SPECIAL ARTICLE
Institutional Exclusion of the Hill Tribes in Manipur
Demand for Protection under the Sixth Schedule
L Lam Khan Piang
Ever since the colonial government brought the hill areas
by annexation into the fold of Manipur, which was then
only the Imphal Valley, the hill tribes and the valley
community have been “living together separately,” with
certain separate administrative arrangements. The
problems of present-day Manipur are the consequences
of this forced integration of two different entities. After
India’s independence, the hill tribes in the North East
were protected under the Sixth Schedule of the
Constitution, but the Manipur hill tribes were left out.
This denial of the extension of the Sixth Schedule to
Manipur is a process of institutional exclusion, which has
led to the demand for greater autonomy.
The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for invaluable
inputs and critical comments which have helped to strengthen and
sharpen the focus of his arguments.
L Lam Khan Piang (lampiang@gmail.com) teaches at the Centre for
Study of Social Systems, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, Delhi.
54
T
he hill areas of present-day Manipur are home to various
tribes, such as the Nagas and Zo people (Kuki-Chin),
which were brought into the fold of Manipur by the British
colonial government, by slicing out portions of various hill
ranges such as the Naga Hills, Chin Hills, Lushai and Cachar Hills,
contiguous to the Imphal Valley. This colonial cartography cut
across ethnic groups and was primarily geared towards admi-
nistrative conveniences and military exigencies, which resulted
in the division of the communities in the region by various admin-
istrative boundaries. So, it is argued that the political problems
facing the hill tribes in Manipur are rooted in the process of how
the British colonisers created this princely state, while
consolidating their position in the region (Piang 2015: 160–61).
Historically, the hill tribes were never ruled by the Manipur raja
and no attempt had ever been made to set up a regular adminis-
trative arrangement, even among the few villages of the hill tribes
where he could, from time to time, forcibly wrest portions of their
harvest in the form of taxes. In fact, the British engaged with them
indirectly through their political agent, from 1835 till the Kuki Ris-
ing (1917–19). Thereafter, the hill areas were annexed and directly
administered. As B K Roy Burman (2005: 10) aptly remarks, “for
quite some time in the nineteenth century the British policy
was to consolidate the control over the tribals in the borders of
Burma and Cachar through the king of Manipur.”
The princely state of Manipur was a British protectorate and
always readily got the backing of the British Native Infantry sta-
tioned at Cachar. The fact that the political agent of Manipur was
stationed in Imphal is clear evidence of the nature of the relation-
ship. Even James Johnston (1992: 101), the political agent in
Manipur, recorded, “my chief work was to protect Manipur and
its interest.” While serving the interests of Manipur, the political
agents augmented the spheres of their influence towards the
hills and brought the hill tribes into the fold of the state. However,
showing great prudence, the British colonial government never
made the hill tribes the subjects of the Manipur raja, even after
they annexed the hill areas. Instead, the British maintained a
“separate administration” for the hill tribes, by keeping them
outside the purview of the Manipur raja’s durbar. Consequently,
the hill tribes were neither under the control of the Manipur
raja nor were they ever a part of the princely state of Manipur.
In fact, the British maintained this separation throughout their
regime and the same practice has continued even after the end
of British colonial government, till the present-day.
Manipur state was constructed by bringing together the
hills and the valley, which were never a united political, social,
APRIL 13, 2019 vol lIV no 15 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

cultural and geographical entity. It was not the result of conquest
or military campaign by the Manipur raja that brought the hill
areas within the fold of Manipur. Rather, it was the British
who were responsible for that, and even though they brought
them together, concerted attempts were made to maintain
their separate existences, as different entities in the form of a
separate administrative arrangement for the hill and valley
areas in Manipur. The Manipur raja, not to mention that he
never established his overlordship, could hardly protect his
subjects from the raids of the hill tribes. M McCulloh, the political
agent of Manipur in the middle of the 19th century wrote:
Before the connection of the British Government with that of Manipur
took place, the latter, not to speak of exerting influence over the tribes,
was unable to protect the inhabitants of the valley from their exaction
and blackmail, and even after the conclusion of peace with Burma,
and the fixation of boundary of Manipur, the Majority of the tribe
were independent, and known to us little more than by name. With
the assistance of arms and ammunitions given to Manipur by the Brit-
ish government, some of the tribes have been thoroughly, the north-
ern one particularly, reduced, and the attack of the one that bordering
Burmese have led to apprehensive of the interruption of the general
peace of the frontier. (McCulloh 1980: 75)
After the Government of India Act, 1935 was enacted, the
British government was anxious to bring all the states under
the direct control of the Government of India. Consequently,
after prolonged official correspondences, Maharaja Churachand,
in a letter dated 21 July 1939,
agreed to federate on terms which covered the exclusion of the Hills
from his control. However, this process of federation was aborted and
brought to an abrupt end by the outbreak of World War II in September
1939. (Reid 1997: 95; Bhattacharyya 1963: 311)
This shows that the maharaja acknowledged that he was
not the rightful ruler of the hill areas and hence explains his
readiness to be a signatory to such an arrangement that
excluded the hills. Taking this fact into account, the question
that arises is: how legitimate is the “merger agreement” with
the Union of India, signed by the Maharaja of Manipur in 1949,
for the hill areas?
