Abstract:
The internal strife within the country greatly jeopardizes the nation’s stability, governance, and constitutional order. The phenomenon of the Manipur conflict showcases unresolved ethnic clashes, poor governance, and defined legal ambiguities concerning internal disturbances. This work seeks to understand the role of the state and of the Union government in maintaining order and law as established in Articles 355 and 356 of the Constitution. The paper will deal with the question of the safeguard of tribal land rights together with the Article 371C, the Forest Rights Act of 2006, and the Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas Act of 1996, seeking to understand the effects of legal protection on indigenous peoples.
The study looks at the actions of the established legal and judicial institutions in the region, as well as government policies, in responding to the crisis which resulted in violence and the collapse of partisan rule in the area, revealing the insufficient response, government led bias and ineffective law and order monitoring and governance. Looking at the advancing violence, the paper examines the constitutional implications of the imposition of President’s Rule in 2025, critiquing its effects on constitutional governance. The paper will also analyze the legal omissions and offer constructive suggestions on resolving conflict relatively free of bias, responsibility of the judicial systems, and competent governance regarding the conflict, as well as, federal control over the region.
This research combines legal reasoning with context based on history, violence in Manipur, and the policy that needs to be adopted in order to mitigate further violence in the sub-area in the future.
Keywords:
Internal Disturbance, Constitutional Governance, Manipur Violence, Tribal Land Rights, President’s Rule
Introduction:
Internal conflicts present a serious threat to the autonomy, equilibrium and the democratic structure of a country. In India, overcoming such conflictual behaviors is provided through the constitutional framework under Part XVIII of the Indian Constitution. The recent violent incidents in Manipur, India have complex issues of law, politics, and state accountability in the management of internal conflicts.
The Constitution of India provides a systematic method of dealing internal violence with the inclusion of Articles 355, which requires the Union to defend the states from foreign attack and internal violence, and Article 356, which allows the President to authorize the enactment of President’s Rule or constitutional dictatorship during a breakdown of government. The facts under the violence in Manipur invite critical legal debate toward the effectiveness of these provisions and the relations of the State and Union governments in managing the law and order as well as constitutional compliance.
This paper seeks to analyze the constitutional provisions in place in regards to the violence in Manipur. It aims to understand the internal disturbance, state peacekeeping obligations, and the significance of the state’s involvement in violence resolution. This research seeks to provide a detailed analysis of the legal structure concerning internal disruption and the state’s constitutionally defined responsibilities to deal with such situations through evaluating legal judgments and historical precedents.
Research Methodology:
This research is analytical in nature and relies on a systematic approach that involves examining legal principles, court rulings, and laws without any collection of empirical data. The study rests on both primary and secondary sources. Primary sources comprise statutes and other subordinate legislative instruments, case law and judicial decisions, provisions of the Constitution, treaties and conventions, and legal reports issued by various law commissions and committees.
Secondary sources cover books and treatises, legal journals, commentary, legal dictionaries, and online legal repositories, including but not limited to SCC Online, Manupatra, and HeinOnline. This research adopts a doctrinal methodology in which legal problems are evaluated, judicial phenomena are reviewed, and statutory law is constructed in order to explain the situation from a legal perspective.
Literature Review:
In this paper, the review undertaken covers all relevant literature that contains extensive information pertaining to the legal framework on internal disturbances and state obligations under the constitution of India. The research attempts to capture the important Articles 355 and 356 of the Constitution, which allocate the responsibilities of internal disturbances resolution to the State and Union governments. Other important provisions that relate to the conflict in Manipur such as Article 371C, the Forest Rights Act of 2006, and the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act of 1996 have been examined for their scope in relation to tribal governance and conflicts.
This study utilizes authoritative literature and legal commentary by established scholars of constitutional and administrative law. Furthermore, the research analyzes reports from the Law Commission of India and the parliamentary committee on the governance of violence afflicted areas.
This paper aims to determine the gaps in legal enforcement by utilizing measures that regard the statutory provisions and significant judicial decisions. It critiques the legal constitutional and administrative actions taken on the violence in Manipur for gaps where legal systems can be enhanced for efficient governance and resolution of conflicts.
