatniSutradhar. The state has
registered 10 per cent decadal growth of the SC population between 1991-2001
Language breakdown of Assam(2001 Census)
Assamese 48.8%
Bengali 27.5%
Bodo 4.8%
Hindi 5.88%
Nepali 2.12%
Mishing 1.9%
Karbi 1.5%
Santhali 0.91%
Odia 0.85%
Others 6.73%
Assamese and Bodo are mostly spoken in the Brahmaputra valley district and are official
languages in this valley whereas Bengali is spoken mostly in the Barak Valley districts and is
accorded the status of official language in that region. But, Bengali is still the second most
spoken language in the state.
Religious breakdown of Assam (2011 Census)
Hindu 61.5%
Muslim 34.22%
Christianity 3.7%
31
Buddhism 0.2%
Jainism 0.01%
Sikhism 0.01%
Others 0.03%
Out of the 34 districts of Assam, 9 have a Muslim majority according to the 2011 census of
India. The Muslim majority districts are Dhubri, Goalpara, Barpeta, Morigaon, Nagaon,
Karimganj, Hailakandi, Darrang and Bongaigaon. Assam also recorded highest growth rate
among the Muslims during 2001-2011 compared to the earlier periods in the state.
History: Ancient
Like the north-western gateway from which hordes of Central Asian groups entered India,
Assam formed the gateway from which South East Asian migratory groups entered the region.
The Indo-Aryan groups entered from the western side. Assam was the last habitat of Indo-
Aryan groups who entered Indian subcontinent from Central Asia. The rest of the population
was made of migrants from South East Asia who were known as kiratas and chinas, as referred
to in the epic Mahabharata. Mahabharata actually mentioned the participation of king Naraka’s
son Bhagadatta participating inthe Kurukshetra war joining the Karuravas with his huge army
of Kiratas and Chinas. In fact some of these Kiratagroups had developed various polity
formations like the Danava dynasty and theBhauma-Naraka dynasty. Ancient Assam was
known variously as Kamrupa and Pragjyotishpur. The name Assam was a later coinage. Assam
produced a classical text like KalikaPurana which mentioned that the earliest ruler of the land
was one MahirangaDanava who established the Danava dynasty. The Danava dynasty was
replaced by a migrant from Mithila named Naraka who then established the Naraka Dynasty.
This could be the first Aryan immigration to this region. The state was then ruled by the Varman
dynasty (c. 350–650 CE), Mlechcha dynasty (c.655–900 CE) and Pala Dynasty(c. 900–1100
CE).
History: Medieval
The Ahoms were an offshoot of the Shan or the Tai race of the north and eastern hill tracts of
Upper Burma and Western Yunnan. In the early part of the thirteenth century this migratory
32
group crossed over to Assam through the Patkai range under the leadership of Sukhapa (1228-
1268 A.D). They soon conquered and absorbed the petty tribal state formations and chiefdoms
that existed in the area. Even the most powerful kingdom of the Chutiya’s fell to the Ahom in
the year 1523. The Ahoms successfully thwarted the repeated Mughal attempts to extend their
dominion over Assam during the seventeenth century. By relegating the Kachari state into
vassalage and absorbing the Koch-Hajo state (1682), the Ahom Kingdom was well
consolidated by the seventeenth century. As the dominant power in the Brahmaputra Valley,
the Ahoms successfully defended and preserved the independence of their territory, which
extended from the Manasriver in the west to the eastern extremity of present Assam.
The highlight of the Ahom period was the subjugation of all the tribal states in the region, the
creation of an empire, universalisation and standardisation of wet rice cultivation, the
unification of Assam and the universalisation of Assamese language as the lingua franca. It
was also marked by the Sanskritisation of the state and its people, the rise of Sankardeva and
his bhakti cult, invasion and retreat of the Mughals, internecine power rivalry, conflict between
the shakti and the bhakti cults, Moamaria rebellion and the invasion of the Burmese leading to
the decline and demise of the Ahom rule and advent of the colonial rule in Assam.
Meanwhile, the news of the glory of the Ahom state had reached the Mughals. The Mughals in
their attempt to extend their empire to the east had already reached the Koch state. It was from
here that they tried to expand into the Brahmaputra valley. Though they had earlier made
seventeen attempts to invade, they were never successful. However, in 1662 they made a
successful invasion under Mir Jumla, a governor of Aurangzeb, and were briefly able to
occupy Gargaon (c. 1662–63 AD), then Ahom capital. They found it difficult to sustain as the
Ahom army continued to make guerrilla attacks on the Mughal forces, forcing them to leave.
The decisive victory was fought at Saraighat(1671) which almost expelled the Mughals from
the region. The Ahoms were led by their general LachitBorphukan in the battle whereas the
Mughals were under the command of Raja Ram Singha. Mir Jumla had not been able to go
back as he succumbed to diseases contacted in Assam. He was buried in Mankachar. The
Mughals,however, occupied lower Assam and remained there until they were finally expelled
during the reign of Gadadhar Singha in 1682 AD.
The decline of the of the despotic regime of Gadadhar Sinha coincided with the rise of the
Vaishnavitemonasteries called sattra.As the Ahom state became more oppressive, people took
refuge in sattras which provided them protection as well as an escape from state tyranny. One
33
such sattra belonged to the Moamaria sect. Vaishnavites refused to surrender to the faith of the
Saktism which had just been adopted by the Ahom royalty. The conflict led to the rise of huge
uprising of the Moamarias against the state in the 1770s. The movement soon took a political
shape. The weak regime failed to check this uprising. Imposition of puppet kings, counter-
revolutions and fresh uprisings followed. The internal feuds and internecine power rivalry
made some members of the royal family invite Burmese forces into Assam. The reigning
monarch GaurinathSingha was compelled to flee to Gauhati from where he appealed to the
British for help. The help came in the form of Welsh’s expedition (1793). Welsh expedition
was called back following the appointment of Sir John Shore who resorted to the policy of non-
intervention. As a result, Assam relapsed into the former state of civil war. The reigning
King,ChandrakantaSingha (1911-18), being unable to reconcile with the powerful Buragohain
invoked Burmese aid to regain his position. The Burmese, anxious to extend their dominion
westward, promptly seized this opportunity and made their appearance in Assam in 1817. The
cumulative effect was that Assam virtually had to remain under the Burmese rule from 1819 to
1824.
The Burmese ushered in a reign of terror in Assam. Frantic appeals were made to the British
to save Assam. The British declared war against the Burmese at the conclusion of which the
Treaty of Yandabo (1826) was signed between the British and the Burmese. Though the
Burmese were expelled, the British took over lower Assam and upper Assamwas temporarily
restored to the Ahom King.In the initial stage there was confusion regarding British policy
regarding Assam. But the discovery of tea eventually prompted the British to annex the state.
The occupation of Assam by the British was complete by 1840.
The making of Colonial Province of Assam
In the wake of the Burmese invasion, the British entered Assam in the guise of saviors but
decided to stay on with the discovery of tea and the revenue potential of this industry, as well
as the capture of the lucrative trade routes to China and Tibet1.Tea, discovered in a wild state
in 1823 and 1826, was taken up for experimental cultivation in the 1830s. It was flourishing
by 1859 as a separate industry, when the Assam Company, a private concern which had 4000
acres under cultivation, started producing over 16,87,200 Kgs of tea per year. The cultivation
of tea soon spread all over Assam. By 1872, a total of 27,000 acres was under cultivation,
producing 1,33,20,000 Kgs per year. In 1915, the area under cultivation in the whole of Assam
was 3,83,821 acres and the production had shot up to 544,756,742 Kgs per year.2The growing
34
plantation sector demanded an increasing labour supply. But Assam was not rich in its
population resources. The available population, with their relatively self-sufficient background
and limited demands, did not come out in the market to sell their labour to the planters.The
total labour force hardly exceeded 10,000 hands, while the requirement during the mid-
nineteenth century was about 16,000 to 20,000 labour hands for the current cultivation alone.3
To cover up the deficit, indentured labour was introduced. The British Government helped the
planters by passing the Transport of Native Labourers Act of 1865 which was a license for the
recruiters. In other words, it was an attempt to regularize and legalize the prevailing system of
recruitment through arkattis4. The Act was amended in 1865 and again in 1870 when the
Sardarisystem of recruitment was also recognized. By the1940s a crore (100 million)of
indentured labour had made Assam their home.
In the meantime,Assam was separated from the Bengal Presidency and was constituted into a
separate Chief Commissionerate in 1874. To cover the deficit in revenue collection, three
Bengal districts, Sylhet, Cachar and Goalpara were transferred to this new province. But the
new province and the growing plantation sector with huge indentured labour population
required a huge food supply. In 1905 when Bengal was partitioned, the status of Assam
changed again. A new province was created in eastern Bengal. The province of Assam was
added to it. The new province was called Eastern Bengal and Assam.
The growing population of Assam left a huge deficitin food production. The Government thus
began to develop interests in the waste lands of Assam and its settlement with immigrant
population. It was felt that if these vast waste lands were brought under cultivation it would not
only cover the food deficit but also generate more revenue. The immigration of farm settlers in
the waste-lands of Assam had started in the later part of the nineteenth century as a natural
process. But under colonial sponsorship and the encouragement of the indigenous landholding
classes, the trickle soon grew into a flood. Since the turn of the twentieth century Assam
witnessed a steady growth in its population. When the population in some other states declined
or registered a small increase owing to large scale famines and disasters during 1901-1921,
Assam alone recorded a growth of 16.99% in 1901-11 and 20.48% in 1911-21. Assam had thus
recorded more than 17.8% average growth rate from 1901-1951. Immigration was a main
explanation for the high increase in the population of the Brahmaputra valley in addition to the
‘abnormal natural growth’ in the later part of the twentieth century.Since 1921 there has been
rapid rise of population for all-India as well as Assam. From 1921 to 1951, the Indian
35
population increased by 44% and the population of Assam increased by 70%. The percentage
rate of growth in this period was 138% for Assam as against 52% for the whole of India.
This changed the linguistic demographics of the state as well. In 1911 the percentage of the
Assamese speakers was 49.2%, going down to 44.6% in 1921, and further decreasing to 42.0%
in 1931.5In contrast, the Bengali population, though still a minority, showed an upward trend.
In 1911 it was 21.0% of the total population; in 1921 it rose to 22.1% and in 1931 to 23.0%.
This growth rate was visible in the Brahmaputra Valley which was the strong hold of the
Assamese linguistic group. If the whole of Assamese province, including Garo, United Khasi
and Jaintia, Mikir, North Cachar and Mizo hills districts were included (Surma Valley districts
excluded), the growth rate of the Assamese showed a decline from 35.31% in 1911 to 33.43%
in 1921 and 32.32% in 1931.6 Compared to this, the Bengali population increased from 26.90%
in 1911 to 27.60% in 1921 and 27.56% in 1931.
The developments terrified the Assamese. The immigration of Bengali speakers, either Hindus
or Muslims, was viewed by the Assamese as a conspiracy to reduce them into a political
minority. The immigrants increased the Muslim population of the province. The passing of the
Pakistan Resolution by the Muslim League in March 23, 1940 worried the Assamese. The
resolution stated inter aliathat the ‘geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions
which should be constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary; that the
areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority, as in North-western and Eastern
Zones of India, should be grouped to constitute an independent state in which the units shall be
autonomous and sovereign.7 The resolution was greeted with celebrations by the Muslim
organizations of Assam e.g. the Assam Provincial Muslim League and All Assam Muslim
Students Federation. The demand of the Muslim Leagueto include Assam in Pakistan meant
that there was now an even greater threat to the Assamese. The panic-stricken Assamese
leadership realized that if they were cut off from India, its national future would be permanently
doomed. The development was found to be an issue deserving urgent politicization.8 The rapid
campaigning that followed immediately mobilized the entire Assamese speaking population
against the demands of the Muslim League.
Formation of Political Parties and struggle for statehood
When Assam was constituted into a Commissionerate in 1874, three Bengali speaking districts,
Sylhet, Cachar and Goalpara were incorporated within Assam from Bengal.9 The inflow of
Muslim immigrants from Bengal, patronized by both the colonial state and the Muslim League
36
ministry, threatened to reduce the indigenous Assamese into a minority. The Pakistan
Resolution of the Muslim League contemplated the inclusion of Assam in the prospective state
of Pakistan whereas the Cabinet Mission Plan schemed to tag Assam with Bengal. Both the
proposals were perceived by the Assamese as a threat to Assamese identity.10 Since the Muslim
League claimed to protect the interests of the Muslims alone, it was left to the Pradesh Congress
to respond. When the Congress came to power in 1946 with an absolute majority in the
Legislative Assembly, it immediately created a plan to evict the immigrants from the forest
reserves of the Brahmaputra Valley. The eviction operation started in November 1946 with the
help of the army. But it fueled a communal riot andthe GopinathBordoloi government had to
suspend the operation on the instructions of the Congress high command.11
However, even before Bordoloi could resolve the immigration crisis, the Cabinet Mission Plan
surfaced. It proposed a scheme of a three-tier federal government for India in which all the
provinces would be grouped into three zones – A, B and C. The C group was to consist of
Bengal and Assam. Such grouping would not only deny provincial status to Assam but also
permanently place the Assamese under the socio-cultural and political hegemony of the
Bengalis. The Assam Pradesh Congress Committee (APCC) immediately intimated the deep
resentment of the people of Assam and their opposition to the Grouping Clause.12 The rejection
of the Plan was a major victory for the Assamese. The anti-grouping agitation ended with the
announcement of a referendum in Sylhet. The referendum voted in favour of transfer of Sylhet
to Pakistan which brought a subdued sense of relief in the Assam Valley.’13 The Assam Pradesh
Congress unit was perceived to have‘saved’ the Assamese. The sub-national concern of the
Pradesh Congress was evident in its election leaflet of 1946:
unless the province of Assam be organized on the basis of Assamese
language and Assamese culture, the survival of the Assamese nationality
and culture will become impossible. The inclusion of Bengali speaking
Sylhet and Cachar and the immigration or importation of lacs of Bengali
settlers on wastrel lands has been threatening to destroy the distinctiveness
of Assam and has in practice caused massive disorders in its administration.
For appropriate solution and redress of this big problem the Congress party
should be installed as the majority party in the Assembly.14
Move for a unilingual province
37
The partition of India on 15 August 1947 was a momentous event in the history of the region.
It reduced the northeast to a land-locked region surrounded by three hostile neighbours, China,
Pakistan and Burma, leaving only a 22 km corridor linking it to the rest of India. Added to
these factors, the influx of refugees from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) complicated the
demography and political development of the region in the long run. In Assam, however, the
Congress was well entrenched. The transfer of Sylhet to Pakistan had reduced the Bengali
Muslim population in Assam substantially thereby reducing the threat perception to the
Assamese identity. By the time of the 1951 census 56.7 percent were Assamese and 15.8
percent were Bengalis. This was not a ‘biological miracle’. The transfer of Sylhet from East
Pakistan which added more Bengalis to Assam’s demography ws partly compe sated by the
effects of imposition of Assamiya language as the official language of the state which made
the Bengali Muslim immigrants and ex-tea garden laborers declare their mother tongue as
Assamiya, and rescued somewhat the Assamese from being reduced to a minority in their ‘own
‘state. The Assam unit of the Indian National Congress realized that its consolidation remained
in appropriating regional issues of the state. It took up issues relating to the Assamese identity.
The first step was the introduction of the Official Language Bill of 1960, which sought to make
Assamese the official language of poly-cultural Assam. Naturally, it sparked opposition,
protest riots and violence throughout the state. A demand for a hill state to be carved out of
Assam had already been submitted to the States Reorganization Commission in 1954. After the
introduction of the Official Language Bill, all the tribal leaders, who were made members of
the Eastern India Tribal Union, met to organize the All Party Hill Leaders Conference
(APHLC) (1960), a political party formed not only to resist the imposition of Assamese
language but also to demand a hill state separate from Assam. Subsequently, even some District
Congress Committees joined the demand.Along with the APHLC’s demand for a hill state,
demands for a Kamata state in Goalpara, and an Ahom homeland in Sibsagar and Lakhimpur
also surfaced. Added to this was the mishandling of the food crisis of 1966 by the Congress
government which the communist parties capitalized on. Thus, from the second general
elections itself the Congress base was threatened.15 The entry of APHLC into the election battle
gave a serious blow to the Congress Party network in the hill areas. The APCC was totally
against the demand for a hill state.
The Congress was accused of mishandling tribal issues. It was blamed for the mishandling of
the Mizo Famine of 1958 which gave rise to another ground for insurgency in the region under
the leadership of the Mizo National Front (MNF). It tried to placate its dwindling support base
38
by raising the slogan of central apathy.16 In fact, although the CPI and Praja Socialist Party
(PSP) had launched the movement for a second oil refinery in Assam, the Congress hijacked
the movement and led the agitation to reinforce its image as the party committed to the cause
of the Assamese. 17 It expressed its opposition to Indira Gandhi’s plan for a hill state of
Meghalaya,18which was created out of Assam through the North East State Reorganization Act
1971. Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh too were taken out of Assam and made into Union
Territories (UT). Nagaland had already been created out of Assam in 1966. The UTs of
Manipur and Tripura were upgraded into full-fledged states. This left Assam completely
truncated in territorial terms. This was held to be a betrayal by the centre.
Rises of new parties and Electoral Politics
Failing to convince the central leadership about the essentiality of preserving the integrity of
the state, the APCC out of frustration and largely as a face-saving device, associated itself with
public agitation against plans and criticized the central leaders publicly.19 Such rhetoric not
only alienated the non-Assamese component of the state, the Assamese themselves were not
convinced any more about the strength of the Congress in taking care of their specific problems.
The 1978 election results returned the Congress to power as a minority state government. The
next few years were a period of coalition governments headed by the newly formed Janata
Party. The Foreign National Movement launched by the All Assam Student’s Union (AASU)
and Assam GanaSangramParishad (AGSP) in 1979 created another period of turmoil. The six-
year long movement demanding the detection and deportation of the illegal Bangladeshi
nationals ended with the Assam Accord in 1985. In 1983, there was an imposed election in
Assam in which a Congress (I) government managed to capture power. But with the Assam
Accord, the road was paved for the emergence of another regional party.
In fact, as the anti-foreigner movement picked up momentum, the movement leaders
increasingly felt the need for a regional party capable of focusing on the aspirations and
sentiments of the Assamese middle class. Although there were already some regional parties
like the AsomJatiyatabadi Dal (AJD) and the PurbanchalLokParishad (PLP), they failed to
embrace all sections of people in Assam. As a first step towards this direction, the AASU
organized a national political convention of like-minded organizations and Assamese people
at Jorhat on 10-11 January 1984. In that convention, there emerged a consensus over the
formation of a strong regional party to capture power in the state. The resolution of the
39
convention stressed the necessity of a broad based programme for the ‘construction of the
greater Assamese society, politically, economically and ethnically’. At an emergent meeting
called by the AASU on 7 February 1984, it was resolved to unite all the regional parties of
Assam so that the people of Assam could be politically organized on a common platform. But
a series of conventions yielded no results. In view of the failure of the regional parties,
particularly the PLP and AJD, to unify themselves, they were left with no alternative but to
form a new regional party. In the Golaghat convention held on 12-14 October 1985, a new
regional party named AsomGonoParishad was born, with former Assam Movement leaders
from the AJD and PLP eventually merging with it. The AGP pledged to work for a free and
progressive society based on secularism, democracy and socialism’ and promised to establish
a ‘SonorAsom’. Its sole agenda was the implementation of Assam Accord in letter and
spirit.20The AGP was voted into power in the general elections of 1985 on the mandate to expel
the lakhs (1 lakh=100 thousand) of foreigners who were perceived to have been living in Assam
illegally. However, during the five years of their rule, the AGP government could detect only
3,000 foreign nationals in the state. Chief Minister Mohanta blamed the central government
and the illegal Migrant Detection Tribunal (IMDT) Act, 1983 as the stumbling block in the
detection and deportation of foreign nationals. Interestingly, however, the AGP government
did not make any attempt to abrogate the Act, rather, it adopted a non-official resolution
requesting the central government to amend certain provisions of the IMDT Act, 1983.21The
party then questionned the existence of any foreign national in the state, when its president
Thaneswar Bodo on 8 May 1991 declared that foreign nationals do not remain foreign nationals
forever. 22 The AGP’s sole social base was among the Assamese. The rise of the United
Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA), prolonged movements for separate states from the Bodos,
Karbis and Dimasas, creating turmoil in the state. Growing unemployment in the state created
resentment among the people, which was further aggravated by the lavish lifestyles of the
young ministers,
Even as reports of corruption tarnished the clean image of once adored former student leaders,
the Muslims broke away by forming a party called United Minority Front in November 1985.
In the 1991 assembly elections the AGP could secure only 19 out of 119 seats, but by the time
of the 1996 Assam State Assembly elections the AGP leaders had become more pragmatic and
entered into an electoral alliance with the CPI and CPI (M) (which they had earlier branded as
Bengali parties). Understanding the significance of minority votes, they wooed the Muslim
community and won the support of the United People’s Party of Assam (UPPA). These political
40
adjustments brought the AGP back to power in the assembly elections of 1996. Once in power
for the second time, despite AASU’s demand for the repeal of the IMDT Act, the AGP avoided
taking action fearing a Muslim backlash.
Accords and Agreements in Assam
The six-year long turbulent Anti-Foreign National Movement came to an official end with the
signing up of 15-point memorandum of settlement between the All Assam Student Union, All
Assam GanaSangramParishad and the Assam Chief Secretary in New Delhi on 15th August
1985. The agreement was known popularly as the Assam Accord. The Accord agreed that those
illegal migrants from Bangladesh who entered Assam after 25th March 1971 were to be
expelled as per the provision of the IMDT Act 1983. Those who entered again in January 1,
1966 but before 25th March 1971 were to be disenfranchised for ten years. Besides these, the
Government agreed to set up an IIT, a Central University, a second oil refinery in the State of
Assam.
A similar accord was signed by the Union with the All Bodo Students’ Union and Bodoland
Peoples’ Action Committee (BPAC). But there was more ‘politics’ than ‘resolve’ to settle the
issue behind the accord. The Union Minister, Rajesh Pilot, wanted to get the accord signed
whereas the Congress (I) Ministry opposed the accord. The result was a hurriedly conceived
accord which provided for the set-up of Bodoland Autonomous Council (1993). But the accord
failed to define the boundary of its jurisdiction. The BAC demanded an additional 515 villages
which the State Government refused. The stalemate over the boundary issue was not resolved.
The Bodo moderates was alarmed at their decreasing support and came together to form the
Bodoland State Movement Council and re-raised the separate statehood demand. In 2001 the
Union Government devised a revised plan for the BAC with larger territorial jurisdiction and
autonomy. Non-Bodos opposed this new accord, which failed to include the interest of the non-
Bodo minorities.
The State Government of Assam also signed accords with various tribal groups.. Thus, there
were Rabha-Hajong Accord (1995), Mishing/Tiwa Accord (1993), Karbi Tripartite Agreement
(1995) and accord with Cachar Hill Peoples Federation (1991) which granted district or area -
Autonomous Councils for the people concerned.
Rise of the Right Wing Politics
41
The loss of electoral and social base by the AGP became the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP)
gain. Although the BJP was a rising power elsewhere in India, it failed to have a foothold in
Assam until 1991. The BJP did not make any electoral gains despite the fact that the caste-
Hindu Assamese were living under constant fear of being reduced to a minority. The
breakthrough for the BJP came in the 1998 parliamentary elections when it promised to repeal
the IMDT and strengthen the immigration laws. It mooted a National Register and identity
cards for legal citizens. All these went down well with the middle-class Assamese Hindus.
Although the BJP could win only one seat from Silchar, its overall vote share increased to
24.5%. After the BJP came to power in New Delhi, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and
Home Minister L. K. Advani visited Assam and promised measures against illegal migration.
The new Governor, Lt. Gen (Retd.) S. K. Sinha, sent a 42 page report to the home minister
arguing that the illegal immigration had changed the demographic profile of the state and posed
a grave threat to the Assamese and recommended the repeal of the IMDT (Act). There were
indications that the BJP was consolidating the Assamese Hindu votes in the state.
These developments worried the AGP. The AGP realized that it had to stop any further erosion
of its traditional Hindu Assamese votes. Therefore, it followed the BJP’s path of projecting
itself as an anti-Muslim party in 1999. In a press conference, the chief minister talked of the
threats to Assam posed by the Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). He alleged that the
madrasas were recruiting Muslims for ISI-sponsored organizations. These statements were
taken by the public as a duplication of BJP propaganda and therefore, strengthened the BJP’s
base rather than the AGP’s. In the next election AGP could not win a single seat, while the BJP
increased its share of votes to 30 percent.23
Although born of regional movements with a regional agenda, the AGP failed to deliver. The
Assamese masses had turned from the Congress to the AGP with a lot of hope but lost no time
in looking for viable alternatives. The BJP fitted the bill. It was in power at the Centre. It was
pro-Hindu and it promised to check illegal immigration and declare Bengali migrants as
stateless citizens. All these points appealed to the Assamese middle classes. Once they realized
that secessionist politics did not benefit them they turned to the BJP whose pro-Hindu agenda
suited their regionalist demands. With the majority of Bengali and Assamese caste-Hindus
turning to the BJP, and Muslims as well as other minorities favouring the Congress, the
Assamese electorate was polarized on the eve of the state assembly elections scheduled in 2001.
42
But the BJP’s alliance with the ruling AGP proved disastrous for both. The electorate in Assam
rejected the alliance and opted for the Congress.
Decades of Electoral Politics
Since then the Congress came back to power for three consecutive terms. Betrayed by the
former student leaders and fed up communal propaganda by the BJP, the people of Assam
realized how they lost out on the development agenda. When they were fighting for the
deportation of foreign nationals for more than a decade, the rest of India had cashed in on the
liberalization policy inaugurated by the Congress government led by P V Narasimha Rao at the
Centre. Under the dynamic leadership of Tarun, the Congress government first fought the
menace of ULFA and brought the alienated youth back to the mainstream by offering them
self-employment under a massive contractor regime and a huge number of welfare schemes
covering poor, marginalized, women, youth, deprived and rural areas. It also was able to grant
autonomy to a number of disgruntled ethnic groups through autonomous councils which meant
more assured funds from the Centre. The Bodo autonomous movement too was resolved
through an accord and electoral alliance. The Congress now formed an alliance with the new
Bodo party- the Bodo People Party with whom it shared power.
Details of Assembly constituencies (ACs)
Electors and Voters
Total electors 17434019 Polling stations 18712 Turn out (in %) 75.77
Number of candidates
Total ACs 126 ACs for which elections are being held 126
ACs for which results are available 126
Number of candidates
State Parties
State Parties (Other states)
Other registered
parties
Independents Total contestants
43
Political parties Party Constituencies
Contestants Won
Indian National Congress 120 53
Bharatiya Janata Party 125 10
Communist Party of India (Marxist) 16 2
Nationalist Congress Party 45 1
Communist Party of India 9 1
AsomGanaParishad 100 24
Lok Jan Shakti Party 15 0
Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation) 14 0
Janata Dal (United) 12 0
Rashtriya Janata Dal 7 0
Samajwadi Party 7 0
Revolutionary Socialist Party 4 0
Janata Dal (Secular) 3 0
Muslim League Kerala State Committee 3 0
Assam United Democratic Front 69 10
AsomGanaParishadPragtisheel 93 1
Autonomous State Demand Committee 5 1
LokoSanmilon 5 1
NavbharatNirman Party 8 0
315 100 65 201 316 997
44
National Loktantrik Party 5 0
All India Minorities Front 3 0
Revolutionary Communist Party of India (Rasik Bhatt) 2 0
Samata Party 2 0
United Minorities Front, Assam 2 0
TrinamoolGanaParishad 2 0
Hindusthan Suraksha Party 1 0
United Reservation Movement Council of Assam 1 0
NavbharatNirman Party 1 0
Republican Party of India 1 0
Lok Shakti 1 0
Independent 316 22
Total 997 126
There were similar ceasefire agreements followed by Accords with the Karbis as well as the
Dimasas. The Bodos meanwhile have successfully carved out an Autonomous Council for
themselves which are virtually independent of the Assamese administration. The Dimasa and
Karbisalso have Autonomous Councils. For the Congress therefore it was a successful period
of peace and prosperity and the promotion of development in a hitherto neglected region. The
capital region of Guwahati was the symbol of this prosperity.
Results of Assembly elections in Assam, 2001
Political Party Constituencies
Contesting Won
Indian National Congress 126 71
Bharatiya Janata Party 46 8
Nationalist Congress Party 62 3
Communist Party of India (Marxist) 22 0
45
Communist Party of India 19 0
AsomGanaParishad 77 20
Autonomous State Demand Committee (United) 5 2
All India Trinamool Congress 23 1
Samajwadi Party 23 1
Samata Party 19 1
Communist Party of India (Marxist-Lenninist) (Liberation) 9 0
Janata Dal (United) 6 0
Rashtriya Janata Dal 6 0
Autonomous State Demand Committee (Progressive) 5 0
Muslim League Kerala State Committee 5 0
Janata Dal (Secular) 5 0
Revolutionary Socialist Party 3 0
United Bodo Nationalist Liberation Front 13 0
Lok Jan Shakti Party 11 0
United Minorities Front, Assam 9 0
Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya) 8 0
People's Democratic Front 7 0
United Reservation Movement Council of Assam 7 0
Lok Shakti 3 0
Revolutionary Communist Party of India (Rasik Bhatt) 2 0
AmraBangalee 1 0
United Tribal Nationalists Liberation Front 1 0
Independent 393 19
TOTAL 916 126
Fifteen years of continuous reign made the chief minister TarunGogoi complacent. Allegations
of corruption surfaced and he was seen to be detached from the people.This led to the defeat
of the Congress led government in the 2014 elections.
46
Party wise performance in the General Elections of 2016 in Assam
Party Name
Total Valid
Votes
Polled in
the State
Total
number
Electors in
the State
State Seats
Won
Total Valid
Votes
Polled by
Party
% Valid
Votes
Polled by
Party
Bharatiya Janata
Party
14938826 18837713 7 5507152 36.86
47
Communist Party of India
14938826 18837713 0 28930 0.19
Communist Party of India (Marxist)
14938826 18837713 0 64945 0.43
Indian National Congress
14938826 18837713 3 4467295 29.90
48
Asom Gana Parishad
14938826
18837713 0 577730 3.87
All India United Democratic Front
14938826 18837713
3 2237612 14.98
Bodoland Peoples Front
14938826
18837713 0 330106 2.21
Unrecognised 14938826
14938826 18837713 0 95013 0.16 2
Independent 14938826 18837713 1 1436900
9.62
Source: Election Commission of India (online)
When in the 2014 General elections the BJP won a massive majority throughout the country
including Assam, the Congress leadership remained complacent. No action were taken to
remove the corrupt leaders. In the meantime certain other developments had taken place. After
the IMDT act was declared illegal, the Assam government under the Supreme Court directive
implemented the updating of the National Register of Citizenship for people residing in Assam.
This led to huge harassment of genuine citizens in the name of collecting information. A
number of people were kept in prison on suspicion of being foreign nationals, described as
being a human rights violation of Bengali speakers, both Hindu and Muslim. It was against this
background that the 2016 Assembly elections were held in Assam. Interestingly, the BJP,
especially its leader, Prime Minister Narendra Modi took advantage of the situation. He
declared that all Hindu, Sikh or Jain refugees who entered India (Assam) at any time would be
granted Indian citizenship. On the other hand, sensing the Assamese hostility against the
Muslim immigrants in Assam, he declared that all the Muslim immigrants would have to pack
their bags and leave for Pakistan/Bangladesh if the BJP is voted to power. This way he allayed
the fears of Bengali Hindu refugees of deportation and made the Assamese happy about the
prospect of deportation of Muslim migrants which the Assamese have been fighting since the
1930s. This time too the BJP went ahead and revived their old alliance with the AGP and a
Bodo Party, the BPP. The result was a victory for the BJP in Assam in 2016.
49
Assam State Assembly Election 2016
Party Won Leading Total
Bharatiya Janata Party 60 0 60
Indian National Congress 26 0 26
All India United Democratic Front 13 0 13
AsomGanaParishad 14 0 14
Bodoland Peoples Front 12 0 12
Independent 1 0 1
Total 126 0 126
Assam State Assembly Election 2016, Part-wise Vote Share
Party Votes (in %) , Vote Count
INC 31.0%, 5238655
BJP 29.5%, 4992185 AIUDF 13.0%,2207 IND 11.0%, 1867532
AGP 8.1%, 1377482 BOPF 3.9%,666057
CPM 0.6%,93508 NCP 0.3%, 44848
CPI 0.2%, 37243
BGanP 0.2%, 33220
Assam has been a fertile ground of communal politics from the 1930s due to the Assamese
hostility to continuous inflow of Muslim migrants from Bengal and later Bangladesh. The
formation of the government by the BJP in the state in 2016 in alliance with other local parties-
50
--the first time ever in the North East---raises new question of communalism in state politics,
and a lot of apprehension among the secular parties.
Attitude of Assam towards the Centre
Assam had been a marginalized province under British rule. It was constituted and
reconstituted again and again without the consent of the people of the state. The Chinese
invasion of India in 1962 left the Assamese completely alienated. The withdrawal of the Indian
forces leaving Assam within the reach of Chinese and Prime Minister Nehru’s speech saying
his heart goes out to the people of Assam left the Assamese feeling that India did not care for
them. The decision to award an oil refinery to Bihar rather than Assam in the 1960s confirmed
the ‘step motherly’ treatment of Assam by the Centre. In 1979 the All Assam Student Union
led a mass movement for the detection and deportation of Bangladesh immigrants from Assam.
The Centre ignored the movement for six long years before it signed the Assam Accord (1985)
to resolve the issue to some extent. But until recently there were complaints that the provisions
of the Assam Accord remain unimplemented. The IMDT Act provided for in the Accord made
it cumbersome to detect and deport any foreigners. It was eventually scrapped by a Supreme
Court order. These strengthened the Assamese complaint of consistent discrimination,
deprivation and neglect by the Centre
Current Issues in Assam
One major natural disaster that Assam fought every year were the devastating floods. In recent
times Assam is facing a major crisis from climate change which is threatening major spells of
drought and unforeseen floods creating situations of food insecurity. Historian AmalenduGuha
requested for a moratorium on the issue of foreign nationals and prioritizing the fight against
flood and erosion by Brahmaputra river. But the leadership in Assam is less bothered about
these livelihood issues. They want the immigrants, either Muslim or Hindus, from erstwhile
Pakistan and present day Bangladesh to be disenfranchised if not deported from the state of
Assam. The Assamese are now trying to detect genuine citizens of the state by updating the
National Register of Citizens. It has almost created a civil war like situation. But the proposed
amendment of the Citizenship Act of 1950 by the present government at the Centre which
promises to grant citizenship to all Hindu, Sikh and Jain refugees migrating to India due to
religious persecution in their respective countries has threatened the Assamese again. They feel
that if all the Bengali Hindu refugees are granted citizenship, it would be a threat to the
51
indigenous Assamese people of the state. They are now crying betrayal to the BJP-led Centre
and threatening to launch another new ULFA, if the move is not scrapped.
1 British records suggests that they stayed back in Assam for strategic reasons mainly and the prospect of a lucrative tea industry etc. was recognized only in the 1830s. On tea was centered almost all the trade activities of the East India Company. Tea found ready markets in Britain and the America. But the stoppage of tea trade by the Chinese Government to the Company sent them in a desperate search for an alternative source of tea. Agents and Botanists were already in this part of India searching for indigenous tea plants, which were eventually found in Assam in 1823. Thus tea was discovered before the first Anglo-Burmese War and even during the war the ‘tea’ factor was being considered.
2 B.C. Allen, Sibsagar District Gazetteer(Shillong, 1905). 3 Selected from the Records of Government of Bengal, Vol. 37, (Calcutta, 1861) PP. 63-66 and 69-72. 4 Percival Griffiths, The History of Indian Tea Industry (London, 1967) PP. 267-304. 5 Census of India, 1961, Vol. 3, Assam Part 2-C, Cultural and Migration tables, Table 0-V, Appendix 3, PP.
69-74. 6 Ibid., Vol. 1, India Part, 2-0, Language Table. 7 Resolutions of the All India Muslim League, December 1933 to March 1940, published by AIML, Central
Office, PP. 47-46. 8 Detailed in the chapter entitled ‘Middle Class Leadership : Conflagration’. 9 Sajal Nag, Roots of Ethnic Conflict : Nationality Questions in North East India, New Delhi : Manohar, 1990,
p. 97, for the details of the Assamese nationality questions. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid., pp. 149-52. 13 R.N. Aditya, From the Corridors of Memory,Karimganj : Author, 1970, pp. 35-36. 14 Congress election leaflet, quoted in Guha, Planter Raj to Swaraj,pp. 302-3. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 GirinPhukan, Politics of Regionalism in North East India, New Delhi: Spectrum, 1996, pp. 44-60. 21 H. Srikanth, ‘Communalizing Assam: AGP’s Loss is BJP’s Gain’, Economic and Political Weekly, 34 (49),
4-10 December 199WHAT YEAR, pp. 3412-14. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid.
Select Bibliography
AmalenduGuha, Planter Raj to Swaraj : Freedom Struggle and Electoral Politics in Assam,
New Delhi : ICHR, 1977,
GirinPhukan, Politics of Regionalism in North East India, New Delhi: Spectrum, 1996
52
Sajal Nag, Roots of Ethnic Conflict : Nationality Questions in North East India, New Delhi :
Manohar, 1990,
Percival Griffiths, The History of Indian Tea Industry (London, 1967)
Brass Paul Language Religion and Policies in North India, (OUP, Delhi, 1974).
Chaube S. K. Hill Politics in North East India (Orient Longman, Hyderbad, 1973)
Chaudhury T.K. Demographic Trends in Assam (Delhi, 1982).
Datta Ray B. (ed.) Emergence and Role of the Middle class in N.E. India (New Delhi,
1983).
Monirul Hussain, ‘Tribal Movement for Autonomous State in Assam,’ in Economic and
Political Weekly, August 8, 1987
Goswami H. Population Trends in the Brahmaputra Valley, (1881-1931), (Delhi,
1985).
V V Rao, A Century of Tribal Politics in North East India 1874-1974, S Chand & Co, New
Delhi, 1976
Dutta P.S. Autonomy Movements in Assam : Documents, Omson Publication, 1993,
Guwahati,
Sandhya Goswami, Language Politics in Assam, Ajanta Delhi,1997
NaliniRanjan Roy, Koch Rajbangshi and Kamatapuri: Truth Unveiled, Vicky Publishers,
Guwahati, 2007
Sujata Datta Hazarika, ‘Unrest and Displacement: Rajbanshis in North Benga,’ in REFUGEE
WATCH. NO. 17; 2002 DEC,
Yashmin,Saikia, Assam and India: Fragmented Memories, Cultural Identity and the Tai-Ahom Struggle2004, Permanent Black, Ranikhet. Gassah, L.S. (ed) (1997): The Autonomous District Councils, (Omsons Publications, New
Delhi)
Suryasikha Pathak, ‘Tribal Politics in Assam’ in Economic and Political Weekly, March 2010
53
Manipur: From a Princely Kingdom to Statehood in
Indian Federalism
Sajal Nag
Professor of History,
Assam University, Silchar
Geography
Manipur is situated in the North Eastern part of India comprising both hilly ranges
and plain areas. Manipur is bounded by Nagaland in the North, Mizoram in the
South, Cachar district of Assam in the West and Myanmar in the East. It lies
between latitude 23*30’ and 25*30’ North and longitude 93*10’ and 94*30’ East.