Institutional Exclusion
Manipur has been in the limelight recently due to the brutal
killing of tribal youths by the state security forces, who were
protesting against the passage of three bills by the Manipur
state assembly on 31 August 2015. The bills are: The Protection
of Manipur People Bill, 2015 (PMP Bill), the Manipur Land
Revenue and Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment Bill), 2015
and the Manipur Shops and Establishments (Second Amend-
ment Bill), 2015. The hill tribes of Manipur were not only
against the three bills, but also the manner in which the bills
were passed, in complete disregard of the “Rules of Procedure
and Conduct of Business” in the Manipur Legislative Assembly
[Section 4(2)], such that the President of India also did not give
his assent to those bills. This shows that the whole episode was
nothing but the manifestation of the unresolved, deep-rooted
political problems, that exist ever since the colonial regime
brought the hill areas, which were a separate political entity,
to the valley for consolidating their reign in the region.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW APRIL 13, 2019 vol lIV no 15
SPECIAL ARTICLE
The hill tribes do have their agency in the form of the Hill
Areas Committee (HAC), a committee of all elected members of
legislative assembly (MLAs) from the hill areas. But, in a state
where the population is extremely divided along ethnic lines, be-
sides the division between the hills’ and valley’s dwellers, the
20 members from the hill areas out of a total of 60 members in
the state assembly, could not effectively protect the interests of
the hill tribes. In the case of the three controversial bills, be-
sides many factors that led to the passage of the bills, the main
issue was that the bills were dealing with schedule matters of
the HAC, but were designed to bypass the HAC, by attaching a
section called “financial memorandum,” along with the PMP
Bill, to make it look like a “money bill,” as a money bill does not
fall under the ambit of the schedule matters of the HAC.
This article attempts to understand this problem through
the conceptual framework of institutional exclusion, by ana-
lysing emerging issues, such as making the HAC dysfunctional
even though it has a number of subject matters under its purview,
bypassing it in certain important matters related to hill areas
and denying proportional representation to the hill tribes. In fact,
the HAC was established due to the apprehension that certain
problems would arise when Manipur was given full-fledged
statehood. This can be understood in the words of D C North
(1992: 73), who says that, “Throughout history, institutions have
been devised by human beings to create order and reduce
uncertainty in human exchange.” According to him,
institutions are the rules of the game of a society or more formally are
the humanly devised constraints that structure human interaction …
composed of formal rules (statute law, common law, regulation), informal
constraints (conventions, norms of behavior, and self-imposed rules of
behaviors); and the enforcement characteristics of both. (North 1992: 74)
This is the situation in Manipur where existing formal insti-
tutions are neglected knowingly, to promote the interests of
the dominant community, which defeats the noble objective of
the constitution of the HAC.
This process of neglecting established rules and procedures,
with the intention to secure partisan advantages can be consid-
ered as institutional exclusion, which Anton Oleinik (2012)
views as a destabilising factor. He defines it as, “The alienation
of ordinary people from government and their inability to rely
on the law and official procedures when being engaged in every-
day activities” (Olenik 2012: 154). Looking at the situation in
Manipur, institutional exclusion can be defined contextually
as the alienation of ethnic minorities in the institutional arrange-
ment within the government system, where the majority eth-
nic community dominates the representatives of the lesser eth-
nic communities, and their interests are kept in abeyance. This
is done by ignoring the existing arrangement of asymmetrical
federal relations and power structure, by manipulating the
electoral mechanisms, which dictates inclusion and exclusion
in terms of conferring advantage and conversely, disadvantages.
Matthew Holden (2008) aptly remarks that
Inclusion begins with enfranchisement. But electoral mechanisms
themselves have known effects. Those mechanisms that enhance the
likelihood of female and minority representation are critical tools of
potential inclusion. But electoral mechanisms equally can be used as
tools to exclude as well. (Holden 2008: 4–5)
55
SPECIAL ARTICLE
The institutional exclusion of the hill tribes has manifested in
various forms, but the most remarkable will be the passing of
the said three controversial bills. The hill tribes, while protesting
against these bills, put forth their demand for a “separate adminis-
tration,” from the domination of the valley community in the
state government. Looking back to the development of admin-
istration in the hill areas of Manipur, separate administration
was always maintained, even after they were brought within
the fold of the Manipur princely state. Though separate admin-
istration has been continuing in the hill areas of Manipur with the
functioning and implementation of the Manipur (Hill Areas)
District Councils Act, 1971, it is in fact without any autonomy,
due to lack of legislative and judicial powers, and also no sepa-
rate budgetary allocation from the Government of India, besides
the domination of the state assembly in which almost two-
thirds of the seats are occupied by the dominant community.
Thus, the hill tribes never got a chance to taste political autonomy
to develop themselves culturally and economically, since their
encounter with the state from the colonial times to the present.
The questions that arise are as follows: Why has there al-
ways been a separate administrative arrangement for the hill
tribes in Manipur ever since they were brought into the fold of
Manipur princely state by the British colonisers? Considering
the reality of the existence of the hills and the valley as separate
entities in Manipur as in Assam, why were the Manipur hill
tribes not brought under the ambit of the Sixth Schedule of the
Constitution, as in the case of other tribes in the region? Why
have the provisions for the protection and safeguarding of the
interests of the Manipur hill tribes under the Constitution, not
been implemented as envisaged? Why has the demand for the
extension of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution in the hill
areas of Manipur never been considered with sincerity, despite
the state cabinet’s recommendation?
Integrating Hills and Valleys
Before the colonial expansion towards the present Indo–Myanmar
border areas, topography played an important role in delimit-
ing political control of the various rulers of the region. This
article deals specifically with the encounters of the British col-
onisers and the various political entities—raja, paramount chiefs,
village chiefs, etc, in the region, especially in present-day Manipur.
Raids, retaliation, suzerainty, submission and the like were
commonly witnessed in the region, and there were tribal feuds
among the hill tribes, which resulted in the rise of paramount
chiefs like the Kamhau/Sukte, Sailo, etc. The relationship of the
Meitei raja and the villages closer to the valley was rather hostile,
as he did not rule by making regular administrative arrange-
ments in those villages, but extracted tributes from them forcibly,
which Robert Reid (1997: 41) calls “periodical massacre.”
