Institutional accommodating tribal exclusivity as a permanent benefit will promote state integrity
As a regulatory consideration and an institutional arrangement that favors the recognition and provision of a broader ‘self-government’ for regionally concentrated minority groups, asymmetric federalism has been badly suppressed in India recently. . The dissolution of Article 370 in 2019, which gave a special constitutional status to Jammu and Kashmir, and intermittent attempts to dilute and dissolve the ubiquitous Article 371, which gives, among others, broad constitutional rights to Nagas over land and resources ( Article 371A), and the Hill Areas Committee of Manipur (Article 371C), on tribal identity, culture, development and local administration, are examples.
Inspired by the argument that granting specific constitutional status to regionally concentrated minorities promotes centripetal tendencies that over time impede national/state integration, development and peace, opponents of asymmetric federalism seek to create a monolithic, homogeneous nation. The majoritarians quickly rallied around the idea.
However, upon closer examination, this argument is neither new nor new. Charles Tarleton, the American political scientist who developed the idea of asymmetric federalism in the mid-1960s, was aware of its destabilizing potential if not used properly. In fact, the failed experience of Eastern European communist states to ‘stay together’ in the 1990s raised deep doubts about asymmetric federalism.
an integrationist approach
In fact, the argument that asymmetric federalism fosters subversive institutions, political instability and the break-up of states had also informed the minds of some of the nation’s founders when they participated in the debates of the Constituent Assembly of India. For some, the question of imagining specific rights and asymmetric constitutional provisions is considered irrelevant, as India has become a ‘uniform Hindu nation’ after Partition. Such a majoritarian approach is uncomfortable with the idea of ’autonomous’ district councils proposed by the Gopinath Bordoloi Committee, a sub-committee of the Constituent Assembly, which sought to accommodate the distinct identity, culture and lifestyle of tribal groups in the Northeast. Had it. The idea of ’self-government’.
While members such as Jaipal Singh and BR Ambedkar recognized tribal specificity and underlined the need for separate institutional housing, for example, Kuldhar Chaliha, a prominent member of Assam, introduced an integrationist approach when he openly referred to tribal groups. advocated assimilation. This view is also informed by a deep skepticism of tribal groups’ ability to self-govern and given a glimpse of ‘law and order’ – to understand Chaliha – their practice of “summary justice”. Chaliha strengthened his integrationist push by arguing that tribal “self-rule” would take advantage of “Adivasi” or “communistan” and would be prejudicial to India’s territorial integrity and security.
This integrationist approach is easily invoked in Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh and many other places in Northeast India to invalidate the continued demand for constitutional asymmetry. This integrationist approach resonates powerfully in two recent attempts by the government of Manipur to prevent (i) the introduction and passage of the Manipur (Hill Areas) Autonomous District Councils (Amendment) Bill, 2021, and (ii) from the valley regions. Consists of nine assembly members. Hill Area Committee.
While the Manipur government’s view that the Bill is a “sensitive” matter, requiring a legal inquiry by the Law Department and the State Advocate General, is laudable and can hardly be opposed, the inclusion of nine assembly members from the Valley The Speaker’s order dated 1 September, Lorho S., the lone MP representing the Outer Manipur constituency. The areas are seen by Foze as “malicious” and a “direct attack” on the Hill Areas Committee and the constitutional protection granted to the hilly areas of Manipur under Article 371C. Clearly, in his over-zealous campaign to succumb to mounting pressure from powerful Valley-based civil society organizations (CSOs), which are actively promoting the majority support for the dissolution of the long-standing constitutional inequality enjoyed by the Pahari people. The Speaker was less than half as clever in applying his mind as it amounts to a breach of a domain exclusively reserved for the President of India under the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972. The Speaker dragged his feet until he was forced to rescind the order. On September 8, Chief Minister Biren Singh was greeted by various tribal CSOs during his visit to Churachandpur following black flags and widespread calls for boycotting his pet political project, ‘Go to the Hills’.
Interestingly, the project is increasingly seen by these CSOs as a camouflage of the efforts of the majority state, who are trying to stealthily snatch and snatch tribal land through legal manipulation and sanitisation projects . Recent efforts to declare the areas around Chivu in the Indo-Myanmar border as a protected site and to sanctify it by replacing one of the three controversial monoliths with Thangjing (a Meitei goddess), call for the Forest Reserve Act. , sanctify the Kobru hills as a protected site. lie-pham (god-place) and encourage Ching Kebab (climbing a hill) There are clear signs to explain it.
double edged sword
Though the timing chosen by the Hill Area Committee to recommend, introduce and pass the bill is questionable, it is a double-edged sword to set and reclaim the simultaneously sharp electoral agenda for the upcoming assembly elections in early 2022. To use as a symbol of a well thought out move. Its agency to strengthen state-level constitutional asymmetries. Efforts to increase the membership of six Zilla Parishads to 31-31 members and secure more powers to the councils by giving more developmental mandate are welcome. Nevertheless, reservation of one-fourth seats for socio-economically backward communities can complicate the delimitation of constituencies. It is also not enough to fix only three nominated members for non-represented tribes/women.
If history is any guide, the task of reclaiming the agency of the Hill Area Committee will not be easy as its 20 members often leverage tribal/party loyalty over constitutional disparity and a commitment to protect the interests of ordinary tribals. How the Hill Areas Committee and various tribal groups strategically navigate their politics to overcome the majoritarian impulse to manipulate the legal and political process to reduce/dissolve the existing constitutional asymmetry. A recent revelation by a tribal MLA in the Assembly that the hilly regions have attracted hardly ₹419 crore (1.91%) out of Manipur’s ₹21,900 crore budgetary expenditure from 2017-18 to 2020-21, told Mr. Singh. Has exposed the honesty towards ‘Go’. to the hills’. The lack of sincere commitment to the promotion of tribal development, identity and culture, which Article 371C seeks to bridge, could not have been clearer. Recognizing and institutionally accommodating tribal uniqueness not only as a matter of political convenience, but as a valuable and enduring good will be critical to promoting state integrity, stability and peace in the long run.
Kham Khan Suan Housing is Professor and Head, Department of Political Science, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad.
.