It consists of about 22,347 square kilometres of territory, of which 20,089 (90%)
square kms are hills and the rest 2238 sqkmsare plain land known as Imphal
valley. Imphal is the name of the river that flows across the plains which are
surrounded by hills from all sides. The Manipur - Myanmarborder is also the
international boundary between India and Myanmar. Manipur had different
names during early periods. The names were according to era and area, such as,
Meitrabak, Kangleipak or Meitei Leipak, Poireipak as well as twenty other
names.The present name Manipur is a new nomenclature which was adopted
during the reign of Meitei king GaribNiwaz alias Pamheiba in the eighteenth
54
century. Manipur and its people were known by different names to its neighbour
, the Shans or Pongs called the Manipuris as Cassay, the Burmese Kathe (a
corrupted version of Cassay), the AssameseMeklee/Mekheli/Magalu, the
Kacharis called as Muglie etc. The Meiteis occupy the centrally located valley
which is only about ten percent of the total geographical area of the state but
constitutes about 64.6 percent of the total population of the stateThe valley is
surrounded by hills which are administratively divided into five districts and six
autonomous district councils.Apart from them, there are few populations of
migrants who are collectively referred to as Mayang by the Meiteis and Kol or
Vai by the Kukis. They migrated from different parts of mainland India in the last
century, and are primarily engaged in business and other allied activities.
Demography and Ethnicity
The State has a total population of about 28,55794 according to the last Census.
It has a diverse population. Manipur is divided into plains and hills. Manipur has
a population of 2,855,794. Of this total, 58.9% live in the valley and the remaining
41.1% in the hilly regions.The plains are inhabited by Meitheis ethnic group who
are mostly Vaishnavite Hindus by faith.BishnupriyaManipuristoo are
Vaishanvite Hindus and Meithei Pangals profess the Islamic faith. The valley is
populated mainly by the MeeteiSanamahi,Meitei Hindu,Meitei Christian, Meetei
Brahmin and Meitei Pangal (Meetei Muslim).Naga and Kuki settlements are also
found in the valley region.The hills are abode a group of more than 29 tribes who
are ethnically divided into the generic Naga, Kuki and Zo tribes.The Nagas are
the second largest in population next to the Meitei. The Naga tribes inhabiting
Manipur are Tangkhul, Mao, Zemi, Rongmei, Liangmei, Kasui, Maram, Mon,
Kom and Anal. There are about 37 sub tribes who use the generic nomenclature
Kuki. There are two clans of the Kukis – the old Kuki and the New Kuki. Old
Kuki comprises of Kom, Anal, Hmar, Kireng, Choths, Purum, Mantak, Gangte,
55
Vaiphei, Hiroi or Lamgang whereas the New Kuki tribes include like Thadou,
Singsol, Chungloe, Haokip, Simete, Vungson, Changut, Manvungand so on.
Vital Statistics of Manipur 2011 Census
Area Districts Population Literacy rate
Towns Density of population
22,347 square kilometres
9 2,855,794 79.21% (2011 Census
33 130/km (330/sq mi)
Source:(Census of India 2011 http://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/censusinfodashboard/stock/profiles/en/IND014_Manipur.pdf)
Table. 1 Break up of Population of Manipur (2011)
Total Population 2570390
Male Population 1290171
Female Population 1280219
Rural Population 1736236
Urban Population 834154
Sex Ratio fem 992 ale to 1000
male
Density (per km) 115
Literacy 79.21%
56
Source: Census Report of India 2011 (online)
Table 2 SC/ST Population of Manipur State
Category Total Percentage
Scheduled Tribes 632173 34.5
Scheduled Castes 37105 2.0
Meitheis and
others 1167871 63.5
Total 1837149 100
Source: Census Reports of India 2011. SC=Scheduled Castes; ST=Scheduled
Tribes
The language of Meetei people Meithei/Meitheilon (or Manipuri), is the lingua
franca in Manipur and is one of the languages listed in the Eighth Schedule of the
Indian Constitution. Manipur has a diverse group of ethnic groups speaking
different languages and dialects. The languages spoken in Manipur are
Manipuri(1,266,098), Poumai.language/Poula(179,189), Thado (178,69),Tangk
hul (139,979), Kabui(87,950), Paite (48,379), Hmar(43,137), Vaiphei (37,553),
Liangmai (32,787),Bengali(27,100),Hindi(24,720),Maring (22,154), Anal (22,1
87), Zou (20,626), Kom (14,558), Gangte (13,752), Kuki (12,900), and Simte
(10,028).There are 29 dialects spoken in Manipur. The six main hill dialects are
recognised byGovernment of Manipur for the medium of instruction and
examination up to Higher Secondary level.
57
Table 3 Languages of Manipur in 2001
Manipuri
53.00%
Thadou 7.48%
Tangkhul 5.86%
Kabui 3.68%)
Paite 2.02%)
Hmar 1.8%
Bengali 1.13%
Others 25.03% Source: Census Reports of India 2001 (online)
Table 4 Religion in Manipur (2011)
Hindu 41.4%)
Christian 41.3%)
Muslim 8.39%)
Sanamahi 8.18%)
Sikhism 0.05%)
Jainism 0.05%)
Buddhism 0.24%)
others 2.98%
58
Source: Census Reports of India 2011
Although Manipur is overwhelmingly tribal, and the Meitheis before their
conversion to Hinduism had only clans and no caste system, it does contain a
rudimentary caste system. The Meitheishave converted to Hinduism only in the
18th century. By the turn of the century, they evolve castes like Brahmin,
Kshatriya and few lower castes like the Lois and Yaithibi castes. The other castes
mentioned below like Dhobi, Muchi, Patni and Namasudra were castes of Non-
Manipuris who have settled in Manipur during the colonial and later periods.
Table 5 Scheduled Castes of Manipur
PART XI.—Manipur 1. Dhupi, Dhobi 2. Lois 3. Muchi, Ravidas 4. Namasudra 5. Patni 6. Sutradhar 7. Yaithibi
Antiquity of Manipur
According to the royal chronicle of Manipur, the “CheitharolKumbaba”, the
recorded history of the state begins with the reign of King or
MeidinguNongdaLairenPakhangba in 33 A.D. MeidinguPakhangba was the first
coroneted historical ruler who ruled the kingdom for 120 long years. He was the
pioneer to initiate the Meitei state formation in the valley. According to the state
chronicle of Manipur the “CheitharolKumbaba”Pakhangba was coroneted as the
first Meitei ruler ofKangla in 33 A.D. He also laid the foundation of the
Ningthouja dynasty. The Ningthoujas succeeded to establish a single
administrative structure under their sovereignty. After this we do not find any
59
further mention of these clans as separate ruling authority in the recorded history
of Manipur. In the word of GangmumeiKabui, “the Meitei state was completely
formed despite the autonomy of Moirang. The Ningthouja kingdom had become
a completely feudal state.”23
The history of Manipur reached its height of glory with the beginning of the 18th
century. It was a transitional period for the country from traditional Meitei society
to a Hinduised society. The King Charairongba ascended the throne of Manipur
in 1697 A.D. He was attracted to Vaishnavite Hinduism and constructed various
temples for Hindu gods and goddesses. He was formally initiated into Vaisnavism
on 1704 A.D but did not impose the foreign religion upon the people. The process
of sanskritisationwas completed during the period of his son,Pamheiba.
The year 1714 was a watershed year in the history of Manipur. It marked the
accession to throne of one the most of remarkable King of Manipur, Pamheiba.
He converted to Hinduism and took the title of Garib Nawaz – patron of the poor.
Although Hinduism had already entered Manipur and attracted followers of this
faith within the state, Garib Nawaz made it the state religion. Besides the military
achievements, the most remarkable reform of GaribNiwaz was the sanskritisation
of Manipur under the initiative of Shanta Das Gosain. With relation to the
acceptance of Hinduism by GaribNaiwaz, the chronicle recorded that in 1717
A.D. many temples of Hindu gods and goddesses were constructed by the king.
This reform has changed the course of cultural history of Manipur. The traditional
religion of Manipur lost its popularity and was submerged within the new
religion. The more or less egalitarian society then introduced caste stratification
with Garib Nawaz himself assuming the Kshatriya status. There were a large
number of Brahmins and even untouchable caste introduced in the society. It
brought out its link with the epic Mahabharata and invented a legend that
Mahabharata hero Arjun had visited Manipur during his exile period and married
a Manipuri princess Chitrangada from whom he had a son named Babhrubahana
60
who fought in the Kurukshetra war.The largest scale of invasion of Manipur by
the external forces was faced by GaribNiwaz in 1723 A.D. They were completely
defeated by the Manipuris. The military hostilities continued between the two
kingdoms with counter and re-encounters in 1724, 1725, 1735, 1736 and 1737
A.D. GaribNiwaz carried the most successful invasion of Burma. The strong
force of Meitei entered the heart of city, the capital of Ava ‘Sagaing’ and
conquered it. The death of GaribNiwaz brought an end to the period of powerful
rulers in Manipur during the years 1748 to 1789 A.D.
Decline of the Manipuri State and the Advent of the British rule
Garib Nawaz brought stability in the kingdom, but he soon succumbed to a series
of palace intrigues. A conspiracy by his son Ugat Shah compelled him to go into
exile where he was brutally murdered. Weakened by the palace intrigues and
fratricidal wars, the state had become militarily weak, economically chaotic and
politically vulnerable. The rising power of the Alungpaya dynasty of Burma took
advantage of the situation. In 1755 it invaded Manipur and devastated the state.
In 1758 it overran Manipur again and annexed parts of its territory permanently.
Devastated by the Burmese and fearing further aggression, the King of Manipur
Jai Singh (1750-1798) sent an emissary to the East India Company in Calcutta to
plead for help from the British against the Burmese forces. Accordingly a treaty
was signed between the British and Manipur in 1762. As per the agreement,
Major Verelist came to the border of Manipur but had to return to Calcutta due to
bad weather and situation that demanded him back at Chittagong.
In 1765 a fresh Burmese invasion took place in Manipur. Jai Singh, who in the
meantime lost and regained his throne, was defeated and forced to flee to Cachar.
With the help of Ahom king Rajeswar Singh he, however, was able to regain his
throne by 1768. In 1819 the Burmese attacked Manipur again and installed a
puppet king on the throne of Manipur. From 1819 to 1824 Manipur remained
61
under the occupation of Burma. Meanwhile, developments in the neighbouring
state of Assam aggravated the situation. There were similar succession intrigues
and palace conspiracies. One of the deposed king failing to receive assistance
from English, turned towards the Burmese. As a part of the agreement, the
Burmese sent a detachment which occupied Jorhat first and eventually occupied
Assam by defeating the Ahomsin ensuing war. From Assam they invaded the
state of Cachar. This resulted in the outbreak of the Anglo Burmese war in 1824.
Once the British forces defeated the Burmese in several places, Gambhir Singh,
who had earlier sought the assistance of the British in expelling the Burmese from
his state, swiftly moved to Manipur and drove away the Burmese from there.
Cornered from all sides the Burmese were forced to accept the conditions of the
British and sign the Treaty of Yandabo in 24th February 1826 which recognised
their ally Gambhir Singh as the Raja of Manipur.
Making of a Colonial Province
Although Gambhir Singh was reinstated as the King of Manipur, the British
considered it as a protected state though no formal agreement to that effect was
made. In 1835 a political agent was appointed in Manipur. Since then the power
of the political agent continued to increase and he tried to interfere in the internal
affairs of Manipur even though he was supposed to be under the king. In
September 1891 a clash broke out between the two contending princes of
Manipur which the British took advantage of. One was led by prince Paccasana
and while the other a group of his half-brothers led by prince and
generalTikendrajit Singh. When Tikendrajit tried to raise a coup, Surachandra
took refuge in the British Residency. The political agent ,Grimwood, anticipating
violence disarmed the supporters of the Maharaja. Tikendrajit in the meantime
put his brother Kulachandra to the throne and asked the British to recognise his
accession. The British were cautious about the power of Tikendrajit and in an
attempt to keep him under control, wanted to punish him. The chief commissioner
62
of Assam, colonel Quinton himself went to Imphal to execute the instructions.
But Tikendrajit prepared for a revolt. When the General refused to surrender, the
British officials went into the Kangla fort for negotiation wherein they were killed
by a murderous mob. A huge detachment was sent to Manipur to avenge the
murder and after a series of war between the two, all the rebels, Thangal General,
General Tikendrajit and regentKulachandra Sing were captured on 23 May 1891.
Both Thangal General, General Tikendrajit were hanged to death while
Kulachandra was sentenced to life deportation for waging war against the Queen.
Subsequent to this, the sovereign state of Manipur was relegated to the position
of a native state with 11 gun salutes. In administration, to promote and enforce
imperial interests, the colonial authorities introduced a system of indirect rule.
The British exercised de facto authority while the king and native nobles enjoyed
de jure powers only. In 1907,Churachand Singh was appointed the President of
the Durbar and an European officer as Vice President and five other Manipuri
aristocrat as ordinary members. The powers were divided between the Durbar and
the political agent – a system which continued till the British withdrew from
India. Since then Manipur remained a Princely State in the British Indian Empire.
Integration of Manipur with India
The story of integration of the state of Manipur with India is important as it
determined the political trajectory of Manipur in the days to come. At the
national level the Indian National Congress emerged as the expression of rising
Indian nationalism, at the regional level there were organizations and parties
which articulated sub-national interests and aspirations. Thus, we had the
Assam Association in Assam, the National Conference in Jammu and Kashmir,
the Justice Party in Tamil Nadu, the Akali Dal in Punjab, the Andhra
Mahashabha in Andhra, Karnataka EkikaranSangh in Karnataka, the Gujarat
Sabha in Gujarat (1884), the Naga National Council (1946), Mizo Union (MU)
(1946), Tripura RajyaGanaParishad (1939), Tripura MuktiParishad (1948),
63
JaintiaDarbar (1900), Khasi National Darbar (1923), Nikhil Manipuri
Mahasabha (1934), Sikkim State Congress (1947), and so on. Quite often some
of these organizations merged with or transformed themselves into the local unit
of the Congress.
However, as the British paramountcy came to an end on 15thAugust 1947,
Manipur reverted to its pre-colonial sovereign status. The maharaja of Manipur
gained full control of his state’s administration once again after 86 years. But this
was a critical juncture in Manipuri’s history. On the one hand, it witnessed
massive movements for responsible government, and on the other, there were
preparations underway among members of the Congress to effect its merger with
the Indian Union. Then dominion agent, Debeshwar Sharma, was pressing the
Centre for integration of Manipur as a district of Assam. There was even a
suggestion that Manipur should be merged with West Bengal. 23 In mid-
September, Sardar Patel mooted a scheme for the formation of a Purbanchal
Pradesh consisting of Manipur, Cachar, Lushai Hills and Tripura.’23Irabat found
the whole idea Purabanchal Pradesh ‘nauseating’.23 He felt that such a move
would be a threat to the distinctive social, cultural, political and historical identity
of Manipur. He strongly opposed the idea and implored the people to fight tooth
and nail against it.
The dilly-dallying tactics of the maharaja in granting a responsible government
generated public hostility against him. On 4thOctober 1947, the Congress
Working Committee passed a resolution for ‘immediately granting responsible
government’ – giving the deadline of 1stApril 1948.23 The maharaja assured the
people of an elected legislature based on adult franchise, and a ministry of elected
representative. But, he was not trusted by political leaders. Demonstrations and
picketing in front of state offices, at the residence of the government officials,
were staged in order to protest against the maharaja’s decision. This non-stop
agitation completely paralyzed the functioning of the government and normal life
64
in Manipur. 23 On 10thNovember, the government threatened realization and
stoppage of ‘war compensation’.23 But this intensified the movement, which
compelled the Chief Minister of the interim council to make a declaration on
23rdNovember that a responsible government would be introduced within six
months. The election was held on 11thJune 1948 under the supervision of the
francise sub-committee.23 No party could secure an absolute majority in the
election though the Congress emerged as the largest majority. Consequently, a
non-Congress coalition government was formed and Maharaja Kumar Priyabrata
Singh became the first Chief Minister. The maiden session of the Assembly took
place on 19 October 1948.23
The election result gave a jolt to the aspirations of the Congress Party. It also
sealed the fate of the idea of a Purbanchal Pradesh. The local Congress unit
established closer links with the area. It invited Prafulla Chandra Ghose an
eminent Congressman from Bengal, who in his speech favoured the idea of
Purbanchal Pradesh. But people’s opposition to the idea made the situation
tense.23 At a public meeting held on 18thSeptember, 1948, the leaders of both the
hills and plains strongly opposed the move and declared that the people of
Manipur would resist any type of imposition of the proposed province. The
Government of Manipur also opposed the idea.23 Due to such strong opposition
the proposal of the Manipur State Congress for the creation of a Purbanchal
Pradesh was nipped in the bud.
Irabt Singh, who had contested on the Krishak Sabha ticket and was returned from
the Utlou constituency, not only opposed the Purbanchal Pradesh idea, but
demanded that Kabaw Valley which had been transferred to Burma in 1947 be
returned to Manipur. The workers of his Krishak Sabha and Praja Sangha started
mobilizing villagers ad organized several village meetings. Irabat was a
confirmed Communist by now and his activities roused suspicion in the
government circles.23 Sir Akbar Hydari the Governor of Assam visited Manipur
65
to study the situation. The political activities of Irabat especially were minutely
observed and studied. This had become essential in view of the increasing rumor
of a Communist Coup in Manipur and Irabat’s opposition to the merger of
Manipur with India.23 It was reported that the higher level officials of the Indian
Government felt that if Irabat was allowed to move freely it would be impossible
to effect the merger. Irabat was also held responsible for all the disturbances in
Manipur. The Manipur Government in a move to curb his activities banned the
Krishak Sabha, PrajaSingha, MahilaSammillan and Student Federation – the
organizations Irabat was associated with.23
Irabat, on the other hand, founded the state unit of the Communist Party of India
after the second Congress of the CPI was held in Calcutta, 28 February- 6 March
1948.23 This was the time when peasants were engaged in armed struggle in
Telengana, Bengal and Tripura. Irabat’s days as a free moving citizen came to an
end on 21 September 1948. On this day as attempts were being made to arrest
him, Irabat went underground. From his hideout he started spreading Communist
ideology and programmes, and also mobilizing and organizing the peasants.
Irabat was trying to start a Telengana-like uprising in Manipur.’23 In fact, one the
reasons that the Home Ministry of India hastened the process of Manipuri’s
merger with India was the rising spectre of a Communist armed struggle in
various parts of India which had given rise to a phenomenon called ‘Communist
Phobia’. 23 When the Indian State actually obtained the merger of Manipur
through doubtful mode on 15thOctober 1949, Irabot’s dream of establishing a
Peasants Republic of Manipur was shattered. The prophet turned revolutionary
could only mutter “Now Manipur is finished.”
The Nikhil Manipuri Mahasabha was established in Manipur in 1934. It was
modelled on the Indian National Congress. The moderate sections of the sabha
merged with the state unit of the Congress in October 1946. Carrying the popular
sentiment forward, the Congress demanded in 1948 a responsible government in
66
Manipur. But the Congress started losing popularity as it supported the merger of
Manipur, Cachar and Tripura. The popular sentiments were against both23. They
were in favor of retaining the independent identity of Manipur, at least for some
time. The state Congress unit’s maneuver to expedite the merger was seen by the
people as an effort to sell the Manipuri praja to India without taking public
opinion or by falsely alleging that it had the support of the people.23 The elected
representatives in the Manipur Assembly passed a resolution saying ‘if
integration or merger is imposed on her (taking advantage) of our unfortunate
helpless circumstances and violating the principles of Bapuji, without the consent
of the people, the present moral submission of the Manipuris in India, which is
most precious, may disappear... If the people have been sinned and wronged, they
have to be watched over across the frontier'’23 No wonder when the merger was
actually implemented on 21 September 1949, the Manipuri people were aghast
and anguished. They blamed the Congress for the tragedy. While the state
Congress rejoiced, a paper wrote, ‘we are insulting the honour of our forefathers
if the consequence of an independent India is going to be enslavement of
Manipur’.23 Another wrote, ‘about fifty years ago a British chief commissioner
came to Manipur and he was killed here…..if an Indian chief commissioner
arrives here it might be the case of history repeating itself and we are afraid,
Manipur may witness a mini-scale war'’23. With the Congress regarded as a
betrayer, it was a foregone conclusion that only a party of the Meitheis would
receive popular support in Manipur. However, the Congress had been in power
in Manipur since then, not on the strength of Meithei votes, but on its Naga-Mizo-
Kuki base and through a coalition with regional parties.
Vicissitudes of the journey to Statehood
Manipur, after its amalgamation into the Dominion of India, was made a part
‘C’ state administered by the President of India through a chief commissioner
67
where all central laws were applicable. The chief commissioner was assisted by
a nominated advisory council in the discharge of his functions, consisting of a
number of members as the President deemed fit for the purpose. Major General
Rawal Amar Singh was the first chief commisssioner. The chief
commissionerate was inaugurated on 22 January 1950. But trouble started soon.
The Socialist Party in alliance with some local parties organized an agitation
demanding installation of assembly in place of the advisory council. In 1954 a
group of youths formed the Revolutionary Nationalist Party demanding the
immediate installation of a popular government in Manipur. It even indicated
secessionist designs demanding Manipur be declared an independent state under
the United Nations trusteeship. After the reorganization of states in 1956
following the recommendations of State Reorganization Commission’s Report,
Part “C’ states ceased to exist andin its place territorial councils were
established under the Territorial Council Act 1956. Accordingly a Manipur
territorial council was established in Manipur on 2ndSeptember 1957 which
consisted of 30 elected and 2 nominated members. This territorial council
replaced the advisory council.
The mode of integration of Manipur with India left a bitter taste in the minds of
Manipur. Although Congress dominated the electoral scenario, soon
factionalism began to plague the organization. Other parties demanded the
restoration of Manipur assembly. A number of radical youth forums appeared
who entertained secessionist ideas. As early as the 1950s, these organizations
had become popular with the youth. Among them were Manipur Youth League,
Meithei State Committee, United National Liberation Front, Revolutionary
Government of Manipur, Kangla League, were prominent. They began to
review the whole integration process and wanted a reversion to that status. They
stressed those aspects of Meithei identity which distinguished them from the
Indians and denounced Hinduism as a foreign religion which had a bad
68
influence on the life and ways of its people. The earlier insurgent organization,
United National Liberation Front (UNLF, c. 1965), had the avowed objective of
secession from India and to step up an independent state of Manipur based on
the racio-ethnic identity of the Meitheis.23 The Revolutionary Government of
Manipur (RGM) had no pretension of addressing itself to the common ethnicity
of the region though it was not against the idea of a ‘joint struggle’.23 It too held
the ‘Meithei way of life and Meithei philosophy’ as its ideal and sought to
revive them. It blamed the Meitheis, an erstwhile martial people. It therefore
launched a massive de-Hinduization and de-Sanskritization movement along
with the revival of the Sanamahi religion. The RGM was not only successful in
activating such a movement in Manipur but even created a strong identity
consciousness in the state. Its sister organization, the Pan Manipur Youth
League (PANMYL) and its mouthpiece, Resistance, carried out a sustained
campaign on these issues and even pioneered physical mobilizations. To
counter these movements Manipur was elevated to the status of Union Territory
in June 1963 with an elected assembly of its own to be governed by the chief
minister with his councils of ministers. The earlier council was allowed to
function till the end of its tenure in October 1969 in which the chairmen of the
territorial council were made the chief ministers. At the end of the tenure of the
council, President’s Rule was imposed on the state. This was the beginning of
many terms of President’s Rule in the state in the subsequent period.
Statehood and beginning of electoral Politics
Due to the pressure from various tribal and ethnic groups, the state of Assam
was reorganized into several states and Union Territories. According to the
provisions of North Eastern Areas Reorganization Act 1971, Manipur was also
granted full statehood with effect from 21 January 1972. The first election to the
territorial council was held in 1957 to elect 30 members. Four parties –
Congress, Socialist, CPI and the Praja Socialist Party along with Independents
69
participated in the elections. Although no party secured absolute majority
Congress was able to win largest number of seats (12) in the house of 30
members.H Dwijamani Sharma (I) was elected the chairman. For the second
time, election to the territorial council was held in 1962 in which again four
parties – Congress, Socialist, CPI and the Praja Socialist Party along with
Independents participated in the elections. Again no party could secure majority
though Congress had the largest seats (15). MKoireng Singh was elected the
chairman. The first election to the legislative assembly was held in February
1967 to elect its 30 members. Congress, Sanghatita/SamyuktaSociallist party,
Praja Socialist Party, CPI, CPM along with a host of Independents contested in
which the Congress secured 16 seats. It increased further by the admission of 7
independents and 2 nominated members in its fold. M Koireng Singh was sworn
in as the first Chief Minister. But defection created a crisis in which a new
coalition formation under the leadership of LongjamThambou Singh took over
power only to last a short period. This necessitated President’s Rule till 1972.
In Manipur, the Congress was never a strong force, although it was in power for
most of the time. This was because of coalition politics. In fact, Manipur
experimented with coalition politics much before any other region of central
India. Despite the tarnished image of the Congress Party in Manipur due to its
role in the merger issue, people had no alternative party to vote for. In 1967,
certain leaders of the ruling Congress left the party, formed the United Left Front
(ULF) and wrested power from the Congress. When this too collapsed, the need
for a party of the Meitheis was felt. The former ULF members thus formed the
Manipur People’s Party (MPP) in December 1968. Its announced objective was
to ‘espouse the cause of Manipur’. In the first general elections to the state
legislative assembly in 1972, the party secured 15 seats while the Congress won
17 seats and 19 members were independent. The MPP was thus able to form a
coalition government with non-Congress parties. In the mid-term poll of 1974 the
70
MPP secured 20 seats. The election brought into existence the era of coalition and
counter coalitions.Although its rivals were individual communists, they failed to
organize a strong communist party. But CPI as a party had always had a presence
in the state. In the 1980 general elections too no party could secure a majority.
While national parties like the Congress and Janata won 13 and 10 seats,
respectively, the CPI, the Congress (U) secured five and six seats, respectively,
while independents secured a majority of 19 seats. Such political instability has
been the unique feature of Manipur politics. Like the rest of India, the Congress
(I) swept the 1984 elections securing 30 seats while MPP had only three seats.
But in the 1990 elections the Congress bagged only 26 seats while the Janata Dal
and the MPPwon 10 seats each.
Table 6 Statement of Seats and seats won by Parties in 1990 Elections
Total seats – 30
Total Contestants – 288
Total Electorate – 11,89,184
Total valid votes polled – 10,67,944
Party
Seats
contested
Seats
won
INC 60 26
JD 52 11
BJP 16 0
CPI 14 3
CPI (M) 1 0
Congress -S 37 6
MPP 46 11
MHPC 9 0
71
Independents 53 3
Source: Election Commission of India (http://eci.nic.in/eci/eci.html)
The political instability brought president’s rule in the state which lasted for 346
days beginning from 31st December 1993. The 1995 elections saw a Congress (I)-
led coalition ministry. But the instability and lack of absolute majority for any
party existed even after the 1995 elections. In fact, Manipur is perhaps the only
state in NE India where political instability is the rule rather than an exception.23
The final result of the election showed that Congress-I got 21 seats closely
followed by Manipur Peoples Party with 18 seats, Janata Dal 7 and CPI 2 seats.
Other smaller parties like FPM, Samata Party and NPP got 2 seats each. The
Congress-S captured 1, BJP 1 and Independents 3 seats.
Table 7 Statement of Seats and seats won by Parties in 1995 Elections
Total seats – 30
Total Contestants – 347
Total Electorate – 12,69,746
Total valid votes polled – 11,45,965
Party Seats
Contested
Seats
won
INC 59+1 21+1
JD 40+1 7
BJP 19+1 1
SP 23+1 2
JP 3 -
72
CPI 22+1 2
CPI-M 2 -
MPP 53+1 18
KNA 6 -
NPP 5 2
CONG-S 13 1
FPM 23 2
MHPC 1 -
SJP-R 6 -
INDEPENDENTS 64+2 3
Source: Election Commission of India (http://eci.nic.in/eci/eci.html)
As in the previous terms, the sixth assembly term also experienced two short lived
ministries. The first ministry of Congress I was led by RishangKeishing. It was a
coalition government. When Keishing assumed power the Kuki-Naga riot broke
out in the hills for which the chief minister was blamed. The anti-
RishangKeishing groups within the party broke away with some MPP legislators
to form Manipur State Congress Party (MSCP). They ousted Keishing from
power. A second ministry was formed under W Nipamacha Singh in 16
December 1997. Nipamacha ministry lasted till the seventh Assembly election
held in February 2000. Out of the 58 declared seats the constituent party of the
United Front of Manipur and MSCP bagged 23 seats emerging as the single
largest party. Its ally the FPM secured 6 seats. The other two alliance groups SDF
won 16 seats and MDA got 7 seats. The MPP was reduced to 4 seats. The
Congress-I downed to 11 seats from its 22 seats in the sixth elections. The
fledging NCP won 5 and BJP 6.
73
Table 8 Statement of Party wise and Alliance wise results in 2000 Assembly
election
Name of Party Seats
won
Name of Alliance Seats won
MSCP 23 United Front of Manipur
(MSCP-23 + FPM - 6
29
FPM 6 Secular Democratic Front
(INC-11, MPP -4, JD(S)-1)
16
INC 10+1 Manipur Democratic Alliance
(BJP – 6, SAP-1)
7
MPP 4 Others and Independents
(NCP-5, RJD-1, JD(U)-1,
IND-1)
8
JD (S) 1
BJP 6
SAP 1
JD (U) 1
NCP 4+1
RJD 1
Independents 1
Total 60 Total 60
Source: Election Commission of India (online)
On 3rdMarch 2000 a MSCP led 34 member UFM ministry was sworn in under
the Chief Ministership of W Nipamacha Singh. After hardly one year’s stay in
power the United Front of Manipur ministry of Nipamacha Singh developed
cracks, and on 26th January 2001, the ministry fell. On 15th February
RadhabinodKoijam formed an alternative ministry under a new coalition of
74
Peoples Front but as early as May 2001 he was voted out in a no-confidence
motion. As no one could work out to form an alternative popular ministry,
President Rule’s was imposed on Manipur on 2nd June 2001. It kept the assembly
in animated suspension. Eventually the assembly was dissolved and the election
to the eighth assembly took place on 21stFebruary 2002. This took place in the
background of an uprising against the extension of theIndo-Naga ceasefire in
Manipur in 2001. The election produced a fractured mandate. No single party
could get an absolute majority though Congress-I emerged as the single largest
party with 20 seats followed by 13 seats for FPM. On 7thMarch 2002, O Ibobi
Singh of the Congress-led Secular Progressive Front was sworn in to rule the
state. Despite the uprising resulting from the rape and killing pf Manorama Devi
by the armed forces and the beginning of the fast unto death by
IromSharmilaIbobi,the ministry was able to complete its full term. The SPF
ministry was the first alliance to complete a full term in Manipur and Ibobi Singh,
the first chief minister, to last his full term.
Table 9 Party wise position in eighth Assembly Election Results 2002
Name of the
party
Seats
Valley
Contested
Hills
Seats
Valley
Won
Hills
Total
INC 40 18 10 10 20
FPM 33 15 10 3 13
BJP 26 20 2 2 4
MSCP 33 9 5 2 7
NCP 18 15 2 1 3
SAP 16 15 1 2 3
MNC 17 6 1 0 1
DPP 21 2 2 0 2
75
CPI 16 0 5 0 5
MPP 12 2 2 0 2
JD(U) 5 2 0 0 0
NNP 0 5 0 0 0
LS 0 3 0 0 0
CPM 1 0 0 0 0
SJP(R) 1 0 0 0 0
Independents 5 12 0 0 0
Source: Election Commission of India (online)
Table 10 PARTYWISE POSITION in State Assembly Elections 2007
in Manipur
Contestants Won
Indian National Congress
59 30
Nationalist Congress
Party
27 5
Communist Party of India
24 4
Bharatiya Janata Party
14 0
76
Communist
Party of India (Marxist)
1 0
Manipur People's Party
36 5
Rashtriya Janata Dal
28 3
Samajwadi Party
20 0
Lok Jan Shakti Party
19 0
Janata Dal (United)
3 0
All India Forward Bloc
2 0
Janata Dal (Secular)
2 0
Revolutionary Socialist Party
1 0
National People’S Party
5 3
Manipur State Congress
Party
6 0
Samata Party 4 0
Naga National Party
1 0
Peoples Democratic
Alliance
1 0
77
Independent 55 10
Total 308 60
Source: Election Commission of India (http://eci.nic.in/eci/eci.html) Thriving Insurgency and Secessionist Politics
The history and politics of Manipur would not be complete without a reference
to the politics of secessionism and insurgency in the state. Secessionist political
movements had started right from the 1950s on the issue of the mode of
integration of Manipur to the Indian Union. Since then Manipur had been plagued
with long period of insurgency and counter insurgency. It all started with the first
armed opposition group in Manipur, called the United National Liberation
Front(UNLF) founded in 1964 and the Revolutionary Government of Manipur.
The UNLF had declared that it wanted to gain independence from India and
restore its lost sovereignty to Manipur. In 1977 another such outfit called People's
Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK) was formed followed by the
People's Liberation Army (PLA) in 1978. Both PLA and PREPAK created a
turmoil in the state which necessitated armed intervention by the Indian State.
Consequently, the provisions of the Disturbed Area Act were extended to
Manipur on 21stJuly 1978 and subsequently the Armed Forces Special Power Act
1958 was also imposed. Although the government was forced to withdraw it on
1stAugust 1978 it was re-imposed on 8thSeptember 1980. The army was called in
to deal with the insurgency and a separate ‘M’ (Mike) sector was opened
specifically to counter the Meithei insurgents. Manipur has been under martial
law since then. In 1980, another such group called Kangleipak Communist
Party (KCP) was formed. In fact at one time there were 37 recorded armed
insurgent groups in the state of Manipur alone.
Table 11 Active Underground Organisation in Manipur in the 1990s
78
1. Peoples' Liberation Army Meithei Manipur Secessionism
2. United National Liberation Front
Meithei Manipur Secessionism
3. Peoples’ Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak
Meithei Manipur Secessionism
4. Kangleipak Communist Party
Meithei Manipur Secessionism
5. KangleiKanbaLup Meithei Manipur Secessionism
6. National Socialist Council of Nagaland (IsakMuivah)
Naga Nagaland,
Assam, Arunachal
Manipur
Secessionism
7. NSCN (Khaplang) Naga Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh
Manipur
Secessionism
8. Kuki National Army Kuki Manipur autonomy
9. Kuki National Front Kuki Manipur, Nagaland
Secessionism
10. Peoples' United Liberation Front
Meitheis Manipur Secessionism
Source: Nag 2003
The 1980s saw violent turbulence in the state as a result of the insurgency and
counter insurgency. On the one hand, there were attacks and killings of
government forces, kidnapping, robbery, ambush of office and army installation,
large scale extortion and selective murders by the insurgent force, and on the other
79
there, were was a heavy army presence and militarisation of the state. There were
reports of large scale human right violations manifested in the face encounters,
imprisonment of youth, attacks on civilian population, rape and murders and
widespread violence leading to complete disruption of civilian live. There were
peoples’ movement too against the army rule, and so were demands for
withdrawal of the Armed Forces Special Power Act, most famous being the one
and half decade long fast unto death by a young girl named IromSharmila.
Interestingly, all the electoral politics and democratic institutions functioned
against such backdrop.
This was complicated by ethnic conflicts between the Nagas and Kukis, hostility
between the Nagas and the Meitheis and Meithei Hindu and Meithei Pangal
conflict. The Naga Kuki conflict has been endemic whereas the Meithei Hindu-
Muslim riot took place in 1992. The Naga Kuki and Naga Meithei hostility has
often led to the blocking of the road leading to Imphal via Naga areas of Manipur
and Nagaland. Such economic blockade, as it is called often, lasted more than a
month disallowing the movement and transportation of all consumer items
including fuel and medicine. This not only often choked the Meithei people to
almost starvation but also created a riot like situation. As Manipur is dependent
on the rest of India for most of its provisions, the Centre had to intervene by
airdropping supplies to the state capital.
The Last two elections.
The election to the ninth assembly election was held in February 2007. In the
election the Congress came back to power winning 30 of the 60 seats. It was the
result of the political stability it provided in the last term. The Congress leader O
IbobiSingh was unanimously chosen as the chief minister with the support of four
CPI and 3 RJD legislators. The ministry, however, completed its full term until
the 2012 elections. The election showed a triumphant return of the Congress
again. Out of the 60 seats the Congress Party contested, it won as many as 42
80
seats with an absolute majority. It returned lbobi Singh as the chief minister for
the third time consecutive term.
Table 12 Party wise position in the State Assembly election in February 2007
Party
Seats won
Congress 30
CPI 4
NCP 5
RJD 3
MPP 5
NPP 3
Independents
(Including UNC)
10
Table 13 Party wise position in the Manipur Assembly elections of 2012
Party Contested Won
CPI 24 0
INC 60 42
CPM 2 0
NCP 22 1
BJP 19 0
NPP 5 0
MPP 14 0
81
NPF 12 0
LJP 2 4
JD(U) 5 1
JD(S) 2 0
SHS 8 0
AITC 47 7
MSCP 31 5
MDPF 1 0
JMBP 1 0
SDPI 1 0
IND 22 0
Source: Election Commission of India (online)
In the last State Assembly elections in 2017 Congress came out as the single
largest party (21 seats) but 3 seats short of absolute majority but its vote share
was 35.10 per cent. The BJP came out the second with 21 seats----first time ever
in the state--- with 36.28 per cent of popular vote share. The other small state
based parties got: AITC (1 seat); Loka Jana Shakti Party (1 seat) , National
People’s Party (4 seats), Naga People’s Front (4 seats) and Independent (1 seats).
The BJP formed the coalition government with the support of one Independent
candidate, 4 seats each of Naga People’s Front and National People’s Front, and
the lone TMC MLA who defected to the BJP. As a result, the BJP now has the
support of 31 MLAs in the house of 60. With Manipur, the saffron party acquired
82
significant strongholds in two out of eight states in the region. The important
questions remains: with the strategic support of the Naga People’s Front (4
MLAs) will the Manipur government reconcile with the effects of state partition
in the event of the Naga inhabited areas ceded to Nagaland----which has remained
the single agenda of the Naga political forces within the state and outside?
Attitude towards the Centre
The state of Manipur had never been comfortable with the Indian state. It began
from the mode being adopted by the Centre to securing its integration after
independence. It was followed by grading Manipur as a ‘C” category state. No
wonder there have been secessionist movement in Manipur right from the 1950s.
Since the 1950s Manipur have been reeling under acute poverty, unemployment
and rampant corruption. Manipur never experienced political stability. It was
blamed by the people on the Indian state symbolised by the Centre. Regular horse
trading, party hopping and imposition of Presidents Rule almost every alternate
year made people lose faith in the Centre. Despite being a rich province during
the British period, Manipur reeled under poverty, discrimination, deprivation and
marginalisation after independence. There were no investment, no industrial
development, no infrastructure whatsoever for any economic take off. Even after
60 years of independence, agriculture remained the mainstay of this land-locked
state. The Meithei people discriminated against the Nagas of their own state.
Despite the acute problems, what the people complained most is the perpetual
martial rule in the state for many decades now. Curfew, fake encounters, rape by
army men, mass imprisonment, enforcement of draconian laws like the Armed
Forces Special Power Act 1958 had made normal civil life impossible in Manipur.
Despite many movements, appeals and protests against marital rule continued in
the state for many decades now. Coupled with poverty and discrimination, the
continuation of army rule in Manipur made the people of Manipur feel that they
83
live in a colonised country. There is very little for them to identify with the Indian
nation as they have been treated with disdain.
Current issues and Debates
As mentioned, the main issue in Manipur for past several decades have been the
demand for the withdrawal of the Armed Forces Special Power Act 1958. The
iconic movement against it was led by IromSharmila whose sixteen year
movement of fast unto death was completely ignored by the Indian state. She has
now turned to active politics to fight the state. Besides this, the main issue in
Manipur now is the implementation of Inner Line Regulation. The Meitheis feel
unrestricted entry of Non-Manipuris and foreign nationals (Bangladeshis) are
threatening to reduce them into a minority in their state. Therefore, the device of
Inner Line Regulation 1873 which is prevalent in some tribal states should be
extended to the state too. This would restrict the entry of non-Manipuris in
Manipur. Since the centre rejected the proposal, the state legislated its own
version of Inner Line Regulation and has sent to the governor for his assent. But,
the governor’s assent is still pending. The most recent controversy arose over the
Centres move to amend the Citizenship Act of 1950. The present government at
the Centre, which promises to grant citizenship to all refugees migrating to India
due to religious persecution in their respective countries, has threatened the
Assamese again. They feel if all the Bengali Hindu refugees are granted
citizenship, it would be a threat to the indigenous Assamese people of the state.