From the colonial historical accounts, it can be discerned
that it was the British colonisers who brought the hills into the
fold of the valleys, in the process of establishing and consolidat-
ing their control in the region. So, it is not the colonial regime
that divided the hills and the valleys, rather they were respon-
sible for integrating these entities which had separate existences
before. The hills and valleys divide is not due to the now infamous
56
“divide and rule” policy, rather it is the by-product of the nature
of politics prior to colonial ascendency, in these areas. The
problems that emerged as the result of this division are the
consequence of the truncated project of bringing the hills and
the valleys together under the state. After the British with-
drew, the legatees of the colonial state did not allow the hill
indigenous peoples to have their right to self-determination,
and also disregarded their claim to territorial integration.
The British encountered the hill tribes after their intervention
in Manipur, at the behest of the raja in exile, due to Burmese
invasion and occupation, to oust the Burmese invaders from
Manipur. This led to the Anglo–Burmese War in 1824, which was
concluded by the Treaty of Yandaboo in 1826. Following a series
of subsequent treaties, the British stationed a political agent in
Manipur in 1835 to aid the raja. The political agent, on various
occasions of expeditions towards the hills, encountered the hill
tribes and engaged them. The British annexed Manipur after the
Palace Uprising in 1891, but even after the annexation,
the hill tribes were excluded from the jurisdiction of the State Darbar
and Administered by the Vice-President (President in the subsequent
revision) of the Manipur Darbar, who was a British Officer, subject to
the general control of the Political Agent, with the Lambus acting as
intermediary.1
This indirect administrative arrangement was regarded as
one of the causes of the Kuki Rising (1917–19). Nicholas Beatson
Bell, the chief commissioner of Assam, then proposed a new
administrative arrangement for the hill areas when he visited
Manipur in 1919, after the successful military operation suppress-
ing the Kuki Rising. Immediately, as proposed, the hill areas
were brought under direct administration by dividing the area
into four subdivisions (Gimson 1920: 2)—the south-west area
with headquarters at Churachandpur inhabited by the Kukis,
with B C Gasper in-charge; the north-west area with temporary
headquarters at Tamenglong inhabited by the Kukis, Kala Nagas
and Kaccha Nagas, under William Shaw; the north-east area
with headquarters at Ukhrul inhabited by the Tangkhul Nagas
and Kukis, to be administered by L L Peters; and the large area
in the north of the state, including Mao and Maram Naga groups,
the whole of the Mombi area in the south-east and the various
hill tribes bordering the valley, continued to be administered
directly from Imphal by the president of the Darbar.
All these subdivisions were kept under British officers as shown
above, who reported to the president of the Darbar, a post
reserved for a British officer. Colonel Maxwell, Colonel Woods
and Colonel Shakespeare have variously remarked in their Confi-
dential Reports, noting that the “Manipuris are unfitted to
control the Hill tribes” (as quoted in Dev and Lahiri 1987: 111–13).
The British always had inhibitions about keeping the hill tribes
under the direct control of the Raja of Manipur, due to the appre-
hension voiced by the chief commissioner of Assam about the
attitude of the Manipuris towards the hill tribes, which is stated
by J E Webster, chief secretary to the chief commissioner of
Assam, in a letter dated October 1919, as follows:
Unfortunately … the Manipuri has not yet learned to look upon the
Kuki or Naga as a human being and it would not be fair to the hill
tribes to hand them over, unprotected, to the mercies of the Manipuri.
APRIL 13, 2019 vol lIV no 15 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

Also, as the trouble is of our making and as it involves a substantial
increase in expenditure of the hills, it obviously behoves us to put the
hill administration on a sound and humane basis before asking the
maharaja to take over it.2
If due consideration is given to the historical aspect that
brought the hill and the valley together during the colonial
regime, it would be helpful to understand how the colonial
accounts are replete with information about the construction
of the binaries of hill–valley peoples. Defying this binary in
the case of Manipur, J Yengkhom (2015: 283–86) argues that the
colonial classification and differentiation are based on race,
religion, language/dialect and politics. Viewing through the
evolutionists’ perspective, he considers “religion as one of the
important criteria for assessing the position of community on
the civilisational scale” (Yengkhom 2015: 285). He also argues
that, “Religion … became one of the reasons to favour Meitei
over the ‘hill-tribes’ on the civilisational scale… [in] ‘hierar-
chisation’ of society into a neat model of evolution” (Yengkhom
2015: 285). Even if we have to agree with him, his argument
speaks for itself that the hill and the valley were different
cultural entities and had separate existences, as a result of
which they were at different civilisational scales.
Further, it may be argued that the royal decree that coerced
the Meitei to convert into Vaishnavism has no effect on the
hills. Yengkhom (2015: 286) also points out that, “The separation
of hills and valley peoples was linked with the larger politics of
colonial expansion and control on the frontier.” Further, he
says, “sometimes, classifications were based merely on topo-
graphical division, rather than any ethnological difference”
(Yengkhom 2015: 287). In fact, the categories mentioned above
invariably form the basis of classification of the human popu-
lation and the assertion made for “the separation of the hills
and valley was link to colonial expansion and control is a his-
torical fact” (Yengkhom 2015: 286). However, it is important to
note that all these were preceded by bringing the hills areas
into the valley, through annexation for the consolidation of the
British position in the region.
From the above observation, it is clear that the British took
moral responsibility towards the hill tribes, as they realised
that they were responsible for bringing them within the fold of
Manipur, which otherwise would never have been a part of
Manipur. Thus, a separate administrative arrangement for the
hill tribes has been upheld throughout, since the creation of
Manipur state by the British.
