State Govt spells out details of Senapati talk
Source: The Sangai Express

Imphal, June 30 2011: The State Home Department has asserted that it was on the advice of the Ministry of Home Affairs and as decided by the State Cabinet, that the talk was held with UNC delegation today at Senapati in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of the district.

The Ministry of Home Affairs was represented by Secretary Internal Affairs) UK Bansal, Joint Secretary (NE) Shambhu Singh, Joint Director (IB) AK Mishra and Director MO-II, Ministry of Defence Col SK Narayan while the State team was led by the Chief Secretary and included Principal Secretary (Power), Commissioner (Home & Hills) and Secretary to the Chief Minister.

The UNC delegation was led by Sword Vashum and included nine members.

During the talk, Sword Vashum and other UNC delegates pressed their demand for 'alternative arrangement' for the Nagas of Manipur.

In response the State delegation asked the UNC delegation to clearly spell out the specifics of so-called 'alternative arrangement' as there is already in place a democratic system in the Autonomous District Councils to take care of the special needs of the Hill districts in the State.

The State Government delegation also reiterated that the territorial integrity of Manipur State was not negotiable.

To further the talks, the State delegation proposed two separate power-point presentations on the development projects and schemes taken up in the five hill districts.

They also offered to make a presentation on the devolution of powers to the elected six Autonomous District Councils.

However, the UNC delegation did not agree to the proposal.

Nonetheless, hard copies of the presentations were circulated to the members present in the meeting.

On the proposed power-point presentations, the statement explained in brief that the State Planning Department's presentation on 'Investment in Hill districts' pointed out that 39 percent of the State's Plan Outlay, amounting to Rs 1251.9 crores, for the year 2011-2012 is earmarked for the hill districts.

Most NLCPR funded projects (total Rs 290 crores for 2010-11 and 2011-12) are implemented in the hill areas.

28 percent of SPA funds, approximately Rs 225 crores, is earmarked for the hill areas.

In addition, there are schemes exclusively for hill districts, viz, BADP (Rs 20 crores), BRGF (Rs 42 crores), IFAD (Rs 8.49 crores), TSP (Rs 10.84 crores), GIA under Art.

275 (Rs 8.96 crores), etc.

Moreover, some of the major development projects in the hill districts include construction of roads & bridges, power stations, 50-bedded hospitals, minisecretariats, schools/hostels, water supply schemes and so on.

Similarly, the Hills Department's presentation on 'Devolution of Powers to ADCs' states that the DRDAs have been fully transferred with funds and staff to the District Councils.

Further, the State Govt has devolved 26 subjects to the ADCs.

Twenty-five departments have already devolved powers as per State Cabinet decision.

The ADCs have been vested with legislative powers concerning the tribal social customs while financial powers involve authority to levy, modify and collect taxes and fees.

Further, powers are proposed to be devolved in consultation with Hill Areas Committee (HAC).

During the talks, the Chief Secretary also read out the response of the State Government to the issues raised by UNC through their memoranda dated 14/09/2010 submitted to the Prime Minister.

In the State response, the territorial integrity of State of Manipur was reiterated.

It was underscored that in addition to the State Legislature, alternative arrangement for the hill areas was already provided in the form of Autonomous District Councils under Article 371 (C) of the Constitution, for which elections have been held last year after a gap of more than 20 years.

Sword Vashum conveyed that alternative arrangement in the form of ADCs was not acceptable to them and their demand was based on severing of ties with the Government of Manipur, and suggested bipartite talks between UNC and the Government of India.

This suggestion, however, was not accepted by the MHA representatives present in the meeting.

In conclusion, the Government representatives expressed willingness to discuss issues within the framework of the Constitution and reiterated that the territorial integrity of Manipur was not open for discussion.

This stand was endorsed by the MHA officers, the statement added.

Comment