Like Assam, they too are threatening to go for mass movement if the proposed
amendment is passed.
MEGHALAYA: From an Associate State to Statehood and Beyond
Jhumpa Mukherjee
84
Source: www.mapsofindia.com Meghalaya is popularly called as the abode of the clouds. It was created as an autonomous state within the state of Assam on April 2, 1970. It comprises of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District and the Garo Hills District. It became a full fledged state in 1972. Today, it comprises of the 7 districts of East Khasi Hills, West Khasi Hills, East Garo Hills, West Garo Hills, South Garo Hills, Jaintia Hills and RiBhoi. Essentially a hilly state it is bounded by Bangladesh in the south and west, and by Assam in the north and east. MEGHALAYA UNDER COLONIAL RULE The British control over Khasi, Jaintia and Garo Hills started after the Yandabo treaty of 1826 which was signed between the Ahom King and the British government to resist Burmese invasion in the region.23Subsequently, the Garo Hills Act, 1869 was enacted in order to provide administration of Garo Hills, Jaintia Hills, Naga hills, portion of Khasi Hills that were part of British India under the control of officers appointed by the Lieutenant Governor. The Garo
85
Hills Act may be said to have paved the path for “separate procedural machinery for the administration of criminal and civil justice in these areas and for application of such laws in these areas which are in force in other territories as are found suitable”. 23
Thereafter, by the Government of India Act of 1870, the Governor General was empowered to legislate on backward tracts in the Assam valleythat included Garo Khasi-Jaintia hills. They were also declared as Backward Tracts. The Government of India Act 1935 classified the tribal areas into Excluded, partially Excluded and Frontier Areas. The Garo and Khasi-Jaintia Hills being Partially Excluded areas,the Governor was given absolute discretion and power in the governance of these areas. The purpose was to totally exclude the North-East tribal frontiers from mainstream India. The key argument employed by the British Government in justification of their policy was that the elaborate system of law and legal procedure applicable over the other advanced areas cannot be comprehended by backward tribes, and would disturb their primitive tribal customary laws and generate conflicts in an otherwise peaceful region. In 1946, the ConstitutionAssembly constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of the then Premier ofAssam, GopinathBardoloi to report to the Assembly on the tribal areas of Assam.The Committee recognized the need to safeguard and promote the rights and interests of the tribalsand therefore proposed for granting a mechanism of local self-governance for tribal areas in the form of district councils. The district councils were accepted andincorporated in the 6th Schedule.23When the Constitution came into force, the United Khasi Jaintia Hills District and theGaro Hills District were part of the tribal areas of Assam being mentioned in Part Aof the table appended to paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution asoriginally enacted. In 1964, based on the recommendation of the JarmanCommission, a new autonomous district called the Jowai Autonomous DistrictCouncil was created by excluding the Jowai Sub-division from the United KhasiJaintia Hills District. In 1969, an autonomous state of Meghalaya within the state ofAssam was formed under the Assam Reorganization (Meghalaya) Act, 1969,comprising the United Khasi Jaintia Hills District and the Garo Hills District and on 21stof January, 1972 the (Reorganisation) Act, 1971} comprising territoriesunder the autonomous state of Meghalaya and that under the cantonment andmunicipality of Shillong.
Table 1: Historical journey: British governance to Independence
Year Events
1826 Yandabo treaty
86
1869 Garo Hills Act 1870 Government of india Act passed to legislate on Backward tracts 1935 By virtue of Government of India Act, garo Khasi Jaintia Hills classified as partially excluded
Areas 1946 Constituent Assembly set up a Committee to recommend measures for tribal areas 1952 District Councils for United Khasi Jaintia and Garo Hills
A DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
Meghalaya is a multi linguistic, multi religious and multi ethnic state. According to the Census of 2011, the population of Meghalaya is 2,966,889 lakhswhich was 2,318,822lakhs in 2001, thus a 27.9 percentage increase in the population. The density of population is 132 per sq km and sex ratio is 989 in 2011 as compared to 972 in 2011. The rate of literacy as per the 2011 census is 74.43%, an appreciable increase of 12 percent from the 2001census(62.56%). Meghalaya is predominantly a tribal state. Meghalaya's main ethnic communities, each having its own distinctive customs and cultural traditions are the Khasis (of Mon-Khmer ancestry), the Garos (of Tibeto-Burman origin) and the Jaintias said to be from South East Asia. The common trait binding all three communities is its matrilineal system in which the family lineage is taken from the mother's side. The total Scheduled Tribe population of the state according to the census of 2011 is 2,555,861which is 86.1% which was 85.9% in 2001, thus a marginal increase in tribal population. In addition to these main communities, there are other smaller tribal communities like the Mikirs, Lalung, Viate, Vaiphe, Hmars, Rabhas, Hajongs and Borowho are found scattered in different regions of the state. Being multi linguistic, the principal languages spoken are Khasi, Garo and Pnar, though English is the official language of the state. Though the state is multi-religious, however, Christians are a majority comprising of 74.59% followed by Hindus 11.53%, Muslims 4.40%, Buddhist 0.33%, Other religions 8.71%. THE TRIBES OF MEGHALAYA: KHASIS, JAINTIAS AND THE GAROS Meghalaya being a tribal majority state is home to three major tribal communities: the Khasis, Jaintias and Garos. Each of them are further subdivided into clans. The Khasis are divided into four groups: ‘Bhoi’ who inhabit the northern part of the Khasi hills, ‘Lyngngam’ living mostly in the western part, ‘Wars’ residing in the southern part and ‘Khynriam’ inhabiting the central plateau.23 The Khasi social institutions of property, inheritance, marriage is based on matriliny. The principle of matriliny followed by the Khasis is called kur wherein kur is an exogamous unit in which every member is a kinof every other person of the same kur and a belief that all owe their descent toa common female ancestry. Marriage within the clan is prohibited and matrilocal rules of residence are followed. 23
87
The Garos belong to the Bodo family of theTibeto-Burman lineage inhabiting western Meghalaya. They are matrilineal and are divided into five clans, namely, Marak, Sangma, Areng, Momin, Shira. Garos are polygamous and believe in marriage outside the particular group. Unlike the Khasis, there are differences in the rules of residence which is both uxorilocala nd avunculocal (the bridegroom lives with his wife’s family and maternal uncles) and neolocal (the couple set up a separate household where the wife is not the heiress).23 The Jaintias are a Mongoloid tribe and are also called Pnars.Jaintias marry within their own tribe and but the Pnar husband does not go and stay in the wife’s house but only visits her. Property is always passed from the mother to the eldest daughter called ‘Ka Mai’.23 MEGHALAYA : MOVEMENT FOR STATEHOOD 1950-1970 Although Meghalaya was declared a state on 21st January 1972, the movement for tribal autonomy for the Khasi, Garo and Jaintia tribes began as early as 1923 when the Khasi National Durbar first raised the demand for the need for preservation of the customs and traditions of the tribals. In 1946 three organizations, the Khasi jaintia Federated State National Conference, Khasi Jaintia Political Association, Hills Union and the Khasi State Peoples’ Union advocated the separation of Khasi states from the province of Assam and that they be given equal status with the provinces of Indian Union. However, to their dismay, the tribal areas remained within the state of Assam, but were given autonomy under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. But this failed to pacify them. In 1954 the members of the executive committees of the Autonomous District Councils of the Garo Hills, the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, the Lushai Hills (Mizo Hills) and the North Kachar Hills met in Shillong and decided to raise the demand for the creation of a separate state for the hilly areas of Assam. In lieu of this demand Captain Sangma, the C.E.M. of the Garo Hills District Council argued that “there was no adequate safeguard for the preservation of the identity--race, language and culture--of the hill people in the Sixth Schedule.”23 Subsequently the matter was again raised in the Tura Conference held in the same year whereby the different tribal organizations – Khasi National Durbar, the Highlanders Union, the United Mizo Freedom Organization and the Hill Union of Assam, the Garo National Council submitted their memorandums before the States Reorganization Commission for the establishment of a separate Hill State for the protection of their distinct tribal identities. Against this memorandum the Government of Assam argued that there should be one state for the entire Eastern Himalayan sub-region consisting of Assam, Manipur, Tripura, Sikkim, the District of Darjeeling, Jalpaiguri and Cooch Behar in West Bengal, NEFA and Nagaland. It was further contented that though the region was characterized by a wide variety of races and tribes, yet the entire area was under-developed. The subsequent years witnessed the tremendous momentum of the movement for a separate Hill State. In fact, the 1957 Assembly elections were fought on the issue of a Hill state. It is pertinent to mention in this context that worried at the growing unrest in the hills on the issue of a separate Hill State, the then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, requested his Home Minister, Govind Bhallab Pant to look into the matter. After visiting the Hill areas, Pant opposed the creation of a separate Hill state. Instead, “the Home Minister suggested an arrangement at the state level by which the tribal people in the autonomous districts would be
88
able to participate in decision-making and in the shaping of policies of the state in general and of the autonomous districts in particular.”23 In order to pacify the tribes, Sangma was made the Minister for Tribal Affairs. He established the Tribal Affairs Advisory Council. However, these, short term policies, failed to fulfil the aspirations of the Hill people and the demands for a Hill State continued. Resentment grew among the tribal people when Assamese was declared as the official language. It was found that Assamese was spoken by only fifty percent of the total population (SRC earlier stated that a state is unilingual only when one language group constitutes seventy or more percent of its entire population). Highly frustrated at the policies of the government, the All Party Hill Leaders Conference (APHLC) demanded separation from Assam and formation of a new State to be known as North-Eastern Frontier State. The Prime Minister felt that creation of a separate state would impose financial burden on the Centre as the new state was not financially resource rich.Nevertheless, when the APHLC delegation again met the Prime Minister on 26 November, 1960 and again advanced certain arguments in favour of a separate Hill Statethe Prime Minister assured that the tribals would be given freedom in their internal affairs and ensures speedy economic development of their areas. The scheme proposed by the Prime Minister came to be known as the Scottish Plan---the plan proposed amendment of the Sixth Schedule in order to give more autonomy to the District Councils. The Scottish Plan was rejected by the APHLC “on the ground that it was almost a State within a State providing for partial administrative separation without actual political separation”.23 The APHLC carried out rigorous agitation for the next two years. Concerned over the plight of the Hill people, the Prime Minister came out with a scheme of full autonomy otherwise known as the Nehru Plan. The Nehru Plan emphasized on giving full autonomy to the Hill areas of Assam and included among others, that the Sixth Schedule shall be retained subject to amendments by the Hill Advisory Council according to the needs of time:Provision for Regional Council for all the autonomous districts;English shall be the official language unless replaced by Hindi.The Assam Legislative Assembly shall have no power to make laws affecting the interests of the hill areas without the consent of the Regional Council. Thus, the Nehru Plan sought to remove the dominance of the Assam government over the hill areas. After much deliberation, the Nehru Plan was accepted by the APHLC. Prime Minister Nehru now considered the question of appointment of a commission to deliberate on the Nehru Plan and suggest measures for executing it. In the meantime, Nehru died on 27 May 1964. Lal Bahadur Shastri assumed the office of the Prime Minister and he appointed the commission on 16 March 1965 known as the Pataskar Commission. The Commission recommended that –Ministers would be appointed for the development of the Hill areas and that the Chief Minister would have absolute power regarding such appointments. They also mentioned that Hill areas must be given special treatment. The Commission included the establishment of Hill Areas Council with Chief Minister as the Chairman and District Development Council with the Deputy Commissioner as its Chairman, the establishment of District Councils Delimitation Committee for the determination of the boundaries of the constituencies; freedom as to the use of any language as for official purposes.
89
Aware of the difficulties in the implementation of the recommendations of the Pataskar Commission, Vishnu Sahay, the then Governor of Assam, came up with the Federal Plan. He suggested that the idea of creating separate unitswith equal powers and responsibilities would serve the demand for autonomy of the tribes without at the same time endangering the unity of India. It was believed that the plan would serve the twin needs of the Government ----autonomy for the hill tribes for maintaining their distinct identity without jeopardizing the unity and integrity of the country. The APHLC, however, opposed the federal plan and a Committee known as Mehta Committee was set up consisting of representatives of the various political parties of the plains and the APHLC to find out a solution of the never-ending problem. The Mehta Committee recommended the creation of autonomous areas within the State of Assam and that maximum autonomy should be given keeping in mind the differences in language, custom, ethnic origin etc. Nevertheless, the Mehta Plan was not accepted by the APHLC on the ground that it would not provide autonomy to the hill tribes. But the plan was well accepted by the Congress, the North Cachar and Mikir Hills District Councils, as they believed that the plan was better than the federal plan in the sense that it recognized each hill area distinct from the others. Ultimately on 11 September 1968, the Government of India announced the decision of reorganization of the State of Assam and creation of the autonomous State of Meghalaya. And in 1969 Meghalaya was carved out of Assam as ‘a state within a state’ having complete autonomy except for law and order which remained a function of the Assam government.23 As per the Act, the State of Meghalaya shall comprise of the areas of Garo Hills District , the Khasi and Jaintia Hills District. The Act also provided separate options to the Mikir Hills autonomous district and the North Kachar Hills autonomous district to become part of Meghalaya. The passing of the Assam Reorganisation (Meghalaya) Act 1969 bythe parliament resulted in the formation of the Autonomous State of Meghalaya in 1970,within the State of Assam. The Autonomous State was provided with a separateProvisional Legislative Assembly comprising of 38 elected and 3 nominated membersbringing its total membership to 41. The members of the Provisional Assembly were elected by the elected members of the two AutonomousDistrict Councils of Khasi-Jaintia and Garo Hills. In the election of March 1970 to theProvisional Legislative Assembly, the APHLC won 34 seats, with the remaining 4 being captured bythe INC. Threemembers were nominated by the Governor. Both the members ofthe INC as well as the nominated members later joined the APHLC paving the way for the installation of an APHLC ministry. However, the Provisional Assembly of the Autonomous State could not satisfy theaspirations of the people as administrative differences cropped up betweenthe Autonomous State and Assam. The APHLC fought relentlessly to create a separate state for the hill districts of Assam and subsequently the Autonomous State ofMeghalaya was upgraded
90
into a full-fledged State in 1972, thereby fulfilling thepolitical aspirations of the people. The new state comprised of the former three hilldistricts of Assam - Khasi, Jaintia and Garo Hills. Table 2 : Milestones in the struggle for statehood
Year Events and negotiations 1923 Khasi National Durbar first raised the demand for the need for preservation of the
customs and traditions of the tribals. 1946 the Khasi jaintia Federated State National Conference, Khasi Jaintia Political
Association, Hills Union and the Khasi State Peoples’ Union advocated the separation of Khasi states from the province of Assam
1954 Members of the Executive Committees of the Autonomous District Councils of the Garo Hills, the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, the Lushai Hills (Mizo Hills) and the North Kachar Hills decided to raise the demand for the creation of a separate state
1954 Tura Conference 1960 APHLC meets PM, Scottish Plan 1963 Nehru Plan 1965 Pataskar Commission 1966 Federal Plan 1967 Mehta Committee 1970 Creation of an autonomous state of Meghalaya within Assam vide Assam Reorganisation
(Meghalaya) Act 1969 1972 Creation of a full fledged state of Meghalaya under the North East Areas
(Reorganization) Act 1971 LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS Although the Assam Reorganization (Meghalaya) Act of 1969 aimed at providing autonomy to the newly created autonomous state, the Act hardly provided any real autonomy with Meghalaya laws being subjected to the laws of the Assam state legislature. As Sec 36 provides where a law made by the Legislature of Meghalaya with respect to one of the matters enumerated in Part C of the Second Schedule contains any provision repugnant to the provision of an earlier law made by the Legislature of the State of Assam which that Legislature is competent to enact, or to any provision of any existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of Meghalaya shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void unless the law has received assent under section 39 after the Governor has obtained the advice of the Chief Minister of Assam.The Assam Legislature was empowered to enact a law to override/ amend /repeal a law made by the provincial Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya. Further powers were truncated by sec 59 and sec 60 of the Act .For instance,the executive power of Meghalaya shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament, the Legislature of the State of Assam and any existing laws which apply in Meghalaya, and the executive power of the Union and of the State of Assam shall extend to the giving of such directions to Meghalaya as may appear to the Government of India or the
91
Government of Assam, as the case may be, to be necessary for that purpose. The executive power of Meghalaya shall be so exercised as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union or the Government of Assam, as the case may be, and the executive power of the Union and the State of Assam shall extend to the giving of such directions to Meghalaya as may appear to the Government of India or the Government of Assam, as the case may be, to be necessary for that purpose. It is thus evident that the Act of 1969 maintained the overwhelming dominance of the State of Assam over the state of Meghalaya, thus making autonomy a mere sham. However, the North East Areas (Reorganization) Act 1971 provided for creation of a full fledged state of Meghalaya with clear division of executive, legislative and judicial powers making it equal with the other states of the Indian Union. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, SIXTH SCHEDULE AND MEGHALAYA It is important to note that part XXI of the Constitution does not contain any special provision with regard to the State of Meghalaya unlike other States in the North East (Article 371). However, paragraph 12A was inserted to the Sixth Schedule by the Assam Reorganisation (Meghalaya) Act, 1969 with the formation of autonomous State of Meghalaya within the State of Assam making special provisions with respect to application of laws in Meghalaya. Table 3: Jurisdiction of Autonomous District Councils in the State
Autonomous District Council District covered Total population
Area
Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council
1. East Khasi Hills 2. West Khasi Hills 3. South West Khasi
Hills 4. RiBhoi
1468040 (49.6%)
10443 sq. km (46.6%)
Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council
1. Jaintia Hills 2. East Jaintia Hills
392852 (13.2%)
3819 sq. km (17%)
Garo Hills Autonomous District Council
1. East Garo Hills 2. West Garo Hills 3. South Garo Hills 4. South West Garo
Hills
1103115 (37.2%)
8167 sq. km (36.4%)
92
5. North Garo Hills
Source: Evaluation of State Finances with Respect to Meghalaya A study for the Fourteenth Finance Commission
*Figures within brackets represent percentage share of state’s total population and area. AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCILS State of Meghalaya is the only state in the North East wherein the entire area is governed by the Provisions of Sixth Schedule (except Cantonment and Municipality of Shillong). The framers of the Constitution inserted the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India to fulfill the aspiration of the tribal people inhabiting the North-East under one composite state of Assam in recognition of their time-tested autonomous polity safeguarding their traditional heritage, customs, practices, usages and economic security while conferring in them executive, legislative and judicial powers along with developmental and financial powers and functions.
In Meghalaya, there are three Autonomous District Councils: Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council and Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council. Each ADC has 30 members, 29 of whom are elected by the people and one member each is nominated by the Governor. The term of office is 5 years. The Executive is headed by the Chief Executive Member, who is elected by the Council in Session and the Executive Committee is formed after members are appointed by the Governor on the advice of the CEM. Paragraph 3 to 10 of the Sixth Schedule envisage the powers of the ADCs within the autonomous areas, to make laws of land, management of forests, except reserved forests, regulation on trade by persons not being local Scheduled Tribes, appointment of traditional Chiefs and Headmen, inheritance of property, marriage, divorce, social customs, establishment and maintenance of primary schools, markets, taxation, issue of lease for extraction of minerals, etc. Paragraph 7 of the same Schedule provides for the constitution of a District Fund for each autonomous district and all money received respectively by the District Council for that district shall be credited to the District Fund and the C.A.G. of India shall prescribe the manner in which the accounts shall be maintained and for auditing of the same. The financial rules of the ADCs are modeled in the lines of the financial rules of the State, for custody, payments and withdrawal of moneys from the consolidated fund as provided under Article 275 of the Constitution of India. The ADCs have the power to assess and collect land revenue, impose taxes on trades, professions, animals, vehicles etc. Besides, they receive financial assistance from the Government of India under the Award of the Finance Commission through the Government of Meghalaya. However, all grants from the Union government to the ADCs are routed through the state government. The nature of grants received is in the form of plan assistancefrom Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India under Article 275(1) which issanctioned for implementing development schemes and construction of council’sbuildings and receipts from the non-lapsable central plan resources (NLCPR) fromMinistry of Development of North-eastern Region. Besides, planned assistance, Non-plan grants are given by the state government under rural communication, strengtheningenforcement machinery for regulating trading by non-tribal and awards of FinanceCommissions.23 The finance accounts of the state government provide information on the flow ofresources from the state government to the ADCs in the form of grants. The ADCs also have a share in lieu of royalties collected by thestate government from major
93
minerals, which are as follows: Rs. 6141 lakh in 2010-11, Rs. 4604 lakh in 2009-10 and Rs. 3727 lakh in 2008-09.23
The Executive Committee runs the administration of the District Council and the annual budget of the Council is prepared and placed before the Council in session during each financial year.The ADCs are also empowered to constitute courts for trials of cases between parties belonging to Scheduled Tribe Communities.
Thus,the constitution envisages the ADCs as autonomous self-governing tribal institutions aimed at preserving their distinct culture and identity.However, the working of the ADCs have not been laudable primarily because they suffer from some inherent limitations. Firstly, they have meager source of resources and are dependent on the state government for finances. This is a major hurdle behind fulfillment of developmental objectives. Secondly, paragraph 12 A of the Sixth Schedule have put them under the dominance of the state legislature in so much so that the laws made by the Meghalaya state legislature prevails over the laws of the ADCs. Grants and share of royalty are the two mostimportant sources of revenues for the councils. However, there is delay and alsoambiguity in the sharing of royalty on minerals between state government andthe councils and also on grants received from Union government.
ELECTORAL POLITICS IN MEGHALAYA The State has a unicameral legislature. The legislative assembly consists of 60 Members - 29 from Khasi Hills, 7 from Jaintia Hills and 24 from Garo Hills. Elections are held regularly after every five years and the state have both national, regional and tribal parties contesting elections with the dominance of Indian National Congress since the second assembly elections. Interestingly, along with the democratic institutions of governance like the Governor, Chief Minister and council of ministers, there are traditional institutions of governance based on customary rules governing the socio-political lives of the tribal clans and groups. These customary institutions follow systematic ‘rules of secession to different offices, management affairs by durbars (councils), administration of justice and politico-religious observances’. 23 The electoral politics of Meghalaya, since the grant of statehood is peculiar and interesting since though regional groups spearheaded the statehood movements, yet national parties control and shape electoral politics. Only in the first two elections do we find regional parties controlling the state government. Again barring the first election the electorate has never given a clear verdict and hence coalition governments and opportunistic politics rule Meghalaya’s electoral dynamics. The state has witnessed nine legislative assembly elections till date and each election has a different story of vote-seat dynamics. In the first general election to Meghalaya Legislative Assembly, the APHLC (All Party Hills Leader Conference) which led the statehood movement emerged victorious with 32 seats thus forming the government (Table 4 ) . The Congress (I) which had poll alliances with the APHLC, and riding on the victorious wave of that party, it secured9 seats mainly in dominantly
94
non-tribal constituencies. The APHLC and INC dominated legislative proceedings leaving no room for the development of a sound opposition. In November 1976, a new political situation emerged in Meghalaya as a result of theMendipathar Conference, when the APHLC under the leadership of Capt. Sangmamerged with the Congress (INC) thus increasing the overall strength of the national party. 23 The Congress now formed the government with Capt. W.A.Sangma as the Chief Minister and continued till 1978thus increasing its dominance in the tribal state. Table 4: Legislative Assembly Elections 1972 Name of Political Party Seats won Votes polled Percentage of votes Indian National Congress 9 20474 9.89 All Party Hill Leader’s Conference 32 73851 35.67 Independent 19 111506 53.86
Source: Election Commission of India The second state elections in 1978 witnessed the Congress steadily expanding its support base winning 20 seats and surpassing the APHLC which dominated the first state elections.. A new entrant, Hill State People’s Democratic Party (HSPDP) won 14 seats and aligned with the APHLC.Under the United Meghalaya Parliamentary democratic forum a coalition ministry was formed with B.B .Lyngdoh as chief minister for two years only. As per the terms of the coalition agreement, a member of HSPDP would become deputy chief minister for four years till the next general election. Captain W.Sangma took charge from Lyngdoh and continued till the end of the term.23 It is interesting to note that while the support base of the regional/tribal parties were declining, the Indian National Congress was fast gaining ground in a predominantly tribal state (see table 5). Table 5 :Legislative Assembly Elections1978 Name of Political Party Seats won Votes polled Percentage of votes Indian National Congress 20 109654 28.96 All Party Hill Leader’s Conference 16 94362 24.92 Hill State People’s Democratic Party
14 72852 19.24
Independent 10 93970 24.82 Source:http://www.elections.in/meghalaya/assembly-constituencies/1978-election-results.html The third General Elections to Meghalaya Legislative Assembly which took place on 17th Feb. 1983 witnessed the proliferation of a number of regional parties. They were a result of the internal strifes among the regional leadership. Though the vote share of the regional parties put together was higher that the INC yet none of them could secure more seats than the INC. A coalition government was formed with INC and APHLC as alliance partners.
95
Table 6: Legislative Assembly Elections 1983 Name of Political Party Seats won Votes polled Percentage of votes Indian National Congress 25 130956 27.68 All Party Hill Leader’s Conference 15 118593 25.07 Hill People’s Democratic Party
15 91386 19.32
Public Demands Convention 2 23253 4.92 Independent 3 106378 22.49
Source: http://www.elections.in/meghalaya/assembly-constituencies/1983-election-results.html The Fourth Assembly election to Meghalaya legislative Assembly were held on 2nd Feb 1988. The major electoral fight of the general election of February 1988 was between the ruling Congress (I) and the the Hill Peoples Union (HPU). The Congress bagged 22 seats while the Hill People’s Union secured 19 seats but neither got the magic number to form the government. In this election, the role of regional parties and independent candidates who bagged the remaining seats, assumed the importance of forming a coalition government. The Hill State People Democratic Party (HSPDP) could maintain 5 seats, the Peoples Demand Implementation Convention got 2 (PDIC),the APHLC got 2 and independents were able to bag 9 seats. Thus, the Congress emerged as a largest group but without a clear majority and a government was formed by combination of regional parties. With multiple splits among the regional parties, no two regional party could come together and form a government. Hence the opportunity was taken by INC which formed the government with alliance with Hill People’s Union, a new entrant into the electoral fray with 19 seats, a good number considering a first time contestant. Table 7:Legislative Assembly Elections 1988 Name of Political Party Seats
won Votes polled
Percentage of votes
Indian National Congress 22 198028 32.65 Hill People’s Union 19 162806 26.84 Hill State’s People Democratic Party 6 76884 12.68 All Party Hill Leader’s Conference(Armison Marak Gr)
2 28391 4.68
Public Demands Convention 2 19402 3.20 Independent 9 118816 19.59
Source:http://www.elections.in/meghalaya/assembly-constituencies/1988-election-results.html In the 1993 election again the Indian National Congress like other years proved to be the single largest party by securing 24 seats but failing to secure absolute majority to form the government. A United Front coalition government was formed with Congress, HSPDP,
96
APHLC (A) and Independents. The 1993 elections also saw an increasing number of regional parties split along ethnic lines. Table 8:Legislative Assembly Elections 1993 Name of Political Party Seats
won Votes polled
Percentage of votes
Indian National Congress 24 282139 34.62 Hill People’s Union 11 175487 21.53 Public Demands Implementation Convention 2 17423 2.14 Hill State People’s Democratic Party 8 79824 9.80 All Party Hill Leader’s Conference(Armison Marak Gr)
3 64603 7.93
Meghalaya Progressive People’s Party 2 20117 2.47 Independent 10 140793 17.28
Source: http://www.elections.in/meghalaya/assembly-constituencies/1993-election-results.html The 6th general election to the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly held in 1998 wherein no party was able to wrest a clear majority. Though the Congress (I) formed the government led by S.C Marak with the help of independents, it lasted, however, for only 12 days thereby creating a history of the shortest tenure in the Meghalaya politics. The congress had always managed to survive with thehelp of regional parties.Subsequently, a coalition of UDP, BJP, GNC, HSPDP and independents was formed, called the United Democratic Front with B.B.Lyngdoh as Chief Minister which lasted only for six months. Internal strifes and factionalism led to another coalition called the Meghalaya People’s Front with Congress and UDP. Political opportunism ruled the electoral politics during the late 90s. Table 9: Legislative Assembly Elections 1998 Name of Political Party Seats won Votes polled Percentage of votes Indian National Congress 25 293346 35.03 Garo National Council 1 17650 2.11 United Democratic Party 20 742 26.99 Hill State People’s Democratic Party 3 56682 6.77 Bharatiya Janata Party 3 41924 5.01 People’s Democratic Movement 3 58225 6.95 Independent 5 135356 16.16
Source: http://www.elections.in/meghalaya/assembly-constituencies/1998-election-results.html In 1998, United Democratic Party (UDP), a regional party with 20 seats and the Indian National Congress a national party with 25 seats were the major players in the post election scenario. But in 2003 the major players were two national parties: the Indian National Congress (INC) with 22 seats and National Congress Party (NCP) with 14 seats. The largest number of seats that a regional party could win in 2003 assembly election was only nine, won by the UDP,
97
whereas all other regional parties put together could win only seven seats suggesting the beginning of the decline in regionalism in Meghalaya despite the growth of regional parties in other states.This was the first time that the regional parties were so marginalized. The other interesting development of this election was that in an assembly of 60 members the INC won 22 seats which was less than in 1998 election. The Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) a new entrant in Meghalaya electoral politics captured 14 seats, BJP got two seats, and UDP won nine seats. A breakaway group of UDP christened as Meghalaya Democratic Party (MDP) with strong pro-khasi sentiments managed two seats and Khun Hynniewtrep National Awakening Movement (KHNAM) won two seats. Fractured mandate dominated leading to instability and decline in governance. Table 10:Legislative Assembly Elections 2003 Name of Political Party Seats won Votes polled Percentage of votes Indian National Congress 22 270269 29.96 Nationalist Congress Party 14 174972 19.40 United Democratic Party 9 144255 15.99 Hill State People’s Democratic Party 2 44520 4.94 Bharatiya Janata Party 2 48932 5.42 Khun Hynniewrtep National 2 32677 3.62 Meghalaya Democratic Party 4 47852 5.31 Independent 5 109686 12.16
Source: http://www.elections.in/meghalaya/assembly-constituencies/2003-election-results.html In 2008, the Congress, which campaigned for stable government, emerged the single largest party in the 60-member Assembly (Elections happened in 59 seats), but fell short of the majority mark of 31 by six seats.The Congress secured 25, the NCP 14 and the United Democratic Party (UDP) 11. The Hill State People’s Democratic Party (HSPDP) won two seats, the Khun Hynniewtrep National Awakening Movement (KHNAM) and the BJP got one each, and independents five.The Meghalaya Democratic Party which had won 4 seats in the 2003 elections was wiped out.The NCP which was steered by PA Sangma after his return to state politics post serving as the speaker of Lok Sabha projected himself as the chief ministerial candidate but failed to make a dent in the Congress vote share and his party’s strength was mainly confined to the Garo hills .23 Table 11:Legislative Assembly Elections 2008 Name of Political Party Seats won Votes polled Percentage of votes Indian National Congress 25 362617 32.90 Nationalist Congress Party 14 228760 20.76 United Democratic Party 11 202511 18.37 Hill State People’s Democratic Party 2 42235 3.83 Bharatiya Janata Party 1 29465 2.67 Khun Hynniewrtep National 1 48833 4.43
98
Independent 5 145834 13.23
Source: http://www.elections.in/meghalaya/assembly-constituencies/2008-election-results.html In 2013 elections, Congress retained power by winning 29 seats, 2 short of absolute majority. This is the highest number of seats won by the Congress in Meghalaya since the creation of the State in 1972. Mukul Sangma was appointed as the Chief Minister of the Congress led Meghalaya United Alliance (MUA) coalition government with the support of the NCP and independents.Both the NCP and UDP have been able to increase their seats marginally but what is evident is that regional parties do not have much of a control due to the lack of ideological firmness and continued defections. This has paved the way for independent candidates with as many as 13 candidates winning in 2013 elections. Table 12:Legislative Assembly Elections 2013 Name of Political Party Seats won Votes polled Percentage of votes Indian National Congress 29 458783 34.78 Nationalist Congress Party 2 24256 1.84 United Democratic Party 8 225676 17.11 Hill State People’s Democratic Party 4 55049 4.17 National People’s Party 2 116251 8.81 Garo national Council 1 9300 0.71 North East Social Democratic Party 1 10336 0.76 Independent 13 365287 27.69
Source: http://www.elections.in/meghalaya/assembly-constituencies/2013-election-results.html POLITICAL PARTICIPATION AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL Meghlaya has not been able to influence national politics because there are just two parliamentary constituencies in Meghalaya: Shillong and Tura. None of these constituencies are reserved for either SCs or STs.Indian National Congress has always won 1 seat in all Lok Sabha elections and in the 1984,1989 and 1991 it had won both the Lok Sabha seats. .Not a single time a regional party has been able to send its candidate to the Lok Sabha and more so the regional parties are themselves fractured at the assembly level and have been historically unable to shape national level politics. Representation of Meghalaya in Lok Sabha elections (Seats 2) Year INC INC
(I) NCP All India Trinamool
Congress National People’s Party
Independent
1977 1 1 1980 1 1984 2
99
1989 2 1991 2 1996 1 1 1998 2 1999 1 1 2004 1 1 2009 1 1 2014 1 1
Source: www.electioncommission.com
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES AND CONCERNS
The political scenario of Meghalaya is unique with the existence of multiple governing institutions. While the State Legislative Assembly and the Autonomous District Councils are based on modern democratic principles whose members are elected on the principle of adult franchise, the traditional institutions, locally known as Syiemship, Doloiship, Sardarship, Lyngdohship, and Wahadadarship in Khasi Hills, Doloiship in Jaintia Hills and Nokmaship in Garo Hills, are based on customary beliefs and practices, and traditions. Though these traditional institutions have their own laws of succession and administration yet they have to function within the givenrules and regulations of the Autonomous DistrictCouncil and the State Government which interferes with their customary age old practices.
Despite 40 years statehood,Meghalaya has not been able to attain the desired levels of human and infrastructural development. The state fallsunder the special category status which entitles it to special fundingarrangement from the Centre. The flow of assistance from the Union governmentto Meghalaya and other states in India comprises of devolution of central taxesand plan and non-plan transfers. In recent years the Union government has been transferring alarge quantum of funds directly to implementing agencies at state and districtlevels for implementing central schemes bypassing the state treasury route.Further, states in the NER have access to another layer of fundingfrom North Eastern Council and under non-lapsable central pool of resources(NLCPR). In 2011-12, out of the total revenue receipts of Rs. 4261 crore, the state’s own revenue was 21 percent, with the share of central taxes and grants at 21 percent and 58 percent respectively. 23 Despite this, infrastructural development remains poor as is evident in the Human Development Report of 2008.23
Again, another major issue confronting the state is the expansion of insurgent activities.The state has seen the rise of insurgency since the late 80s.Many militant groups were formed seeking greater autonomy or a separate/sovereign state.Notably, the HynniewtrepAchik Liberation Council (HALC) was formed which represented the interests of the dominant tribes of the state, the Khasis, Jaintias and the Garos. However, the tribal differences due to Garo people developing a feeling of being sidelined led to a split in the HALC in 1992, with Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council (HNLC) representing the Khasis and the Jaintias, and the AchikMatgrik Liberation Army (AMLA) representing the Garos. 23 The AMLA subsequently was replaced by the Achik National Volunteers Council (ANVC). While the
100
HNLC aims at converting Meghalaya into a state exclusively for the Khasi tribe by freeing it from the ‘domination’ of the Garo tribe, the ANVC’s purported objective is to carve out a homeland called ‘Achik Land’ in the areas of Garo Hills.23 In 2000 the ANVC was declared an unlawful association by the Union Government
To advance economic development of the North-East region, the Look East Policy was launched in the 90s, subsequently rechristened Act East which sought to reintegrate the region and make it the pathway to South Asia. According to Rajiv Sikri, Secretary East of the Ministry of External Affairs, “the LEP envisages the Northeast region not as the periphery of India, but at the centre of a thriving and integrated economic space linking two dynamic regions with a network of highways, railways, pipelines, transmission lines crisscrossing the region”. The popularization of Act East policy in making north east region a gateway to the South Asian countries whilst simultaneously advancing trade and development certainly provides opportunity for the North East region in general and Meghalaya in particular since it shares a long international border. Simplistic as it may sound but the age-old isolation can never be removed by a linear policy. New initiatives for advancing sub regional cooperation has to take into account the micro-realities of the region. Meghalaya shares a 443-km long International border with Bangladesh and border haats have come up in Kalaichar, Garo Hills Meghalaya and Baliamari in Bangladesh. Subsequently, another haat was opened in East Khasi Hills in Balat and Lauwaghar in Bangladesh. These haats have been set up within 5 km range from the International border and trades in several listed items agreed by the two nations that include local agro-horticultural products, spices, fish, dairy and poultry products, cottage industry items, and others. No local tax is included in these markets and people from both sides are free to trade using Indian and Bangladeshi currency. 23 To strengthen border trade the Border Area Development Programme (BADP) have been initiated under Special Central Assistance (SCA). The SCA for BADP forms a part of State Plan Resources and 4470 lakhs was earmarked under the Tenth Plan. However, the state is yet to experience the full impact of LEP since most of the projects initiated by the Central government for rail-road connectivity is yet to materialize.
Bibliography
1. Chaube, S.K.: Hill Politics in North East India, Orient Longman Ltd., Calcutta, 1973
2. Das Kailash Chandra, Assembly elections in Meghalaya: A historical insight, IOSR Journal Of
Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) Volume 20, Issue 6, Ver. V (Jun. 2015) 3. Dutta, P.S., India's North East: A Study in Transition, Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi,
1992.
4. Gassah, L.S. Autonomous District Councils, Omsons Publications, New Delhi, 1997
5. Gassah L.S., Liberalization, Ethnic Identity and Economic Development: A case study of Khasi
and Jaintia Hills in Gurudas Das and P.K. Purkayastha (ed.) Liberalization and India’s North-
East, Commonwealth Publishers, New Delhi, 1998
6. Grover Verinder and Ranjana Arora (ed.), Encyclopaedia of India and her States, Deep & Deep
Publications, New Delhi, 1996
101
7. Joshi Hargovind, Meghalaya: Past and Present, Mittal Publications, New Delhi,2004
8. Kyndiah, P.R.: Meghalaya: Yesterday and Today, Har Anand Publications, New Delhi, 1990,
pp. 17-21.
9. Lyngdoh, R.S., Government and Politics in Meghlaya, Sanchar Publishing House, New Delhi,
1966.
10. Rao, V. Venkata, A Century of Tribal Politics in North-East India 1874 – 1974, S.Chand and
Company Ltd., New Delhi, 1984
11. Rao, V.V., Hazarika, N. &Pakem, B., A Century of Government and Politics in North East India
(Vol.11) Meghalaya, S. Chand & Co., New Delhi, 1984.
12. Ray, B. Datta& Agrawal, S.P., Reorganisation of North East India Since 1947, Concept
Publishing Company, New Delhi, 1996.
13. Sen Gupta, Susmita, Regionalism in Meghalaya, South Asian Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi,
2005
14. Singha Komal and Purusottam Nayak, Economics, Ethnicity and Autonomy Movement in
Meghalaya: An Analysis, Journal of Community Positive Practices, Vol. 16, No.1, 2016
102
MIZORAM: From Tribal District Council to Union Territory to
Statehood
- LalnundikaHnamte
I. Introduction
Mizoram means land of the Mizos. It is situated on the northeast corner of India between
92.15 E to 93.29 E longitude and 21.58 N to 24.25 N latitude. The tropic of Cancer runs through
the state. With an area of 21,081 sq.km., the length of the state is 277 km from north to south.