From Colonial Rule to Statehood
When the British were about to leave Manipur, a constitution
drafting committee for Manipur was constituted. The commit-
tee, considering the existing administrative system, made an
arrangement to continue with the separate administration of the
hill areas. The draft constitution was enacted by the maharaja,
which has two parts—the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947
and the Manipur Hill Peoples’ (Administrative) Regulation, 1947.
This constitution continued to maintain separate administration
for the hill areas, that is, the tribal areas in Manipur. However,
the new government formed under the new constitution was
Economic & Political Weekly EPW APRIL 13, 2019 vol lIV no 15
SPECIAL ARTICLE
short-lived, due to the merger of Manipur with the Union of
India on 15 October 1949. Thus, the princely state which could
maintain an independent existence under the British regime
was downgraded to the status of a Part “C” state within the
Union of India. However, in relation to the hill areas, the Regu-
lation of 1947 was continued, until it was repealed by the aboli-
tion of the chief court and hill bench (1956) and the circle
authority (1955), and also partly by Section 58 of the Manipur
(Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956.
Manipur was then provided with a territorial council, follow-
ing the enactment of the Union Territorial Council Act, 1956.
The council, consisting of 30 elected members and two nomi-
nated members, was constituted on 16 August 1957. By the
Government of Union Territory Act of 1963, Manipur became a
full-fledged union territory, with its territorial council converted
into a territorial assembly. Special provisions were made in
Section 52 of this act, for a committee of the legislative assembly
of the union territory of Manipur, consisting of members from
the hill areas to safeguard the interests of the hill tribes, which
was also known as the Hill Standing Committee.
A similar situation came up when the Manipur was about to
be conferred full-fledged statehood, as that of the situation
when the British government was considering whether to keep
the hill tribes under the purview of Manipur Darbar immediately
after the Kuki Rising (1917–19). In fact, the hill tribes were
never under the control of the raja, as mentioned in the letter
of J E Webster:
In 1907 when the Raja Churachand Singh was installed as Chief of
Manipur, the administration of the State was entrusted to a Darbar of
which the Raja was President. The Hill tribes were then treated as on
a footing distinct from that of the Raja’s Manipuri subjects, being only
“dependent on” the Manipur State; and under the authority of Foreign
Department Letter No 1081 E C, dated the 18th March 1908, the hill
tribes were excluded from the jurisdiction of the State Darbar and Ad-
ministered by the Vice-President of the Darbar subject to the general
control of the Political Agent.3
In both the situations, the issue of the tribes was handled
with caution. In the former, the British kept the hill tribes under
the direct control of the vice president of the Manipur Darbar,
the post reserved for a British officer; whereas the latter situation
came up when the North Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Bill,
1971 was about to be introduced in Parliament. While introducing
the bill, K C Pant, the then minister of state, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India said, “We have considered the
special problems of the new units, which would emerge as a
result of reorganization” (Pant 1971: 40–41). Consequently, to
deal with the expected problems, the Manipur (Hill Areas)
District Councils Act, 1971 was enacted by Parliament of India
for separate local administration, whereas to safeguard the inter-
ests of the hill tribes in the state assembly, the Constitution
(Twenty-seventh) Amendment Act, 1971 was passed.
This amendment of the Constitution inserted Article 371,
Section C, with the aim to extend the executive power of the
union for giving directions to the state in relation to the ad-
ministration of the hill areas, to provide for the constitution
and functions of a committee of the legislative assembly of the
state, consisting of members of that assembly elected from the
57
SPECIAL ARTICLE
hill areas of that state, and for the modifications to be made in
the rules of business of the government and in the rules of pro-
cedure of the legislative assembly. By exercising the power
conferred under Article 371C, the President of India promulgated
the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee)
Order, 1972. By adopting this order, the HAC was constituted to
safeguard the interest of the tribes in the state legislative
assembly, as the Hill Standing Committee of the Government
of Union Territories ceased to operate when Manipur was given
full-fledged statehood.
The intention of the act and the subsequent order were hon-
est, as both aimed to safeguard the marginalised sections in
the state of Manipur, but they could not function in practice as
envisaged, due to the “party whip” of the ruling party and the
domination of the chief minister over the HAC members of his
party, the lack of institutionalisation of the HAC even though it
has numerous subjects, which are called schedule matters,
under its ambit.
The apprehension of the central government leaders at the
time of the North-eastern Areas Reorganisation in 1971 was
quite accurate, as they could clearly foresee what would hap-
pen in Manipur to the hill tribes in the absence of constitu-
tional safeguards, as is evident in the current scenario. How-
ever the “measures” they adopted by enacting those acts could
not deliver according to their expectation, which was “to asso-
ciate the people of these areas (hill areas) closely with matters
of the local development and other matters of important to
them” (Lok Sabha Secretariat 1971: 40) and to “safeguard the
interest” of the hill tribes from the state assembly. Following
the attainment of statehood, the Government of Manipur im-
plemented the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act (1971)
by constituting six autonomous district councils, which were
Chandel, Churachandpur, Sadar Hills, Senapati, Tamenglong
and Ukhrul, in the hill areas of Manipur and the first election
to these councils was held in 1973.
In fact, the powerlessness of the district councils was identified
by the member of Parliament from Tripura East, Dasaratha
Deb, during the time when the Manipur (Hill Areas) District
Councils Bill, 1971 was debated in the Lok Sabha. He observed:
The proposed arrangement, as suggest in the Bill, may give a limited
opportunity to the neglected Hill tribes of Manipur to participate in
the affairs of the administration of Manipur. The … Bill has a very
limited scope of functioning of the District Council and their powers
to protect the interests of the tribal people of Manipur, particularly in
land, in services and into other matters which are very much limited.