The History of Manipur:
The first record is from 33 AD from a source called Cheitharol Kumbaba. It’s not completely reliable though, because this is a court chronicle; you could call it a mix between myth and history. Either way, this chronicle talks about a Mete kingdom in Manipur, its ancestry goes back to this king, Pakhangba. He is often called the dragon or serpent king; his symbol is quite famous even today, a snake with its tail in its mouth. Every Meitei ruler descended from Pakhangba, or at least that’s the belief. Their religion was polytheistic, meaning they worshipped more than one god, but it wasn’t Hinduism. Most Meiteis today are Hindus though, but back then they followed Sanamahism.
The Meiteis were not alone during this time; another community shared the land, the Nagas. Now this community lived up in the hills of Manipur; they were tribals, and every now and then, they would raid the Mete kingdom. This is where history becomes a bit fuzzy. The Metes claimed their kingdom was all encompassing the valley, the hills, all of it, but the Nagas disagreed. Many of them say the hill tribes were always independent. You can imagine how complex this equation was: hills, valleys, rulers, and tribes, but this equation was about to get a lot more complicated. Around the late 18th century, the British arrived, as usual, they got down to business. In 1762, Raja Jai Singh of Manipur signed a deal with them; he needed British help to defend against Burma, or as we call it today, Myanmar.
So Manipur’s king resettled tribals from the Kuki Chin hills of Burma in Manipur. And that completes the state’s demography with the Meiteis, the Nagas, and the Kukis. But the Burmese continued to invade Manipur, and the Kukis kept on coming. In fact, Burma occupied Manipur from 1819 to 1826; it’s called the Seven Years of Devastation. The occupation ended after the First Anglo-Burmese War. The British won decisively; this meant both good news and bad. The good news was the end of the Burmese occupation; the bad news was the British replaced Burma. Manipur became a British protectorate. Yes, there was a king on the throne, but everyone knew who was in charge.
Figure 1(Taken from Next IAS)
And years passed like this, but in 1890, there was a palace coup in Manipur. So once again, the British got their hands dirty. The Anglo-Manipur War broke out in 1891; the British won. They installed Churachan, the five-year-old king. Now this was a very important moment in Manipur’s history. The British drew an imaginary line in the state. The Meitei Valley would be under the colonial government, and the hills beyond, well they couldn’t care less. By this time, the Kukis had begun raids of their own. To prevent this, the British did what they do best: they cracked down.
And this animosity reached a tipping point in 1970. World War I had broken out; the five-year-old boy king was now a Maharaja. The British asked him for soldiers. The Nagas agreed, but the Kukis did not. They launched a rebellion against the British. They continued to fight for almost two years. In the end, the British Indian Army had to be called in. The Kukis were driven further into the forest. And those events still influence Manipur’s demography.
The Kukis make up around 28% of the state’s population, but they live in the hills, which make up 90% of the state’s area. The Methis form 53% of the population, but they live in the valley, which is just 10% of the area. And despite this, relations were largely smooth. The Kukis were brought as protectors for the Meitei. They hated the British, but not the Meitei royals. Take the last king, Boda Chandra Singh. He travelled around with four Kuki bodyguards. Independence should have made things better, but successive governments failed to do so. In 1947, Manipur acceded to India. Two years later, it became a union territory. Around this time, the Naga insurgency began. Naga tribes in India were demanding a separate country. The Meiteis also took up arms. They were already dreaming of the good old royal days, of reclaiming the lost glory of the Manipur kingdom.
What was the incident about?
A Manipur High Court judge directed the State Government to consider the request of the Meitei community to be included in the Scheduled Tribes (ST) community. This direction alarmed the Kuki community about the Meiteis to make special demands of purchasing lands in the protected Mountainous Areas, which they believed to be their home. In response to such demand, the All Tribal Student Union Manipur(ATSUM) arranged a “Tribal Solidarity March” across the hill districts of Manipur on 3rd of May 2023. There were around ten thousand people gathered for the march to protest the Meiteis.
The Union Home Ministry claims that the Meitei people responded to this call for protest by holding counter-rallies around the Imphal Valley. There were reports of Meitei mobs attacking homes in neighboring valley settlements, such as Kangvai hamlet, during a counter-blockade at Torbung, which is close to the Bishnupur-Churachandpur district line. Tyres were burnt at the base of the Anglo-Kuki War Memorial gate in Leisang, purportedly as a provocation, and two bodies were discovered in Kangvai.