It is 121 km from east to west. It has a density of just 52 persons per km.sq.It is bounded on
the north by Assam and Manipur, on the east and south by Myanmar, and on the west by
Bangladesh and Tripura.Being sandwiched by Bangladesh and Myanmar, it shares an
international boundary of 585 km with these two neighbouring countries.23Therefore, the state
occupies a very important strategic location in India’s foreign policy and has served as a
gateway to ASEAN and the Act East Policy today.
According tothe Census of India Report 2011, the total population of Mizoram is
10,97,206 of which 5,55,339 are male and 5,41,867 are female. At 10,36,115, the population
that belongs to the Scheduled Tribe stands at 94.43 percent which is the highest concentration
of tribal population in any Indian state.23 Despite this, Mizoram has the third highest literacy
rate of 91.33 percent among the Indian States and Union Territories next only to Kerala’s 94
percent and Lakshadweep’s 91.85 percent. Of this, 93.35 percent male and 89.27 percent
female are literate respectively.Christianity occupies a very important place in Mizoram, and
87.16 percent of the population are Christians. Buddhists comprise 8.51 percent, Hindus 2.75
percent, Islam 1.35 percent, Jains 0.03 percent and Sikhs by 0.03 percent. Around 0.07 percent
stated 'Other Religion', while 0.09 percent stated 'No Particular Religion'.
There are 8 Districts, namely,Aizawl, Champhai, Kolasib, Lawngtlai, Lunglei, Mamit,
Saiha and Serchhip. Within these 8 districts, there are 15 sub-divisions, 22 development blocks,
817 villages, 22 towns and one city, Aizawl, which is the state’s capital.The AMC is the
authority of civic administration of Aizawl city. There are three Autonomous District Councils
(ADCs) namely the Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC), the Lai Autonomous
District Council (LADC) and the Mara Autonomous District Council (MADC). As in 2011
103
Census, the number of inhabited villages stands at 704, which are administered by the Village
Councils.
II. The Concept of Mizo and their Origin
The Mizos, prior to the arrival of the British, had no written record.Their origin is still
shrouded in mystery. History of the Mizosare limited to the information passed on in the form
of oral tradition by elders to their younger generationsand much of it are based on hypotheses
and assumptions. Therefore, it is very difficult to trace the history of the Mizos. The writings
of British officers and missionaries such as T.H. Lewin, Rev. J.H. Lorrain, Rev. F.W. Savidge,
A.G. McCall, Robert Reid, R.G. Woodthorpe, J. Shakespear and others started literary works
about the Mizos.
It is generally accepted that the indigenous inhabitants of Mizoram belong to the
Mongoloid stock. The Mizos were formerly called Lushais and the hills inhabited by them were
known as Lushai Hills. The term‘Lushai’is a conglomeration of two words and there are a
number of opinions about its meaning. While ‘lu’means ‘head’, the following
word,‘shai’remains contentious even among the Mizos themselves. Firstly, ‘shai’appears to be
an Anglicized word for ‘sai’ which can mean ‘to target’ or ‘to strike’. The interpretation is
based on the argument that the Mizos were headhunters or headcutters. Secondly, ‘shai’ could
be an Anglicized term for ‘sei’ which means ‘long’. ‘Lusei’ literally means ‘long head’. It is
argued that there were two groups of Mizo referred to as ‘long heads’ and ‘short heads’
representing the ‘chief’s family’ and the ‘commoners’ respectively. The chief’s family used to
tie a big knot of their rolled hair on top of their head making their head appear long.23The terms,
‘Lushai’ and ‘Lusei’ are in fact used interchangeably.
The term ‘Mizo’ generally means ‘highlander’. It is also a conglomeration of two
words, ‘mi’ which means ‘person’ or ‘people’ and ‘zo’ meaning ‘highland’. The Census of
1901, the first census conducted in the Lushai Hills made no mention of ‘Mizo’ or ‘Zomi’. It
was recorded as Lushei with a population of 36,332 out of the total population of 82,434 (44
percent) in the Lushai Hills.23 Since the name of the Lushai Hills was changed to Mizo Hills
by an Act of Parliamant in 1954, ‘Mizo’ is the official name of the people of Mizoram.
Mizo is a generic term used to accommodate the different tribes, sub-tribes and clans
who originated from Chhinlung and migrated to their present habitat in the Indian states of
Mizoram, Manipur, Tripura, Assam, Meghalaya and Nagaland and in Myanmar and
104
Bangladesh. Due to geographical reorganization they are scattered and divided by national and
international borders. The major tribes of Mizo include Lusei, Hmar, Paihte, Ralte, Lai (Pawi)
and Mara (Lakher). The Lusei are the dominant tribe and include several clans such as Sailo,
Hauhnar, Pachuau, Chhakchhuak, Rokhum, Rivung etc. Likewise, each of the Hmar, Paihte,
Ralte, Lai and Mara consists of different clans. Some of these tribes living outside Mizoram
prefer to call themselves Zomi or just Zo. According to Census of India 2001, the linguistic
division of languages in Mizoram stands as follows:
Table 1: Population by Major Languages in Mizoram23
S.No. Language Total Percent 1 Lushai/Mizo 6,50,605 73.21 2 Bengali 80,389 9.05 3 Mara/Lakher 34,731 3.91 4 Lai/Pawi 24,900 2.80 5 Tripuri 17,580 1.98 6 Paite 14,367 1.62 7 Hmar 14,240 1.60 8 Hindi 10,530 1.19 9 Nepali 8958 1.00
Legend has it that the Mizos came out of a big rock known as Chhinlung. However, the
location of Chhinlung is contentious among various scholars. The term ‘chhin’ means ‘cover’
or ‘lid’ while ‘lung’ means ‘rock’. It, therefore, literally means cover rock. Some argued that
Chhinlungrefers to the Great Wall of China where the Mizos had come out from a long time
back. Others refer to Chhinlung not as a rock but one of the last kings of the Manchu dynasty,
Chien-Lung.23
According to B. Lalthangliana, Professor in Mizo, some 2000 years ago, the Mizos
lived in the Tao Valley of Kansu Province on the northwest of China and northeast of Tibet.
They migrated to Burma through the borders of Tibet and Burma expelling the Shan Kadusinto
Manipur and Burma. From about the 8th Century AD till the 13th Century AD, they occupied
the Kabaw Valley where they lived a culture of high order. Due to the Shan penetration they
left the Kabaw Valley for the Chin Hills in the early 14th Century and settled on the Than Range
and Manipur valley till the mid-15th Century. Due to hard living conditions, they migrated west
to the Len Range near the Tiau River in Burma in the late 15th Century and settled there till the
late 18th Century. Many of their folksongs, folktales, customs and traditional institutions also
105
point to this period in their history. Towards the end of the 18th Century, the enmity between
the Pawi tribes and the Lusei tribes, the latter were compelled to move farther west into their
present habitat of Mizoram.23
Politics in the Lushai Hills was characterized by traditional chieftainship. Like in most
tribal societies, each village was governed by a hereditary chief, called Lal. He was assisted by
the Upaor Council of Elders. Zawlbuk, a traditional bachelors’ dormitory was an important
institution of socialization and education. It was an institution where they learn
tlawmngaihna.23
With the Lushai Hills District (Change of Name) Act, 1954 (Act XVIII of 1954)], the
name of the ‘Lushai Hills District’ was changed into the ‘Mizo District’. The term ‘Lushai
Hills’ was also changed into ‘Mizoram’.
III. Annexation of Lushai Hills by the British
With the acquirement of the Dewany of Bengal (power to collect revenue) by Robert
Clive in 1765, the East India Company secured “superintendence of all laws and the collection
of all revenues” in the presidency of Bengal.23 Consequently, the British rule had extended as
far as the border of Assam (North East India).23 When the British came into contact with the
Lushai Hills, they recognized the chiefs as the true spokesmen of the villages and established
a Chiefs Council of 23 chiefs who were taken to Silchar to meet the Viceroy. The British
occasionally held Durbars (Audience) of chiefs to seek confirmation of their continued loyalty
to the British. The first Durbar was held on 14thJune, 1870.23
The Mizo chiefs raided the plain areas of Sylhet for the first time in 1826. Till April
1892, they raided their neighbouring plain areas 39 times, burned 43 villages and took 1034
captives.23One such raid was in 1860 when Chief Rothangpuia raided a village in Tripura and
killed 186 people.23There can be several reasons for such tribal raids. Firstly, the Mizos
believed that if a person kills an enemy and performs rites on the head of the victim, then the
spirit of the victim would be the servant of the spirit of the victor in MitthiKhuaor Deadmen’s
Village.23Another reason was that the British East India Company was extending its tea
plantations in Assam up to the foothills of the Lushai Hills. Chief Suakpuilala and his
descendants raided the British subjects in the areas of Tipperah (Tripura), Cachar (Assam),
Sylhet (Bangladesh) and Manipur.23 It was in one of such raids that James Winchester, a
manager of the British tea estate at Alexandrapur at Cachar in Assam was killed on 23rdJanuary,
106
1871and his six years old daughter, Mary Winchester 23 was taken captive by the
Lushais.23Prior to the incident, Chief Suakpuilala and Superintendent of Cachar, John W. Edgar
had agreed on the boundary of the British and the Lushai chiefs on 21stMarch, 1870.23The
incident necessitated the First LushaiExpeditionwhich started in December 1871. Mary
Winchester was taken back and a truce was signed with the Lushai chiefs. The truce was kept
for some years but large scale raids occurred again on 13th December, 1888when Kalkhama,
son of Chief Suakpuilala raided the village of Pakinna Rani killing 21, took the head of 13 and
took 15 as captives. This compelled the British to launch the Second Lushai Expedition(The
Chin-Lushai Expedition) inJanuary 1889 and lasted till March 1890.23The purpose of the
operation as mentioned in Letter No.2424-E dated the 19thDecember, 1888 was essentially to
prevent raiding. 23 This led to the direct annexation of the Lushai Hills under the British
administration.
IV. Colonial Governance of Lushai Hills
The British followed a policy of isolating the hill districts of Assam from mainland
India. The Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, popularly known as Inner Line
Regulation (ILR) or Inner Line Permit (ILP) was enacted and enforced in Kamrup, Darang,
Nowgong, Sibsagar, Lakhimpur, Garo Hills, Khasi and Jantia Hills, Naga Hills and Cachar
from 1stJanuary, 1873. Despite claims that the ILR was implemented as a policy to safeguard
the identity of the tribals, their identity was never discussed in the ILR document. The primary
motive was later established to be restriction of European planters from occupying and
converting tribal lands into tea plantations and to stop Indian merchants from encroaching on
the trades that were the monopoly of the tribals such as collection of rubber, ivory, tribal salt
and forest products.23
On 6th February 1874, Assam was put under a Chief Commissioner by taking away its
management from the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. When the Chief Commissioner Province
of Assam was created by reorganizing the geographical area of Bengal in 1874, the ILR
continued to function in the above mentioned nine hills districts. In April, Scheduled Districts
Act (Act XVI) of 1874 was enforced in the hill districts where ILP was not yet extended and
those areas were also subsequently brought under the ILR afterwards.‘Scheduled Districts’
signify those backward districts where normal administration could not be carried out. Due to
that, all the tribal dominated backward districts were declared as Scheduled Districts by the
Scheduled District Act of 1874.
107
The Assam Frontier Tract Regulation (Regulation 2) of 1880was issued “to provide for
the removal of certain frontier tracts in Assam inhabited or frequented by barbarous or semi-
civilized tribes from the operation of enactments in force therein.” It also empowered the Chief
Commissioner to declare (with prior sanction of the Governor-General) that any enactment in
force in a frontier tract would cease to operate but without affecting the criminal jurisdiction
of any court over European British subjects.23
As stated earlier, the Lushai Hills came under the control of the British after the Second
Lushai Expedition of 1889. In 1891 the Lushai Hills was divided into two administrative wings
namely the North Lushai Hills whichwas placed under the administration of the Chief
Commissioner of Assam while the South Lushai Hills was placed under the Lt. Governor of
Bengal. The South Lushai Hills was put under the charge of a Superintendent. This designation
was later changed into District Commissioner. As a measure for preservation of custom, culture
and ethnic identity of the tribals as well as to avoid unproductive huge expenditure, shrewd
arrangement was made in such a tactful way. Due to that theChin Hills Regulation (Regulation
V) of 1896 was also enforced in the Lushai Hills. On the recommendation of Major J.
Shakespeare, the first Superintendent in the Lushai Hills, the south and north Lushai Hills were
amalgamated to form Lushai Hills District within Assam on 1stApril, 1898.23
The advent of the pioneer Christian missionaries, Rev. F.W. Savidge and Rev. J.H.
Lorrain, known by the Mizos as Sap Upa and PuBuanga, in 1894 ushered in a new phase of
development towards all aspects of life. They established the Baptist Church of Mizoram, a
protestant denomination with its headquarters at Serkawn in Lunglei town of Mizoram. They
also started a school, created the Mizo script, prepared Mizogrammar, created a dictionary,
translated the Bible and provided rudimentary health services. According to the BCM Statistics
of 2013-14, the Church has 1,60,344 members and is the second largest church in the
State. 23 The largest, Mizoram Presbyterian Church Synod was established by Welsh
missionaries. It is headquartered in Aizawl. According to the Synod Statistics of 2014-15, the
Church has 5,98,778 members.
The provisions in theGovernment of India Act of 1919madeAssam a Governor’s
Province in 1921. The Act provided that the Governor General-in-Council may declare any
territory in British India to be a “backward tract” where any Act of Indian Legislature shall not
apply or shall apply to such exceptions or modifications as is thought fit. As per the notification
issued by Section 52 A (2) of the Government of India Act of 1919, the Governor General-in-
108
Council declared the Lushai Hills District as one of the Backward Tracts along with Garo Hills
District, Khasi and Jantia Hills District other thanShillongMunicipality and Cantonment, Mikir
Hills (in Nowgong and Sibsagar Districts), North Cachar Hills (in Cachar District), Naga Hills
District and the Frontier Tracts of Sadiya, Baliparaand Lakhimpur.23The Simon Commission
Report of 1930 highlighted that the geographical area of Backward Tribal Area in all over India
was 1,20,000 sq. miles which comprised of tribal areas in Bihar, Orissa, Punjab, Burma, Bengal
and Assam (North East India). The terminology “Backward Tract” was replaced with
“Excluded Areas” or “Partially Excluded Areas” by the Government of India Act of 1935. The
Act also made mention about “Tribal areas” which were defined in Section 311(1) as “areas
along the frontiers of India or in Baluchistan which are not a part of India or of Burma or of
any Indian State or any foreign State”. The powers of the provincial legislature were not to
extend in these areas. No Act of the legislatures could apply to these areas unless the Governor
applied it and with such exceptions and modification if any, which he thought fit. The Governor
was also empowered to make regulations for the “peace and good government” of these areas,
subject to prior sanction of the Governor-General. Section 311(1) of the Act defined “Tribal
areas” as “areas along the frontiers of India or in Baluchistan which are not part of India or of
Burma or of any Indian State or any foreign state”.23
Excluded Area means the backward-most tribal areas which were under the direct rule
of the Governors and districts which were categorized as excluded area had no representation
in the provincial legislature. Districts which were categorized as Partially Excluded Area were
under provincial government and they had representatives in the provincial legislature.
However, the law enacted by provincial legislature could not be enforced in the Partially
Excluded Area without the approval of the Governor. Moreover, the Governor could also use
his discretionary power without consulting the provincial government in the Partially Excluded
Area.
In pursuance to the provisions of Section 91(1), the Government of India (Excluded
and Partially Excluded Areas) Order, 1936 came to be promulgated by the Governor in
Council:23
Excluded Area
1) North East Frontier Tracts (Sadiya, Balipara and Lakhimpur)
2) Naga Hills District
3) Lushai Hills District
109
4) North Cachar Hills Sub-Division of Cachar District
Partially Excluded Area
1) Garo Hills District
2) Mikir Hills in Nowgong and Sibsagar District
3) Khasi and Jantia Hills District other than Shillong Municipality and Cantonment
The largest and oldest non-governmental and voluntary organization, the Young Lushai
Association (YLA) was formed on 15thJune, 1936 by the Christian missionaries and the pioneer
Mizo Christians. After Indian independence, the name was changed into Young Mizo
Association (YMA) on 7thOctober, 1947. The YMA is an all-India organization registered
under the Societies Registration Act (Act XXI of 1860) Registration No.SR4 of 1977. It is
headquartered at the State’s capital, Aizawland presently has five sub-headquarters, 45 groups
and 804 branches spread all over Mizoram and in the states of Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya,
Nagaland and Tripura. As in 2015, the YMA records a membership of 4,04,535 (against the
Census of 2011, it amounts to 36% of the total population Mizoram).The YMA has contributed
much towards the growth, development and protection of the Mizo society and tradition. The
YMA started having annual themes since 1983 some of which included: cleanliness (1984,
1992), preservation of social and government welfare (1987), emphasis on manual labour
(1991), preservation of wildlife (1994), reformation of social life (1995 & 1996), emphasis on
education or year of educational endeavour (1997 & 1998), safeguarding nation and land (1999
- 2002), self-reliance (2003 & 2004), fight against intoxicants (2005-2008).23 Currently in
2016, the annual theme is ‘Safeguarding Nation and Land’. From these, it may be noted that
the most influential civil society organizations in Mizoram are an offshoot of the British
missionaries.
V. Politics of Regionalism and District Council Autonomy
Prior to Indian independence, the Cabinet Mission sent by the British Parliament under
Sir Stafford Cripps had made a public statement on 16 March, 1946 which suggested for the
formation of an Advisory Committee to study upon the rights of minorities and tribals of
Excluded Area. It was during this that the first political party, the Mizo Common People’s
Union was founded by R. Vanlawma on 9th April, 1946. The party was later renamed into Mizo
Union. The main programmes of the party were to unite all Mizo sub-tribes of Mizoram and
integrating the areas of Assam, Tripura and Manipur predominantly inhabited by the Mizos
110
into a single political unit; to achieve autonomy to preserve and safeguard Mizo identity,
culture, custom and dialects; to overthrow the exploitative autocratic chiefsand to achieve a
democratic system of administration for the Mizos within the Union of India.The second
political party, United Mizo Freedom Organisation (UMFO) was founded on 5thJuly, 1947. It
was a dissident party of the Mizo Union and the first district level opposition party. It aimed to
merge Mizoram with Burma, to retain chieftainship and to resist the growth of Mizo Union.
The Constituent Assemblyestablished theAdvisory Committee on Fundamental Rights,
Minorities and Tribal and Excluded Areaswith Ballabhai Patel as its Chairman on 24thJanuary,
1947. The main task of the Committee was to work out a modus operandi in the constitutional
arrangement for the tribals of Excluded and Partially Excluded Area and to enable them to
safeguard their ethnic identity and culture in a democratic way.Subsequently, on 2ndFebruary,
1947 the Advisory Committee set up three sub-committees:
1) North East Frontier (Assam) Tribal and Excluded Area Committee
2) North West Frontier Province and Baluchistan Tribal and Excluded Area Committee
3) Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas in provinces other than Assam
It should be noted that due to partition of India (independence of Pakistan), the North
West Frontier Province and Baluchistan Tribal and Excluded Area Committee automatically
became defunct from the Constituent Assembly.
GopinathBordoloi, the then Chief Minister of Assam, was the Chairman of the North
East Frontier (Assam) Tribal and Excluded Area Committee. Other members were Rev. J.J.M.
Nichols Roy, Rup Nath Brahma, A.V. Thakkar and MayangNokcha (replaced by AlibaImtilater
on). The Committee was also popularly known as Bordoloi Committee after the name of its
Chairman. It was formed on 27thFebruary, 1947.23The Bordoloi Committee extensively toured
the Province of Assam which included visits to Lushai Hills District, North CacharSub-
Division, Mikir Hills and Naga Hills District but could not visit Garo Hills District and Jowai
Sub-Division of Khasi Hills District due to bad weather and communication problem.23The
Committee “visited Aizawl in April 1947 to study the mind of the Mizo people, their
administrative problems and the desire to have autonomy for their area” and “co-opted Ch.
Saprawnga and Saprawnga of Mizo Union to present the Mizo problems”.23 The District
Conference was in favour of joining India given that if Mizoram should join Assam, they
should have at least three representatives to the Assam Legislative Assembly, with all
111
appointments made on the basis of merit and no reservation of seats for any community. It also
demanded that all matters relating to land tenure, agriculture, and social customs must be
administered by the District Conference, and also “primary education, immigration, civil and
criminal justice including capital punishment must be in the hands of the District Council”.23
Bordoloi Committee, after great deliberations, submitted its report on 28thJuly, 1947 to
Ballabhai Patel, Chairman of the Advisory Committee. It dealt with various aspects relating to
administration of the tribal areas such as thoughts on development, special features of these
areas, land, forest, jhumming, courts, finance, control of immigration, legislation,
representation, services etc. The Advisory Committee discussed the report on 7 December,
1947 and 24 February, 1948. It recommended two amendments to the President of the
Constituent Assembly on 4thMarch, 1948. B.N. Rau, Constitutional Adviser, who had prepared
the first draft of the Constitution in October, 1947 incorporated the recommendations of the
Sub-Committeein theEighth Schedule of his draft. The Drafting Committee on 13thFebruary,
1948 considered the matter and after minor amendments put the matter in the Sixth
Schedule.The draft schedule was submitted to the President of the Constituent Assembly on
21stFebruary, 1948 and the matter was discussed in the Constituent Assembly on 5-7
September, 1949.23 After heated argument the Sixth Schedule was passed and adopted on
26thJanuary, 1952.
Prior to the formation of District Council in the LushaiHills District under the
provisions of the Sixth Schedule, the Government of Assam established an Interim Advisory
Council of 35 Members in which 10 were to be the representatives of the chiefs and 25 were
to be representatives of the commoners. Elections to the Advisory Council were held for the
chiefs on 23rdMarch, 1948 while for the commoners, it was held on 15th April, 1948. L.L.
Peters, the then Superintendent of the Lushai Hills acted as Chairman. The Advisory Council
was changed into Advisory Committee in 1949 and functioned till 1951.23
The original Sixth Schedule provided for the creation ofthe Lushai Hills District
Councilas one of the six Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) within the state of Assam. It
was inaugurated on 26thApril, 1952 by BishnuramMedhi, the then Chief Minister of Assam.A
regional council called the Pawi-Lakher Regional Council (PLRC) was also set up on 23rdApril,
1953. The first general election for Members of Lushai Hills District Council was held on
4thJaunuary, 1952 and the Mizo Union won 15 seats out of the 18 seats available. Thus, Mizo
Union formed the first Executive Committee with Lalsawia as the first Chief Executive
112
Member (CEM). There were four nominated seats (Two Chiefs representatives and one each
for women’s and government servants’ representatives). 23 The Lushai Hills was also
represented in the Assam Assembly for the first time with three constituency seats.23The Lushai
Hills was divided into three constituencies namely Aijal East, Aijal West and Lungleh.23Mizo
Union won all the three seats with Ch. Saprawnga, R. Thanhlira and R. Dengthuama as MLAs
respectively. One of the significant achievements of the Mizo Union was the abolition of
traditional chieftainship and the establishment of democracy at the village level. The Lushai
Hills (Acquisition of Chiefs’ Rights) Actwas passed on 30thOctober, 1954. The Act came into
force from 1stApril, 1955. The number of chiefs abolished amounts to 320 which includes 282
traditional chiefs and 28 Headmen appointed by the British.23Village Councils were introduced
and elections were heldfor the first time in accordance with the Lushai Hills District (Village
Council) Act, 1953passed by the District Council and the first sitting of the VCs of Mizoram
took place on 16thAugust, 1954.23
The second Members of District Council elections were held in 25thJanuary, 1957. The
Mizo Union won 12 seats while UMFO won 8 seats. Ch. Saprawnga of Mizo Union became
the second CEM. Again Mizo Union captured all the three Assam MLA seats. The third
Members of District Council elections were held on 5thFebruary, 1962. Mizo Union won with
16 seats. The MLA seats for Assam Legislative Assembly were captured on APHLC tickets by
Mizo Union.
Prior to this a new regional party called Eastern India Tribal Union (EITU) was founded
by the hill leaders comprising of Garos, Khasis, Mikirs and Mizos on 1stOctober, 1957 at Aijal
in Mizo District.The party demanded a separate Hill Stateand the UMFO and Mizo Union
(Right Wing) dissolved themselves to the EITU.
A great famine called Mautam occurs in Mizoram every 50 years. Mautammeans
flowering of bamboos. It led to the rapid multiplication of rats since bamboo fruits are very
good nutrients for rats but as bamboos grow, rats cannot eat them anymore and turned to crops
causing famine in the following year. Mautam famine occurred in 1861 and 1911. So it was
predicted that it would happen again in 1960. The Mizo National Famine Front (MNFF) was
founded and after the famine, the Mizo National Front (MNF)was formed as a political party
on 28thOctober, 1961. The Mizo District Congress Committee wasalso established on
10thAugust, 1961 after A. Thanglura, an MLA to the Assam Legislative Assembly on MU
ticket defected after the All Party Hill Leaders Conference (APHLC) appealed to the MLAs
113
from the Hill Districts of Assam to resign from Chaliha’s Congress Government in Assam that
passed the Official Language Act in 1960.23
The fourth District Council election held in 20thApril, 1970 saw the Congress winning
10 seats while the Mizo Union had lost its popularity and secured only 9 seats. The remaining
3 seats were won by Independents. Zalawma became the CEM but due to infighting within the
Congress between two factions, Dengthuama and Hrangchhuana groups, power alternated
during the term. Firstly, Hrangchhuana faction was overthrown by Dengthuama faction on 18th
January, 1971 with a no-confidence motion and F.C. Zanghina replaced Zalawma as CEM.
Then Dengthuama faction merged to form United Mizo Parliamentary Party (UMPP) with
Mizo Union and overthrow Dengthuama faction on 18thMarch, 1971 with a no-confidence
motion and Ch. Chhunga became the CEM. The two factions of the Congress again coalesced
to overthrow the UMPP after one year and Zalawma also became the CEM again.23
With the enactment of the Northeast Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971, three new
states, Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura and the Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh and
Mizoram were created. The Union Territory of Mizoram was inaugurated on 21stJanuary, 1972
with 33 member Legislative Assembly (30 elected and three nominated) and one seat each in
the LokSabha and RajyaSabha. The Mizo District Council was thus abolished and the PLRC
was also trifurcated into the Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC), the Lai
Autonomous District Council (LADC) and the Mara Autonomous District Council (MADC)
in 1972. The North Eastern Counicilwas also created in 1972.
VI. Mizo National Movement and Insurgency
On midnight of 28thFebruary, 1966 the MNF declared independence and resisted the
Indian Army deployed earlier in the month causing bloodshed.Thereafter the insurgency began.
The Governor of Assam declared through No.PLA 69/66/8 of March 1966, the whole of Mizo
District as disturbed area in the exercise of powers conferred to him by the Armed Forces
Special Powers Act, 1958 (Act 28 0f 1958). It was also followed by a series of air raids which
includes aerial bombardment of Aizawl (5th 6th March, 1966), air raids on Khawzawl (6th&7th
March), Pukpui (13th March), Tlabung (7th March), Hnahlan (7th March), Sangau (8th March)
and several other villages.23The Assam Government then adopted a policy of grouping of
villages according to the provisions of Indian Defence Rules 57 used in 1962 and the Central
Government (Ministry of Defence) Letter No.S.O.4045 of 31stDecember, 1966. 23 Many
villages were burnt, girls got raped and people were killed in cold blooded manner.
114
Following the Northeast Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971, the Union Territory of
Mizoram was born on 21stJanuary, 1972 with a separate Assembly of 30 elected and three
nominated seats. However, insurgency remained. The then Chief Minister of Mizoram Union
Territory, Brig. T. Sailo established the Human Rights Committee in Mizoram on 14thJune,
1974 becoming its first Chairman. He visited villages and collected information from the
people and pointed out the misdeeds of the Indian security forces and the fallacies of the so-
called Protected Progressive Villages (PPVs) and submitted cases to the Assam High Court.23
The Mizo Peace Forumwas also formed on 30thDecember, 1982 by Siamkima and
Hrangthankima as a political party. TheUnited Churches represented by Rev. Lalsawma
(Presbyterian), Vanlalbela (Catholic), Maj. Thansanga and Maj. Sawichhunga (Salvation
Army), Rev. P.L. Lianzuala (Baptist) and Rev. Rinsanga (Pentecostal) also offered peace talks
on April 1985 between Laldenga of MNF and the Government of India.23
Finally, after increasing pressure, theMizo Peace Accord was signed on 30thJune, 1986
between Laldenga of MNF and the R.D. Pradhan, Home Secretary, Government of India.
Under the terms of the Accord, Mizoram state was inaugurated by the then Prime Minister,
Rajiv Gandhi on 20thFebruary, 1987 to become the 23rd Indian state with 40 member State
Legislative Assembly. It also has one Member of Parliament each in the LokSabha and the
RajyaSabha. With the return of MNF insurgents, an Interim Government was formed with
Laldenga to become the first Chief Minister of Mizoram state. LalThanhawla who stepped
down from Chief Minister’s office became the Deputy Chief Minister.
VII. Formation of Governments in Mizoram
The first general election to the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of
Mizoram was held in 1972. The Mizo Union won with absolute majority securing 24 seats of
the 30 elected seats while Congress secured six seats. Ch. Chhungawas sworn in as the first
Chief Minister of Mizoram. Despite this, the Mizo Union was merged with the Congress on
23rdJanuary, 1974. The second general election took place in 1978. It was a contest between
Independents and the People’s Conference, a regional party founded on 17thApril, 1975with
the latter forming the government by securing 22 seats. The founder President, Brig. T.
Sailobecame the Chief Minister but due to defection of eight MLAs in the Sailo Ministry, the
Legislative Assembly was dissolved in 1978 even before the nomination of three memberstook
place. A mid-term election, the Third General Election to the Legislative Assemblywas held in
1979 and the People’s Conference with Brig. T. Sailo as Chief Minister came to power for the
115
second time by securing 18 seats. The fourth Legislative Assembly general electionin 1984,
for the first time, saw the Congress, a national party forming aministry in Mizoram by securing
20 seats with LalThanhawla as Chief Minister.The MNF did not contest in the Legislative
Assembly electionstill 1984 as it was boycotted by the Government of India due to the national
movement.
Table 2: Elections to the Legislative Assembly of Mizoram Union Territory (1972-1984)23
Party No. of
candidates No. of elected No. of votes Percent
1st UNION TERRITORY LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ELECTION1972 INC 29 6 34,421 30.91% Socialist Party 18 0 1,713 1.54% Independents 108 24 75,224 67.55% Total 155 30 1,11,358
2ndUNION TERRITORY LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ELECTION1978 PC 28 22 52,640 37.47% Independents 126 8 87,830 62.53% Total 154 30 1,40,470
3rd UNION TERRITORY LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ELECTION1979 INC (Indira) 25 5 39,115 23.88% Janata Party 30 2 21,435 13.09% PC 27 18 53,515 32.67% Independents 68 5 49,733 30.36% Total 150 30 1,63,798
4thUNION TERRITORY LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ELECTION1984 Congress 30 20 74,005 39.81% PC 27 8 66,065 35.54% Independents 77 2 45,819 24.65% Total 134 30 1,85,889
As seen from the table above, regional political parties formed government until 1984
when the Congress for the first time replaced regional parties. Following Indira Gandhi’s
assassination, the Congress under Rajiv Gandhi won 404 seats in the LokSabha elections.
With the signing of the Mizo Peace Accordin 1986 and the creation of the Mizoram
State in 1987, the First General Election to Members of Legislative Assembly of Mizoram state
was held on16thFebruary 1987. The MNF won by securing 24 seats while the Congress won
13 and the PC three. When Mizoram state was inaugurated as a full-fledged state by the then
116
Prime Minister, Raiv Gandhi on 20thFebruary, 1987, Laldenga was sworn in as Chief Minister
HiteswarSaikia as Governor. Due to political defection of nine MNF MLAs due to
disappointment over Laldenga’s selection of Ministers, the Assembly was dissolved and put
under President’s rule on 7thSeptember, 1988.23
Table 3: First General Election to Members of Legislative Assembly of Mizoram State23
1st MIZORAM STATE LEGISLATVE ASSEMBLY 1987
Party No. of candidates No. of elected No. of votes Percent
INC 40 13 76,152 32.99% PC 36 3 54,717 23.70% Independents 69 24 99,996 43.31% Total 145 40 2,30,865
The Second Members of Legislative Assembly electionfollowed on 21stJanuary, 1989.
The Congress won 23 seats against 14 won by the MNF. The MPC won one seat and
Independents won two seats. LalThanhawlawas sworn in as the Chief Minister for the first time
since he stepped down from the Chief Minister’s office prior to the signing of the Mizo Peace
Accord.
Table 4: Second General Election to Members of Legislative Assembly of Mizoram State23
2nd MIZORAM STATE LEGISLATVE ASSEMBLY 1989
Party No. of candidates No. of elected No. of votes Percent
INC 34 23 93,561 34.85% MNF 40 14 94,763 35.29% MPC 38 1 52,813 19.67% Independents 50 2 27,353 10.19% Total 162 40 2,68,490
The Third General Election to the Members of Legislative Assembly was held on
30thNovember, 1993 where the coalition of Congress and the Mizoram Janata Dal
(MJD).LalThanhawla continued as the Chief Minister for his second consecutive term. During
this ministry, the Congress government and the Hmar People’s Convention (HPC), an insurgent
group signed an agreement on 27thJuly, 1994 which led to the creation of Sinlung Hills
Development Council (SHDC) for the Hmars in Mizoram. The Brus (or Reangs) represented
by the Bru National Union (BNU) also demanded for Autonomous District Council (ADC) but
117
it was followed by violent ethnic clash in 1997 which led to the displacement of around 35,000
Brus and their settlement at eight refugee camps in North Tripura.23This led to the formation
of an armed outfit called the Bru National Liberation Front (BNLF). The repatriation process
of Brushas taken place since 16th November 2009.23Due to constant pressure by the Mizoram
Presbyterian Church Synod, the Congress governmentalso passed the Mizoram Liquor Total
Prohibition (MLTP) Act in 1995 and the next year, the Mizoram Liquor Total Prohibition
(MLTP) Rules was passed. The Act and the Rules came into effect from 20thFebruary, 1997
which prohibited the consumption, sale, manufacturing and possession of any kind of alcoholic
drinks.
Table 5: Third General Election to Members of Legislative Assembly of Mizoram State23
3rd MIZORAM STATE LEGISLATVE ASSEMBLY 1993
Party No. of candidates No. of elected No. of votes Percent
BJP 8 0 10,004 3.11% INC 28 16 1,06,320 33.10% MNF 38 14 1,29,813 40.41% Independents 47 10 75,097 23.38% Total 121 40 3,21,234
The Fourth General Election to the Mizoram Legislative Assembly was held on
25thNovember,1998. In this election, the number of participating political parties had greatly
increased. The coalition of MNF-MPC formed the Ministry by capturing 33 seats of the total
40 seats with the Congress securing only 6 seats.The Ministry was headed by Zoramthanga,
President of MNF while Lalhmingthanga, President of MPC became the Deputy Chief
Minister. The coalition government did not last long due to conflict between the two parties in
the Village Councils elections that followed five months after the formation of the ministry.
The MNF withdrew its coalition with the MPC and formed the ministry on its own.23During
this term, the long-cherished aspiration of the Mizos and one of the provisions of the Mizo
Peace Accord of having a separate university was fulfilled with the establishment of Mizoram
University on 2ndJuly, 2001 under Act 8 of 2000.23
Table 6: Fourth General Election to Members of Legislative Assembly of Mizoram State23
118
4th MIZORAM STATE LEGISLATVE ASSEMBLY 1998
Party No. of
candidates No. of elected No. of votes Percent
BJP 12 0 8,448 2.50% INC 40 6 1,00,608 29.77% Janata Dal 10 0 947 0.28% Samata Party 10 0 940 0.28% Lok Shakti 15 0 744 0.23% MNF 28 21 84,444 24.99% RJP 8 0 588 0.17% MDF 2 0 7,721 2.28% MNF (Nationalist)
24 0 31,190 9.23%
MPC 28 12 69,078 20.44% Independents 44 1 33,200 9.82% Total 221 40 3,37,938
The Fifth State Legislative Assembly Elections were held on 20thNovember, 2003. It
resulted in the formation of MNF with Zoramthanga as Chief Minister for the second term by
securing 21 seats of the total 40 seats while the Congress won 12 seats and the MPC 3 seats. A
new political party, the Zoram Nationalist Partyunder the leadership of Lalduhomaalso
participatedfor the first time contesting 27 seats winning two.However, the 2003 General
Election, for the first time witnessed glaring malpractices such as nexus with insurgent
groupsacross the borders, fake abduction of three candidates from Suangpuilawn constituency
and money power. Under such condition, the Mizoram Presbyterian Church Synod took the
initiative of providing a common platform for all major churches and prominent voluntary
organizations to bring about political and electoral reforms in the State. Thus, theMizoram
People Forumwas founded on 21stJune, 2006. During its foundation, 12 major churches and
five voluntary organizations were represented.23It was also during this term that thefirst urban
local body in Mizoram,the Aizawl Municipal Corporation (AMC)was formed on 1stJuly, 2008
as the Aizawl Municipal Council. The AMC is the authority of civic administration of Aizawl
city. The AMC consists of 19 elected members representing 19 Wards of the city and 12
members appointed by the Governor of Mizoram (11 MLAs and one LokSabha MP). One-third
(i.e. six) of the total membership is reserved for women. The tenure of the AMC is five years.
The AMC office is administered by a Chairman, Vice Chairman and three Executive Members.
119
In the First AMC Elections held at November 2010, the Congress-ZNP coalition winning 10
seats was voted to power while the MNF-MPC coalition trailed by just one vote.23
Table 7: Fifth General Election to Members of Legislative Assembly of Mizoram State23
5th MIZORAM STATE LEGISLATVE ASSEMBLY 2003
Party No. of candidates No. of elected No. of votes Percent
BJP 12 0 8,448 2.50% INC 40 6 1,00,608 29.77% Janata Dal 10 0 947 0.28% Samata Party 10 0 940 0.28% Lok Shakti 15 0 744 0.23% MNF 28 21 84,444 24.99% RJD 8 0 588 0.17% MDF 2 0 7,721 2.28% MNF (Nationalist)
24 0 31,190 9.23%
MPC 28 12 69,078 20.44% Independents 44 1 33,200 9.82% Total 221 40 3,37,938
The Sixth Legislative Assembly Elections were held on 2ndDecember, 2008. The
Mizoram Pradesh Congress Committee won with absolute majority with 32 seats while the
MNF won just three seats, the MPC and the ZNP won two seats each and one seat by the Mara
Democratic Front (MDF).LalThanhawla became the Chief Minister.
Table 8: Sixth General Election to Members of Legislative Assembly of Mizoram State
6th MIZORAM STATE LEGISLATVE ASSEMBLY 2008
Party No. of candidates No. of elected No. of votes Percent
BJP 9 0 2,222 0.44% INC 40 32 1,95,614 38.89% JD (U) 2 0 196 0.04% NCP 6 0 538 0.11% LokBharati 5 0 432 0.09% Lok Jan Shakti 38 0 3,307 0.66% ZNP 17 2 51,403 10.22% MDF 1 1 4,206 0.84%
120
MNF (Nationalist)
39 3 15,4132 30.65%
MPC 16 2 62,222 10.38% Independents 33 0 38,684 7.69% Total 206 40 5,02,956
Before the Seventh General Elections, the Congress established the New Land Use
Policy (NLUP) on 14thJanuary, 2011 which pledged to provide alternatives for jhum
cultivation. The Ministry promised beneficiaries Rs.1 Lakh each. In the Seventh General
Elections to the Mizoram Legislative Assembly that followed on 25thNovember, 2013, the
Congress won 34 seats and the MNF-MPC-MDF coalition won just 6 seats. LalThanhawla
became the Chief Minister for two consecutive terms. Amidst walk-out by six member
opposition, 20 years of liquor total prohibition was relaxed with the enactment of the Mizoram
Liquor Prohibition and Control (MLPC) Act in 2014 and came into effect from 15th January,
2015.
