It has been reported that the Inner Manipur MP Thokchom Meinya Singh recently moved a Private Member Bill in Lok Sabha calling for protection and preservation of the state’s territorial integrity. In this regard, he had proposed the insertion of a new Article - 371 CA - in the Constitution as a special provision for Manipur. The bill being moved by the MP from Manipur states that Article 3 of the Constitution of India shall not apply to the state of Manipur - meaning the Centre's power and authority to change the boundary of any state of the Union under Article 3 shall not apply in the case of Manipur. According to the MP, the new Article envisages complete protection and preservation of the geographical area of Manipur as it existed at the time of its merger with the Indian Union in 1949. Not surprisingly, the United Naga Council (UNC) has responded against the report of introduction of the private member’s bill for protection and preservation of the territorial integrity of Manipur for all time to come. While arguing that the bill was introduced with the mandate of only the Meiteis and not all the people of his constituency, the UNC has gone on to further propagate 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.
Irrespective of the arguments put forth, the one thing that becomes obvious is the deep divide that exists between the tribals especially the Nagas and the Meiteis. And the claim of the UNC is that the tribals and Nagas have been persistently struggling for political empowerment to pursue their aspirations even before the merger of Manipur. So irrespective of seeking guarantee to protect the State’s integrity, it is looking more likely that some kind of meeting point must be reached on the Naga question. The sooner the political establishment and the people of Manipur realizes the almost irreconcilable divide there is, the better it will be for the future well being of the two peoples—to live and let live as good neighbours. As far as the amendment to Article 3 is concerned, the provision under this covers some of the basic feature of the country’s federal setup and cannot be tampered with. The wisdom of the founding fathers of the constitution to have such a provision in fact goes to show their good sense and pragmatism.
Article 3 demonstrates the flexibility of our constitution and should be seen as progressive in nature and helpful in the development of the nation to adapt and change according to circumstances. And the provision of Article 3 is such that it will require that a proper process is followed so that its misuse is not there. For instance the creation of new States is an ongoing political process as per the exigency of a particular demand. And like a living organism, the States in the Indian Union has not remained static, but it has been dynamic with the number of States growing. The Indian Union must adapt to the requirement of the people in changing times and circumstances. It must permit change when people want for the same and it must be strong enough to resist disintegration and prevent chaos. As former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee said during his historic visit to Kohima, for redrawing of political boundaries, a political consensus is required. So people especially in Manipur should be rest assured that Article 3 is not a license to be used with free will.