The violence escalated by the evening of May 3. Meitei settlements in Churachandpur town and Kuki-Zo communities in Imphal City were targeted in the same manner. Overnight, the violence persisted, targeting homes and churches in the valley districts of Kuki. According to police estimates, 500 people were displaced when hundreds of tribal houses in Imphal were assaulted; they sought refuge in Lamphelpat. Additionally, some 1,000 Meiteis left the area and took sanctuary in Bishnupur. Twenty homes in Kangpokpi city were burned down.
On May 4, further violence broke out. To keep protestors under control, police used tear gas shells. Churachandpur was represented by BJP Kuki MLA Vunzjagin Valte, who was assaulted on his way back from the state headquarters. He was said to be in serious condition, and one of his companions passed away.
A video of two Kuki women, one in her twenties and the other in her forties, being gang-raped, slapped, sexually harassed, stripped, and paraded nude by a Meitei mob went viral on July 19. The assailants took the victims by force after they had first sought safety at a police station while fleeing mob violence. Her father and adolescent brother were slain in an attempt to protect the younger victim, who was reportedly gang-raped. Despite a complaint being filed, the police did nothing for more than two months. The police were accused by the Kuki people of working with the Meitei assailants. Manipur’s internet outages were blamed for the crime’s delayed disclosure.
Government’s action upon the arose Conflict:
Chief Minister N. Biren Singh of Bharatiya Janata Party, leading the state government initially to avoid violence declared curfew at some of the potential harm causing districts and also ordered for shoot-at-sight in worst cases. To carry out the order Assam Rifles as well as the Indian Army were deployed in place and helped the relocation of the population. However, it was accused that the State Government is working on a biased eye against the Kuki community. And this got fueled more when the then Chief Minister, made an accusation, without any substantial evidence, that there was illegal migration of the Kuki community from the neighboring country Myanmar.
Moreover, the government’s approach towards the indigenous land rights has been controversial. The Kuki people have had the sense of marginalization by the government surveys conducted for the reserved forest, which ultimately led to eviction of Kuki villages. In this scenario the order of Hon’ble Manipur High Court of giving consideration to include the Meitei community in Scheduled Tribe category acted as a catalyst for the unrest in Manipur.
The Central Government remained silent in this case for more than two months until a viral video of two women mob stripping and parading in naked form, came to notice. The Prime Minister broke his silence by saying “what happened to the daughters of Manipur can never be forgiven, the entire country had been shamed by the incident”. However the government faced criticism for not taking immediate action upon the conflict. It was alleged that the Modi government, being a Hindu Nationalist party, ignored the demands of the Kuki community.
The Home Minister constituted a Peace Committee but it failed to make a ceasefire between the Meitei and Kuki community. The Kukis alleged that the committee is dominated by Meitei people, including the then CM N. Biren Singh.
Court’s action:
The judiciary has also attempted to resolve the conflict. The Manipur High Court made an order to the state government to look into the possibilities of including the Meitei community in the ST category. This order led to massive protests and violence, revealing the inter-community tensions that exist. In disruptive circumstances, this order was repealed in February 2024.
The Supreme Court fast tracked several issues due to the rampant malpractice concerns in crucial decision-making authority in Manipur. The court ordered submission of all actions done by state and central governments with respect to maintaining law and other order. A three-member committee was also constituted to address violence against women that has been reported since May 2023 to ensure that the needs pertaining to the survivors are met adequately. The Supreme Court also addressed with shock how the FIRs against violence were registered and more importantly, the severe delay in registering cases where women were paraded naked and assaulted. The nature of these investigations was termed ‘dilly-dallying’ with destruction of constitutional order being the order mantra in Manipur.
The Role of Government in the Constitutional Law Perspective
The Manipur tribal conflict outlines the application of constitutional law in regard to tribal rights, state powers vs. central government powers, and judicial powers in a democracy.
Autonomy and land rights that are essential to a tribe’s interest must be protected under the Constitution of India. There are provisions for Scheduled Tribe people to be protected and assimilated into the national framework. Within the Constitution, there are several clauses that provide for the management of Scheduled Areas and Tribal Areas.
Manipur is provided with special provisions under Article 371C. Article 46 mandates that the State protects the economic and educational interests of the vulnerable sections of society particularly, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from exploitation and social injustices. Articles 330 and 332 provide for direct elections among the Scheduled Tribes who are allocated seats in the House of Commons and the state legislative assemblies. Article 342 empowers the President of India to specify what tribes, or tribal communities, shall constitute Scheduled Tribes on the basis of any state or union territory.