Table 9: Elections to the Mizoram State Legislative Assembly (1987-2013)23
7th MIZORAM STATE LEGISLATVE ASSEMBLY 2013
Party No. of candidates No. of elected No. of votes Percent
BJP 17 0 2,139 0.37% Congress 40 33 2,55,917 44.63% Jai MahaBharath Party
1 0 29 0.01%
NCP 2 0 4835 0.84% MNF (Nationalist)
31 5 16,4305 28.65%
MPC 8 1 35,269 6.15% ZNP 38 0 99,916 17.42% MDF 1 0 5,433 0.95% Independents 4 0 1,764 0.31% NOTA 0 3,810 0.95% Total 182 39 5,73,417
Table 10: List of Chief Ministers of Mizoram23
CHIEF MINISTERS OF MIZORAM
121
S. No. Name of Chief Minister Political Party From To
1 Ch. Chhunga Mizo Union 3.05.1972 10.05.1977
President’s Rule 11.05.1977 1.06.1978
2 Brig T.Sailo People’s Conference 2.06.1978 10.11.1978
President Rule 11.11.1978 08.05.1979
3 Brig T.Sailo People’s Conference 8.05.1979 4.05.1984
4 LalThanhawla Congress 5.05.1984 20.08.1986
5 Laldenga MNF 21.08.1986 19.02.1987
6 Laldenga MNF 20.2.1987 7.09.1988
President’s Rule 8.09.1988 23.01.1989
7 LalThanhawla Congress 24.01.1989 3.12.1998
8 Zoramthanga MNF 4.12.1998 9.12.2008
9 LalThanhawla Congress 11.12.2008 Present
From the above table, it is evident that national parties, the Congress being established first as
early as in 1961, never made impact in Mizo politics until 1984. During the Union Territory
years, regional parties formed government but failed to ensure political stability. The first
Congress ministry in 1984 did not last long due to the peace agreement in 1986 which made
way for the MNF to form the government. The post-accord years witnessed a battle between
the Congress and the MNF who form the government alternately on a ten year interval.
Table 11:List of Winning MP (LokSabha) and Runner Up from 1972 till date for Mizoram23
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (LOK SABHA) Yea
r Categor
y Winner Party Votes Runner Up Part
y Votes
1972
GEN Sangliana IND 46942 R. Dengthuama INC 40081
1977
GEN R. Rothuama IND 53350 C. L. Ruala INC 37342
1980
GEN R. Rothuama IND 74430 C. Venkunga PPC 53891
1989
(ST) C.Silvera INC 10957
1 Zoramthanga MNF 70749
1991
(ST) C. Silvera INC 91612 Lalduhoma MNF 82019
122
1996
(ST) C. Silvera INC 12619
1 F. Lalremsiama MNF
111710
1998
(ST) Dr. H. Lallungmuana
IND 10655
2 J. Lalsangzuala INC
106511
1999
(ST) Vanlalzawma
IND 17155
7 Rokamlova IND
102898
2004
(ST) Vanlalzawma
MNF 18286
4
Dr. LaltluanglianaKhiangte
IND 15917
0
2009
(ST) C. L. Ruala INC 21377
9 Dr. H. Lallungmuana IND
104824
2014
(ST) C. L. Ruala INC 21048
5 Robert RomawiaRoyte
IND 20433
1
Table 12: List of MP (RajyaSabha) from 1972 till date for Mizoram
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RAJYA SABHA) S.No. Name Party From To
1 Lalbuaia INC 17.07.1972 16.07.1978 2 Lalsawia INC 17.07.1978 16.07.1984 3 C. Silvera INC 17.07.1984 16.07.1990 4 Hiphei INC 17.07.1990 16.07.1996 5 Hiphei INC 17.07.1996 16.07.2002 6 Lalhming Liana MNF 19.07.2002 18.07.2008 7 Lalhming Liana MNF 19.07.2008 18.07.2014 8 Ronald SapaTlau INC 19.07.2014 Present
In the Union Parliament, the Congress entered the Lower House from Mizoram only by
1989. However, Congress candidate, C. Silvera hold office for three terms which is the longest
held by any LokSabha MP from the State (1989, 1991 and 1996). In the RajyaSabha or the
Upper House, the Congress stayed in office since 1972 until Lalhming Liana, MNF candidate
assumed office during 2002-2014. Current RajyaSabha MP, Ronald SapaTlau assumed office
in 2014.
VII. Conclusion
To conclude, politics of integration of Mizoram into the India Union is the most
successful experience in Northeast India, a region which is perceived as an area of conflict,
insurgencies and instabilitiy. Since the signing of the peace accord in 1986 and the attainment
of full-fledged statehood in 1987, the State has been one of the most peaceful states among all
123
Indian States and Union Territories. The Mizo Accordhas often been termed as a model accord
and the Indian experience of conflict resolution in Mizoram as the most successful. Ironically,
however, the Mizo Accordincorporating Article 371-G in the Constitution of India proves to
be a weaker accord than the Assam Accord (Article 371 B) ortheNaga Accord(Article 371-A).
In fact, the Mizo Accord of 1986 is a mere duplication of the Naga Accord.
There are INUS Conditions23 which contribute to the sustenance of peace in the State.
Firstly, a pan-Mizo identity has been created by the political parties and the civil society
organizations who created a joint effort for unity and peace. Secondly, the minority tribes in
Mizoram namely the Chakma, the Lai and the Mara have been granted their own ADCs and
further demands for Union Territory and direct funding are taken up through constitutional
methods. The Hmars represented by the Hmar People’s Convention (Democratic) and the Brus
represented by the Bru National Liberation Front (BNLF) have been demanding ADC and have
carried out ambushes, kidnappings on a small scale but are effectively dealt by the State
Government. Thirdly, peace building initiatives through the development of political
institutions, civil society and economic development have been quite successful. Except for a
brief period due to political defections, there is political stability in the State and Assembly
elections have been held fairly and regularly. The post-accord electoral politics have been
characterized by the alteration of powers on a two-term basis between a national party, the
Congress and a state party, the MNF where coalition politics play an important role.
124
NAGALAND: The Multi-Party Government and the Dawn of Peace Resolution Kenilo Kath Introduction
The Nagas are an Indo-Mongoloid folk living in the north-eastern hills of
India and are divided into over four dozens of major tribes. They speak languages
and dialects twice their numbers. A preliminary knowledge of the Mongoloid and
the Sino-Tibetan, its impact on the composite culture of India and of its
repercussions on Eastern Indian history, is a pre-requisite to understanding the
racial element in the Indian people and the history of origin of the Nagas as well.23
The Sino-Tibetan speaking Mongoloids are confined in the North-East India and
also in western Myanmar. This is one of the reasons why this race is less studied
even today. The history of the arrival into India of the various Mongoloid groups
speaking dialects of the Sino-Tibetan speech-family is not known, nor have all
the various languages and dialects in the family been satisfactorily classified.
Physical Geography and Race
The Nagas resides in the hills of the states of Nagaland, Manipur, Assam,
Arunachal Pradesh and Myanmar. The state is inhabited by numerous tribes of
highlanders known to the Assamese, Bengalese and Manipuris by the general
name of the Nagas, and to the Burma by the term of Kekhyens. According to J.P.
Mills, “The Naga inhabited areas are bounded by the Hukong Valley in the North-
East, the plains of the Brahmaputra Valley to the North-West of Cachar to the
South-West and of the Chindwin to the East. In the South the Manipur Valley
roughly marks the point of contact between the “Naga” tribes and the very much
closely interrelated group of Kuki tribes Thado, Lushei, Chin, etc.” The total
Naga population in the Indo-Burma region is estimated at not less than three
125
million and is scattered over a contiguous region beginning from the Brahmaputra
valley in Assam in the West, Burma in the East, most of Manipur in the South,
Nagaland in the South-East and Tirap and Changlang districts in Arunachal
Pradesh to the North.23
Naga is comprised of about 60 tribes and sub-tribes with diversified
linguistic socio-cultural and political milieu. The Nagas feel that they are one
homogeneous group of the Mongoloid race. However, they are different in many
ways. According to historians and anthropologists, the Nagas were the mongoloid
stock of people. “They are state wart athletic of medium size with broad shoulder
and high cheek bone.”23 They look like the Burmese, Indonesians, Chinese and
Japanese. The colour of the skin is light brown and complexion is sallow though
cheerful countenance. Characteristically, “they are good-natured, peaceful and
honest.” 23 The land is hilly and mountainous, covered by evergreen forest and
members of rushing streams. The birds and animals dwell in the luxurious thick
forest. Climate is moderate, pleasant in summer and winter is cool especially in
the interior places and higher hills with abundant rainfall on average of hundred
inches per year. The land is blessed with rich natural resources that produce
varieties of green vegetable crops for the denizens. The main form of cultivation
is jhum and in addition to it, terrace cultivation is practiced in the river valleys.
The Nagaland State as the name bears is dominated by the Naga tribes.
Apart from this, there are other Naga tribes and non-Naga tribes settled in
Nagaland. The Nagas who do not have ancestral land were not recognised as an
indigenous tribe of Nagaland.
Population of Nagaland State
Table 1 Nagas and their concentration in the Districts
S.No Tribes District Population
1 Angami Kohima 124,693
126
2 Ao Mokokchung 231,823
3 Chakhesang Phek 134,646
4 Chang Tuensang 60,855
5 Khiamnungan, Tuensang 38,137
6 Konyak Mon 243,758
7 Lotha Wokha 148,210
8 Phom Longleng 115,389
9 Puchury Phek 15,908
10 Rengma Kohima 50,966
11 Sangtam Tuensang 83,714
12 Sema Zunheboto 241,806
13 Yimchunger Kiphri 75,983
14 Zeliang Paren 71,871
15 Others All 352274
Total 1990036 Census of India 2011, Nagaland, Directorate of Census Operations Nagaland, Kohima
According to the census report, the first urban centre in Nagaland was
Kohima in 1901 with a registered population of 3093. The population of
Nagaland at 00.00 hour of 1st March 2001 stood at 1990036. In terms of
population, Nagaland is ranked at the 25th position among all states and union
territories. Its population during 1961 census was 369200 and in 2001 is 1990036.
The growth rate is 64.5 percent which is highest among all the states and union
territories in the country. The total population as per 2011 census is 1978502 with
growth rate – 0.58 percent. Within a decade 2001 – 2011 the urban population
has increased to 28.86 percent as against 2.68 percent in 1951 - 1961. The
spectacular growth of population may be due to the declaration of the Statehood
and setting up of regional government administered by the local officers with the
support of the tribal leaders and village councils. This has resulted into influx of
127
population from inside and outside the state of Nagaland. People coming from
outside Nagaland are mostly business persons, skill and unskilled labourers who
are working in different developmental projects. Construction works have
increased the population in the urban areas. The deployment of government
servants at different administrative areas have paved the way for the plains people
to comfortably mingle with their own racial group who have came to serve in the
state. There is the rise of the number of the plains people in the remote areas
within these two decades. The contribution of government developmental work
in the rural areas has attracted the people from outside the state to come and work
with the local population. The declaration of the cease-fire between the
Government of India and the Naga political parties is a boost for the peaceful co-
existence between the Nagas and the outsiders. Initially, there was an
apprehension in the mind of the outsiders, having assumed that the Nagas were
head-hunters who would be harmful when contacted. Counter insurgency
operation of the Indian armed forces have often stood in the way of more people
to people contact in the state adding to the distrust between the Indian army and
the Nagas.
India, one of the world’s ancient civilizations, puts forth a magnificent
mosaic of multiple castes, religions and languages. Our centuries-old
multilingual, multicultural ethos has held the country together like the thread in
the rosary of beads, representing ‘unity in diversity’ in our country. This diversity
is more emphatically presented in the multiplicity of languages spoken by people
in different parts of the country. As language is a unifying and cementing factor,
it forms an integral part of our rich cultural heritage. The linguistic diversity
prevailing in India needs to be harmonized for achieving inclusive development,
national integration and peaceful coexistence. As we know, in a multilingual
society like ours, language plays an important role in bringing about cohesion and
harmony in the country, leading to peace and prosperity. Therefore, it is necessary
to effectively implement the safeguards for the diverse linguistic minorities and
128
provide them a level playing field and equal opportunities for realizing the
inclusive growth in the country.
Linguistic Profile of Nagaland
Table 2 Ethno-Linguistic Composition of population in Nagaland
Tribe Population Percent
Ao 2,57,500 12.94
Konyak 2,48,002 12.46
Lotha 1,68,356 8.46
Angami 1,31,737 6.6
Phom 1,22,454 6.15
Sema 92,884 4.67
Yimchunger 92,092 4.63
Sangtam 84,150 4.23
Chokri 83,506 4.20
Chang 62,347 3.13
Zeliang 61,492 3.09
Bengali 58,890 2.96
Rengma 58,590 2.94
Hindi 56,981 2.86
Kuzhale (Khezha) 40,362 2.03
Khiamniungan 37,752 1.90
Nepali 34,222 1.72
Kuki 16,846 0.85
Assamese 16,813 0.84
Pochury 16,681 0.84
Zeme 10,462 0.53
Garo 1,838 0.09
129
Liangmai 1,295 0.07
Census of India 2011, Nagaland, Directorate of Census Operations Nagaland, Kohima
Nagaland a state of multi-lingual community inhabiting on the hills is
divided into fourteen tribes. This division is based on the language each tribe
speaks. Every tribe speaks different language which cannot be understood by the
other tribes even though they lived in a contiguous territory. Although they lived
in a s mall compact region they could neither chose any tribe language nor
develop a common language. It was only when they interact with the people
outside the Naga tribes, they developed Nagames as their common language and
English as an official language. Nagamese, a corrupt language adopted by the
Nagas living in the border areas of Assam has been made as common language
in Nagaland and bordering areas, as stated by K. Nekha. The development of
Nagamese language and the usage of it as a common language had thrust the cape
between the multi-lingual groups for better co-existence in and outside Nagaland.
Nagas never dreamed of choosing English as an official language of the state.
However, when they began to mingle with the British administrators, they learnt
the language either by consent or compulsion. Their past encounters and
experiences with the British were forgotten and a new culture was copied without
any hesitation. As we read through the history, at one point of time Nagas were
not submissive to the political policy of the British. But at a later stage they
became more attracted to the new system of governing and the language.
British Annexation
Though Capt. Jenkins entered the Angami Naga Area in 1832, it was not
until 1835 that the East India Company started interfering with the tribes of
Nagaland. The first British expedition to the Naga Hills was conducted in January
1839, and was led by Mr. Grange, British Sub-Assistant at Nowgong. There were
as many as ten British expeditions to the Naga Hills from 1839 to 1850.23 Such
130
expeditions became day-to-day affairs and the British found their pockets too tide
to finance such promenades. At the same time, some officers genuinely felt that
stringent measures against the Nagas and direct physical interference would not
result in any improvement of the situation. As a result, Lord Dalhousie formulated
the policy of trade with them as long as they were peaceful and rigidly excluding
them from all communication from either to sell what they had got or to buy what
they wanted if they become turbulent and troublesome. The jungle line could not
be guarded and after implementation of non-interference policy, there were as
many as nineteen Naga raids in which 232 British subjects were killed, wounded,
or carried off. In a way the policy of non-interference failed and the local officers
repeatedly asked the government to take some bold action. Subsequently, in
1866, Lieut. Gregory was sent as Deputy Commissioner to Samaguting
(Chumukedima) and established the Naga Hills District. The already existing
skeleton outpost was further expanded. It became possible for the authority to
take prompt punitive action against the few raids conducted soon after by the
Angami Nagas.23 To achieve effective control over the tribal activities, district
headquarters was shifted to Wokha in 1876. In 1878 the district headquarters was
transferred to Kohima, and Wokha continued to be the sub-division. Again in
1889 the sub-division headquarters was shifted from Wokha to Mokokchung.23
Following the forward policy the British were able to conquer the Naga Hills and
exercised sovereignty until their departure in 1947.
It was obviously the British who popularised the term Naga given a
common ethnic identity, especially, since the early 19th century for the British
colonial administrative and ethnographic conveniences. The British, who
conquered the Nagas, brought them under their regular administration, had
directly or indirectly created a feeling of isolation and separateness of the Nagas
from the Indians and the Myanmarese, and gave the Nagas a sense of unity
amongst the various Naga tribes. The unity amongst the Nagas fostered by the
British, enhanced the Naga’s pride of being a Naga, and their desire for freedom
131
from other forces, and in particular the Naga’s experience during the World War-
1, are mainly attributed for the rise of Naga nationalism. Sometimes the period
around the early 20th century is understood to mark the beginning of the Naga
Nationalist movement for independence. The Naga National Movement had been
shaped by many factors- the traditional way of life (Naga ethos), Naga contact
with the Ahoms and the British, the two World Wars I&II, forces of
modernization, etc.23The first ever political and social organisation, called ‘Naga
Club’, was founded in 1918, with the joined efforts of government officials,
village headmen, and included some Nagas who returned from France.
The Naga national question was not born on the eve of Indian
Independence in 1947. Sovereignty and independence of the Nagas highlights
that the Nagas sense of nationhood and solidarity began ever since the Nagas have
been in existence in recorded history as far back as the 13th Century when the
Ahoms faced the fierce resistance from the Nagas while crossing the latter’s
territory from Thailand. The same spirit of solidarity was shown when they
encountered the British in 1832.
Throughout the history of the Nagas they were politically active and
maintained their self-identity. When the Simon Commission came to India, the
Nagas submitted a Memorandum on January 10th, 1929 that they should be left
alone to determine their own future the day British left India.23 An analysis of
the memorandum placed by the Naga Club before the British Government, which
was also sent to some leading Indian leaders, reveal the truth that the Nagas were
very much worried about their future political status. Based on the voice of the
Nagas and their nature of lifestyle, the British Government had declared the Naga
Hills as an excluded area and had exempted the Naga people from direct
legislation and administration. At the internal level they were given maximum
autonomy. When there was transfer of power, Nagas wanted full assurance of
their rights. That is why while submitting a memorandum before the Simon
Commission in 1929 they had expressed the feelings that the Nagas had much
132
fear of introduction of foreign laws and customs to dominate over their own
customary laws. Again, in April 1946, the Naga National Council had sent a
delegation to New Delhi to inform the Cabinet Mission that the Naga’s future
would not be bound by any arbitrary decision of the British government and that
they would not accept any decision if the Nagas had not been consulted about it
previously.23
Integration with the Union of India
The Naga’s integration with the Union of India was problematic. On
February 20, 1947, the NNC sent a Memorandum to Lord Mountbatten the then
Vice-Roy of India for setting up an “Interim Government” for the Nagas for a
period of 10 years, at the end of which the Nagas will be left to choose any form
of government as to their wish. This was followed by the agreement of the Naga
Akbar Hydari (Governor of Assam) Accord (26-28 June 1947) between the
representatives of 10 Naga tribes and the Government of Assam was signed at
Kohima, the capital of Nagaland.23 The proposed agreement, better known as
“Governor’s 10 years agreement” based on the interim government for ten years,
demanded by the Nagas in February, 1947, was fully discussed. During the
discussion of the agreement, Sir Akbar Hydari threatened the Nagas with military
power in the presence of Sir Pawsey the then Deputy Commissioner of Naga Hills
and others. His threat was considered as a challenge, and it enraged the people.23
On the eve of British departure from India, the Indo-Naga issue became
complicated as independent India was to inherit all such territories, which formed
the part of British India. On the other side, the Naga political leaders were
demanding a separate, sovereign and independent state of Nagaland. The
President of Naga National Council Mr. A.Z. Phizo, took the lead of Naga
national movement and organised the people to participate in the freedom
struggle. The Naga National Council did move quickly with their extreme line of
action, and declared the Naga National Independence on August 14, 1947. The
133
Government of India applied the policy of persuasion to accept the constitutional
provisions for the district of Naga Hills. This different political will led to arms
conflict between the two entities.23 In 1948, Draft Constitution of India was
published wherein Naga Hills District was included as an Autonomous District
in Assam. The Agreement reached between the NNC and the Governor of Assam
“Governor’s 10 years agreement” was totally ignored. The NNC rejected the
Draft Constitution and appointed a working committee for implementation of the
Governor’s Agreement. They decided to send a delegation as the last resort to
discuss with the government, the implementation of the agreement. But, to their
disappointment, the government refused to agree for any implementation of the
agreement. By then, even the moderates realised that the Government of India
would not pay attention to the voice of the Naga leaders. This convinced them to
join the extremists. On February 18, 1950, the enraged NNC passed a resolution
that, no Naga should join the Assam Legislature or Indian parliament. The
aspiration and inspiration of the Naga to fight for freedom was through peace and
good-will, not through bloodshed.23 Against the malicious propagandas of the
Indian Government, the NNC in desperation conducted the plebiscite beginning
from May 16, 1951 which lasted for about two months with the volunteers taking
the papers to all the villages. When the thumb impressions were collected, it
amounted to a resounding 99% verdict for Naga Independence. On August 7,
1952 Prime Minister Nehru speaking in the Lok Sabha dismissed the Naga
demand as completely unwise, impracticable, and unacceptable. In the same year
the Nagas boycotted the District Council Scheme for the Naga Hills District and
the first general election of India. On March 30, 1953 the Nagas also boycotted
the visit of Nehru with his counterpart the then Prime Minister of Burma when
they were not allowed to address them by the Indian administrator. Immediately,
following this programme, arrest warrants were issued against eight NNC leaders.
134
Emergence of Nagaland State
By 1954 armed violence, murder, arson, looting and kidnapping had
became quite common and widespread under the provisions of the Assam
Maintenance of Public Order Act 1953 followed by Assam Disturbed Area Act
1955. The Naga political struggle turned into a nightmare of killing, torture,
molesting and raping, burning of houses and granaries that went from bad to
worse. On the other side, the Naga underground ambush the military forces as a
retaliatory killing and injuring them. Under such circumstances, some moderate
leaders came together to play as a middle role between the conflicting parties so
as to save the common people from the atrocities of the armed forces. These
leaders representing various tribes formed the Naga People’s Convention in 1957.
In its first session held at Kohima on August 21, 1957, under the president of late
Dr. Imkongliba Ao, the NPC proposed the formation of separate administrative
unit by merging the Tuensang division of North Eastern Frontier Agency (NEFA)
with Naga Hills District under the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government
of India. The Government of India agreed to the proposal and on December 1,
1957, the new administrative unit known as the Naga Hills and Tuensang Area
was inaugurated. The Naga People’s Convention, against its aim of playing the
mediator between India and Federal Government of Nagaland, started to take up
a negotiating position, against the Naga National Council. The second Naga
People’s Convention was held at Ungma, from 21st to 23rd May 1958. The
convention appointed a Liaison Committee to explore the Sixteen Point
Memorandum for the constitution of a separate state to be called Nagaland under
the Union of India. With little modification in the third convention held from 22nd
to 26th October, 1959, at Mokokchung, was submitted to the Government of India
for approval. The 16-Point proposal was considered by the Government of India
and accordingly, the 16th State of India called, ‘Nagaland’ was constituted under
the State of Nagaland Act, 1962. On February 18th, 1961 an interim body of 42
members was constituted. Dr. Imkongliba Ao, who was the first chairman of the
135
Naga People’s Convention, was appointed the first chairman of the Interim Body.
On August 21st, 1962 the then Prime Minister Pandit Nehru introduced a Bill in
the Parliament for the formation of Nagaland as a full fledged State. The Act
provides for the formation of the State of Nagaland as the 16th State in the Indian
Union, and on December 1st, 1963, President Dr. S. Radhakrishnan inaugurated
the State of Nagaland.
The Naga People’s Convention instead of going for the task of mediation,
turned into political body and settlement was made in July 1960 without
consulting the Federal Government of Nagaland. The 16-Point Agreement of
Nagaland is considered by some as the biggest blunder of the Naga National
Political History.23 The creation of Nagaland state within the Union of India was
not the desire of majority of the Nagas. The underground Nagas were against the
so called move of some section of the over-ground Nagas for the creation of
Nagaland State. It was, however, a great success for the Government of India for
being able to pursue their interests over some over-ground Nagas. It is through
this scheme that India could decisively make inroad into the political history of
the Nagas. The creation and existence of Nagaland State caused great confusion
and controversy among the Nagas. It also further divided the Nagas. Even today,
the Nagaland State is a bone of contention among various sections of Naga
society, and until today the Naga nationalist, no matter which faction, has not
recognised the existence of Nagaland State.
Peace Mission
After the creation of the state, the situation did not improve but instead
worsened. Therefore, the Nagaland Baptist Churches Council at its third
convention at Wokha adopted a resolution on February 2, 1964 and Peace
Mission was officially constituted of Mr. B.P. Chaliha, the then Chief Minister of
Assam, Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan, the then Member of Indian Parliament also
Sarvodaya leader, and Revd. Michael Scott. The formation of the peace mission
136
was agreed upon by both the Government of India and the Federal Government
of Nagaland. Soon, they also declared bilateral cease-fire with effect from
September 6, 1964.
The four years of parleys between the Government of India and Naga
Federal Government resulted in complete failure. None of them was ready to
make any compromise either altering their view or sacrificing even single point
that they had adopted. Hence, there was no scope for any compromise. It appears
that both sides were trying to understand each other in regard to the Naga issue.
However, the Government of India had full control over the administration of
Nagaland with the support of the moderate Naga leaders. The Government of
India wanted to gain their confidence avoiding direct armed tussle with them. It
is precisely for these reasons that the Government of India listened to their
viewpoints patiently and tried to make the Federal Government of Nagaland
understand the futility of their demand. But the Federal Government of Nagaland
was not ready to surrender their demand of Naga Independence. The Federal
Government of Nagaland wanted to strengthen its position for which they needed
suspension of armed conflicts.23 Unfortunately, the six rounds of talk failed in
spite of the hard work of the peace mission. Thus, the talk ended in deadlock and
the arms conflict resumed and the situation went from bad to worse.
Despite stiff opposition from the undergrounds, the moderate Naga leaders
began to form the government under the protection of Indian Armed Forces.
Slowly, to avoid the atrocities meted by the armed forces, the common people
also consented to give their support to the state government and began to
participate in the general elections.
State Legislative Assembly Elections from 1964 to 2013
Table 3 Performance of Political Parties in State General Election - 1964
137
Party Contested Won Vote
Polled
Vote
percentage
Naga National
Organisation
40 36 No proper
record
Democratic Party 40 4 -do-
Seat Reserved for
Tuensang
6
Grand Total 80 46
Statistical Report on General Election, 1964 the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland, Election Commission of India, New Delhi
The first general election was held in 1964 from January 10-16. The Naga
National Council (NNO) and Democratic Party (DP) had contested the election.
Out of total 46 seats six were reserved for the Tuensang District to be chosen by
the Regional Council. Out of 80 contestants for the 40 seats, NNO party won 34
seats and became the single majority to run the Government.
Table 4 Performance of Political Parties in State General Election - 1969
Party Contested Won Vote
Polled
Vote
percentage
Naga National
Organisation
40 22 53507 38.66
United Front of Nagaland 30 10 30109 29.22
Independent 74 8 54783 46.67
Seat Reserved for
Tuensang
12
Grand Total 144 52 138399
Statistical Report on General Election, 1969 the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland, Election Commission of India, New Delhi
138
The second general election was held on 6th February 1969. The number of
seat for the Tuensang was raised to 12 and so the strength of the Assembly
became 52. There were 144 candidates in the field for 40 seats. The NNO won
22 seats, the United Front of Nagaland won 10 seats and Independent won 8 seats.
The 12 members and 8 Independent members joined the NNO and formed the
Ministry headed by Mr. Hokishe Sema.
Table 5 Performance of Political Parties in State General Election -1974
Party Contested Won Vote
Polled
Vote
percentage
Naga National
Organisation
58 23 103515 36.26
Unite Democratic Party 453 25 87005 33.69
Independent 108 12 99379 39.09
Grand Total 219 60 289899
Statistical Report on General Election, 1974 the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland, Election Commission of India, New Delhi
The third General Election was held on 12th, 14th and 16th February 1974.
With the allocation of 20 seats to the Tuensang district, the total strength of the
Assembly was raised to 60. From this time on the seat reserved for the Tuensang
district was also open for direct election under different political party. The total
number of the contestants was 219 for 60 seats, of which NNO won 23, United
Democratic Party 25 and Independent won 12. The 12 Independent members
decided the fate to form the Government by joining the UDP headed by Mr. Vizol
Angami.
Due to a grave political crisis in the State, President’s Rule under Article
356 of the Indian Constitution was imposed on March 22, 1975, for 32 months,
so far the longest in the country.
139
Table 6 Performance of Political Parties in State General Election -1977
Party Contested Won Vote Polled Vote
percentage
Indian National Congress 37 15 65616 31.48
United Democratic Front 60 35 127445 39.21
National Convention of
Nagaland
31 1 38528 21.87
Independent 76 9 93405 37.76
Grand Total 204 60 324994
Statistical Report on General Election, 1977 the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland, Election Commission of India, New Delhi
In the fourth General Election held on November 18, 1977, the UDF again
won absolute majority with 35 seats in the House of 60. The national party, Indian
National Congress for the first time contested in 37 constituencies and won 15
seats.
Table 7 Performance of Political Parties in State General Election -1982
Party Contested Won Vote
Polled
Vote
percentage
Indian National Congress 60 24 140420 32.08
United Democratic Front 60 24 140112 32.01
Independent 125 12 157173 40.82
Grand Total 245 60 437705
Statistical Report on General Election, 1982 the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland, Election Commission of India, New Delhi
In the fifth general election conducted on November 10, 1982, there were
only two political parties along with independent candidates contested the
election. The independent candidates supported the congress party to form the
140
government which marked the era of congress rule government in Nagaland till
2003 general election.
Table 8 Performance of Political Parties in State General Election -1987
Party Contested Won Vote
Polled
Vote
percentage
Indian National Congress 60 34 193199 39.84
Bharatiya Janata Party 2 0 926 5.37
Naga National Democratic
Party
60 18 147077 30.33
National Peoples Party 32 1 43782 17.74
Independent 60 7 99937 31.15
Grand Total 214 60 484921
Statistical Report on General Election, 1987 the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland, Election Commission of India, New Delhi
The Congress (I) party had won absolute majority in the sixth general
election held on November 18, 1987, with 34 seats. Another national party, the
Bharatiya Janata Party also contested in two constituencies. The congress
ministry headed by Mr. Hokishe Sema lasted for only eight months as it was
reduced to minority in the house when thirteen of its legislators resigned from the
party on July 30, 1988. Owing to the political crises on August 7, 1988, the
Assembly was dissolved and President’s Rule was imposed in Nagaland for the
second time.
Table 9 Performance of Political Parties in State General Election -1989
Party Contested Won Vote
Polled
Vote
percentage
Indian National Congress 60 36 253792 51.54
141
Nagaland Peoples Council 60 24 205283 41.61
National Peoples Party 8 0 13596 17.53
Independent 12 0 20625 20.71
Grand Total 140 60 493296
Statistical Report on General Election, 1989 the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland, Election Commission of India, New Delhi
The seventh general election for the State Assembly conducted on 21st
January 1989, went in favour of the congress party, winning 36 seats in the house
of 60. A two tier new congress government consisting of 16 Council of Ministers
headed by Mr. S.C. Jamir was sworn on 25th January, 1989. With the crises
amongst the Congress party members, the congress ministry fall and paved the
way for the Join Legislative Ministry. For the first time coalition of both Congress
and Nagaland People’s Council government was formed on 19th June 1990 with
Mr. Vamuzo as the Chief Minister. It virtually left to no opposition in the
Legislative Assembly. Once again the crisis erupted amongst the legislators
leading to the fall of the coalition government.
For the third time with the recommendation of the Chief Minister the State
Legislative Assembly was dissolved and on 2nd April, 1992, President’s Rule was
imposed in Nagaland by the Governor.
Table 10 Performance of Political Parties in State General Election -1993
Party Contested Won Vote
Polled
Vote
percentage
Indian National Congress 59 35 338395 46.02
Bharatiya Janata Party 6 0 2561 2.77
Naga Peoples Council 60 17 239505 32.82
Democratic Labour Party 3 1 3755 9.34
Independent 51 7 148074 35.77
142
Grand Total 179 60 729729
Statistical Report on General Election, 1993 the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland, Election Commission of India, New Delhi
The eight State Assembly election was held on 15th February, 1993. Out of
five different parties the Indian National Congress secured absolute majority of
35 seats rule the government.
Table 11 Performance of Political Parties in State General Election -1998
Party Contested Won Vote
Polled
Vote
percentage
Indian National Congress 60 53 103206 50.73
Independent 17 7 100226 49.27
Grand Total 77 60 203432
Statistical Report on General Election, 1998 the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland, Election Commission of India, New Delhi
Once again, with the renewed mandate the Congress Ministry was installed on 5th
March, 1998 after winning absolute majority in the ninth general election. Out of
60 congress candidates 43 members retuned unopposed while in 17 Assembly
Constituencies where election was conducted the congress won 10 seats and the
remaining 7 seats won by the Independent candidates. Owing to the Indo-Naga
political conflict other political party, non-governmental organization along with
the public had boycotted the general election with a slogan, “Solution first,
Election second.”
Table 12 Performance of Political Parties in State General Election -2003
Party Contested Won Vote
Polled
Vote
percentage
Indian National Congress 60 21 318671 35.86
Bharatiya Janata Party 38 7 96658 15.62
143
National Congress Party 7 0 17726 14.52
All India Trinomol
Congress
2 0 2951 10.27
Janada Dal (U) 13 3 51562 19.50
Rastriya Lok Dal 3 0 1796 4.17
Samata Party 4 1 10456 21.15
Nationalist Democratic
Movemnt
25 5 84699 22.94
Nagaland Democratic Party 2 0 423 1.48
Naga People’s Front 54 19 264534 32.33
Independent 17 4 39285 17.23
Grand Total 225 60 888761
Statistical Report on General Election, 2003 the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland, Election Commission of India, New Delhi
A good number of political parties from both regional and national party had
contested the tenth Assembly election held on 23rd February 2003. Although the
Indian National Congress won single majority seats of 21, yet the party fail to
secure an absolute majority with its allies. A State level coalition government
called the ‘Democratic Alliance of Nagaland’ headed by NPF with Bharatiya
Janata Party and Janata Dal (U) supported by 4 Independent legislators formed
the government.
Table 13 Performance of Political Parties in State General Election -2008
Party Contested Won Vote
Polled
Vote
Percentage
Indian National Congress 60 23 411100 36.63
Bharatiya Janata Party 23 2 60627 13.44
National Congress Party 8 2 45397 24.76
Janada Dal (U) 3 0 3243 5.00
144
Janata Dal (S) 4 0 3671 4.03
Lok Jan Shakti Party 3 0 2960 5.24
Nagaland People’s Front 56 26 380964 36.05
Rashtriya Janata Dal 25 0 74298 15.21
Adarsh Political Party 1 0 81 0.56
United Naga Democratic
Party
2 0 2583 7.20
Independent 33 7 148297 26.36
Grand Total 218 60 1133221
Statistical Report on General Election, 2008 the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland, Election Commission of India, New Delhi
In the eleventh general Assembly election that was polled on 5th March
2008, 3 National Parties, 4 other State parties, one State party, 2 Registered
(unrecognised) Parties and Independent participated the election. With the
support of the 7 Independent legislators, the ‘Democratic Alliance of Nagaland’
formed the government.
Table 14 Performance of Political Parties in State General Election -2013
Party Contested Won Vote
Polled
Vote
Percentage
Indian National Congress 56 8 272515 28.05
Bharatiya Janata Party 11 1 19121 9.19
National Congress Party 15 4 66277 22.61
Naga People’s Front 60 38 515059 47.65
Janada Dal (U) 3 1 18049 33.84
Rashtriya Janata Dal 2 0 5446 11.88
Uited Naga Democratic
Party
1 0 4071 0.37
145
Independent 39 7 194314 17.75
Grand Total 187 59 1094852
Statistical Report on General Election, 2013 the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland, Election Commission of India, New Delhi
On 23rd February, 2013 the NPF won 38 seats in the State Assembly
election. The ‘Democratic Alliance of Nagaland’ having absolute majority in the
House comfortably formed the government.
Looking at the data collected from the Election Commission of India, the
post cease fire period shows an overwhelming support from the voters and the
participation of the National and State parties in the Nagaland Legislative
Assembly election. In 1969 the total vote cast was 138399 and in 1998 the vote
cast was 203432 where as in 2013 it shoot-up to 1094852. The Indian National
Congress was the first national political party which contested the general
elections (State Assembly) in 1977 in Nagaland winning 15 seats. After 1982
State Assembly elections the Congress became the ruling party in the state. The
BJP began to contest in the State assembly elections from 1987. However, it could
not make any headway. The other State parties such as Janata Dal (U), Samata
Party, Rashtriya Janata Party, Janata Dal (S) etc., began to participate in the
Nagaland State Legislative Assembly Election from 2003. The Naga People’s
Front is a regional political party in Nagaland and Manipur. After the general
elections of 2003 it headed the Nagaland Government with a State level coalition
government called the ‘Democratic Alliance of Nagaland’ with Bharatiya Janata
Party and Janata Dal (U). Owing to the grave Indo-Naga political conflicts the
national political parties were treated as anti-Nagas. However, slowly the
common people picked up a sense of racial and lingual affinity and began to show
their keenness of interest in any political party. This was a great sense of
achievement in line of social relations amongst different ethnic groups in
Nagaland and other parts of India.
146
Nagaland has only two members in Parliament one each in Lok Sabha and
Raja Sabha. The first Lok Sabha member was Mr. S.C. Jamir who was elected in
1967 Lok Sabha elections from the Nagaland Nationalist Organisation Party. The
current Member of Parliament is Mr. Neiphio Rio. The State also elects indirectly
by the State legislature one member for the term of six years to the Rajya Sabha.
Melhupra Vero was the Member of Rajya Sabha from Nagaland who was elected
in 1964 from the Indian National Congress Party. The present member is Mr. H.
Khekiho Zhimomi from the Nagaland People’s Party.
Despite having general elections (Lok Sabha and State Assembly) and
forming the subsequent governments in Nagaland, the Nagas faced untold
sufferings due to army excesses. The state has been brought under the President’s
Rule under Article 356 many a times. It still haunts the hearts of the Nagas who
had faced that situation. India, a nation with a large and growing population, is
said to have waged a war to gain territory.23 The Nagas, on the other hand, want
to restore sovereignty from foreign rule. From the very beginning the Nagas
claimed the right to independence and not merely autonomy, insisting that
anything less would leave them vulnerable to the assimilation tendency of Indian
nationalism of the plains. They were firm on their stand that they refused to join
the new republic. The Naga’s desire to remain as an independent state is based
on historical and political rights. Any Naga area that came under the British
Indian administration was through forceful occupation. We can undoubtedly say
that the Nagas would have admitted to the British rule had there been a feeling of
oneness with British or Indians and this Indo-Naga political problem would have
been solved either during British period or at the early part of Indian
Independence. The formation of Statehood on 1st December 1963 would have
been the final resolution of the Indo-Naga conflict. However, that too, could not
materialize. The Nagas were never satisfied with the statehood and the political
fight continued for independence. The signing of the 16 points agreement should
not be taken as the basis of final to pave way for a final political settlement.
147
Whereas, some of the provisions of the 16 point agreement like the ownership of
land and its resources, integration of all the Naga inhabited areas including
reserve forest referred to the provision in Article 3 and 4 of Indian constitution
are far from implementation. Looking at the failure of the Indian Government to
implement the agreement, the mind of the common people or the moderate Nagas
have became more apprehension on the policy of India.
