For Prelims:

Manipur Crisis – Breakdown of Constitutional Machinery:

The resurgence of violence in Manipur in 2024 has led to growing concerns about the state's governance. Reports indicate that the Chief Minister has demanded greater control over security, highlighting that the state government has not been in full control. Article 355 of the Constitution, which mandates the Union’s duty to protect states from internal disturbances, has reportedly been invoked, revealing the breakdown of constitutional machinery in Manipur.

Managing Diversity in India:

India’s Constitution provides for “special provisions” under various Articles, such as Article 371, to manage the unique socio-political concerns of its diverse states. In the case of Manipur, Article 371C provides for a Hill Area Committee to represent hill tribes, but this lacks the veto powers enjoyed by similar bodies in other northeastern states, raising questions about equitable governance.

Crisis of Representation and Identity Politics:

Manipur’s current crisis highlights issues of representation, particularly concerns that the interests of different communities, especially the hill tribes, are not being adequately addressed. The absence of strong constitutional protections for these groups is seen as exacerbating tensions.

For Mains:

GS II: Governance – The Manipur Crisis and the Challenge of Managing Diversity

Constitutional Breakdown in Manipur:

The recent escalation of violence in Manipur has exposed severe governance challenges. The Chief Minister’s demands for greater control over security reflect a lack of state autonomy, while the Union’s invocation of Article 355 signals a constitutional breakdown. The situation raises critical questions about the effectiveness of India’s federal structure in addressing internal disturbances, particularly in regions with deep-seated ethnic tensions.

Managing Diversity through Constitutional Provisions:

The Indian Constitution’s approach to managing diversity has been one of accommodation and pragmatism. Several northeastern states, including Manipur, have been granted special provisions to address unique socio-political challenges. In Manipur, Article 371C provides for the creation of a Hill Area Committee for tribal representation. However, the absence of veto power for the Hill Area Committee in key governance issues has limited its effectiveness in addressing the concerns of hill tribes, contributing to the ongoing crisis.

Context:

The crisis in Manipur highlights the challenges of managing diversity in a pluralist society. As violence escalates, the need to revisit the constitutional mechanisms governing representation and autonomy in the state becomes urgent. While other northeastern states have successfully implemented constitutional provisions that ensure equitable representation and power-sharing, Manipur’s current framework has proven inadequate. A recalibration of these provisions is essential to restore peace and stability

UPSC EXAM NOTES ANALYSIS

1.Special Provisions for Manipur

• Managing diversity is a distinctive aspect of the Indian Constitution. To address the specific challenges faced by various states, not only the former Jammu and Kashmir but also states like Maharashtra, Gujarat, Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, and Karnataka have been granted "special provisions."
• These provisions are intended to either address concerns about equitable development or protect cultural identities. In a vast and diverse country like India, federalism is not optional but essential.
• The Constitution has adapted over time to balance the competing and sometimes conflicting interests of different identities, particularly in the northeastern states. A key aspect of this process is the institutionalization of power-sharing, representation, and the guarantee of autonomy in governance.
• The aim of such measures is to be mindful of the needs of various group identities, considering their distinct socio-political contexts. The presence of these provisions, such as Article 371F(f), is meant to foster political stability by promoting inclusivity, rather than causing division or societal fragmentation.
• In light of the rising number of casualties and displaced individuals, it is crucial to reflect on these examples of constitutional pragmatism, as ignoring the worsening situation would not serve the national interest.
• When Sikkim became part of India in 1975, Article 371F was added to the Constitution. These "special provisions" include Article 371F(f), which empowers Parliament to protect "the rights and interests of different sections of the population."
• Furthermore, Article 371F(g) assigns the Governor special responsibility for ensuring an "equitable arrangement for the social and economic advancement of different sections of the population of Sikkim."
• The overall purpose of Article 371F is to ensure power-sharing through representation and to safeguard cultural autonomy, with the aim of achieving political stability. The Representation of Peoples Act of 1951 was amended to align with Article 371F(f), reserving seats for various communities in the Legislative Assembly.
• This arrangement was contested, along with the constitutionality of Article 371F(f), in the R.C. Poudyal case (1993) before the Supreme Court of India, as it was argued that increased representation for the Bhutia-Lepcha community violated norms of proportionate reservation.
• In upholding the constitutionality of Article 371F(f) and the amendment to the Representation of Peoples Act, the Court ruled that the increased representation of the Bhutia-Lepcha community stemmed from the socio-political history of Sikkim, which necessitated the provision.
• This judgment was part of a broader discourse wherein the Court recognized the need for "accommodations and adjustments" to support the coexistence of various tribal identities in Sikkim.
• The Court noted that "historical considerations and compulsions justify inequality," and therefore, the proportional reservation of seats for the Bhutia-Lepcha community was deemed necessary to safeguard the community's identity and to ensure political stability. The Court explicitly acknowledged group identities as fundamental to power-sharing and representation in governance