From Rulers to Refugees: The Meitei Journey of Struggle and Betrayal Through Constitutional Missteps

The chronicles of Southeast Asian history portray the present-day state of Manipur, India, as a formidable kingdom, once rivalling Burma in power. Its influence extended across the Lushai Hills and the Naga Hills, with various hill tribes paying tribute as a mark of allegiance. The prowess of the Meitei people astounded the British, compelling them to form an alliance with Manipur to counter the Burmese kingdom, subdue hostile tribes in the Naga and Lushai Hills, and tackle marauding robbers around the Chittagong Hill Tracts bordering North Cachar Hills and Tripura Hills.

Of late, the contemporary history of the Meitei is marked by displacement, division, and the denial of fundamental rights. Their ancestral lands have been occupied, political voices silenced, and cultural heritage suppressed. The restrictions on electoral participation, coupled with the violence and displacement faced in areas like Moreh, Churachandpur, and Kangpokpi, have left an indelible mark on the Meitei identity. This narrative underscores the urgent need to address past injustices and strive for a future rooted in inclusivity, equality, and justice for the Meitei people, who have suffered silently since their integration into India in 1949.

Currently, over 25,000 Meitei are residing in relief camps as refugees, enduring dire conditions and losing lives every alternate day, with little hope of returning to their ancestral lands in Moreh, Ikou, Churachandpur, Kangpokpi, and other areas. Historically, during the Lushai Expedition, the Meitei displayed remarkable humanitarian efforts by rescuing 649 Mizo captives and permitting them to settle in Manipur. Following a series of confrontations, the Sukte tribe eventually capitulated to the Meitei, marking the beginning of the Guite tribe’s migration into Manipur, with approximately 2,000 Guite tribes seeking refuge within the state in 1877.

Additionally, in a significant instance of asylum, 2,112 refugees were granted sanctuary under the protection of the Manipur Maharaja Chandrakirti, comprising 373 Sukte tribes, 957 Paite tribes, 110 Soomties (vassals of the Paite), and 612 Mizos. These communities settled in the Thangjing range, an essential part of Manipur’s southwestern hills and valleys. The King of Manipur had made provisions to ensure the future safety and protection of those seeking refuge. They were provided with sustenance until they could cultivate crops and sustain themselves.  

In 1967, more than 1,500 Kuki refugee families sought refuge in Manipur from Myanmar and were generously provided shelter within the state. Yet, in a tragic turn of events, the Meitei, who once extended their hospitality, now find themselves displaced and forced to live as refugees.

Recently, despite Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s efforts to ensure free movement along the National Highways, the Kuki-Zo communities have issued stern warnings to the Meitei community. As a result, the Meitei continue to face unjust restrictions on their movement, while others enjoy the freedom to travel without hindrance. On the contrary, Meitei never restricts the free movements of other communities.  This stark disparity violates the principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Specifically, it contravenes Article 19(1)(d), which guarantees every citizen the right to move freely throughout India.

The Meitei, having descended from the Koubru, Nongmaijing, and other nearby hills to settle in the plains, find themselves disadvantaged despite Manipur's designation as one of India's Hill States. Among India’s ten Hill States—Jammu and Kashmir (prior to Ladakh's separation), Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Meghalaya, and Tripura—Manipur is historically recognized as the fourth Hill State. Yet, Imphal, at an altitude of 790 meters above sea level, is classified as a valley, whereas neighbouring regions like Churachandpur, Kangpokpi, and Khoupum Valley, with elevations ranging from 800 to 900 meters, are designated as hills. This classification raises questions, especially when other state capitals, such as Agartala (15 meters), Itanagar (440 meters), and Dimapur (212 meters), lie at considerably lower altitudes.

The Supreme Court of India has acknowledged the entire state of Manipur as a Hill Area, a classification reinforced by the High Court of Manipur. Since January 2016, this recognition has justified extending the Hill Area/Trough Location Allowance to the State Judiciary Service Officers.

A contentious issue stemming from India's first general election in 1951–52 was the inclusion of 1,20,185 non-tribal Meitei voters from the Thoubal subdivision into the Outer Manipur constituency, increasing voter strength from 1,80,641 to 3,00,826. This arrangement, made to secure a reserved parliamentary seat for Scheduled Tribes (ST), compelled Meitei voters to sacrifice their rights—a decision many views as unjust. For eight non-tribal assembly constituencies affected by this decision, the denial of the right to contest Lok Sabha elections represents not only a political imbalance but also a violation of constitutional and citizenship rights. Similar actions affecting tribal constituencies would likely provoke widespread protests. Despite public objections during the Delimitation Commission's hearing on 12 April 1954, the existing arrangement was upheld without justification.

Terms like "Inner Manipur" and "Outer Manipur," originally introduced to allocate Lok Sabha seats, inadvertently perpetuate perceptions of division within the state. The crisis of May 3, 2023, and the establishment of buffer zones have only deepened this divide, suggesting the existence of two Manipur within the state.

The foster children of William McCulloch, the British Political Agent in Manipur from 1844 to 1867, have staked claims to the ancestral lands of the Meitei and Zeliangrong tribes. These claims are marred by ethnic cleansing events that have displaced Meiteis and Nagas from their territories. Certain separatist leaders, guided by interests across the border, have misled local communities to establish separate administrative units within Manipur. These efforts have tragically resulted in the complete displacement of the Meitei and Naga communities from places like Moreh and Churachandpur, where they once formed the majority.