Ceasefire Agreement
For more than seventy years, the Naga political issue remains unresolved,
claiming innumerable lives and bringing pain and tears to every Naga family and
also to those Indian soldiers who had lost their life in Nagaland. The bloody arms
combat between the Indian armed forces and the Naga rebels had created an
abnormal situation in Nagaland. Throughout all these years, peace and right to
livelihood of the common people were disturbed to a great extent. It was at such
moment of pain and sorrow that the civil societies and the state government called
for immediate cessation of war and settle the Indo-Naga political issue through
human and holistic approach. They shouted slogans in the streets, and from roof-
top of houses raising their voice “We want peace.” The Nagaland Baptist Church
Council, the Naga Hoho, the Naga Students’ Federation, the Naga Mothers
Association etc. had launched countless rallies, peace marches involving the
general public, students and even state government employees. Despite several
movements for peace there was an increasing sign of insecurity and the killing
went on unabated. The Government of Nagaland declared 1996 as the “Year of
Peace Offensive” to usher in peace, forgiveness, reconciliation and love of
enemy. At a time when the entire Naga people were yearning for peace, the then
Prime Minister of India, Shri. H. Deve Gowda, had declared an unconditional
peace talk with the Naga undergrounds in 1997. Seizing the opportunity the
National socialist Council of Nagalim (IM) responded positively in order to pave
way for a cease-fire and a final acceptable solution to the age-old Naga political
148
issue. Subsequently, the National socialist Council of Nagaland (K) also followed
by entering into ceasefire agreement with the Government of India in 2001. With
the cessation of arms conflict between the Government of India and the Naga
guerrillas, there is a sigh of relief amongst the Nagas to some extent. But how far
will this peace talk yield real and permanent peace to the region is everybody’s
speculation.
Apart from the Naga political leaders, the Naga civil society took a leading
role in creating a better understanding between the Nagas and the Indians as a
part of conscious efforts to strengthen the struggle for truth, peace and justice.
Under the initiative of the Naga Peoples Movement for Human Rights a ‘people
to people dialogue with Indian Civil Society was conducted from 27th to 31st
January 2000 with the theme, ‘A Journey of Conscience.’” As part of an initiative
to dialogue with the Indian civil society, a delegation of about 60 members
representing the Naga Civil Societies (Naga Hoho), Naga Students’ Federation,
Naga Mother Association, Naga Women Union Manipur, United Naga Council
Manipur, Naga Churches and some individuals went to Delhi, carrying the
message of mutual respect and the need for peaceful co-existence.
In course of the Indo-Naga political talk, one distinct achievement is the
recognition of the uniqueness of the Naga history by the Government of India. In
any future talk, this uniqueness will be the basis to six decades Naga political
issue. An honourable solution is all about taking cognizance of this uniqueness.23
It is the joy of every Naga that at last the Government of India had recognized the
uniqueness of the Naga history which has became the basis in their political
negotiation between the Government of India and the Nagas. Muivah who is the
Chief negotiator of the NSCN in the ongoing political talks, said that after more
than 13 years of talks and meetings with three Prime Ministers, Late Narasimha
Rao, A.B. Vajpayee and Dr. Manmohan Singh, India can no longer say that it
doesn’t know the Nagas and their problems. He said that after years of tough talks
where the NSCN has persistently insisted that there can be no solution as long as
149
Naga history and identity is not respected and as long as Nagas and their land is
divided, Indian leaders have finally admitted that Naga history cannot be
ignored.23Obviously the present peace process should not turn out to be other
1964 peace talks where the Government of India without recognizing the
uniqueness of the Naga history held political talks. In the pass the leaders of India
have treated the Nagas like any other North East insurgent group. As a result it
did not bear any fruits, but rather aggravated the situation and has made the issues
more complicated.
The success of the peace process between the two entities depends on how the
Government of India will address the issue. What is the Government of India’s
understanding on the uniqueness of the Naga history? To what extent have they
understood their past mistakes while addressing the need of building peaceful
resolution of the already broken relation between the two nations? It is felt that
the Government of India must first understand and confess their past crimes
perpetrated upon innocent Nagas and then address the issues with greater love
and care, although the wounds cannot be healed easily. During the last 60 years
of conflict between the Nagas and Indians, the Indian armed forces had
perpetrated untold atrocities upon the innocent Nagas without rhyme or reason.
Properties worth billions of rupees were destroyed by the Indian security forces;
in addition, they (security forces) can never be able to redeem themselves of
their “sins” of 60 years by engaging in civic actions like construction of
community halls, playgrounds, distributing computer sets and organizing medical
camps etc. Despite the prevalence of uneasy calm in the Naga areas in general,
“the Indian Army and Paramilitary forces have been interested in creating havoc
by arresting innocent people on false charges.”23
In spite of the cease-fire agreement there used to be ugly incidents
happening in Naga territory. Various organizations condemned such cowardice
act by the Indian armies since 1954. The Assam Rifles with some notoriety has
remained engaged in armed action on the civilians resulting in firing on the
150
innocent people. It is not understood how and why the Assam Rifles cadres
should go all the way to carry out the assault, without provocation from the
NSCN.23 Several organizations like Nagaland Baptist Church Council, Nagaland
Scholars Associations, Central Nagaland Tribes Council, etc., have further
condemned the alleged occupation of the Mekokla Baptist Church building and
from where attacking and killing the people by the 28 Assam Rifles on October
22 and 23, 2016. It stated that, “defiling the sanctity of the worship place, the
church and failing to pay due respect to the sacred place.” Security forces cannot
behave and create fear as they have done in the 1950s and 60s.23 Naga People
Movement for Human Rights also recalled the incident of July 11, 1971, where
four teenage girls (all below 18 years) were alleged to have been tortured and
raped from the pulpit of the Yankeli Baptist Christian Church under Wokha
district by the Indian security forces. This kind of human rights violations and
psychological abuses have rekindled horrible memories in India’s occupational
war against the Nagas for nearly a century.23
It has become difficult for the common people to give comment on the
subject matter because of the sensitivity of the situation. They were afraid to
speak the truth for fear of being subjected to torture, persecution, social exclusion
and threat to livelihood in the community. “To live free from fear is the basic
human right” said, Z. Katery. No doubt, people are enjoying a peaceful life after
the signing of the ceasefire between the Government of India and the NSCNs, but
common people are still having apprehension on the policy of the Government of
India.
The Naga Hoho today questioned India’s bid for a seat in the United
Nations Security Council when its security forces wage internal wars backed by
“unrestricted and unaccounted power to carry out their operations”. “India, to be
a permanent member of the United Nation Security Council, needs first to do
away with such outdated, draconian, imperialistic, aggressive, uncivilized acts
like the Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1953, Armed Forces (Special
151
Power) Regulation Act, 1958, the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special
Powers (Amendment) Act, 1972, the Nagaland Security Regulation, 1962 etc.23
Thereby, both the parties have to go back to the place from where the conflict has
started. It is well known to them that before the ugly armed conflict, there existed
a mutual trust and understanding between them.
It is very unfortunate that the rise of insurgency in the North-East has been
interpreted as terrorism before the international community by the Government
of India. This is why conflict resolution fails. It can be translated as an alternative
method of peace efforts which needed right responses. It is a liberal movement,23
as failure to understand this resulted into conflicts because people want their right,
security, recognition, identification and freedom. It may be important to recall the
historic trends of the Nagas liberation movement into the peace perspective rather
than conflict resolution. Many of these insurgents did not think that they are part
of Indian nation and think they constitute distinct nations and demand for the right
of self-determination. In response to insurgencies in these states, the official
strategies of conflict resolution is guided by inadequate efforts on the part of the
state to represent the distinct ethnic communities by incorporating them into its
defined framework of nationhood. The Indian state deliberately followed divide
and rule policy by creating division between the insurgents and the respective
ethnic communities that it represents. It demonised the insurgents and accused
them of opposition of interest of the ethnic communities. All sides of the
negotiations must be honest and truthful; the Indian state must never try to
negotiate while at the same time try to divide the people they are negotiating
with.23
Current Situation
The signing of the historic “Framework Agreement” between the
Government of India and the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isaac-
Muivah) in the presence of the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi on August 3, 2015
152
had brought glimmers of hope for the Naga populace. The content of the
agreement are, however, not in the public domain, leading to differing
perceptions amongst the various stake holders. What they said is that both the
parties agreed that sovereignty, according to the universal principle of
democracy, lies with the people, not a government or a monarch. And that
sovereignty of the Nagas lies with the Naga people and sovereignty of India lies
with Indian people. However, with a view to solving the Indo-Naga political
problem both the parties agreed to share sovereign power for an enduring and
peaceful co-existence of the two entities. The Chief Minister of Nagaland urged
upon “every Naga citizen to support solution for permanent peace,” saying Nagas
have had enough of arms confrontations and that it was high time to find a
peaceful solution through dialogue and negotiations. “Let us make this land free
of armed conflict, which is the only way to take our state towards progress and
development. It is also my desire that this spirit of unity and consensus prevalent
at the state level should also percolate down to the grass-root level.”23 He is joined
by other 59 Members of Legislative Assembly, supporting the on-going Indo-
Naga peace talk. Other leading Non-Governmental Organisations like Naga
Hoho, Naga Mother’s Association, Naga Students’ Federation, Tribal Hohos,
etc., are also fully supporting the talk with a hope that the solution will arise at
the earliest. We have heard many assurances from the Indian leaders, but how far
the Indian side will keep their promises. The latest one is the Indian Union Home
Minister, Shri. Rajnath Singh had assured that the Central government was
serious about resolving the Naga issue once and for all. He stated that “the
initiative to resolve the Naga issue, for once and all, to the greatest satisfaction of
Naga people has made good progress in the last two years. We are confident that
the enduring peace in Naga areas is not far away.” He added, “I know that India
cannot be happy if our Naga brothers and sisters are unhappy. India cannot be
great unless our Naga brothers and sisters share this sense of greatness.”23
153
Sources collected from the focus group discussion it revealed that the
Government of India is applying a delaying tactic, and trying to bring more
division among the Nagas. The Nagas are questioning the Government of India
on why eighteen years of peace talk could not yield any result. Further they said
that the Government of India should know why we are fighting for our rights.
Some reasons include a historical perspective behind the right of self-
determination, a sense of alienation, exclusion, neglect and apathy generated in
the people’s mind.23The talks have remained inconclusive even after more than
70 round of talks and the Nagas are getting impatient because not a single debate
has been opened to the public on crucial points being discussed between the two
parties. The Government of India must not prepare only for peaceful atmosphere
but should recognize the rights and solve the age old Indo-Naga political issue.
“The layman’s understanding is evidently limited and visible: while the talks have
brought in relative calm and peace, not a bean has been spilled to at least share
where and in which juncture, the protracted negotiations now stand.” Said, Robin
Mesen.
The enthusiasm among people which existed when the talks first started
between the Government of India and the National Socialist Council of Nagalim
is slowly disappearing, stated by Kekhrie Yhome.23 Inshah Malik stated that “in
a situation of war, peace talks are India’s way of buying time and enforcing death
to Naga’s aspiration of self-determination.” He further stated, “Any talk should
aim towards resolving the political problems and not mere generation of peace
while there is killing in the streets.”23 After a thorough analysis of the prevailing
situation we may conclude that the people of this region are not living happily
and securely as peace is still elusive as ever.
Conclusion
When people are not satisfied with their present set of goals, conflict arises.
Dissatisfaction can lead to annoyance if the goals are not met for long. In such
154
situation if annoyance is politicised, conflict becomes eminent and meets with
deadliest ends. The NSCN (IM) leadership has been extremely accommodating
and at times even ready to tone down of their demands “in order to help India.”23
Any outcome of the resolution will definitely benefit the Indian side because in
the process of resolution there will be a give and take.
The stage of peace is where there is no threat to human livelihood. Peace
is to provide protection from plundering the rights of the people’s livelihood. It
extends to guarantee protection to the weaker ones or to people who have been
under subjugation. It is not in a situation where fear is instilled in the mind of the
people, making them to remain silent even at the expense of their right to life.
Peace is the innate desire of every human being. 23 For the Nagas, the
understanding about peace is very simple and clear, the common people’s
understanding of peace means non-interference in each other’s affairs and
livelihood and maintaining good relationship which was strictly adhered and
practiced in the past. Their historical context of the uses of violence with regard
to issues involving territorial sovereignty, ideology and self-determination and
economic power was never heard. This is the uniqueness of the Naga history. To
live without fear is near impossible so long the Indo-Naga political issue remains
unsolved.
.
155
Bibliography:
1. Ao Lanunungsang, From Phizo to Muivah: The Naga Natinal Question in
North-East India, (New Delhi: Mittal Publications 2002)
2. Alemchiba M, Art and crafts: A Brief Historical Account of Nagaland,
(Kohima: Naga Institute of Culture, 1970)
3. Asoso Yunuo, The Rising Nagas, (New Delhi: Vevek Publication House,
1974)
4. Bareh H, Gazetteer of India, Nagaland, Kohima District, (Kohima:
Government of Nagaland, 1970)
5. - Compton’s Pictured Encyclopedia and Fact Index, Vol. 15, F.E. Compton
& Company, William Benton, Chicago.
6. Ghosh B.B., History of Nagaland, (New Delhi: S.Chand & Company Ltd.
Ram Nagar 1982)
7. Haimendore Furer, Naked Nagas, Second Edition. (New Delhi: Vikas
Publication House, 1976).
8. Macdonald R.H. D’silva, Census of India, Vol. XXIII, Nagaland Part V-
A, Director of Census Operation, Delhi: the Manager of Publication– 6
1968
9. Major Anand V.K, Nagaland in Transition, Associate Publishing House
New Delhi 110005, Reprinted 1984
10. Major Butler, Account of the Naga Tribes in 1873.
11. Mukhim, (2006) Redefining Peace in North-East in Prasenjit Biswas and
C. Joseph Thomas (eds)Peace in India’s North-East Meaning, Metaphor
and Method, Essays of Concern and Commitment (New Delhi: Regency
Publication).
12. Kent Daniel, “Census of India,” Series – 15 Part II A Nagaland, Director
of Census Operation, Delhi: the Controller of Publication Civil Lines 1975
156
13. - Census of India 2011 Nagaland, Directorate of Census Operations,
Delhi: The Controller of Publication Civil Lines
14. Ramunny, Murkot, The World of Nagas, (New Delhi: Northern Book
Centre 1993)
15. Rev. Nuh V.K., My Native Country, the Land of the Nagas (Guwahati:
Spectrum Publications 2002)
16. Robinson William, “A Descriptive Account of Assam 1841.” Edited by
Verrier Elwin the Nagas in the Nineteenth Century. (Bombay: John Brown,
Oxford University Press, Apollo Bunder, 1 BR, 1969).
17. Shimray R.R, Origin and Culture of the Nagas, (New Delhi: Somok
Publication, 1985).
18. Singh Chandrika, Naga Politicsa Critical Account, (New Delhi: Mettal
Publications 2004)
19. Vashum R, Naga’s Right to Self-Determination, Second Edition(New
Delhi: Mittal Publication 2005)
20. Thong Joseph S, Nagaland Linguistic Profile, “Status and use of
Language for Awareness and Promotion of Minorities Language”
Tseminyu: Jos and Compilation and Translation Chamber, Nagaland NE
India
21. – Statistical Report on General Election, 1964 the “Legislative Assembly of Nagaland,” Election Commission of India, New Delhi
22. – Statistical Report on General Election, 1969 the “Legislative Assembly of Nagaland,” Election Commission of India, New Delhi
23. – Statistical Report on General Election, 1974 the “Legislative Assembly of Nagaland,” Election Commission of India, New Delhi
24. – Statistical Report on General Election, 1979 the “Legislative Assembly of Nagaland,” Election Commission of India, New Delhi
25. – Statistical Report on General Election, 1982 the “Legislative Assembly of Nagaland,” Election Commission of India, New Delhi
26. – The Naga National rights and Movement, Publicity & Information
Department NNC 1993
157
27. - Nagaland State Human Development Report 2004, Department of
Planning & Coordination Government of Nagaland
Magazines and Periodical Papers:
1. - Souvenir, Government of Nagaland, Commemorating 35 years of
Statehood, Kohima 1st December 1999.
2. – 50th Report of the Commissioner for Linguistic Minorities in India, New
Delhi: Government of India, 2013
3. Deepak Dewan, Time for Peace, North-East India Vol. 3 No. 4, (New
Delhi: Sun Publication) 1997
4. Retd. Leut. V.S. Atem, The Naga Consultative Meet, Kohima, 5th-7th
March 2009.
5. Neiphiu Rio, Indo-Naga Peace Talk, Kohima, Naga Consultative Meet, 5th
March 2009.
6. Aküm Longchari, Naga Hoho demand political prisoners release, The
Morung Express, Dimapur, dated March 10, 2011.
- India is Changing, The Morung Express, Dimapur, dated March 22,
2011.
- Sitting Around the Fire, The Morung Express, Dimapur, 29th March
2011.
- For peace and friendship, The Morung Express, Dimapur Vol. IX
No.116 April 30, 2014
- For peace and friendship, The Morung Express, Dimapur Vol. IX
No.116 April 30, 2014
- Assam Rifles occupation of Mekokla Church evokes sharp protest, The
Morung Express, Dimapur, Vol XI, Issue 296, October 28, 2016
158
7. Geoffrey Yadden, One killed, two injured in Wokha Assam Rifle
Operation, Nagaland Post, Vol XXVI No. 317, Dimapur Nagaland,
October 24. 2016
- Lotha Organizations to hold protest over Oct. 23 killings, Nagaland
Post, Vol XXVI No. 318, Dimapur Nagaland, October 25. 2016
- Okotso firing: NPMHR hits back at AR, Nagaland Post, Vol XXVI No.
324, Dimapur October 31, 2016
- On Naga Political Solution, Nagaland Post Vol. XXVI No. 327
Dimapur November 3, 2016.
- Naga Solution not Far Away: Rajnath, Nagaland Post, Vol. XXVI No.
330, Dimapur November 6, 2016
Political Developments in Sikkim: From Monarchy to Statehood and Beyond
Satyabrat Sinha, Presidency University. Kolkata
The state of Sikkim is part of the North East Council and formally recognized as part of India’s
North East. There has been over time institutionalization of North East (NE) India as a region
that incorporates not merely the strategic geographical location, connected to ‘mainstream’
India by a narrow land corridor called the Chicken Neck, but also Indians of particular racial
features. While these factors do apply to Sikkim and there is a declared and a recognized
identity of Sikkim as part of the rubric called North East India, Sikkim is in many ways different
from the other North East states not being contiguous to the rest of the NE or connected though
the chicken’s neck. The history of Sikkim as a kingdom and later a protectorate of British and
independent India, its geographic location, and the ethnic and political identity of being
‘Sikkimese’, qualitatively makes it unique in the North East region.
Part I Prelude to Statehood
Brief History
159
The recorded history of Sikkim goes back to mid-17th century with the establishment of the
Namgyal dynasty. The Namgyal dynasty traces its origin to Tibet23 and ruled Sikkim till1975
after which Sikkim became the twenty-second state of India. The Tibetan migrants or Bhutias
established themselves as traders and pastoralists and a blood brotherhood, lho-mon-tsong23
led to state formation in Sikkim. The autochthones Lepchas accepted the suzerainty of the
Bhutias and many converted to Buddhism. The native Limbus (also called Tsongs) and the
Mangars23 too extended their solidarity to the Bhutia ruler23. Thus, Sikkim is said to be in
official narratives an ethnic commonwealth created of an organic family of three ethnic stocks.
The Namgyal dynasty rulers established the first centralized administration in Sikkim. The
kingdom operated like the private estate of the King. Centrally, the king was assisted by a
secretary and a personal attendant and there was no departmental system or a vertical
distribution of administrative functions. Regional and local administration was vested in
Dzongpon (governors) and in the Kazis for their private estates23. The close cultural and
religious ties with Tibet were underscored with marriage alliances and the repeated refuge the
Sikkim royalty took in Tibet during troubled times. The Gorkha invasion of Sikkim in 1789
led to the occupation of the Sikkimese territory west ofTeesta by Nepal till 1817. With the
treaty23 of Titaliya, the British got the Gorkhas to withdraw from Sikkim to the east of the river
Mechi, the current boundary between India and Nepal. But the British discovered and used
easily available Nepalese labour in the entire Eastern Himalayan region and specifically so in
Darjeeling in the post-1835 phase to clear forests and develop Darjeeling as a sanatorium and
an urban centre. It is with the treaty of Tumlong in 1861 that the British found a foothold in
Sikkim and employedimperial power to open the trade to Tibet and appoint a Political Officer
and direct the trajectory and administration in Sikkim directly till 1914 and indirectly till
194723. Independent India as a successor state of British India inherits these privileges and
Sikkim becomes a protectorate of India.
Demography and Ethnicity
The Lepchas are identified as the ‘original’ inhabitants of Sikkim’s plural community with two
other distinct ethnic stocks: the Bhutias and the Nepalese23. Nepalese is a linguistic-community
and a wider term that includes migrants from Nepal as well as the Kirantis.They consist of
Limbus, Mangars and Rais, who are said to be indigenous to Sikkim while those having their
160
own distinct dialect are now considered Nepalese. In fact, the name Sikkim, derives from the
Limbu word, Sukhim which means New House.
The kingdom of Sikkim is characterized as feudal theocracy and was oppressive. It imposed a
number of forced unpaid labour, variously called begar23, on the peasants23. The Namgyal
Dynasty through intermarriages withthe Lepchas, consolidated their hold over Sikkim.
However, the LepchaKazis were of a lower order known as a-den or created or fashioned while
the BhutiaKazis were of a higher order and known as Bar-fung-mo or flowing from the high23.
The Kazis and later even Nepalese, some of the early settlers who became lessee landlords,
Thikadars, had unbridled power over the peasants which incorporated both police and judicial
powers, and could confiscate property, imprison and flog tenants in their private gaols.
The Bhutia immigration, establishment and consolidation of the Namgyal dynasty led to state
formation in Sikkim23. The traditional land system in Sikkim was that all land belonged to the
Bhutia ruler and the king would gift out portions of land to his courtiers who became kazis,
The Bhutia rulers took Lepcha wives but were selective and restricted it to the Lepcha elite. So
we have very few LepchaKazis and no Limbu kazi, the kazis were mostly Bhutia. The
Lepchapractise of shifting hill cultivation and the availability of abundant land essentially
meant that individual land holding on a permanent basis had not emerged. Thus, after the
immigration of Bhutias, the ownership of cultivable land was under the control of the Bhutia
landlords and aristocrats in the name of the feudal king. It is with the beginning of large scale
Nepalese immigration into Sikkim that the pattern of land settlement and ownership gets
challenged23 . There was the increase in population within the country thereby increasing
pressure on resources.
John Claude White, the first British political officer in Gangtok set about trying to reogranise
the administration of Sikkim with the help of a council of advisors. White introduced the Land
lease system in Sikkim, whereby the Newars23 are invited to Sikkim to mine copper and mint
coins. In order to increase land revenue, forestland was made available to Nepalese labour for
agricultural development. British policy thereby encouraged the settlement of Paharias(as the
later Nepalese settlers were referred to as) in Sikkim.
Feudal System
161
The feudal system was headed by the King and was kept in place by the kazis and the
Thikadars. The feudal structure reduced the King to a mere figure head and it is the landlords
and the lamas of monastic estates who were high handed, oppressive and treated peasants as
slaves.
The oppressive system and the subjugation of the Nepalese tenants lead to
recurringconfrontation between the BhutiaKazis and the Nepalese. The Nepalese tenants paid
higher land rent compared to the Lepchas and the Bhutia peasants and worked under more
exploitative labour obligations like kurwa, bheti, jharlangandkalobhari23.
By the late 19th century, the King was complaining to the British about Nepalese immigration
and an imaginary line north of Gangtok was established from east to west, which would be the
northern limit of Nepalese settlement in Sikkim23. By the third census of Indiain 1891, the
Nepalese population in Sikkim was 15,458 out of a total 30,458 inhabitants in Sikkim. In 2011
census, out of a total population of 6,07,688 the Nepalese comprised almost 75% of the total
population.
Table 123:Demography Sikkim (Census Reports of India 2011)
Census Year Total
Population
Bhutia
Population
Lepcha
Population
Nepalese
Population
1891 30,458 4,800 5,700 15,458
1911 87,920 - 11,020 50,000
1921 81,721 - - -
1931 109,808 11,955 13,060 84,693
1941 121,520 - 12,532 -
1951 138,093 15,626 13,625 97,863
1961 162,863 36,577 12,720 108,165
1971 210,205 23,562 33,360 134,236
1981 316,840 36,426 27,814 192,295
1991 406,000 38,322 29,854 256,418
2001 541,902 41,825 35,728 338,606
2011 607,688 97,230 78,999 407,150
162
The Gorkha invasion of Sikkim added to thedeteriorating relations between the Nepalese and
the Bhutia rulers and furthered the binary of a Buddhist Sikkim and Hindu Nepalese. The
British encouragement of immigration into Darjeeling created new opportunities for the
Nepalese to escape from tradition and slavery. The growth of Darjeeling took place at the cost
of Sikkim and Bhutan and their depleting manpower. Nepalese industriousness was rewarded
and Darjeeling became a model of Nepalese labour. The British were also suspicious of
Tibetans and found the Nepalese more pliable to their imperial design and encouraged their
settlement in the Eastern Himalayan region of Western, Southern Sikkim (as well as in Bhutan)
as Claude White’s system of taxation and revenue needed more land to be brought under
cultivation in sparsely populated Sikkim.
The British push into Sikkim also lead to the Indian business community making their foray
into Sikkim. And the pluralist landscape was divided along community lines with the Lepchas
occupying the slopes and the valleys in Central/Western and South Eastern Sikkim, the Bhutias
occupying the hill tops in North and North East Sikkim, the Nepalese in Southern and Western
regions of Sikkim and the Indian business community in the urban areas. But the larger politics
of the region coalesced around a bi-polar system, two distinct and opposing systems with
Bhutia-Lepchas on one side and the Nepalese on the other side23. However, this bi-polar system
was not as clear and neat, as the historical records mention the support of the Lepcha Prime
Minister, Khangsa Dewan and his brother Phodong Lama, to early Nepalese settlers. Lepchas,
possibly saw Nepalese as adding to their ranks against the Bhutia rulers.
With the withdrawal of British imperial power in South Asia, political movements in Sikkim
arose to reform the feudal system and led to the emergence of interesting alignments23, in the
nature of a class conflict, obliterating ethnic, cultural and racial boundaries and crystallised
along two coalitions-ruler, kazis and near thikadars, who were partners in the feudal rule versus
the masses that comprised the laity and the common folk across the ethnic stocks. The feudal
oppression, the ethnic discrimination and the influence of the Indian independence movement
led to the emergence or arousal of ethnic consciousness and the mobilisation of ethnic identity
for political purposes.
Ethnic Political Movements: Groups and Parties
163
The period led to the formation of the earliest socialorganizations in Sikkim. The political
history of Modern Sikkim is usually dated to the emergence of these proto-political parties or
organisations formed for social reform in the 1940’s. The narrative begins in the 1940s with
these quasi-political parties and traces the series of political upheavals that culminate in the
protests of 1973 setting the stage of the merger of Sikkim with India in 1975.
The three organisations 23 formed were the Sikkim RajyaPraja Mandal (SRPM);
RajyaPrajaSammelan(RPS); PrajaSudharakSamaj (PSS). The Sikkim RajyaPraja Mandal in
Chakhung was formed by LD Kazi23 in 1945 who had earlier along with his brother run an
organisation called Young Men’s Buddhist Association in Darjeeling which had founded a
large number of schools.The PrajaSudharakSamaj was formed in Gangtok by TashiTshering
and SonamTshering. The PrajaSammelan was formed by DB Tewari and Govardhan Pradhan
in TemiTarku. The social roots of these organisations lay in their opposition to feudalism and
feudal rulers of Sikkim. The feudal representatives were identified with archaic and feudal
privileges and the masses and the leaders of the proto-parties identified themselves with
democratic aspirations and change. The organisations were limited and localized. Tashi
Ushering of the PSS published a pamphlet called, ‘A few facts about Sikkim State’ in which
he tried to educate the people about the exploitation and atrocities of the Kazis and the
Thikadars23.
The three organizations came together to organise a joint meeting in December 1947,
purportedly to fight the feudal monarchy and formed the Sikkim State Congress (SSC) in 1947
with TashiTshering as its President and declared that their fight was for political and economic
reforms. The SSC was pro-peasant and their main support group comprised of peasants most
of whom were Nepalese, anti-clergy forces and the modernising elite. The leadership of the
party came from all the three main ethnic groups. The trigger for the political organisations
might have been the assertion of the Nepalese, against discrimination, for their rights, but the
SSC’s vision and programs were wider and their three essential demands were the abolition of
landlordism, formation of an interim government and accession to India23. The SSC also sought
guaranteed fundamental rights, codified laws and representative government. The SSC saw
itself as a counterpart of the Indian National Congress and also sought affiliation from them.
In response to the formation and the growing influence of the SSC, the pro-feudal elements
and the palace sponsored the Sikkim National Party (SNP)23 in 1948. The SNP spoke in the
164
voice of concern for the Bhutia-Lepchas and protection of feudal relations and disagreed with
the SSC agenda of accession to India and harped on their ethnic and religious differences with
India and their similarity to Bhutan and Tibet23. The SNP favoured the monarchy and advocated
independence for Sikkim, their politics was to preserve the status quo. They underscored their
indigeneity and pointed to the ‘immigrant’ SSC. The prince and the last King of
Sikkim,PaldenThondupNamgyal, was one of the key actors in the formation of the SNP23.
LD Kazi is generally credited with leading the struggle against the palace and succeeded in
ending the Namgyal dynasty with the merger of Sikkim with India in 1975. The SSC soon after
the demands put before the King ran into factional problems due to the death of its President
TashiTshering and due to its members, Dimik Singh Lepcha and Kashi Raj Pradhan, who
agreed to the communal parity formula in 1953 which violated SSC party position23. LD Kazi
formed the Sikkim Swatantra Dal in 1958 after resigning from the SSC. His politics was one
of equality among the three communities and a welfare state. In 1960, LD Kazi merged the
SwantantraDal with Dhan Bahadur Tewari’sRajyaPrajaSammelan plus the dissenting wing of
the SSC (led by CD Rai), the Scheduled Caste League and the SonamTshering faction of the
SNP to form the Sikkim National Congress (SNC)in his efforts to represent all ethnic groups
to oppose the monarchy in Sikkim23. The SNC’s worked for a constitutional monarchy, a
council based on communal parity elected by a joint electorate, independent judiciary,
fundamental rights, codified laws and representative government.In 1973, the Sikkim Janta
Congress, one of the parties representative of Nepalese interests merged with the SNC to form
the Sikkim Congress which was the dominating party in the 1974 elections and finished the
project of accession to India that was initiated by the SSC and carried forward by the SNC23.
The SNP remained the bastion, politically defending the Namgyal dynasty and the interests of
the minority Bhutia-Lepcha against the majority Nepalese who had been discriminated against
as well as the rising tide of democratic aspirations. The large scale rigging by the pro-palace
elements and the sweeping success of the SNP in the 1973 state council elections led to the
ultimate confrontation.
The bi-polarity represented by the SSC and the SNP set the wider discourse on Sikkim politics.
Political leaders over time crossed over from one party to the other in seeking privileges for
their identity groups or in seeking favours from the palace. It would also be important to
mention that the struggle of the SSC against the feudal monarchy was mediated by the Indian
165
government. Soon after independence, India signed a standstill agreement after which the
India-Sikkim Treaty of 1950 was negotiated.
Nature and Method of Political Struggle
The Indian national movement for independence and its social reformist programs had a
considerable impact on the politics of the SSC 23 . The Indian Congress’s programme of
broadening of the democratic base and the attack on feudalism had its resonance in Sikkim.
Even the social organisations prior to the formation of the SSC were primarily focussed on
abolishing feudalism and the oppression of forced labour (kalobhari; jharlangi; kuruwa; theki-
bethi23) and the exaction of high rents by the lessees. It would be cogent to extrapolate that the
Gandhian methods of political struggle also found their ways into the lexicon of the leaders of
the SSC, a number of whom had been educated in India and were affected by the fever of
national liberation.
In fact, the first demands of the SSC leaders were in the form of requests and petitions to the
Sikkim government23. Once these demands went unnoticed, the SSC launched a mass ‘No tax’
movement that suffered considerable state repression and arrest of its party workers. In the
course of the struggle, the movement adopted the Gandhian Principle of Satyagraha that was
unprecedented in Sikkim. The movement’s effectiveness compelled the palace to invite the
SSC to negotiate23.In fact, with the constant configuration and re-configuration of parties and
political personalities, when the SNC was formed in 1960, it directly took to mass organisations
and rallies. The SNC had learnt from their past experience (as SSC) that merely passing
resolutions and submitting them to the Sikkim Durbar was unlikely to bring about change and
no tax campaigns, non-cooperation movements and non-violent agitation, court arrest were the
ways and means to make their voices heard.
Though political consciousness and the growth and emergence of political parties occurred in
the backdrop of the feudal oppression that largely comprised of the majority Nepalese peasants,
common Bhutias and Lepchas, also suffered at the hands of the landlords and the dominance
of the clergy. The SSC despite having its larger social base among Nepalese took special care
to appear as a forum of consensus and avoid identification with any particular community23.
The SNP in this light was mainly a defender of the status quo and the palace and remained a
party of affluent Bhutias with the backing of the Lamas.
166
The democratic struggle for political, economic and social equality in Sikkim continued along
the above path in subsequent years, as a peasant and working class movement, majority of who
happened to be Nepalese, against the Durbar led feudal aristocracy, who largely comprised of
Bhutia-Lepchakazis as well as Newarthikadars, who were partners in the feudal rule. The old
status quo vested interests opposed all moves by the majority and in its maneuvering introduced
a dangerous mix of communalism.
Negotiation and Settlement
After the emergence of the first political movement in the late 1940s and early 1950’s by the
SSC, the Durbar in efforts to stem the movement and to assuage democratic aspirations led by
the SSC called for elections to the Sikkim State Council, earlier, it had comprised of nominated
members, which would comprise of twelve elected members and five nominated members in
195323.
The elections were restricted adult franchise and the twenty five percent Bhutia-Lepchas and
the sixty seven percent Nepalese both would comprise six seats each of the twelve elected
members thereby maintaining ethnic parity between the majority and the minority23. The
election system by the second elections in 1958 become extremely complex as a successful
candidate had to obtain a minimum of fifteen percent votes from the community other than his
own. The King wanted safeguards for the minority community and insisted on the parity
formula, while the SSC in principle rejected the parity formula. The communal mix became
even more complicated with a play on an exclusive Sikkimese identity after the introduction
of the Sikkim Subject Regulations in 1961, thatrecognized the earliest settlers. Initially, only
Bhutias, Lepchas and Tsongs/Limbus were recognised as people entitled to citizenship or as
legal settlers to enhance the monopoly of the ruling elites over resources23. The SNC was born
in this context and became the champion of democratic causes in Sikkim on the basis of the
earlier work done by the early social organisations and the SSC.
Territorial Status prior to Statehood; legislative Amendments and Acts; Governing
Structures
167
Sikkim was one of the three Himalayan Kingdoms among Nepal and Bhutan and was a British
protectorate. Since decolonisation, the Indian government following British policy sent a
Resident Political officer and during the years of democratic upsurge chose to continue the old
British practice of a protectorate23.
British paramountcy in Sikkim began with the appointment of John Claude White as the first
Political Officer of Sikkim and White re-organised the Sikkim administration beginning in
188823. The period from 1888-1918 was a period of domination by the British Political officer.
The State Council, was created, which would advise the King, but was virtually run by the
Political officer. The State Council was to later comprise of Kazisor landlords, Lamas (monks)
and even Nepalese Thikadars. It was the State Council which became the foundation of the
later democratic set up.
The democratic movement of 1949 led to the constitution of the first elected State Council;
however, the palace was simultaneously able to convince New Delhi that popular government
in Sikkim would mean anarchy and political instability. The Government of India’s Political
officer acted in the ‘interest of law and order’ and dismissed the popular ministry (appointed
by the king signaling some concessions to the SSC democratic movement) and the executive
power of the ministry passed from the ministry to the newly appointed, Dewan, who would be
an Indian administrative officer. The first Dewan, J.S. Lallwas appointed in 1949. The
intervention of the Government of India led to the dismissal of the interim government. In
response to continuing agitation, the Dewan, abolished the lessee system along with the
privileges of the lease holders and peasant were protected against frequent evictions and steps
were taken to restructure juridical, legal and revenue administration, in 194923.
The SSC demand of merger with Indiawas held in abeyance as the Sikkim Durbar was
negotiatingwith, the Government of India, the status of Sikkim to India after the departure of
the British. The India-Sikkim Treaty signed in 1950 reiterated the status of Sikkim as a
protectorate of India23. The provisions of the treaty23 stated that the Indian government would
look after Defense, External Affairs, Customs and Communication. The Indian government
persisted with the King as the dominant personality in Sikkim. The SSC was very unhappy
with the treaty and felt let down by the Indian government. The treaty incorporated none of the
political demands of the SSC and vested all internal powers in the King23. But the Government
168
of India retained their influence through the provision of the maintenance of good
administration and law and order in the 1950 Treaty as its ultimate responsibility.
After the treaty with Sikkim, there were efforts to hold elections for the local self-government
in 1951. The SNP boycotted the elections as there were no reservation of seats for the
‘indigenous’ population23. In May, 1951, for purposes of communal representation, a three
member advisory committee composed of the King, SonamTshering (SNP) as the Bhutia-
Lepcha representative and Dimik Singh Lepcha and Kashi Raj Pradhan (SSC) was formed. The
main point of discussion was the question of distribution of seats in the State Council among
the three communities and the focal point of discussion was the equal distribution of seats
between Bhutia-Lepchas and the Nepalese community which came to be known as the
Communal Parity formula. The parity formula was to be a concession to the demands of the
democratic movement led by the SSC and also a way to check the domination of the majority
Nepalese. The all-party agreement of May 1951 proposed elections of the State Council and
finalised matters of electorate, reservation of seats and the mode of election. The SSC as a party
and in its efforts to be seen as non-communal and representative of all elements of Sikkim
society disagreed with the parity formula, but its members both Dimik Singh Lepcha and Kashi
Raj Pradhan agreed to the durbar. In March, 1953, a constitutional proclamation was made
which enumerated the number of seats as well as the powers and functions of State Council
and the Executive Council.
A system of dyarchy was introduced with the King and the State Council in harness. The King
could veto decisions of the State Council23. The first State Council comprised of a total of
seventeen members of which five were the King’s nominees and the remaining twelve seats
were equally divided between the Bhutia-Lepchas and the Nepalese with each community
getting six seats. By the time of the second elections, the State Council was expanded to a total
of twenty members and while the Bhutia-Lepcha and Nepalese member seats remained six
each, the King nominees were increased to six, a general seat and a seat for the Sangha,
monastry was increased. By the third elections in 1967, the total seats in the State Council were
increased to twenty four and the respective categories were as follows: B-L and Nepalese
member seats were increased to seven, the King’s nominees remained constant at six as did the
General seat and the Sangha seat and a seat was added for the Scheduled Caste. The number
of seats in the State Council remained the same for 1970 and the 1973 elections. The Executive
Council initially comprised of three members and the tenure of office was for three years. By
169
the time of the second general elections the EC was enlarged to five members and by 1970 to
six members23. The EC was effectively the cabinet but the simple democratic principle of the
majority party forming government was not possible as one fourth of the total strength of the
State Council was nominated by the ruler, so the EC was effectively an all party council and
provided opportunity for the ruler to oblige loyalty towards him23.