The Council remains as a hapless child who has to look to the good
grace of the administrator in carrying out even a petty development
work for the tribal of Manipur. (Deb 1971: 42)
He further pointed out that, “[It] could not really provide
the tribals self-government since it did not have provisions for
legislative and judiciary, with very limited executive power”
(Deb 1971: 42).
In the first term of the council itself, the hill people realised
the limitation of the council’s power and authority. So, the hill
tribes protested and boycotted the council election and raised
demands for the extension of the Sixth Schedule of the Consti-
tution to the hill areas of Manipur. The state responded by
58
amending the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971
four times, but without any devolution as well as delegation of
much-needed legislative and judicial power, and shifting its
financial dependency from the state to the centre, such that
the councils were functioning more like a mere implementing
agency of government programmes and projects, instead of
making district plans and implementing them.
Left out of the Sixth Schedule
With colonial intrusion in the home territories of the hill tribes
and subsequent annexation as the historical experiences in the
region, the framers of the Constitution understood the situa-
tion and took the initiative to provide certain safeguards, as
there was apprehension that the hill tribes might face
discrimination from the dominant communities. For various
tribes in India, excluding those in the North East, the Fifth
Schedule of the Constitution was provided and the Sixth
Schedule for erstwhile undivided Assam, which was later ex-
tended to Tripura in 1985. Thus, the tribes in Manipur, unlike
others, may be the only ones who were covered neither in the
schema of the Fifth nor the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
This is, perhaps, not necessarily with the intention to treat
them differently from the rest of the tribes in India, but it is
due to the fact that Manipur was not a part of the Union of
India at the time when a subcommittee of the Constituent As-
sembly, popularly known as the Bordoloi Committee, drafted
the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. This committee’s main
task was to work out a modus operandi in the Constitution for
the tribals of “Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas,” and to
enable them to safeguard their ethnic identity and culture in a
democratic way in then undivided Assam.
At the time the Bordoloi Committee was discussing and draft-
ing provisions for safeguarding the interests of various tribes
within Assam, the drafting for the Manipur State Constitution
Act, 1947 and the Manipur Hill Peoples’ (Administrative) Reg-
ulation Act, 1974 was going on in Manipur, for the valley and
the hill areas respectively. This shows that Manipur was not
yet a part of the Union of India while the drafting of the Sixth
Schedule was in progress. In fact, the hill areas were adminis-
tered with the said regulation, until Manipur became a union
territory in 1963. Thus, it is more of a historical factor that the
hill areas of Manipur were left out of the schema of the Sixth
Schedule of the Constitution. However, not extending the
Sixth Schedule to the hill areas of Manipur even after the state
cabinet has recommended it thrice can no longer be explained as
historical mistake—rather, it is a politically manipulated act.
Democracy at Stake
Besides the denial for the extension of the Constitution’s Sixth
Schedule to the hill tribes of Manipur, there is also a lack of pro-
portional representation in the state assembly with respect to
the hill and valley areas of Manipur. To address the situation,
Parliament enacted the Delimitation Act, 2002, following
which the Delimitation Commission was set up to readjust the
division of each state and union territory into electoral constitu-
encies, for the purpose of elections to the house of the people
APRIL 13, 2019 vol lIV no 15 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

and to the state legislative assemblies, based on the population
census of 2001. The Delimitation Commission, as per its findings
based on the Census 2001 report, said that there was unequal
representation in the valley and the hill areas relatively, and
recommended increasing five additional seats in the hill areas,
with a corresponding decrease in the valley areas.
However, the Manipur Pradesh Congress Committee filed a
writ petition at the Gauhati High Court, challenging the popu-
lation figure of Census 2001, alleging an abnormal growth rate
in certain areas in the hills, specifically in the Senapati dis-
trict. The court directed for a fresh census in the three hill dis-
tricts and stayed the delimitation exercise till the completion of
the census. This ruling was appealed by the Government of
India in the Supreme Court, which stayed the operation of the
Gauhati High Court order. However, the President, on being
satisfied with that a situation had arisen in which the unity
and integrity of India was likely to be threatened, and also
taking cognisance of the situation that there was a serious
threat to peace and public order, hereby deferred the delimita-
tion exercise in the state of Manipur, with immediate effect
and until further orders.
Some of the reasons cited by the deferment order of the
President were as follows:4
(i) The Delimitation Commission recommendation involves the
transfer of some assembly seats from the valley to the hill areas
which will arouse the sentiments of the people residing in the
valley districts.
(ii) Certain hill districts have abnormal growth rate in
Census 2001.
(iii) The situation can lead to violent conflicts among the com-
munities living in the valley and the hills.
(iv) Various Meitei extremist organisations of Manipur along
with all factions, wings and front organisations, who had been
declared as “unlawful associations,” had intended to disrupt
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India.
(v) The state government of Manipur has requested for the
maintenance of status quo, in the interest of peaceful coexist-
ence of tribal and other communities of the state, and its terri-
torial integrity and the maintenance of peace and public order.
The enumerators conducting the population census of 2001
in the hill district of Manipur were state government employees,
so rejecting the work done by their own employees exposed the
complete failure of the Government of Manipur. In fact, the census
population of 2001 was accepted later in 2014, by the Registrar
General and Census Commission,5 after the President of India
issued the deferment order in 2008. Thus, the Government of
Manipur conducted itself in an overtly biased manner at the cost
of the interests of the hill tribes. Consequently, the recommen-
dations of the Delimitation Commission were kept in abeyance
and the majority community continued to control the assembly
with almost two-thirds majority of the seats in the state assembly.
