UNC reacts against Dr Meinya's bill on territory
Source: Hueiyen News Service
Imphal, May 02 2012:
Reacting against the report of introduction of a private member's bill in the Lok Sabha by MP Dr Thokchom Meinya for protection and preservation of the territorial integrity of Manipur for all time to come, United Naga Council (UNC) has asserted that the bill was introduced with the mandate of only the Meiteis and not all the people of his constituency.
In a statement, UNC pointed out that Dr Meinya is the Member of Parliament representing the inner Manipur parliamentary constituency which consists of only the Imphal valley, the original Kangleipak or Manipur that has an area of only of 2238 sq.
kms.
He does not represent the tribals or the Nagas in Manipur who have a separate Outer Manipur Parliamentary constituency with area coverage of 20,089 Kms accounting for 90 percent of the total area.
The tribals and Nagas have been persistently struggling for political empowerment to pursue their aspirations even before the merger of Manipur.
"The Nagas in the present state of Manipur were independent of the Manipur Maharaja.
A dual system of administration for the Hills and the Valley was introduced after the British annexed the Meitei kingdom of Manipur in 1891.Although the Britisher's had no idea of the geographical and political situation, they understood that the Manipuris will not give the hills a decent administration and felt the obligation to separately administer the hill tribes.
Thus, the Imphal Valley was administered by the Meitei Maharaja with the assistance of the Durbar and the hills were looked after by the political agent on behalf of the British Crown and justice was dispensed based on the tradition and customary laws of the hill people.
No Naga or tribal were ever a member of the Durbar.
This system continued even after 1949 when the Meitei kingdom was merged with the Indian Union along with the hill areas, without the knowledge and consent of the Nagas and other tribal people.
Articles 371C provides for protection of the interest and welfare of the tribals in the Manipur" it stated.
The long history of Manipur and Meitei kingdom which Dr Meinya talks about was never shared by the tribals.
When the Burmese occupied Manipur for seven years (1819-1825), the Manipuris took shelter among the tribals in the hills.
While good neigbourliness had always been maintained by the tribals towards the Manipuris, the two had always felt the difference in culture and ways of life.
Because of the hegemonic conduct of the dominant community in their dealings with the tribals, the sharp social divide in the State has reached to an irreconcilable degree, the statement added.
"Dr Thokchom Meinya, we recall, in a TV interview (CNN-IBN) on 21 May, 2010, had stated that Manipur is a Hindu state and that Manipur is known by Imphal only.
Contrary to his claim, 99 percent of the population in the Hills districts is Christians.
With regard to his equation of Manipur with the Imphal valley, the tribals in Manipur gladly accept the same.
We thank him for providing a classic example, he, being none other than an Hon'ble Member of Parliament, of how the dominant community of Imphal valley, whom he represents cannot think or see beyond Imphal valley.
Manipuris are Meiteis and Imphal is Manipur.
This affirmation, which has not been retracted till date, is a standing confirmation of the severance of ties by the Meitei dominated communal Government of Manipur (GoM) from the tribals who are the owner of the hills" it stated.
It further stated that no amount of attempts to permanently protect the territorial integrity of Manipur, the political entity which is a historical blunder and misnomer will work, because that is against the will and aspiration of the tribals and the Nagas.
The tribals and the Nagas live in their own lands which do not belong to the Meitei Maharaja.
The hills were surreptitiously co-opted into Manipur for marginalisation.
The protection of the territorial integrity of Manipur is in the interest of the Manipuris but it is definitely not in the interest of the tribals and Nagas in the State, for it means perpetual suppression in every aspect and denial of their rights to their identity, land, culture, traditional practices - a future without dignity and honour.
Asserting that keeping the tribals and Nagas under the Meiteis is not the birthright of the Meiteis, whom Dr Meinya represents in the Parliament the statement further maintained that tribals and Nagas will not and cannot tolerate Dr Meinya's agenda for perpetual subjugation of the tribals and shall continue to resist it with all possible means.
Comment