Table 223:Sikkim State Council/Assembly Distribution-Reservation of Seats 1953 195823 1967 1970 1973 197423 197923 Bhutia-Lepcha (BL)
6 6 7 7 7 15 12
Nepali 6 6 7 7 7 15 - Darbar Nominees
5 6 6 6 6 -
General 1 1 1 1 17 Sangha 1 1 1 1 1 1 Scheduled Caste
1 1 1 1 2
Tsong/Limbu 1 1 1 - Total 17 20 24 24 24 32 32
In 1963, PaldenThondupNamgyal, was crowned the ruler of Sikkim, the last in line of the Namgyal dynasty. PaldenNamgyal made efforts towards a sovereign Sikkim and membership of the United Nations and the durbarspoke in the language of nationalism. The first demand in this direction in 1967 was a revision of the 1950 Treaty with India. The King was helped by his new wife, Hope Cooke, who was an American national. They were was able to garner considerable International media attention. The palace is said to have rigged the State Council elections in 1973 and the SNP did very well. The actions and efforts of the ruler led to expression of popular frustration and exploded after the State Council elections in 1973. When the ruler ignored the complaints of the SNC and the SJP, an agitation began and youth leaders went on an indefinite fast 23 . A Joint Action Committee (JAC) by the two Congress (SNC and SJC) parties was formed under the chairmanship of LD Kazi. The JAC made a series of demands such as full fledged democracy, written constitution, fundamental rights, the one-man-one-vote principle based on adult franchise and abolition of the parity formula. With the durbar not paying heed and going ahead with King’s birthday celebrations, masses clashed with the police and poured into Gangtok and the administrations repressive measures furthered the rage. With the situation deteriorating the King asked the Government of India to restore law and order like in 1949 and take over administration. The JAC made its above demands to the Government of India as well as the abdication of the ruler. The Indian Foreign Secretary initiated the talks held between the leaders of JAC, the ruler and the National party leaders. In May 1973, the three parties came to the settlement known as the Tripartite agreement23. The agreement envisaged the future constitutional set up and Sikkim’s relations with India, included a legislative assembly elected on the basis of one man one vote principle, elections on the basis of adult franchise and a cabinet responsible to the state assembly23. The Tripartite agreement
170
led to a considerable reduction in the powers of the king. The elections of 1974 were held under the provisions that the Assembly in Sikkim was to be composed of thirty-two members, thirty one territorial and one Sanghaconstituency. Fifteen seats each were reserved for the Bhutia-Lepchas and for the Nepalese and one for the Sangha and one for the Scheduled Castes. The elections were held on the basis of adult suffrage. The Sikkim Congress won thirty out of the thirty one seats in the 1974 elections. Escalating the confrontation with the King,the Sikkim Congress decided to draft a constitution for Sikkim which came to be known as the Sikkim Bill, 1974. The members of the newly elected state assembly refused to take oath in the name of the ruler and requested New Delhi to examine how Sikkim could participate in the political and economic institutions of India, request the Government of India to include Sikkim within the ambit of the Planning Commission, provide for representation for the people of Sikkim in the Indian Parliament and the king was to merely be a constitutional head23. The Government of Sikkim Bill, July 1974 was introduced in the Assembly. The ruler refused his consent citing the danger of erosion of Sikkim’s separate identity and international status. He wasadvised not to give his consent to the Government of Sikkim Bill, 1974. The Sikkim bill, 1974 essentially suggested the merger of Sikkim with India and the end of the Namgyal dynasty23. The Chief Minister LD Kazi requested Delhi for giving representation of Sikkim in the politics of India and the 35th Constitutional Amendment Bill was introduced in the Indian Parliament in September 1974. The Bill was proposed and passed to give Sikkim the status of an ‘Associate State’ of India and representation of Sikkim in the Indian Parliament23. As the king continued his efforts to Internationalise the issue, the Sikkim Legslative Assembly in April, 1975 unanimously adopted a resolution abolishing the monarchy and declared Sikkim as the constituent state of India. The SLA also conducted a special opinion poll23 (often referred to as the Referendum) in April 1975 on the future set up of Sikkim and 97% of Sikkim voted for the resolution voting for the removal of the King. Thereafter, Sikkim joined India as the twenty-second state of India. Table 323:1953 Elections to Sikkim State Council Name of Party BhutiaLepcha Seats
(6) Nepali Seats (6) Total
Sikkim State Congress (1947)
0 6 6
Sikkim National Party (1948)
6 0 6
Table 423: 1958 Elections to Sikkim State Council Name of Party
BhutiaLepcha Seats (6)
Nepali Seats (6)
General Seat (1)
Sangha Seat (1)
Total
Sikkim State Congress
1 6 1 0 8
171
Sikkim National Party
5 0 0 1 6
Table 523:1967 Elections to Sikkim State Council Name of Party BhutiaLepc
ha Seats (7) Nepali Seats (7)
General Seat (1)
Scheduled Caste (1)
Tsong (1)
Sangha (1)
Total
Sikkim National Congress(Swatantra Dal + RajyaPrajaSammelan+ SSC[Progressive] + SNP [SonamThsering])(formed by LD Kazi 1960)
2 5 1 0 0 0 8
Sikkim National Party
5 0 0 0 0 0 5
Sikkim State Congress
0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Independent 1 1 1 3 Table 623:1970 Elections to Sikkim State Council Name of Party
BhutiaLepcha Seats (7)
Nepali Seats (7)
General Seat (1)
Scheduled Caste(1)
Tsong (1)
Sangha(1)
Total
Sikkim National Congress
1 2 1 1 0 0 5
Sikkim National Party
6 1 0 0 0 0 7
Sikkim Janta Party (LB Basnet)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sikkim State Congress
0 4 0 0 0 0 4
Independent
0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Table 723:1973 Elections to Sikkim State Council Name of Party
BhutiaLepcha Seats Total (7)
Nepali Seats
General Seat (1)
Scheduled Caste (1)
Tsong (1)
Sangha (1)
Total
172
Total (7)
Sikkim National Congress
0 3 1 0 1 0 5
Sikkim National Party
7 2 0 1 0 1 11
Sikkim Janta Congress (Sikkim State Congress +Sikkim Janta Party)
0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Table 8:197423 Elections to Sikkim State Council Name of Party
BhutiaLepcha Seats (15)
Nepali Seats (15)
Scheduled Caste (1)
Sangha (1)
Total
Sikkim National Party
1 0 0 0 1
Sikkim Congress (Sikkim National Congress +Sikkim Janta Congress) (Merges with the Indian National Congress in 1975)
14 15 1 1 31
Part II Post-Statehood and Federal Politics In April, 1975, the Indian Parliament passed the 36th Amendment Bill providing for the status of Sikkim as a state of India. The Presidential assent to the 36th Amendment ended the Namgyal dynasty. The Parliament of India also provided special provisions. This was done to preserve the political, socio-cultural distinctiveness, with respect to the state of Sikkim under Article 371 F, “Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution”23. The special provisions under Article 371 F specifically provided for the special feature of reservation of seats in the Legislative
173
Assembly for different sections of the population as well as continuation of all old laws in force. In contrast to the earlier set up comprising of the State Council and the communal parity system, the State Council after merger came to be the unicameral Sikkim Legislative Assembly (SLA) with thirty two members who were directly elected by universal adult suffrage and one seat each in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. The first SLA was based on the elections of the 1974 election under the Parity formula and the seat reservations as specified in table 2, this mandate continued after Sikkim’s merger with India and all the 31 seats were won by the Sikkim Congress (SC) and after merger Sikkim Congress joined the Indian National Congress 23 . The first government of the state of Sikkim under LD Kazi, while virtually unopposed in the SLA as it had won 31 seats, however, was rife with internal dissension owing to the failure of the high expectations of the changes for the majority Nepalese after ‘merger23’. The government’s reliance on bureaucrats and the need for Sikkim to maintain its distinct character added to the internal dissension. Electoral Profile of Parties: Performance-Seats and Votes All this fuelled the new politics of Sikkim after merger with the beginning of regional politics. The regional sentiment and dissatisfaction with the government led to a coalescing of political opposition around the issue of union with India and, even merger actors began to question the 1975 merger and the conditions of merger. The 1979 elections were already building up to be fractious and divisive one and the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill, 1980 (earlier a Presidential fiat in 1979) made it the focal point of the 1979 elections. The amendment, reduced the number of seats of the Bhutia-Lepcha from fifteen to twelve, one seat for the Sangha, two for Scheduled Castes reserved and seventeen seats were declared as General seats. The Amendment Bill 1980 thus managed to offend both the Bhutia-Lepcha and the Nepalese by the reduction in their seats and the abolition of seats reserved for the Nepalese simultaneously. Plainsmen residing in Sikkim were given the right to franchise and contest elections for the first time 23 . The Sangha seat in contrary to provisions in the Indian Constitution was permitted by citing article 371 F, the special provisions with respect to the state of Sikkim, was an overriding provision and that the reservation of the Sangha seat was constitutional and valid23. The 1979, elections was fought around the restoration of Nepalese seats in the Assembly, democracy was interpreted as rule of the ‘plainsmen’ 23 . The period leading to the 1979 elections led to the emergence of three political formations, Sikkim JantaParishad (SJP)(earlier Sikkim Janta Congress) (1977) by Nar Bahadur Bhandari, Sikkim Prajantantra Congress (earlier Congress for Democracy) by Nar Bahadur Khatiwada and the Sikkim Congress (Revolutionary) by RC Poudyal. The granting of rights to plainsmen and the reduction in BL seats produced a politics that was anti-merger and anti-India. Electoral rolls became a major issue as SJP demanded for the inclusion of all Nepalese living in Sikkim since 1970 calling them left out people and to bring back Sikkim, implying a return to independence (Sikkim farkaunchoun)23. Table 9:1979Assembly Elections: Political Parties and Performance23 Name of Party Seats Won Seats Contested Votes % CPIM 0 2 0.33 Congress 0 12 2.04
174
Janta Party 0 30 13.18 Sikkim Scheduled Caste League
0 2 0.12
Sikkim Congress (R) 11 27 20.58 Sikkim JantaParishad 16 31 31.49 Sikkim Prajatantra Congress
4 32 15.76
Independent 1 16.5 Total Seats 32
The 1979 elections set the tone for the difficult relationship in the immediate post-merger period. The Sikkim JantaParishad won seventeen (including eight of the BL seats) the highest number of seats in the 1979 elections. SJP led by Nar Bahadur Bhandari, was credited with being tactful and bringing together a coalition of the anti-merger forces, including sections of the dissatisfied Nepalese populace as well as the BhutiaLepchas by raising issues of ‘Sikkim for Sikkimese’. However, Bhandari while soft on his criticism of the Amendment Bill, 1980 was scathing of the Kazi government calling it battisheychora (thirty two thieves) or deshbechuwas (those who sold their country)23 on their inability to guard the rights and dignity of the people of Sikkim. Sikkim Congress (R) won eleven seats while LD Kazi’sJanta Party was routed with twenty-one of its thirty candidates forfeiting their deposits23. The SJP formed the government after it crossed the majority eighteen mark after the defection of one of the members and Nar Bahadur Bhandari became the chief minister of Sikkim. Bhandari reorganized the administration to give it a more local or ‘Sikkimese’ look, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) was replaced by the Sikkim Armed Police, number of central government officials on deputation were considerably reduced23 and Bhandari was even critical of the Governor of Sikkim. However, with the appointment of a new Governor in 1981, and after the return of the Congress in Delhi, Bhandari merged Sikkim Parishad with the Congress in 198123. The honeymoon between the Congress and Bhandari did not last long and in 1984, the Governor asked the Chief Minister to step down and when he refused, the Nar Bahadur Bhandari’s government was dismissedand President’s Rule was imposed. The AICC (I) observer and Union Minister of State for Home Affairs who was in Gangtok at that time is quoted as suggesting that, Bhandari had lost the confidence of the state legislators and there were several corruption charges against him23. While CM Bhandari claimed that his call for ‘Sikkim for Sikkimese’ ,‘son of soil’ policy and his refusal to compromise with the hopes and aspirations of people and the demands he had made to the Centre were responsible for his dismissal23. After the dismissal of NB Bhandari, there was a short-lived government headed by BB Gurung, which only lasted for two weeks and due to horse-trading by the legislaturesSikkim was brought under President’s rule again in 1984. Bhandari left the Congress and formed the Sikkim SangramParishad (SSP) and contested the 1984 national elections, winning the lone Lok Sabha seat with a high margin. In preparation for the 1985 Assembly elections with the outrage of its illegal and undemocratic dismissal by the Centre which endangered democracy in Sikkim23, the SSP centered the following issues in the 1985 elections: Restoration of partity formula and bringing back reservations for Nepalese in the SLA, citizenship for stateless people in Sikkim (cut off year 1970), preservation of local identity and implementation of a ‘son of soil’ policy in government jobs and trade licenses, constitutional recognition of Nepali language and amendment of the provision of the constitution of India which justifies dismissal of state
175
government by the Governor on their pleasure23. The SSP also demanded more financial and political freedom for the states23. Table 10:1985 Assembly Elections23 Name of Party Seats Won Seats Contested Votes % CPIM 0 1 0.35 Congress 1 32 24.15 Janta Party 0 20 0.94 CPI 0 2 0.03 Sikkim SangramParishad
30 32 62.20
Sikkim Prajatantra Congress
0 14 0.45
Independent 1 11.88 Total Seats 32
The SSP won thirty of the thirty-wo seats in the SLA. Not only was Bhandari a charismatic and politically shrewd leader, he was skillful enough to pay attention to his core constituency and package sensitive issues in attractive capsules with catchy slogans23. Gurung suggests that Bhandari’s idea of, “‘Sikkim for the Sikkimese’ was heavily tilted in favour of the SikkimeseNepalis to which he himself belonged. This departure may be due to the 1984 political development in which almost all the tribal leaders were involved in ‘remove Bhandari’ campaign”23. The dominance of SSP in the SLA and of Bhandari in the SSP led to allegations of corruption, nepotism, physical violence against opposition and dictatorial government. Bhandari who had earlier demanded inclusion of Limbu and Tamangin the Scheduled Tribe List now opposed it even though the Central government wanted the inclusion23. Gurung suggests Bhandari’s opposition maybe due to the fear of division of the Nepalese community. Bhandari was the tallest and the first Nepalese political leader and perhaps wished to straddle Nepalese politics in North Bengal and Sikkim and was exhibited in the combined efforts to seek constitutional recognition of the Nepali language. The split in Bhandari’s core Nepalese vote bank only comes with the implementation of the Mandal Commission Recommendations in 1989 after the SSP won all thirty-two seats in the SLA elections of 1989. Table 11:1989 Assembly Elections23 Name of Party Seats Won Seats Contested Votes % Congress 0 31 18.05 Rising Sun Party 0 31 8.59 Sikkim SangramParishad
32 32 70.14
Denzong People’s Chogpi 0 4 0.22 Independent 0 2.73 Total Seats 32
The issues raised by political parties in the 1989 elections were similar to those in the 1985.The Bhandari-led SSP by raising the issue of merger with India in tandem with the ‘son of soil’ policy encouraged the notion of a Sikkimese identity, opposing the Indian identity, as
176
straddling the earlier ethnic identity politics. In his third term as chief minister, Bhandari rejected the proposal of the Mandal Commission and the SLA passed a resolution rejecting the central directives for its implementation in Sikkim. Not only was Bhandari an upper caste by birth but he also understood the implications of reservation of seats for the OBC and the division within the Nepalese community. The Bhandari government’s reactions to the Mandal Commission recommendations and the issue of ST Status for Limbu and Tamang not only led to electoral mobilization but also an association of ethnic organizations to form the Mandal Coordination Committee. It was in this circumstance that we see the emergence of Pawan Kumar Chamling, who belonged to the Rai community, recognized as an OBC and who was part of the SSP 1989 cabinet. Bhandari fearing Chamling’s ambitions removed him from the cabinet and PawanChamling, earlier a police constable, formed the Sikkim Democratic Front (SDF) in 1993. The Rais are by sheer numbers the largest section among the Nepalese in Sikkim23. Sikkim got divided along caste lines and tribe and non-tribe lines by the response of the Bhandari government to the extension of Central Income Tax Act to Sikkim. So far, Sikkimese had been exempted from central income tax and other direct taxes. Chief Minister Bhandari’s government requested tax exemption for the Scheduled Tribes of Sikkim similar to the exemption to other tribes of North East India. The Sikkimese Nepalese demanded similar exemption and owing to the priorities of the Bhandari government and response of the Centre, this issue flared up and took communal overtones. The Mandal Commission recommendations, the extension of Income tax to Sikkim and the anti-incumbency against Bhandari resulted in legislators deserting Bhandari, and SanchamanLimboo was elected as the leader and sworn in as the fourth CM of Sikkim. However, his government did not last long but served as caretaker government till the next Assembly elections in 1994. Table 12:1994 Assembly Elections23 Name of Party Seats Won Seats Contested Votes % CPIM 0 2 0.16 Congress 2 31 15.02 BhartiyaJanta Party 0 3 0.16 Revolutionary Socialist Party
0 11 1.68
Sikkim SangramParishad 10 31 35.08 Sikkim Democratic Front 19 32 42 Independent 1 5.91 Total Seats 32
The 1994 elections and the coming to prominence of PawanChamling as the leader of the largest party marks a break from the earlier winning social coalitions. We see the Mandalisation of Sikkim politics in parallel to the political assertion of the OBC in North India. The SDF government under Chamling promotes policies that encouraged protection and safeguarding of ethnicity and its manifestations, capacity building measures to ensure robust Centre-State relations and not compromising on the basics of Sikkimese identity. PawanChamling has been in power for five terms now and Sikkim is a consistent performer in administrative indicators and socially known for protection and support provided by the state government. Over the years, the rivalry with Bhandari has continued but Chamling appears to be the unchallenged leader who is organizationally and policy wise better organised and speaks the language of governance. There have been challenges to the SDF dominance but there have been centered
177
on elections and we see the absence of a political opposition. In the 1999 elections, the SDF won twenty-fourof the thirty-two seats and in 2004, the party did even better with thirty-one seats out of thirty-two. In 2009, the SDF won, all thirty-two seats of the SLA. Table 131999 Assembly Elections23 Name of Party Seats Won Seats Contested Votes % Congress 0 31 3.67 CPIM 0 2 0.19 Sikkim SangramParishad
7 32 41.88
Sikkim Democratic Front 24 31 52.32 Independent 1 1.94 Total Seats 32
Table 14:2004Assembly Elections23 Sl No. Name of Party Seats
Won Seats Contested
Votes %
1 CPIM 0 1 0.07 2 Congress 1 28 26.13 3 BhartiyaJanta Party 0 4 0.34 4 Sikkim Democratic
Front 31 32 71.09
5 Sikkim SangramParishad
0 1 0.05
6 Sikkim HimaliRajyaParishad
0 9 0.57
7 Independent 0 1.76 Total Seats 32
Table 15:2009Assembly Elections23 Sl No. Name of Party Seats
Won Seats Contested
Votes %
1 CPIM 0 3 0.11 2 Congress 0 32 27.64 3 BhartiyaJanta Party 0 11 0.78 4 Nationalist Congress Party 0 11 0.42 5 Sikkim Democratic Front 32 32 65.91 6 Sikkim
HimaliRajyaParishadJantaParishad 0 20 2.19
7 Sikkim GorkhaPrajatantric Party 0 27 1.16
178
8 Sikkim Jan-Ekta Party 0 6 0.20 9 Independent 0 1.60 Total Seats 32
Table 16: 2014 Assembly Elections23 Sl No. Name of Party Seats
Won Seats Contested
Votes %
1 All India Trinamool Congress
0 7 0.19
2 Indian National Congress
0 32 1.42
3 BhartiyaJanta Party
0 13 0.71
4 Sikkim Democratic Front
22 32 55.03
5 Sikkim KrantikariMorcha
10 32 40.08
6 Independent 0 0.40 7 NOTA 1.44 Total Seats 32
Table17Political Participation23 Year Polling
Percentage 1953 3023 1958 N.A. 1967 N.A. 1970 1323 1973 N.A. 1974 35.223 1979 65.13 1985 64.13 1989 72.28 1994 81.76 1999 81.83 2004 79.23 2009 81.79 2014 80.80
Coalition government/Participation in Central Coalitions
179
There have been no coalition governments in Sikkim.The Sikkim Congress led by LD Kaziwho was the first chief minister of the Sikkim, as a state of the Indian union, merged, the Sikkim Congress with the Indian National Congress, bringing for the first time a national party into what had been largely a region with local actors. As the government in Delhi changed, from Congress to the Janta Coalition, LD Kaziand his legislatures merged with the Janta Party after the emergency, thereby earning the moniker of ‘man of mergers’. The SDF government has over the years provided outside support to the coalition government in power in Delhi. It has never been part of any coalition government in Delhi. Perspective towards Centre The attitude of the SDF government towards Centre and on Centre-State relations can be found in the response of the Sikkim Democratic Front, to the Punchchi Commission. The SDF response is primarily geared around the special provisions, of Article 371 (f), applicable to the state of Sikkim and the requirement of a wider and a liberal basis for devolution of financial resources to a small, mountainous state which has limited revenue generation capabilities. The crux of the issue with regard to special provisions is the protection of the people identified as Sikkimese and fear of migration of plainsmen. In these concerns one sees a resonance of old policies followed by Bhandari of the preservation of local identity and protection. The SDF response to the questionnaire begins with stating that the Centre needs, “to design policies to cater to the needs and requirement of the State in particular… [Since] the entire nation cannot be shaped in one straight jacket formula…need for accepting diversified approach”23 . In seeking this exception, the response cites the examples of the Article 370 and 371 as special provisions, suggests that these provisions were in place, so that, “to ensure that in the great Indian landscape the small and marginal States are not swamped by the great tide” and makes certain recommendations. Some of these we summarise, old laws of Sikkim protected by Article 37IF of the Constitution must be allowed to continue. Measures should be initiated to ensure that the provisions of Article 371F is not diluted and states like Sikkim should be able to adopt measures for, “protection of indigenous population of the State [but also be able] and to regulate movement of people to the State23”and other suggestions are increased participation of state officials in All India Services, tenure of the Governor to be 2-3 years and state government should have a say on continuation of a governor. In education, the state should be permitted to follow its own policy and on state bills, which were legislated and forwarded to the President, is returned for clarifications and after clarifications if the bill still remains pending for Presidential assent without action, the response of the SDF is that, in such event if the State Legislature passes the legislation again with modifications, the President shall remain under obligation to give his assent as otherwise the Act of the legislature being an expression of voice of the people would remain stifled”23. Current Issues By far the most salient issue facing Sikkim is the reservation of seats for Limbus and Tamangs who were recognized as Scheduled Tribe in 2003. The SLA has reservations specifically for the Bhutia-Lepcha as the Representation of People Act 1951 specifies, “Sikkimese of Bhutia-Lepcha origin, he is a person either of Bhutia or Lepcha origin”23and not of the Scheduled Tribe. The reservation of seats for Bhutia-Lepcha in the Sikkim Assembly is unique23 and it is also said that the seats allotted to the BL is disproportionate to its ratio of population. The Amendment to the RPA 1951 was called Bill no. 79 in Sikkim and generated resentment and insecurities, as it did away with reservation of Nepalese seats, reduced the number of BL seats and also gave political rights to the Indian plainsman. Since then political parties would raise
180
the demand for restoration of Nepalese seat reservation. The inclusion of Limbus and Tamangs in the ST list complicates the issue as one needs to specify the number of ST seats in the Assembly and so far the seat reservation in the SLA is specified as Bhutia-Lepcha (who are also recognized as ST). The SLA needs to find a way to provide reservation to Limbus and Tamang’s as ST’s and these needs to be done without drawing the ire of the BL who with twelve seats in the SLA, and as they have consistently exhibited, are the single most cohesive group that can make and unmake governments in Sikkim. The ‘son of the soil’ policy of various Sikkim governments and demands and promises of local protection remains a continuous feature of political rhetoric. Sikkim is a small province with population of about six lakhs and the state government through employment and other indirect support has considerable impact on the lives of its citizens. The exemption from paying Income Tax provided to Sikkim subjects23, support programs for entrepreneurship, scholarship for studies in Sikkim and abroad, capacity building and employment with the government is much sought after. These factors, the relative prosperity of Sikkim in its region and the political history of Sikkim together combine to produce a combination of identity politics with efforts to corner employment opportunities. The arguments for local protection in fledgling industries, educational institution and even commercial and trade opportunities are made with reference to Article 371 F, the special provisions with respect to the state of Sikkim that stipulate that old laws of Sikkim will not be abrogated. One of the Old Law of Sikkim is ‘rule 4(4) giving priority in public employment to ‘local,’ and stating that “non-Sikkimese nationals may be appointed only when suitably qualified and experienced Sikkimese nationals are not available.”
Bibliography Bakshi, PM (2010), Constitution of India, Universal, New Delhi. Basnet, L.B. (1974), Sikkim: A Short Political History, S. Chand, New Delhi. Bhutia, DomaSamten (2015), Political Parties and Ethnicity in Sikkim since 1975, Unpublished Dissertation, Sikkim University. Chakarvarthi, K.R. (1994), “Government and Politics in Sikkim”, in Lama, Mahendra P. (ed.), Sikkim: Society Polity Economy Environment, Indus, New Delhi. Chakrabarti, Anjan (2012), “Migration and Marginalisation in the ‘Himalayan Kingdom’ of Sikkim, Journal of Exclusion Studies, l 2 (1), February. Chakravarti, (2012), “Sikkim: A Historical Perspective on the Politics of Merger”, in Yasin, Mohammed and Chettri,Durga P. (eds), Politics, Society and Development : Insights from Sikkim, Kalpaz Publications, New Delhi. Datta, Amal (1994), “Ethnicity and Resource Management”, in Lama, Mahendra P. (ed.), Sikkim: Society Polity Economy Environment, Indus Publishing, New Delhi. Election Commission of India, Statistical Report 1979.
181
Election Commission of India, Statistical Report 1985. Election Commission of India, Statistical Report 1989. Election Commission of India, Statistical Report 1994. Election Commission of India, Statistical Report 1999. Election Commission of India, Statistical Report 2004. Election Commission of India, Statistical Report 2009. Election Commission of India, Statistical Report 2014. Gurung, S. K. (2011), Sikkim: Ethnicity and Political Dynamics: A Triadic Perspective, Kunal, New Delhi. Kazi, Jigme N., Inside Sikkim: Against the Tide, Hill Media, Gangtok. Moktan, R, (2004), Sikkim: Darjeeling Compendium of Documents, Himadri, Kalimpong. Phadnis, Urmila (1980), “Ethnic Dimensions of Sikkimese Politics: The 1979 Elections”, Asian Survey, 20 (12), December. PunchchiCommission on Centre-State Relations: Supplementary Volume III Responses From Stakeholders, March 2010. Rai, Dhanraj (2013), “Monarchy and Democracy in Sikkim and the Contribution of KaziLhendupDorjeeKhangsherpa”, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 3(9), September. Rose, Leo (1978), “Modernizing a Traditional Administrative System: Sikkim 1890-1973”, in Fisher, James (ed.) Himalayan Anthropology: The Indo-Tibetan Interface, Walter de Gruyter. Sengupta, N. (1985), State Government and Politics: Sikkim, Sterling, New Delhi. Sinha, A.C. (1973), “The Feudal Polity and Political Development in Sikkim”, Indian Anthropologist, Vol. 3 (2), December. Sinha, A.C. (2005), “Sikkim”, inSub-Regional Relations in the Eastern South Asia: With Special Focus on India's North Eastern Region, (Eds.)Mayumi Murayama, Kyoko Inoue, Sanjoy Hazarika, Institute of Developing Economies available at [http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Download/Jrp/133.html], accessed on 12 December, 2016. Sinha, A.C. (2008), Sikkim: Feudal and Democratic, Indus, Delhi. Sinha, A.C. (2009), “The Politics of Identity Formation in Sikkim”,Dialogue, Vol. 10 (4).
182
Tripura: from a Princely State to Statehood
in Indian Federalism and Beyond
Harihar Bhattacharyya
Professor
Department of Political Science
Burdwan University
Introduction
Tripura is one of the states (federal units) in India’s North East comprising eight
States today with Sikkim included in 2012. It is a hilly and land locked state.
During the period of British colonial rule, particularly since the late nineteen
century till India’s independence in 1947, Tripura was one of 560 odd princely
states in India like Manipur and Jammu & Kashmir. These princely states
comprised some two-thirds of the territory of British India although in terms of
population their contribution was about one-third. Unlike many other princely
states, Tripura was ruled by a tribal monarch, namely the dominant Tripuri. The
Tripura tribe (aboriginal people) remained the governing tribe. During the Raj,
Tripura was ‘indirectly’ governed by the British, a strategy to give the feeling that
the subjects of the kingdoms were free. Although Tripura had a tribal monarch,
the colonial authorities kept close control over the affairs by appointing a political
resident since 1972 (Bhattacharyya 1999). Unlike Jammu and Kashmir or the
largest and most powerful kingdom of Hyderabad in India’s south, Tripura’s
accession to the Union of India in 1949 was rather smooth albeit not entirely
trouble free. There developed a strong left nationalist and communist insurgency
which posed the terminal challenge to the regime. In many parts of Tripura since
183
the mid-1940s, the monarchy was heavily weakened at the base (Bhattacharyya
1999) because of the princely regime. The popular movements for responsible
government and democracy grew late and were slow to emerge.The responsible
government based on universal adult suffrage was conceded to the people of
Tripura as late as 1972 when statehood was conceded to Tripura in the wake of
states reorganization in the North East following the North Eastern Areas
(Reorganization) Act 1971. This long period of absence of any effective
democratic governing institutions in Tripura provided enough fuel to the growing
Left in the state to mobilize mass support for civil rights, responsible government
and the end of the rule by a chief commissioner.
A small hilly state of Tripura would not, on the face of it, attract any attention for
the following reasons. First, the state being surrounded on three sides by the then
East Bengal/East Pakistan, and now Bangladesh meant that hundreds of
thousands crossed borders in the wake of India’s Partition (1947), which upset
the demographic balance of Tripura over night by turning a tribal majority state
into one in which the hapless tribes found themselves to be in the minority.
Tripura monarch’s additional status as a zamindar in Chklarosnabad then in the
Shilet district of East Bengal facilitated the above process. This created a
perennial basis of inter-ethnic conflict in the state. The ethnic conflict when
conjoined with insurgency has resulted often in violent clashes in the state. The
most infamous was the June 1980 riots in Tripura which killed more tribals than
the Bengali settlers. (Bhattacharyya and Nossiter 1988: 144-70). Second, despite
the above, no ethnic party/parties has been able to sustain itself and exercise
influence in politics except the brief interlude of 1988-93 when the two rival
parties (Congress and the TUJS) joined hands and fought the state assembly
elections whose fairness were under scrutiny. The state was placed under the
notoriousDisturbed Areas Act (under the APSPA 1958)23before the elections.
The Left comprising the dominant CPI-M, F.B and the RSP have occupied the
184
political space in Tripura for most of the period since the late 1940s. This is a rare
situation where the Left survives in an atmosphere of persistent ethnic conflicts.
Third, this parliamentary Left under the leadership of the CPI-M has been in
power since 1978 (except 1988-93) and a Left coalition was returned in
2013.Fourth, since the 1990s Tripura’s governance records in matters of public
policy implementation as well as the conventional yardstick of governance as
political order and stability---a stellar record in the region.
Demographic Upheaval and Ethnic Conflicts
With an area of some 10, 486 sq km and about 3.7 million inhabitants, Tripura,
is a small state by Indian standards. It is a land-rocked region with no access to
coastal waters. It has a limited arable land (about 24.5%) with unpromising
results. Its negligible forest resources have been affected by the traditional
practice of shifting cultivation (slash and burn method) by the tribals. What is of
special importance to us here is the demographic transformation of Tripura from
the nineteenth century onwards. Although the post-Partition influx of Bengali
refugees (Bhattacharyya 1999: 325-47) was a major turning point in upsetting
Tripura’s demography, the migration of Bengalis into Tripura had been a long-
drawn historical process, the one that was partly encouraged by the princely rulers
who actively promoted Bengali settlement in their domain, and partly due to
heavy pressures of population on land in the erstwhile East Bengal/East Pakistan
(now Bangladesh). (Bhattacharyya 1999: 37)
Table 1:Decadal Growth of Population in Tripura (1881-2011) (Census Years)
Year Total
population
Decadal
variation
(%)
Total tribal
population
Percentage
of tribal
population
1881 95, 635 28.32 49, 915 52.18%
185
1891 1, 37, 375 43.64 70, 292 51.16%
1901 1, 73, 325 26.17 91, 669 52.88%
1911 2, 29, 613 32.48 1, 11, 303 48.47%
1921 3, 04, 437 32.59 1, 71, 610 52.24%
1931 3, 82, 450 25.63 1, 92, 224 50.26%
1941 5, 13, 0 10 34.14 2, 56, 991 50.09%
1951 6, 89, 029 24.56 2, 38, 953 34.68%
1961 11, 42, 005 81.71 3, 60, 070 31.53%
1971 15, 56, 342 36.28 4, 50, 454 28.95%
1981 20, 53, 058 31.91 5, 62, 990 27.42%
1991 27, 57, 205 34.30 8, 57, 345 31.09%
2001 31, 91, 168 16.03 9, 93, 426 31.1%
2011 36, 71, 032 14.75 11,7, 935 31.13%
Sources: Various Census Reports of India (1881-2011).
The Tripura rulers gave very liberal land grants to the settlers with the basic
motive of increase in land revenue although the apparent approach was a
modified laissez-faire policy of development. The Tripura Census
Bibarani(1931) (in Bengali) Tripura Census) recorded:
The system of settlement should continue. Instead of distributing
small pieces of land, large area of 500 drones (1125 Hectares), or
more in one block should be given to a number of rich and cultivated
persons. And if wealthy and resourceful persons take such taluks
(estates), then by their endeavour, roads and other means of
186
communication will be built upon which will open the way for the
general development and prosperity of the state.(quoted in
Bhattacharyya 1999: 46-47)
It is further stated in the same official document that there was enough cultivable
land in the state, and that the state shall offer adequate facilities (Bhattacharyya
1999: 47). This pro-settlers approach of the princely rulers must have paid off
because there were evidence of increases in land revenues from 28.18% in
1939,20.72% in 1942, and 34.29% in 1943 when family taxes imposed on jhum
cultivation decreased (Bhattacharyya 1999: 47).
Table 1 shows that due to the policies of princely rulers of Tripura, the tribal
kingdom was already receiving Bengali migrants from across the border (quite
porous), and the neighbouring zamindary23 at Chaklarosnabad of the Maharaja of
Tripura located within the then neighbouringprovince of East Bengal facilitated
such migration.
Two other relevant features of the historical transformation of Tripura are to be
noted. First, the Bengali migration since the late nineteenth century was quite
steady, which is reflected in the higher decadal growth in population. Second, the
major demographic transformation took place during 1951-61 so that we find an
abnormally high decadal growth of population in 1961 to be 81.71 per cent, over
1951 which surpassed all previous and subsequent records. The proportion of
tribals to total population dwindled well into the early 1980s from when the
decadal growth became increasingly stable. In fact, during 1985-91, the
percentage of tribals to total population began to improve, and from then on, it
has remained stable. One would certainly correlate this with the favorable state
government and the relative successes of the ADC since 198523 in ensuring better
protection to tribal identity in Tripura.
The other concluding remark that could be made in this regard is that since the
Bengalis had been living in Tripura from the middle of the nineteenth century it
187
may not be appropriate to describe Tripura as the land of the tribes alone, at least
not from the nineteenth century. This is, however, not meant to underplay the
dwindling demographic position of the tribes in the state, and their marginalized
position relative to the Bengalis, but to put things in perspective. Before India’s
partition (1947), Tripura was already a state inhabited by the tribals and the
Bengalis including some 7 per cent Muslim Bengalis until 1961 (Bhattacharyya
1999: 42). From the perspective of the Bengalis, it is, therefore, hard to deny that
Tripura was their home too for about a century even prior to India’s partition. But
how can one forget that as a result of this massive demographic transformation in
Tripura, the immigrants became the majority and dominant in all aspect of public
affairs reducing the original inhabitants to a small minority, which Weiner (1978)
would call a case of political core dominating also over the geographic core.
Therefore, nothing has been as challenging to politics and governance in Tripura
than the growing ethnic conflicts between the aboriginal (tribal) peoples of
Tripura, and the migrated (settlers) Bengalis in Tripura who outnumbered the
tribals. The growing ethnic conflicts in Tripura have been rooted in the
demographic transformation of the state as a result of the migration of the
Bengalis to Tripura. The demographic changes in Tripura show a progressive
increase of the total population and a steady decline of the tribal population to the
total population. Tripura is the only state in India where successive in-migration
has dramatically upset the demographic balance so much so that the original tribal
inhabitants have been turned into a minority. In 1872 when the first (in-exact)
census was taken in India, the tribal proportion of the population in Tripura had
already fallen to 63.76 per cent. By the turn of the twentieth century, tribals were
down to 52.89 per cent. But it was between 1941 (50.09%) and 1951(34.68%) as
a consequence of the turmoil of partition of India (1947) that the indigenous
people became a minority in their own land. In 1951, after the partition and
independence in 1947, they were reduced to 34.68% which went down to 27.42
188
% in 1981. Their proportion showed some marginal improvement since 1991:
(31.09%; and in 2011 (31.13%).
Table 2:Ethnic Composition of Population of Tripura (total= 3671032) 2011
Ethnic groups Population Percent
Bengalis 2677606 72.93
Tribes 993426 27.06
Tripuri* 544298 54.79
Reang* 164909 16.6
Source: Tripura at a Glance 2010-11 (Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Government of
Tripura). * denotes two largest tribes out of 19 in Tripura.
Of the Bengalis, the Scheduled Castes (called ‘dalits23) comprise 17 per cent of
the total population.Of the total population, Hindus comprise 85.84 per cent,
Muslims (7.97 per cent), Buddhists (3.09 per cent) and the Christians comprise
3.21 per cent. The proportion of Muslims to total population progressively
declined since the transfer of population between India and Pakistan in the early
1960s. Tripuris are overwhelmingly Hindus. However, there are significant
followers of Buddhism and Christianity among the minority tribal communities.
Table 3:Percentage of different tribes to total tribal population in Tripura (2001)
(total population= 31, 91, 166)
Tribes Percentage
Tripura 54.7%
Reang 16.6%
Jamatia 7.5%
Chakma 6.5%
Halam 4.8%
189
Mog 3.1%
Munda 1.2%
Any Kuki 1.2%
Garo 1.1%
Total= 97.1%
Source: Census Reports of India, 2001.
Tripura is a multicultural and a multi-religious society. Apart from the tribals, and
the Bengalis, there are small numbers of Biharis, Marathis and others. Although
the Hindus constitute about 89 per cent of the total population (most of the tribes,
especially the Tripuris, were converted to Hinduism thanks to their rulers'
encouragement and special efforts), there are around 7 per cent Muslims, 2.67 per
cent Buddhist and 1.21 per cent Christians in Tripura. Unlike the rest of India
where ‘communalism’ has meant conflicts between religious communities, in
Tripura, by contrast, religion played no role in the ‘communal riots’, which often
vitiate the civil space.23In Tripura, the ethnic conflicts between the tribals and the
Bengalis have overshadowed any other conflicts, including class conflicts. The
fundamental reason why this has been the case is that the demographic upheaval
in the state has resulted in the loss of the tribal control over their land which in an
agrarian country is the very basis of livelihood. The large-scale Bengali
settlement in Tripura has been unsettling to the lives of the original residents. The
tribal people of Tripura felt the loss of their identity in their own land. Agartala,
the state capital, remains a predominantly Bengali city with just above 1 per cent
tribals residing in the city.
The literacy rate among the tribals was estimated to be 56.5%,(male=68.0% and
female=44.6%) which was below the state average (85.44%). But even the
relatively lower growth of literacy among the tribals has been a factor behind the
growth of tribal ethnic consciousness in the state. The literate tribal youths have
190
been in the forefront of several tribal movements fighting for the restoration of
their land, and the appropriate recognition of their identity.
Tripura today is a fragmented society in which the Bengalis, the majority, and the
tribals, the minorities, vie with each other for scarce resources in this land-locked
territory. These communities, despite the ‘secular’ campaign by the Communist
Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-M), the leading political party in the state, and the
Left Democratic Front Government (LDFG) under its leadership, are at
loggerheads with each other, and the historic trust built by the communist
movement among the tribals, and the Bengalis, which maintained the communal
amity and peace for a considerable period of time since independence, is much
weakened today. And yet, the maintenance of relative political stability, and a
moderate level of governance in this strife-torn state has indeed been remarkable.