The hill tribes demanded for the implementation of the
Delimitation Commission’s recommendation to increase certain
number of seats in the hill areas, with a corresponding reduction
of the same number of seats in the valley, as they were under-
represented in the state assembly with only 20 seats out of
Economic & Political Weekly EPW APRIL 13, 2019 vol lIV no 15
SPECIAL ARTICLE
the total 60 seats, though comprising 40.45% of the state
population, as per Census 2011 (Office of the Registrar General
and Census Commissioner 2011). Further, it can be seen how
the proportional representation principle is not considered in
the functioning of democracy in Manipur through the case of
Senapati district (which was recently bifurcated into two dis-
tricts—Kangpokpi and Senapati), in the hill areas. With a
population of 4.79 lakh, undivided Senapati district had only
five MLAs, whereas Imphal East district in the valley areas with
a population of 4.52 lakh had 11 MLAs (Office of the Registrar
General and Census Commissioner 2011). This trend can be fur-
ther elucidated from the “average number of voters” in a con-
stituency—for the valley constituencies the average number of
voters is 26,673, whereas for the hill areas, it is 34,642 (Gov-
ernment of Manipur nd). Hence, given the kind of dispropor-
tionate representation in the assembly, the scope of effective
participation for the hill tribes is non-existent and it gives an
opportunity to vested interest groups to continue playing dis-
criminatory and oppressive politics towards the hill tribes.
In fact, the problems of the hill tribes of Manipur are not
dissimilar to the problems faced by the tribes elsewhere in un-
divided Assam. However, the measures adopted to deal with
the problems have been different, as the hill tribes of Manipur
have had different historical experiences since Indian independ-
ence. The question arises as to why the hill tribes of Manipur have
to be treated differently? Is it because of the unique historical
experiences? This differential treatment exposed them to a
vulnerable situation, resulting in their marginalisation, exac-
erbated by the absence of any safeguards and protection in the
form of Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. Needless to say,
such marginalisation and insecurity of the hill tribes has
engendered political unrest in Manipur.
Mistakes or Manipulation
The HAC has not been functional as it was envisaged, as party
politics have overshadowed it in all aspects, without leaving
even the subject matters under its functions. Besides, arbitrary
alteration of vital key words happened in the Manipur Legislative
Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972, promulgated by the
President of India when it was entered in the Rules of Procedures
and Conduct of Business of the Government of Manipur, and pub-
lished by the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Govern-
ment of Manipur (Sanga 2013: 8–9). The mistakenly altered
words were too accurately similar to the keywords, to be merely
clerical mistakes. In the alteration from the original Order in the
“Functions of the Hill Areas Committee” (in Section 4, Subsec-
tion 3), the words “so legislation” were completely omitted, as a
result a loophole was created to bypass the HAC in certain matters
related to legislation affecting the hill areas in the state.
In Section 7 of the Order, the word “Governor” was altered
as “government,” which means the governor’s power was
snatched and given to the state government. Another altera-
tion was of one of the keywords in the phrase “Special respon-
sibility of the Governor” in Section 9 of the Order, in which the
word “discretion” was altered as “direction.” The Fourth
Schedule of the Order originally stated that “When the Bill is
59
SPECIAL ARTICLE
not approved by the Hill Areas Committee (HAC) but is passed
by the Assembly, the Speaker shall submit to the Governor the
Bill as passed by the Assembly together with the Bill as report-
ed by the HAC” (Rule 157A, Section 2). Without any amend-
ment by the legislature, the words “the bill as reported by”
were replaced with “the report of the Hill Areas Committee,”
thus changing the meaning altogether.
Thus, all these alterations, at the first instance, look like a
clerical oversight as the words look almost similar, such as “dis-
cretion” changed into “direction.” But the alteration happened
in most of the keywords, which raises a question whether the
alterations were inserted with mala fide intention. These alter-
ations curtailed the power of the HAC on the one hand, and the
role of the governor for protecting the interests of the hill tribes,
on the other hand. Leaders from the hills tribes (B D Behring and
R Sanga) complained to the Rules Committee through the deputy
secretary, which resulted in a correction in the 9th edition. The
house adopted this correction and the same came into force on
24 June 2013. Though corrections were made, the damage had
already been done, as it aggravated the already existing trust
deficit between the hill and the valley people.
Demand for Extension of the Sixth Schedule
The HAC of the Manipur Legislative Assembly unanimously
resolved in their sitting held on 5 March 1978 to demand for
the extension of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution
to the hill districts in Manipur, as the existing act did not
satisfy the aspiration of the tribal people, which it reaffirmed
on 8 June 1983. Subsequently, the Sixth Schedule Demand
Committee, Manipur (SSDCM), was formed by the leaders
of the hill tribes and it raised the slogan, “No Sixth Schedule,
No Council Elections,” and boycotted the elections of the
district council from 1987 to 2010. The hill tribes also organ-
ised protests in the form of a bandh and strike from time
to time in Manipur, especially in the hill areas. The HAC in
its meeting on 18 July 1990 once again reaffirmed its
earlier resolution.
On 13 May 1991, for the first time, the government gave
positive responses to the demand of the hill tribes spearheaded
by the SSDCM, with the state cabinet passing a resolution
to recommend for the extension of the Sixth Schedule in the
hill areas, with “certain local adjustment and amendment.”
The chief minister in his letter6 to the then Prime Minister,
P V Narasimha Rao, clarified the rider “local amendments and
adjustments” as follows: (i) manner of bearing additional ex-
penditure following the extension of Sixth Schedule, (ii) the
necessity or otherwise, of repealing the existing central and
state enactments operating in the hill areas, and (iii) what
type of Sixth Schedule to be applied.
The letter did not reach the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA),
as the Prime Minister’a Office did not forward it to them. As a
result, the MHA could not take any further action on this recom-
mendation. Besides, the leaders of the hill tribes were appre-
hensive about the rider, and as a result, the protest was
resumed and intensified, which compelled the state cabinet to
once again recommend for the same, without the contentious
60
rider, on 17 August 1992. The recommendation was conveyed
to the secretary (home), Government of India on 5 September
1992, but no positive step was taken to this end.