Separatist leaders have also exploited Article 371C, introducing terms like "Alternate Arrangements" and "Separate Administration" to further their agendas. While Article 371C was initially designed to uplift the living standards of remote hill communities facing discrimination and hardships, its misuse has instead fostered division. The original intent of the Article—to promote unity between hill and plain communities—has been undermined.

The recent demand for a separate budget for hills and valleys by Alfred Kangam Arthur, a Congress MP, in the Lok Sabha has reignited the enduring hill-valley divide. While ostensibly rooted in the Hill Areas Committee (HAC) Act, such proposals may incite division and perpetuate discrimination against valley communities.

In 1954, Meitei MP Ngangom Tompok Singh supported the Manipur State Hill People's (Administration) Regulation Bill, which laid the foundation for Article 371C. His endorsement sought to empower hill residents by democratizing hill administration and addressing historical deprivations caused by customary rights, economic disadvantages, and lack of education.

The struggle for survival faced by the Meitei is not new—it is a continuation of the betrayal and marginalization initiated during British colonial rule. The British, who once sought Meitei assistance in subjugating Burmese, Nagas, Lushais, and other tribes, ultimately betrayed their allies and occupied Manipur by force. The hanging of the Manipur prince, Senapati Tikendrajit, stands as a stark testament to the British animosity and apprehension toward the Meitei. Never in the history of the British Crown had a prince been executed in such a manner.

Manipur preserved its sovereignty, refusing to pay tribute to the British or cede any territory before 1891. The century-long relationship between the British and the Meitei, initiated by King Jai Singh in 1762, gradually became a neglected fragment of colonial history. Perceiving Manipur as a liability rather than an asset, the British dismantled the kingdom within 50 years, from 1891 to 1947.

One of the most insidious consequences of British rule was the division of Manipur into fictitious Hill and Valley regions, pitting homegrown Christians against Meitei Hindus. This deliberate fragmentation has left a lasting legacy of unrest. Furthermore, the activities of the American Baptist Church in the early 1900s allegedly laid the groundwork for what some perceive as a "Crown Colony" or a strategic base for the United States, evidenced by ongoing efforts to destabilize Manipur and India through a proxy war advocating a separate administration.

Independent India’s integration of Manipur in 1949 marked the final blow. Despite tasting freedom from British rule a day before India, Manipur was reduced to a Chief Commissioner’s rule, ending its independence. This act of betrayal underscores the failure of the Indian government to honour the rights and aspirations of the Meitei people. The legacies of British colonialism and Indian occupation serve as enduring reminders of the destructive power of imperialism and the unfulfilled promises of justice and equality for Manipur and its people.

Today’s generation frequently questions the merits the Meitei people gained by joining India. The response is a poignant reminder of the lingering effects of British colonial rule and the subsequent Indian administration in Manipur. Despite numerous agreements clearly documented, adherence to these commitments has remained elusive. On 11 August 1947, Maharaja Bodhchandra Singh formalized the Instrument of Accession with British India, granting Manipur autonomy within the newly independent nation. While retaining control over internal governance, Manipur ceded authority over defence, external relations, and communication to the Union of India.

Within ten years of becoming a part of India, the draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act (Assam and Manipur), 1958 was imposed in the State. When the Bill was presented in the Lok Sabha, L. Achou Singh, the Member of Parliament from Manipur, strongly opposed it. He argued that its application should be confined solely to two tribal subdivisions in Manipur—the tribal areas of North Cachar and Mikir Hills. Despite this opposition, the AFSPA 1958 was enforced throughout Manipur, resulting in severe repercussions for the Meitei community. Over the years, this forceful imposition has led to numerous atrocities, with as many as 1,528 individuals, mostly Meitei, reportedly killed in fake encounters in Manipur between 1979 and 2012.

The struggle for recognition and rights has been arduous and ongoing. The inclusion of the Manipuri language in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution was achieved only after widespread agitation. Similarly, efforts to implement the Inner Line Permit System in the state mirrored this long-standing struggle. Additionally, attempts to restore the Meitei community to the Scheduled Tribe List—where they were categorized as Forest Tribes during the British Protectorate—have faced strong resistance from other communities. Why, then, are the Meitei people persistently denied the right to safeguard their ancestral lands? This recurring obstruction poses critical questions about fairness, justice, and equity in the region.

The Meitei’s transformation from sovereign rulers to displaced refugees is a profound narrative of resilience in the face of betrayal and Constitutional missteps plagued by constitutional oversights and systemic injustices.

The Meitei has been consistently excluded from decision-making processes regarding their future and the future of Manipur, as evident in the cession of the Kabow Valley to Myanmar in 1834, the merger with India in 1949, and the granting of Scheduled Tribe status to migrant communities from neighboring states and countries, while neglecting the Meitei people's demands for similar recognition and protection. This historical pattern of exclusion has led to the marginalization and harassment of the Meitei people, threatening their cultural identity, basic fundamental rights, and perpetuating a sense of dispossession and powerlessness among the community.

Addressing the constitutional and legislative frameworks that perpetuate inequality and division, such as Article 371C and the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (MLR & LR) Act, 1960, is imperative. These provisions, which differentiate between tribal and non-tribal groups, have exacerbated the marginalization of the Meitei, leaving them in a continuous struggle for survival. Exploring constitutional reforms is essential to fostering inclusivity and equity. Without such changes, the Meitei remain vulnerable to systemic injustices that threaten the identity and right to protect their own land, for which the forefathers have shed blood for 2000 years.