Tripura’s Political Transition
Tripura’s princely administration established some institutions such as the
amatyasabha(advisory council), mantra sabha (council of ministers) and a
revenue administration, but the real control lay with the king, or the British
political agent. The regime was autocratic and repressive, which is one of the
reasons for successive tribal revolts since the nineteenth century (Bhattacharyya
1993). But even the British political agents were baffled by the miserable plight
of the kingdom. As H. J. Todd wrote in his ‘Tour Impressions’ in the 1940s: My chief impression in the state is one of stagnation. This is
apparent on all sides and in all branches of the administration, due
to the inertia at the top. The ruler takes little confirmed interest in
anything. And the Chief Minister’s guiding principle is to do
nothing. All subordinate officials follow his example and those
who may at times have energy and enthusiasm have eventually
been discouraged. (Bhattacharyya 1999: 34)
Following the lapse of paramountcy, Tripura was placed by the Government of
India under the chief commissioner and remained so even after Tripura’s formal
191
accession to the Union of India in 1949.Tripura’s progression from its origin as a
‘C’ state of the Indian Union to normal statehood remains therefore an interesting
story of regional state formation as a method of enhancing governance. The
princely Tripura’s joining the Indian federation, and its eventual transformation
into a federal unit of India was a slow but steady process which took shape within
the institutional context provided by the Indian federation. Tripura’s historical
identity as an old princely state and a distinct ethno-regional consciousness of its
peopleremained active behind its evolution into a full-fledged state in India.
When Tripura joined the Indian Union in 1949, it was made a chief
commissioner’s province. Under the Indian Constitution, it was accorded the
status of part `C` state23. The Constitution of India, originally, provided for three
categories of states—A, B, and C—corresponding to their placement in the
respective parts of the first Schedule of the Constitution. This categorization
implied different status and features, and powers for the units, and was
necessitated as a first step towards the territorial re-organisation of India. It must
be acknowledged that the territorial divisions of India during the British colonial
rule were arbitrary, not always corresponding to the natural cultural (linguistic)
boundaries of the people.
Those more familiar with India’s federation building by the so-called states
reorganization (Menon 1955; Bhattacharyya 2010; Adeney 2007) know that
integrating some 560 odd princely states of different sizes and complexions was
the foremost task to be undertaken before embarking on the formation of
linguistic states in India since 1956. Morris-Jones (1967) aptly remarked: states
reorganization is best regarded as clearing the ground for national integration.
The autocratic princely Tripura’s transformation into a part `C` state within the
Union of India did not mean, however, a democratic governance in the state
because it meant that Tripura was to be ruled by a chief commissioner on behalf
of the President of India, and internally, the state had only a 30-member electoral
college to be democratically elected by the people to elect one member from
192
Tripura to the Rajya Sabha (Council of States, the parliamentary upper chamber).
This remained the position until 1957 when byvirtue of the States Reorganisation
Act, 1956, Tripura was upgraded into a Union Territory, with limited autonomy
but centrally administered area governed by the President of India, acting through
an administrator appointed by him, and issuing regulations for their good
government under Articles 239-40 of the Indian constitution. During 1957-63,
the Union Territory of Tripura had a 30-member territorial council (under the
Territorial Council Act, 1956) which was elected by the people on the basis of
universal adult franchise but whose legislative powers were very limited. Tripura
received a state assembly in 1963 with legislative powers, and was finally made
a full-fledged state with a 60-member state assembly with full legislative status
from January 21, 1972, under the North Eastern States ReorganisationAct, 1971
passed by the Indian parliament. Like all the other states in the Northeast, Tripura
was a ‘Special Category State’(until 2014)forthe purpose of the federal plan
assistance, special federal measure which was designed to facilitate the
integration of the state (as much as its neighbours) with the political system of
India.
The regime in Tripura from 1947-71 was a Congress regime, by default, but
locally it was the Communist party of India’s state unit, later on joined by the
state committee of the CPI-M (after 1965) and other left groups, which
monopolized all political space for protest against what they termed ‘Congress
regime’ in Tripura, and fought for democratization in Tripura.Aligned with the
Left was the Tribal UpajatiGanamuktiParishad, the radical Tripuri nationalist
organization. From the early 1950s onwards the all India party (then CPI) was
giving an electoral orientation to the local movements, and tried to make use of
all available issues to bank upon. The CPI-M and its tribal affiliate Tripura
UpajatiGanamuktiParishad engaged themselves in campaign for Tripura’s
statehood within the Union of India, which they linked to the question of self-
determination of the linguistic and ethnic groups. In a pamphlet dated 1969,
193
issued by the State Committee of the CPI-M and titled (in Bengali) ‘Why we
demand full statehood and regional committee in the Tribal areas’?, laying all
blames on the Congress (nationally as well as locally), it was stated: The Congress rulers do not believe in self-determination and full self-
government; that was why the relations between the Centre and the States all
over India are getting bitter by the day. It was because of non-recognition of
linguistic self-determination that India is fragmented….(p.10)
The Left in Tripura decided to participate in India’s electoral politics and the
process of parliamentary system since 1951, and used all political platforms to
ventilate grievances and expand mass bases in the state. The struggle for
Tripura’s territorial recognition went on in and through electoral campaigns.
Regional Context of Politics and Governance in Tripura
Tripura’s story of politics and governance through institutionalized power-
sharing, political participation and the political accommodation of identities need
to be located in the immediate context of the Northeast. Tripura has remained a
case apart in this respect. Where Tripura has been different from its neighbours
is in the mode of its governance, and integration with the evolving multicultural
nation building in India, and its contributions to the pool of legitimacy of India’s
political institutions. This region is reported to have as many as 209 Scheduled
(constitutionally recognized) Tribes (said to be the aboriginal people) and many
more which are not yet recognized as such to be entitled to constitutional special
protection and privileges. The total tribal population of the area was 13.52 million
in 2011 which is approximately one-third of the total population (39 million) of
the state in 2011.
Thus, India’s five tribal majority states—Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya,
Nagaland and Mizoram and Sikkim-- are to be found in the Northeast. The rest
194
of the units contain very significant elements of tribal population. Tripura would
have remained a tribal state but the migration of non-tribal people, and the
Bengalisto be precise, turned the state it into a Bengali majority state at the turn
of India’s independence. Hindus are a majority in population in only three
Northeastern states-- Assam, Manipur and Tripura. In Manipur, the Hindus are
not a big majority, and the Christians here have significant presence in the
population. The Muslims are sizeable proportions of the population in Assam,
Manipur and Tripura. Nonetheless, religion did not play a determining role in
redefining ethnic identity in the Northeast. In the Northeast, language and tribal
ethnicity played a larger role in redefining ethnic identity. Religion as a symbol
of ethnic identity claiming special rights and political unit, or association has had
a bad name in India. In the Indian Constitution, caste, tribe, and language
areaccorded legitimate status, but not religion. Because of the creation of Pakistan
on the basis of religion, the movement that seeks to use religion as the basis of
politics and statehood has been derogatorily labelled ‘communal’, and considered
to be illegitimate. Weiner and Katzenstein (1981) reported that in the 1960s, some
of the Khasi, Garo andNaga tribesmen had begun to assert their identity as
Christians, but then realizing the political unacceptability of a religious claim,
switched to tribal loyalties, and identities, and successfully demanded the creation
of tribal states. It must, however, be acknowledged that Christianity has played a
major role in redefining tribal ethnic identity in Nagaland, Meghalaya, and
Mizoram.
Unlike religion, language and tribal ethnicity have (and still do) play a powerful
determining role in the political processes in this region. Such loyalties and
identities have remained very active in political mobilizations for political
recognition of identities within Indian federalism. This has called for both the
territorial and non-territorial solutions to the categorical problems. Territorially,
this had involved different degrees of statehood (from tribal, district, and regional
195
councils, often through associate statehood, to finally statehood as a federal unit
with autonomous powers). Non-territorially, through official recognition of
language and its eventual placement in the 8th Schedule of Indian Constitution
which entitles the particular linguistic community certain rights in matters of
official communication and instruction etc, symbolic satisfaction of linguistic
identity is achieved.
No wonder, politically as well as from the viewpoint of law and order, this region
has remained ever since India’s independence, if not before, a very challenging
area of governance. This region is said to have witnessed more violence and
greater loss of human life due to political disorder than any other part of India.
SanjibBarua (2005) aptly titled his monograph as Durable Disorder:
Understanding the Politics of Northeast India.In the 1980s, for instance, more
than half of those killed in India was in the Northeast.23 According to Bezbaruah,
a high profile administrator in this region: Conflict and violence have been so
frequent and so persistent that the government had to use the army frequently and
for long periods to maintain law and order.23 Stephen P. Cohen (1988) reported
that the army had been ‘continuously deployed in Nagaland and Mizoram in a
counter-insurgency role’.23 He also pointed out the challenges to democratic
values in the expanded role of the army in Assam, Nagaland and Mizoram. The
following table gives some idea of the extent of army rule in this region during
1973-84:
Table.4:Army Deployed in Aid to Civil Order in the Northeast, 1973-83.
Year Place Reason Duration
1973 Assam Language riots 13 Apr.-17 May
1973 Arunachal Pradesh Tribal violence 13-18 June
1973 Imphal, Manipur Riots 13-21 September
1980 Assam Anti-foreigner’s stir February (continuously)
196
1980 Tripura Tribal violence 7 June-14 Nov
1980 Meghalaya Tribal Unrest 17 Apr.-17 May
1980 Nagaland Tribal violence 23-30 July/15 Nov-*
1981 Assam Anti-foreigner’s stir Continuously for 1 year
1982 As above As above As above
1982 Arunachal Pradesh Tribal unrest 17 July-21 Aug
1983 Northeast Anti-insurgency Continuously
Source: Cohen, S. P (1988) in Kohli(1988)ed.
Clearly persistent violence in the region has been rooted in insurgency and radical ethnic mobilizations. The data available on riots (IPC defined23) from 1958 to 1993 are to be read in conjunction with the table above. They have remained a pointer to the region’s vulnerability to the conventional lapse in governance.
Table 5: Riots in Northeastern States (1958-1993)
Year
Assam
Nagaland
Manipur
Tripura
Meghalaya
Mizoram
A.P*
1958 1163 01 25 105
1968 3126 47 180 428
1969 4192 29 240 326
1971 3154 28 1052 286
1972 3054 31 176 250 33
1974 3971 52 190 250 66 03 01
1975 3738 80 193 159 80 00 05
1977 3738 40 181 309 98 07 07
1978 4653 31 186 458 141 07 13
197
1981 5807 37 168 416 160 01 18
1982 6042 60 190 446 88 02 18
1987 4385 60 116 561 74 01 09
1988 4748 25 108 576 73 03 16
1990 4804 24 147 539 49 00 33
1991 4045 19 132 516 41 00 17
1992 4763 21 128 344 102 00 19
1993 4462 25 112 440 56 03 19
Source: Crime in India reports (Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India) of various years. Notes: * indicates Arunachal Pradesh. The blank spaces indicate that the units then were not created.
The data above suggests that the picture of records of violence in the region is
highly state centric and complex. The situation in the 1990s was worrisome due
to persistent insurgent violence. From the 2000s, the situation began to show
improvement, but not in all States in the region. Malhotra (2014: 158-59)data on
the States’ performance on ‘rule of law’ in relation to various indicators of human
development (Tables 6 & 7) show that all the states in region show improvement
in 1991 compared to 1981 in PEI which in most cases are better than all-India
average. The data in diagram 2 show that the trend of improvement in PEI was
maintained between 2001-2011. Malhotra’s Policy Effectiveness Index suggests
human wellbeing ‘collectively secured’ in the region (Malhotra 2014: 11).
Table 6:Policy Effectiveness Index 1
198
Variables:
PEI: Policy Effectiveness Index
LOIC: Livelihood Opportunity Index Combined
RoLI: Rule of Law Index
SOI: Social Opportunity Index
PIDI: Physical Infrastructure Index
Table 7:Policy Effectiveness Index 2
Source: Adapted from Malhotra R. 2014 India Public Policy Report (New Delhi: Oxford University Press
Unlike other regions of India, collective violence, rule of law and the lapse in
governance in the region have been intertwined with the issues of identity and
participation. In view of these characteristics, the region has seemed to be a
natural case for `Balkanization`, persistent disorder collapsing into chaos and
disintegration. And yet, the region has defied the challenge, and so far none of
the parts has disintegrated. Malhotra (2014)’s data strongly suggest that from the
1990s, the States in the region have performed better in terms of various HDI
indicators.
StateRoLI PIDI LOIC SOI PEI RoLI PIDI LOIC SOI PEI
Arunachal Pradesh 0.133 0.133 0.346 0.204 0.188 0.119 0.221 0.513 0.259 0.243Assam 0.155 0.087 0.347 0.209 0.177 0.19 0.117 0.284 0.219 0.193Manipur 0.248 0.105 0.765 0.29 0.275 0.248 0.14 0.551 0.322 0.28Meghalaya 0.27 0.158 0.321 0.276 0.248 0.33 0.194 0.638 0.28 0.327Mizoram 0.148 0.093 0.629 0.317 0.248 0.213 0.199 0.745 0.399 0.335Nagaland 0.482 0.103 0.342 0.273 0.261 0.567 0.199 0.534 0.318 0.372Tripura 0.21 0.098 0.284 0.239 0.193 0.195 0.181 0.441 0.283 0.257India 0.126 0.23 0.295 0.208 0.205 0.115 0.303 0.347 0.225 0.228
1981 1991
StateRoLI PIDI LOIC SOI PEI RoLI PIDI LOIC SOI PEI
Arunachal Pradesh 0.142 0.323 0.517 0.356 0.303 0.158 0.359 0.578 0.432 0.345Assam 0.166 0.171 0.33 0.248 0.22 0.112 0.247 0.348 0.304 0.232Manipur 0.288 0.219 0.54 0.348 0.33 0.209 0.283 0.449 0.435 0.328Meghalaya 0.295 0.318 0.652 0.322 0.374 0.254 0.336 0.664 0.381 0.383Mizoram 0.263 0.44 0.654 0.429 0.424 0.357 0.675 0.489 0.502 0.493Nagaland 0.409 0.241 0.408 0.335 0.341 0.541 0.343 0.247 0.415 0.371Tripura 0.325 0.206 0.258 0.272 0.262 0.187 0.416 0.289 0.371 0.302India 0.115 0.4 0.326 0.244 0.246 0.112 0.5 0.372 0.317 0.228
2001 2011
199
Political Participation
When Tripura acceded to the Indian Union in 1949, it was accorded the status of
a chief commissioner’s province and part C state under the first Schedule of the
Indian Constitution, and was provided with a territorial council (TC) in 1957
without any powers. It was upgraded to a Union Territory with a state assembly
in 1962. The above constitutional arrangements meant in effect central rule in
Tripura for neither the TC nor the assembly had any legislative powers which
belonged exclusively to Indian parliament (Basu 1997: 261-63). Tripura achieved
statehood in 1972 in the wake of the major reorganization of states in the North
East. Therefore, between 1947 and 1972 when Tripura got statehood, the state
practically had had no representative governing institutions worth the name. The
TC and the assembly were constitutional reforms without much significance. The
Left thus could not share any power. This was also the period when the state
experienced demographic upheavals due to the influx of post-partition refugees
and those who crossed the borders in hundreds of thousands since the late 1960s
leading to the Bangladesh war of independence.
During the 1940s, the CPI and its affiliates kept up the movement for social
reforms (such as mass literacy campaign) and political reforms such as the
establishment of responsible government over ground in semi-legal and often
difficult conditions, the GMP-CPI was engaged in underground armed struggle
during 1948-51 for withdrawal of military rule and the one man rule of the chief
commissioner in favour of democratic rule by the people. The outstanding
performance of the CPI and its partners such as the Tripura Ganatantric Sangha
(TGS) in the first general election in Tripura in 1952 was the political dividends
for their movements.
In elections in 1952 to form the 30-mmber electoral college to select one member
to the Rajya Sabha (the upper chamber of India’s parliament), the CPI and its left
200
partners won 19 seats and sent its member to the upper chamber. In the elections
for two seats to Lok Sabha (parliamentary lower house), the CPI and its front
members obtained as much as 61 per cent of the votes cast and sent two CPI
members to the house. The CPI’s outstanding electoral performance in the 1952
elections entitles them to claim to have pre-empted the Kerala unit’s 1957
achievement.
The party kept up the movement for constitutional reforms, for establishing
representative governing bodies instead of the territorial council, or the union
territory which was, in the party’s views, nothing but an authoritarian rule, and
central rule. The CPI and its partners won 15 seats in the elections to the territorial
council in 1957 (30-seat) but lost ground to the INC in 1962 by winning only 13
seats leaving the INC with 17 seats. From the early 1960s to 1977, the CPI lost
ground to the INC in the wake of the huge influx of Hindu Bengali refugees,
which was a ‘blessing to Congress’ (Chakrabarty 1983: 77). With the Bengalis
controlling the realm of government and administration that included refugee
rehabilitation, the then CPI and GMP known as the pro-tribal party, had little to
do with it but to mobilize for refugee rehabilitation. But the refugees supported
the INC in power. Added to that was the Chinese invasion of India in 1962 which
put most leaders of the CPI behind bars, and the party split in 1965 added to the
further weakening of the party. The communist movement was in disarray. The
post-split party was in effect the CPI-M but nonetheless both the CPI and the CPI-
M fared very poorly in the first elections to the state assembly in 1967: in the 30-
member house, the CPI got only one seat and the CPI-M won 2 (21.7 per cent
vote share). In the elections to the (60-member) state assembly after Tripura’s
statehood in 1972, the CPI got only one seat but the CPI-M got 17 seats (8.6 per
cent vote share) (Bhattacharyya and Nossiter 1988: 146-50; Bhattacharyya 1999:
165-66). During the Emergency (1975-77), all political activity was banned in the
state as elsewhere.
201
However, the CPI fully participated in the deliberations of the territorial college,
raising issues of reforms for creation of representative bodies in Tripura, and
pointed out many flaws of the Congress rule in Tripura. As I have discussed in
detail (Bhattacharyya 1999: 166), late NripenChakrabarty, a top CPI/CPI-M
leader and the first Chief Minister of the Left Front government in Tripura during
1978-88 as leader of the Opposition in the TC made skillful use of all available
ways of highlighting the pitfalls of the regime, staged many walk-outs, and no-
confidence motions. The same were highlighted in the party’s press
(Bhattacharyya 1999:166).In Lok Sabha, Biren Datta, the father of communism
in Tripura and one of elected members from Tripura and his colleague
DasarathDevbarma, the ‘uncrown king of the Tripuris’, continued to highlight the
regional problems of Tripura, refugee rehabilitation, increasing loss of tribal
lands to the Bengali and the absence of democratic bodies in the state.
(Bhattacharyya 1999: 166)
It was in 1977 state assembly elections held in December 1977 that the Left Front
under the leadership of the CPI-M won overwhelmingly by obtaining 53 seats (all
by the CPI-M) with 49.2 per cent popular votes. The outstanding victory of the
CPI-M in 1977 must also be related to the party’s participation in two short-lived
coalition governments in 1977---first with Congress for Democracy (CFD) and
then Janata. Large scale defections from Congress took place (somewhat echoing
the all India events), and the ministry headed by Sukhomoy Sen Gupta fell23. In
April 1977 a CFD-CPI-M coalition under the leadership of Profulla Das was
sworn in. This also fell in July and another Janata-CPI-M coalition government
was sworn in under the leadership of Radhika Ranjan Sen Gupta. As a price of
collaboration, the CPI-M got among others two very important portfolios of
Finance and Home, which were very skillfully utilized by publishing the failure
of the rival parties and also by distributing some patronages to its supporters and
sympathizers which helped build a platform needed for winning the next elections
202
the same year. The party’s victory in 1977 was a foregone conclusion. The CPI-
M alone won 51 seats with a total vote share of 51.10 per cent (Table 8) and with
its left partner, a further 4.97 per cent. In a parliamentary and fast past the post
electoral system, winning more than 60 per cent of popular votes was a
remarkable achievement indeed. The Left Front led by the CPI-M continued to
maintain its political support bases in the state. Even when it conceded defeat to
the Congress-TUJS alliance in 1988 it secured more seats than Congress.
Table 8:Performance of Political Parties in State Assembly elections in Tripura
in 1977 (60 seats)
Political
parties
Seat won Vote received
(%)
Total votes received
(%)
CPI 0 4.94 ---
CPI-M 51 47.00 51.10
INC 0 17.76 17.76
Janata Party 0 10.46 10.46
FBL 1 1.04 --
RSP 2 1.66 --
TUJS 4 7.93 17.02
IND 2 4.11 --
Others 0 9.21 Source: Election Commission of India But in the next elections in 1983 (post-riots), the CPI-M’s strength shrank to 37
seats leaving 6 to TUJS and 12 to Congress. The party’s vote share declined by
about3 per cent (Bhattacharyya and Nossiter 1988: 147). The relative decline in
strength of the Left was certainly related to the LF government’s poor handling
of the June 1980 ethnic riots which gave a wrong message to the tribals as well
as the Bengalis. This resulted in the Congress improving its share from 0 seats in
1977 to 12 in 1983, and the TUJS’s (a tribal party (1967-2002)) better
performance from 4 seats in 1977 to 6 in 1983. Emboldened by some rise in
203
electoral strength, the Tripura Tribal UpajatiJuvaSamity (TUJS), a tribal youth
organization (formed on 11 June 1967 but became defunct, and ceased to exist by
200323), a pre-election coalition of the TUJS and Congress (led by Congress),
thus far are arch political rivals, came to power in the 1988 State Assembly
elections and formed government. The declaration of the state as ‘Disturbed
Area’ (under the AFSPA) just prior to the elections helped the coalition win.
Table 9: Performance of Political Parties in the State Assembly elections in
Tripura in 1988 (total seats 60)
National Parties Seat contested Seats won Votes polled (%)
BJP 55 0 0.15
CPI 1 0 0.82
CPI-M 55 26 45.82
INC 46 25 37.35
JNP 10 0 0.10
FBL* 1 0 0.67
RSP* 2 2 1.60
TUJS* 14 7 10.52
Ind 81 0 2.98 Source: Election Commission of India. Notes: * state parties; INC and TUJS were in alliance
and formed the government (1988-93).
When placed in relation to the Left Front debacle in West Bengal since 2011, Left
Front’s record in Tripura is outstanding.
Since Tripura’s statehood in 1972, the site of electoral contestation shifted to the
state level. The competition was intense but took the standard institutional
channel. While the LF has been winning majority in all state assembly elections
since 1977 (during 1972-77 Congress was in power) and governing the state, in
1988, the Left conceded defeat to Congress-TUJS alliance (Table 9). While the
Left Front won more seats (28) than Congress (25 seats), the Congress Party
formed the government with its alliance partner TUJS (7)23. But since the 1990s
204
the Left Front have continued to maintain its sway over the state assembly. In the
last assembly elections in 2013 the Left Front won 50 (CPI-M alone 49) out of
60 seats. (Table 11).
Table 10: Electoral Performance of Political Parties in the State Assembly
elections in Tripura in 1993 (total seats= 60)
Parties
(National)
Seats contested Seats won Votes polled %)
BJP 38 0 2.029
CPI 2 0 1.35
CPI-M 51 44 44.78%
INC 46 10 32.73
JD (B) 2 1 1.57
FBL* 1 1 0.80
RSP* 2 2 1.58
TUJS* 14 1 7.52
AMB** 42 0 1.46
IPF** 2 0 0.035
IND 297 1 6.16 Source: Election Commission of India. Notes: AMB=Amra Bengali; IPF=Indigenous People’s
Front; TUJS=Tripura Upajati Yuba Samity; JD (B) Janata Dal (Biju); RSP=Revolutionary
Socialist Party; CPI=Communist Party of India; CPI-M=Communist Party of India (Marxist);
BJP=Bharataiya Janata Party; FBL=Forward Bloc (Liberation); INC=Indian National
Congress. * denotes State parties; ** registered unrecognized parties.
As the data in Table 10 show, the Left Front nearly fully recovered its bases of
support winning 47 seats out of 60 leaving only 10 to the Congress, and a single
seat to the TUJS. The Left’s performance in the election proved beyond doubt
that the TUJS’ so called ethnic space was spurious, and Congress was not a force
to reckon with.
205
Table 11: Political Party Performance in the State Assembly Elections in Tripura
in 2013 (total seats=60)
National Parties Seats contested Seats won Votes polled (%)
BJP 50 0 1.54
CPI 2 1 1.57
CPI-M 55 49 48.11
INC 48 10 36.53
NCP 2 0 0.03
AIFB 1 0 0.70
JD (U) 1 0 0.02
RSP 2 0 1.95
SP 4 0 0.08
AMB 16 0 0.25
CPI(ML) (L) 10 0 0.16
INPT 12 0 7.59
IPFT 17 0 0.46
SUCI 6 0 0.05 Source: Election Commission of India. Notes: NCP=Nationalist Congress Party; JD (U) Janata
Dal (United); IPFT=Indigenous People’s Front; IPFT=Indigenous People’s Front of Tuipra;
SUCI= Socialist Unity Centre.
The Left front has not only fully consolidated its political bases but left no space
for the tribal outfits in 2013. The 7.59 per cent of popular votes obtained by the
INPT is the traditional ethnic tribal base but the IPFT, a small break way which
had not merged in 2003 is far too negligible.
Table 6: Political Party Performance in the State Assembly Elections in Tripura
in 2013 (total seats=60)
National Parties Seats contested Seats won Votes polled (%)
206
BJP 50 0 1.54
CPI 2 1 1.57
CPI-M 55 49 48.11
INC 48 10 36.53
NCP 2 0 0.03
AIFB 1 0 0.70
JD (U) 1 0 0.02
RSP 2 0 1.95
SP 4 0 0.08
AMB 16 0 0.25
CPI(ML) (L) 10 0 0.16
INPT 12 0 7,59
IPFT 17 0 0.46
SUCI 6 0 0.05 Source: Election Commission of India. Notes: NCP=Nationalist Congress Party; JD (U) Janata
Dal (United); INPT=Indigenous People’s Front; IPFT=Indigenous People’s Front of Twipra;
SUCI= Socialist Unity Centre.
Governance and Policy Effectiveness
Tripura’s relative political order and stability when placed in relation to the North
East as a whole (except Sikkim) would seem on the face of it a little surprising.
Since the Left Front return to state level administration in 1978, the state has
witnessed continuous institutionalization of political participation. Today in a
land of some 3.7 million people, there is a (60-member) legislative assembly, one
ADC (for the tribal dominated areas comprising two-thirds of the territory of
Tripura) and 527 directly elected Village Committees of the ADC 23
(decentralization within decentralization) (total members 4165), one 35-member
Municipality at Agartala (state capital), 15 Nagar Panchayats23 with the total
207
members of 157, 4 District Councils (ZillaParishad) (total members being 82), 23
Block Panchayats (total member 299), 511 VillagePanchayas (total members
5295) (Roy 2011). The level of participation in elections, particularly at sub-state
levels is very high. In the most recent elections to the ADC in 2015, the rate of
popular participation was 83%. The section above indicated the sustenance of
party competition at state and the ADC levels despite some odds. Political stake
holders including the erstwhile tribal insurgent groups such as the TNV have even
forged electoral alliance with the arch rivals of the tribes such as Congress and
joined as junior partners in coalition governments at state and sub-state (ADC)
levels. In this sense, Tripura is somewhat different within the region, in the sense
that in this state, as distinguished from the rest of the region (except Sikkim),
democratic and institutionalized political participation offers the only option for
power sharing. While the ADC itself is a decentralized governing body for the
tribal dominated areas of Tripura, powers have been further decentralized through
the passage of the Village Committee Act in 1994 when the state government was
under the LF but the ADC was under the control of the IPFT (till 1995), a local
tribal political outfit. The spurt in ethnic insurgency in the late 1980s and the
1990s could not derail the much entrenched democratic process in the state. Much
credit goes to the Left for this. Tripura’s better governance has been a function
(among others) of this multi-level institutionalized political participation.
What is the track record of Tripura in respect of public policy effectiveness in the
last three decades or so, i.e. the period of India’s reforms? How has the state coped
with ‘transforming’ India? The Ministry of Development of North Eastern
Region (DoNER) in its report (2011) recorded satisfactory improvement for the
states in the region in HDI scores, and showed that between 1993-94 and 2004-
05, Tripura’s record in HDI improved from 0.327 to 0.447 (DoNER 2011, 4-
7). The report stated: ‘ …the economic performance of states like Tripura and
208
Sikkim in recent years take their per capita incomes (NSDP) well above those of
other North Eastern States.’. (DoNER 2011, 6)
From the more detailed and more up-to-date statistical analysis undertaken by
Malhotra (2014)23 we will examine Tripura’s policy effectiveness in terms of a
set of variables over the last three decades in relation to other states in the region
and some ‘forward states’ in India too.
Table 12Policy Effectiveness Index in Tripura compared to Some Forward States
in India (1981-2011)
States 1981 1991 2001 2011 Tripura 0.193 0.257 0.262 0.302 Andhra Pradesh
0.185 0.205 0.229 0.268
Maharashtra 0.214 0.244 0.261 0.314 Gujarat 0.247 0.255 0.291 0.305 All India 0.205 0.228 0.246 0.285
Source: Malhotra (2014), 148-49
The data in Table 12 show that between 1981 and 2011 Tripura improved its
position. Its level of performance in 2011 was above all-India, Andhra Pradesh
and very close to Gujarat. Its index value of performance in 2011, 0.302, was in
the same league as Maharashtra and Gujarat.
Rule of law index (ROLI) is a component of policy effectiveness index (PEI) but
itself a composite index of three sub-indexes: law enforcement (police personnel
per 10 thousand people), security of person and property, and rates of crime under
IPC and SLL (per 100 thousand persons). Overall these sub-indexes are
suggestive of the level of administration of justice, legal redress to remedy and
so on. Table 13 shows that since 1981, Tripura has performed well above all-
India and three advanced states of Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. Of
the other states the situation in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh were abysmal.
209
Table 13: Rule of Law Index: Tripura compared with India’s Forward States (1981-2011)
States 1981 1991 2001 2011 Tripura 0.210 0.195 0.325 0.187 Andhra Pradesh
0.124 0.094 0.089 0.084
Maharashtra 0.086 0.074 0.101 0.109 Gujarat 0.119 0.084 0. 084 0.081 All India 0.126 0. 115 0.115 0.112
Source: Malhotra (2014), 148-19)
This raises a very interesting question that better rule of law and far better
performance in other indexes of development do not go together, and also that
today those ‘forward states’ are considered better destinations for trade,
commerce and investment (Tables 14, 15 and 16) when their track records in
matters of rule of law were so abysmal.
The development of infrastructure has attracted most attention in India in recent years thanks to the drives for reforms. Throughout India, all states and regions have registered improvement in this respect.
Table 14:Physical Infrastructure Development Index (PIDI) in Tripura Compared with India’s Forward States (1981-2011)
States 1981 1991 2001 2011 Tripura 0.098 0.181 0.206 0.416 Andhra Pradesh
0. 173 0.262 0.429 0.548
Maharashtra 0.333 0.423 0.322 0.360 Gujarat 0.355 0.479 0.660 0. 640 All India 0.230 0.303 0.400 0.500
Source: Malhotra (2014), 148-49
In Malhotra’s study, the most important sub-index of PIDI is the access of household to electricity, water and toilets (Mahotra 2014: 55). While road connectivity and quality housing are important, particularly road connectivity, since the state is not fully responsible for proving housing to all. In the case of Tripura, it is seen that starting with a very low index (0.098 in 1981) there has taken place remarkable improvement over the next decades and in 2011 its performance value of 0.416 even placed it above Gujarat.
210
The issue of social opportunity is part of a larger global debate centring on individuals’ ability to live a ‘socially meaningful life’. (Malhotra 2014: 34) The writings of Sen and other and the global efforts such as the UNDP have focused on the means that ensure better social opportunity; the ones that build individual’s capabilities in a world marked by larger extent of inequalities and discrimination(Sen 1988; 1985). Malhotra has identified three sub-indices of SOI: education, health and income attributes. Each of them again is composite of other variables (Malhotra 2014: 34-35). Tripura’s performance records in this regard again are not only above the all-India level but also above Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra (Table 15). Tripura’s threshold in 1981 (0.239) quite good when placed in relation to other ‘forward states’ and the all-India level. In respect of LOI (Table 16) Tripura’s records were already better than that of all-India level and Andhra Pradesh. In 2011, its score of index value was 0.371 which was higher than that of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and all-India level. Gujarat has the index value in 2011 of 0.378 which made it in league with Tripura.
Table 15: Social Opportunity Index (SOI) in Tripura compared with India’s Forward States (1981-2011)
States 1981 1991 2001 2011 Tripura 0.239 0.283 0.272 0.371 Andhra Pradesh
0.195 0.215 0.236 0.309
Maharashtra 0.242 0.298 0.302 0.329 Gujarat 0.252 0.284 0.303 0.378 All India 0.208 0.225 0.244 0.312
Source: Malhotra (2104), 148-49)
Table 16: Livelihood Opportunity Index (LOI): Tripura compared with India’s Forward States (1981-2011)
States 1981 1991 2001 2011 Tripura 0.284 0.441 0.258 0.416 Andhra Pradesh
0.279 0.327 0.429 0. 438
Maharashtra 0.302 0.378 0.314 0.329 Gujarat 0. 349 0.374 0.429 0.438 All India 0. 295 0.347 0. 326 0.572
Source: Malhotra (2014), 148-19
211
Conclusion
The above account of politics and governance in Tripura during the last three
decades suggests that Tripura has remained the best governed state in the region.
In the delivery of public goods and services, the state’s record is stellar. For
example, during 2006-07 - 2013-14, in implementation of the MNRGA 2005 (100
days rural employment guarantee scheme), the largest flagship programme of the
Centre in recent years, Tripura’s success rates ranged from 97.48 per cent to 100
per cent. In 2012-13, one district (Unokoti) in Tripura received the best national
award for creating the highest (100 per cent) work days; in 2012-13 the state as a
whole achieved the first rank in the country in implementing the above
programme. (Roy, 2015: 279) The political crime as a result of insurgency
activities has lessened to a large extent: insurgent events as the major indicator of
such activities decreased from 184 in 2004-05 to only 07 in 2014. (Roy 2015:293;
and 2011: 253). One would like to correlate the better delivery of public goods
and service with better rule of law.
The important question is how we account for the above within the overall context
of the region and India as a whole. Our first explanatory variable is the effective
and committed political actors in government---the well-organized, disciplined
and coherent leadership of the CPI-M, which has not experienced any split since
1964. The Chief Minister, MrManik Sarkar, who has been the Chief Minister
(since 1998-) of Tripura is pragmatic in matters of implementing various social
welfare programmes funded by the Centre and those of the State government’s
own. He is a CPI-M Polit-Bureau member where at the all-India level he is a
Marxist par excellence, seemingly guarding the ‘party line’. In Tripura he takes
things in context, defends provincialism in the garb of ‘unity-in-diversity’ (inter-
ethnic harmony) (Interview on 20/2/15 at Agartala); and makes full utilization of
all funds that are available from the Centre knowing well that the state is hugely
dependent upon the Centre for funds. In West Bengal, the Chief Minister, Mamata
212
Banerjee did decide not to greet the new Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In
Tripura, Manik Sarkar extended a red carpet welcome to him in Agartala and
asked the media persons: ‘What is wrong in inviting PM Modi? Every state has
its own specific problems, characteristics, advantages and disadvantages; the
decision is for every respective state to take on its own’. (CNN-IBN dated
1/12/14) A Special Category State with heavy dependence on the Centre for
funding projects (around 90 per cent), Tripura can hardly hope to ignore, let alone,
antagonize, the Centre.
The second explanatory variable is continuity in policy thanks to enduring
political stability except for a brief period23. In other states in the region, the
fragile party systems, and factious political leadership fell victims to crash ethnic
politics and contributed to political instability and chaos. In Tripura, communist
party regimentation has rather been functional in this respect in holding on
political stability. The Tripura State unit of the CPI-M is of course dominated by
the Bengalis, as the demographic logic was unavoidable. But the CPI-M
leadership which includes Bengalis and tribals have never reneged on tribal issues
and the overriding need to protect their identity. While in the rest of the region,
ethnic identity has remained very strong; in Tripura, the tribal comrades have
recognized the value of tribal interests and identity but not at the cost of a class
perspective.
And yet, India’s reforms have posed new challenges to Tripura as well as for
other states in the region. For such Special Category States in the region (now
defunct), what has mattered and served to ensure relatively durable order (in the
midst of Baruah’s over-stated concern of ‘durable disorder’)Baruah (2005),
Tripura like her regional brothers and sisters, has failed to attract any FDI inflows.
The following are the records of FDI inflows in the region:
213
Assam: 2008 (42 million $); 2009-10=11; 2010-11=8; 2011-12=I and 2012-
13=0.02) (Source: www.rbi.org.on/scripts/bs_view(20/2/16)
But the LFG in Tripura has already developed a more positive approach to
development in tune with India’s reforms.Tripura Human Development Report
(2007) had given a clear hint: ‘The Government is willing to explore partnership
with the private sectors in order to expand social infrastructure’. (THDR: A
Summary 2007: 33) But what keeps the government concerned is fledgling
financial resources now that the earlier supports from the Centre/Planning
Commission have been decreased. ‘The government has failed to clear up the
dues to manysuppliers and contractors which has not happened before; such a
problem is real’. (Samiron Roy, Editor, Tripura Darpan in a telephonic interview
on 28/10/16)
Bibliography
Adeney, K. 2007 Federalism and Ethnic Conflict Regulation in India and Pakistan (London: Palgrave Macmillan)
Baruah, S. 2005 Durable Disorder: Understanding Politics in Northeast India (Delhi: Oxford University Press)
Basu, D D. 1997 Introduction to the Constitution of India (New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India)
Bezboruah, M. 1998 ‘Cultural Nationalism in India’s Noeth-East: An Oerview’ in MItra, S K. and Alison, L. eds. Subnational Movements in South Aisa (New Delhi: Sgements Books), 171-90
Bhattacharya, Harihar. 1999 Communism in Tripura (Delhi: Ajanta)
Bhattacharyya, Harihar. 2002 Making Local Democracy Work in India: Social Capital, Politics and Governance in West Bengal (New Delhi: Vedams)
Bhattacharyya, Harihar. 2010 Federalism in India: India, Pakistan and Malaysia (London and New York: Routledge)
214
Bhattacharyya, Harihar and Nossiter, T.J. 1988 ‘Communism in a Micro-State: Tripura and the Nationalities Question’ in Nossiter, T J. Marxist State Governments in India (London and New York: Pinters), 144-72
Bhattacharyya, Harihar 1995. ‘The Reang Rebellion in Tripura 1943-45and the Birth of an Ethnic Identity’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, Vol. XXXll No. 3 July-September, 375-90
Chakraborty, J. 1983 Tripura: Trish thekeashi (Tripura from 1930 to 1980) (in Bengali ) (Agartala: Tripura Darpan).
Cohen, S. P. 1988 ‘The Military and Indian Democracy’ in Kohli, A. ed. India’s Democracy: An Analysis of Changing State Society Relations (New Delhi: Orient Longman), 99-144
Malhotra, R 2014 India’s Public Policy Report 2014: tackling poverty, hunger and malnutrition (New Delhi: Oxford University Press)
Menon, V P. 1955 The Story of Integration of the Indian States (New Delhi: Orient Longman).
Morris-Jones, W. H 1987 The Government and Politics of India (Cambridgeshire: The Eothen Press)
Roy, S. 2011 Tathypanji o Nirdenshika (Statistics and Sources) (in Bengali) (Agartala: Tripura Darpan)
Roy, S. 2015 Tathypanji o Nirdenshika (Statistics and Sources) (in Bengali) (Agartala: Tripura Darpan)
Tripura Human Development Report (2007)(http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/stateplan/sdr_pdf/tripura%20hdr.pdf (sighted on 27/10/2016)