The demand for the extension of the Sixth Schedule of the
Constitution was reiterated again by the HAC in their sitting
on 5 March 2000 and it passed a resolution for the same. Once
again, due to the pressure from the SSDCM, the state cabinet
recommended the same again with the contentious rider
on 21 March 2001 and conveyed it to the MHA on 4 April 2001.
In response, the Government of India sent a series of remind-
ers to specify this rider on 6 August 2000; 20 July 2001 and
17 June 2002, but no response was received from the Gov-
ernment of Manipur. To this effect, L K Advani, the then
Deputy Prime Minister of India, wrote a letter to O Ibobi
Singh, the Chief Minister of Manipur, dated 7 April 2003. It
mentioned that
Government of Manipur had recommended to the Ministry of Home
Affairs on April 7, 2001 that the State Government had no objection
to the extension of the Sixth Schedule provisions in the Hill District
of Manipur with certain local adjustment and amendments. The
Ministry had sought details from the State Government regarding lo-
cal adjustments and amendments to be made. The State Government
had reported in April 2002 that the matter was under active consid-
eration of the State Cabinet and the Manipur Hill Areas Committee
of the Manipur Legislative Assembly. However, details of the local
adjustments and amendments to be made, while conferring Sixth
Schedule status to these Councils, are yet to be received from the
State Government.7
Since no positive development was seen to this end, a mem-
orandum signed by all the MLAs from the hill areas was sent to
the Prime Minister of India on 14 September 2003.
Besides, there are reports of commissions and task forces
like the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation’s Task Force on Panchayati
Raj (1996–99), the National Commission to Review the Work-
ing of Constitution, 2002 and the expert committee on “Plan-
ning in the Sixth Schedule Areas and Those Areas Not Covered
by Part IX and Part IX-A, 2006” that have recommended for the
extension of the Sixth Schedule in the hill areas of Manipur
(Hausing 2015: 80). Even at the time when the bill for the ex-
tension of the Sixth Schedule in the tribal areas of Tripura was
discussed in 1984, the then Home Minister, P V Narashimha
Rao, promised in both the houses of Parliament that the Sixth
Schedule would be “extended at the earliest” in Manipur as
well.8 This was also intimated through a letter officially to the
Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat by the Joint
Director, Lok Sabha Secretariat.9
The Government of Manipur constituted the Advisory Com-
mittee on Social Policy (1995–97) for the implementation of
the 73rd and 74th amendments of the Constitution. It also
drafted a bill for the amendment of the Manipur (Hill Areas)
Autonomous District Councils act, 1971, by recommending
the inclusion of legislative power, but it was not considered
and it rather turned out to be merely an addition of the term
“autonomous” to the title of the act. This was amended for the
second time in 2006, which repealed the earlier amendment
of 2000. This was further amended for the third time in 2008,
but nothing was done to empower the councils. In fact, all
APRIL 13, 2019 vol lIV no 15 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
 SPECIAL ARTICLE

these amendments were undertaken to deal with the protests
by the hill tribes.
A Recurring Issue
This issue for the extension of Sixth Schedule of the Constitu-
tion in the hill areas of Manipur came up once again when an
unstarred question, number 2303, was admitted for an answer
on 18 March 2015 in the Rajya Sabha. The questions were related
to the recommendation of the state government for the exten-
sion of the Sixth Schedule provision to the district councils of
Manipur and the road map for the same. The MHA answered
the question as follows, as it is mentioned in the letter sent to
the chief secretary, Government of Manipur:
The government of Manipur has not sent details of the rider local adjust-
ment and amendments/revised proposal in this regard so far. The Rajya
Sabha secretariat had conveyed that the reply has been treated as an assur-
ance. So, to fulfill the assurance, reply of the government of Manipur
to the Ministry’s letters dated 21 Sept and 17 Oct, 2001 is required.10
In the letter, it further requested the Government of Manipur
to “furnish details of specific areas to be included in the Sixth
Schedule of the Constitution and propose local adjustments
and amendments.” A reminder of the same subject was sent on
7 May11 and 28 May12 2015 and on 6 January13 and 6 February14
2016. However, the Government of Manipur never responded to
the above-mentioned letters. This insincerity on the part of the
state government reminds one of the apprehensions that the
British had when they deliberated upon whether to keep the
hill areas under the Manipur raja, at the time when Manipur
was annexed to the British Empire. As C S Mullan aptly
remarked in his letter to C L Corfield (dated 29 July 1937),
To place the Manipur hill tribes under the direct administration of His
Highness and the Darbar would be far more dangerous than to place
the Assam hill tribes under ordinary administration of the Assam Leg-
islature.15
The act of not cooperating with Government of India by the
Government of Manipur shows the blatant institutional exclu-
sion and marginalisation of the hill tribes. It can be reasonably
asserted that the Government of Manipur is controlled by forc-
es beyond the cabinet and the state assembly, as they have re-
peatedly shown their inability to enforce and follow up on
their own resolution. The question remains, how long do the
hill tribes of Manipur have to wait for the same constitutional-
ly mandated provisions and rights, that the other tribes in the
North East got without any struggles and protests? Thus, it
may be reiterated that for meaningful engagement with the
problems facing the hill tribes in Manipur, it is imperative to
recognise the historical reality that compelled the mainte-
nance of a separate administrative arrangement for them, and
look at the problems not merely as law and order issues, but as
political issues deeply rooted in history.

notes
1 J E Webster’s Letter: “Chief Secretary to the Chief
Commissioner of Assam’s Letter to the Secretary
to the Government of India, Foreign and Politi-
cal Department,” dated 4 July 1919. Ref. Pub. B.