According to Article 244 (1) of the Constitution, the governor has the authority to establish rules for any area within a state that is now considered a Scheduled Area as per Sub Paragraph 2 Clause 5 Part B Schedule V. Under these rules, the movement of land between Scheduled Tribes can be restricted, the allocation of land to Scheduled Tribes can be regulated, and the business operations of money lenders to the tribal people can be managed1. The governor can also alter or abolish any Act of Parliament, State Legislature Act, or any applicable law for the area.
Tribal land rights are safeguarded by numerous Acts and Laws. The provision part IX of Panchayats of the Constitution has been extended to Scheduled Areas by The Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act of 1996 (PESA). The Gram Sabha or Panchayats need to be consulted prior to the purchasing of lands for development projects in Scheduled Areas and prior to the resettling or rehabilitation of affected people. For certain Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers who have been living in forests, the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act of 2006 (FRA) recognizes and gives the right to these people to claim forest land and to exercise their forest rights.
Section 4(5) of FRA, 2006 provides that no Scheduled Tribe or Other Traditional Forest Dweller residing on forest land for claiming should be compelled to vacate or uprooted from such land until the claim verification exercise is completed. The RFCTLARR Act of 2013(Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act), also provides for equitable compensation and resettlement of regionally displaced indigenous peoples. They are also begotten with the right of fair adequate compensation and transparency in regards to Land acquisitions, rehabilitation and relocation. It is Gram Sabha, Panchayats, or Autonomous District Councils and it is common knowledge that paperwork like resolutions prohibiting the gaining of land in DZ for Schedule Areas cannot be gained, So for those areas it cannot be acquired, all bases must be done before Districts in those areas are regarded.
Recent development in Manipur:
On February 11, 2025, Chief Minister N. Biren Singh stepped down from office owing to the increasing discontent and scrutiny directed towards him due to the ongoing conflict. This came after the Supreme Court directed an ethnic violence inquiry against him for allegedly provoking it in the state. This action was taken because of his leaked audio which, to some degree, indicated that he was responsible for the fanning of violence between the communities. Singh’s exit is seen as a chance for new leadership to redress the issues that have plagued and disturbed peace in Manipur for years.
With the violence and political instability getting out of hand, the Indian government decided to enforce presidential rule on February 13, 2025. This enables ruling directly from New Delhi, bypassing the state government entirely for fear that they would not be able to handle the situation. The reason for enforcement of the President’s Rule is to curtail the violence and respond more effectively and in a coordinated manner to the violent situations that have developed.
Conclusion & Key Recommendations:
The brutality exhibited in Manipur underscores the existence of ethnic conflict, governance breakdown, and the difficulties of enforcing constitutional order amidst an internal strife. Articles 355 and 356 of the constitution are meant to cater for such disturbances, but their effectiveness has been critiqued on the basis of inaction, administrative bias, and insufficient conflict resolution. The judiciary’s action, although important, has created a gap in the enforcement of law and administration of justice with regards to human rights abuses.
The declaration of President’s Rule in February 2025 serves to illustrate the gravity of the situation and the need for governance without discrimination. For the future, more attention needs to be put on land issues, accountability of the judiciary, and dialogue between the communities to achieve peace. A delicate balance must be struck between constitutional obedience and laws that seek to protect vulnerable groups to the long ignored violence in Manipur, and in turn, foment everlasting stability.
1. It is the government’s responsibility to ensure the Constitutional measures put in place for protecting the land rights of Scheduled Tribes are enforced, especially in regard to Article 371 C and the FRA of 2006. Improved measures must be adopted in law so that encroachment and eviction are prevented for all communities that have been displaced.
2. Tribal self-governing bodies need to execute policies that put in place a neutral approach for the resolution of conflicts between different communities. There is a need to set up a special judiciary commission to conduct impartial investigations into violent cases and other crimes to guarantee some form of accountability and to ensure that no one community suffers more than the others.
3. Strategies for Aiding the President’s Direct Rule – Following the imposition of President’s rule in Manipur in February 2025, there has to be a comprehensive plan that involves peaceful conflict management such as the use of peacekeeping soldiers, reconstruction for the displaced people, and proper communication with all parties involved.
Submitted by:
Pratyush Mahapatra
4th Year Student
Integrated BBA,LL.B.
Lajpat Rai Law College, Sambalpur, University College of Law, Sambalpur University