Oct-1919 No 14, New Delhi: Deptartment of
Home Affairs, National Archives of India.
2 Webster’s letter: Ref. Pub.B Oct-1919 No 14.
3 Webster’s letter: Ref. Pub.B Oct-1919 No 14.
4 The Gazette of India: Part II, Sec 3, Sub-Sec. (ii),
February 8, 2008 1 Magha 19, 1929.
5 Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of
India, Order No 9/25/2013-CD(CEN).
6 D.O. No.2/6/91-CM/366.
7 Letter sent to the Chief Minister of Manipur by
L K Advani, Deputy Prime Minister (D.O. No.
11012/41/2001-NE.IV).
8 The Constitution (25 August 1984), 51st and
53rd Amendment Bill, 1984, p 205.
9 Letter sent to the Under Secretary (HAC),
Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Im-
phal by A N Kaul, Joint Director (LR), Ministry
of Home Affairs, Government of India, No.3(1)-
PRIS (LC)/88 dt. 25/4/1988.
10 Letter to the Chief Secretary, Government of
Manipur by Manohar N Sukole, Under Secretary
to the Government of India, Ministry of Home
Affairs, NE Division (vide No 13013/11/2015-
NE.IV dated 7 May 2015).
11 Letter to the Chief Secretary, Government of
Manipur by Manohar N Sukole, Under Secretary
to the Government of India, Ministry of Home
Affairs, NE Division (vide No. 13013/11/2015-
NE.IV dated 7 May 2015).
12 Letter to the Chief Secretary, Government of
Manipur by Sushil Ekka, Under Secretary to
the Govt of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, NE
Division (vide No. 13013/11/2015-NE.IV, dated
28 May 2015).
13 Letter to the Chief Secretary, Government of
Manipur by A C Jha, Under Secretary to the
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs,
NE Division (vide No U- 13013/11/2015-NE.IV
dated 6 January 2016).
14 Letter to the Chief Secretary, Government of
Manipur by A C Jha, Under Secretary to the
Govt of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, NE
Division (vide No. 11012/69/2011-NE.IV dated
6 February 2016).
15 Letter sent to C L Corfield by C S Mullan dated
29 July 1937, File No G.S.2753 of 1940, Assam
Secretariat.
References
Bhattacharyya, M (1963): Manipur, Calcutta:
Anushailan Press.
Deb, Dasaratha (1971): “Speech in the Lok Sabha on
Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Bill,” Lok
Sabha Secretariat (compiled by), Lok Sabha
Debate, New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat, 8
December, pp 42–43.
Dena, Lal (2011): “The Manipur (Hill Areas) District
Councils (4th Amendment) Bill, 2011,” Inpui,
http://www.inpui.com/2011/06/manipur-hill-
areas-district-councils.html.
Dev, Binal J and Dilip K Lahiri (1987): Manipur Cul-
ture and Politics, Delhi: Mittal Publishers.
Gimson, C (1920): Administrative Report of the State
of Manipur (1919–1920), Imphal: State Printing
Press.
Government of Manipur (nd): “Chief Electoral
Officer: Manipur,” ceomanipur, https://ceoma-
nipur.nic.in/.
Hausing, Kham Khan Suan (2015): “From Opposi-
tion to Acquiescence: The 2015 District Council
Elections in Manipur,” Economic & Political
Weekly, Vol 50, Nos 46–47, pp 79–83.
Holden, Matthew (2008): “Exclusion, Inclusion and
Political Institutions,” The Oxford Handbook of
Political Institutions–Scholarly Research Review,
Bert A Rockman, Sarah Binder and R A W Rhodes
(eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 1–30.
Johnston, James (1992) [1896]: My Experiences in
Manipur and Naga Hills, London: Sampson
Low, Marston & Co Ltd.
Lok Sabha Secretariat (1971): Lok Sabha Debate,
New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat.
McCulloh, M (1980): The Manipur Valley, 1857,
Delhi: Gian Publications.
North, D C (2016): “Institutions and Economic Theo-
ry,” The American Economist, Vo 6, No 1, pp 72–76.
Office of the Registrar General and Census Commis-
sioner (2011): “2011 Census Data,” Census India,
http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-Common/Cen-
susData2011.html.
Olenik, Anton (2012): “Institutional Exclusion as a
Destabilizing Factor: The Mass Unrest of 1 July
2008 in Mongolia,” Central Asian Survey,
Vol 31, No 2, pp 153–74.
Pant, K C (1971): “Introductory Speech of the
Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Bill,” Lok
Sabha Secretariat (compiled by), Lok Sabha
Debate, New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat,
8 December, pp 40–41.
Piang, L Lam Khan (2015): “Overlapping Territorial
Claims and Ethnic Conflict in Manipur,” South
Asian Research, Vol 35, No 2, pp 158–76.
Reid, Robert (1997): History of the Frontier Areas
Bordering on Assam from 1883–1941, 1942, New
Delhi: Spectrum.
Roy Burman, B K (2005): “Prefatory Introduction,”
The North East Frontier of India, Alexander
Mackenzie (ed), New Delhi: Mittal Publishers,
pp 1–14.
Sanga, R (2013): “The Hill Areas Committee of the
Manipur State Assembly: Critically Analysis,”
paper presented at the seminar on “Article 371C
of the Indian Constitution on the Hill Areas
Committee of the Manipur State Assembly,”
Tribal Research Institute, Imphal, Manipur,
India, 9 December.
Yengkhom, J (2015): “Beyond the Ethno-territorial
Binary: Evidencing the Hill and Valley Peoples
in Manipur, South Asia,” Journal of South Asian
Studies, Vol 38, No 2, pp 276–89.

Economic & Political Weekly EPW APRIL 13, 2019 vol lIV no 15 61