Early phase of Opposition Party in Manipur

Transcription

1 Early phase of Opposition Party in Manipur Opposition Party in the Premerger Period With the Independence of India on 15 August, 1947, Manipur as a Princely State had attained its political freedom with the lapse of British paramountcy. It was from the late 1930s that there was demand for the introduction of democratic form of government in Manipur. In 1939 there was a proposal that the five non-official members of the Durbar to be elected from each Pana division. But the President of the Durbar A. Macdonald thought that the introduction of the elective element in the Durbar would not in any way strengthen it. In election, there is contest between two or more candidates, if the number of candidates is more than two, a candidate may be elected by a minority vote. 1 The Political Agent Gimson had also accepted the view of Macdonald. Though the Political Agent and the President of the Durbar had opposed the introduction of democratic element in Manipur, the people influenced by the national movement of India had started movement for the establishment of responsible government in Manipur on the basis of adult franchise. The Manipur State Congress, the newly formed political party in 1946 had supported the demand for the introduction of democratic government in Manipur. The Maharaja of Manipur had responded positively towards the demand for the introduction of democratic government in Manipur. The Maharaja had constituted a Constitution Making Committee consisting of 17 members, six from the Valley and six from the Hills and another five officials. The Constitution Making Committee had completed its work within short 1 Ksehtri Bimola, Government and Politics in Manipur, Ashangba Communications, Imphal, 2010, p. 107

2 31 time. The Committee had framed a Constitution called Manipur State Constitution Act, Under the provisions of the Act, the Maharaja was the Constitutional head. There was a legislature called Manipur State Legislative Assembly consisting of 53 elected members from both valley and hill constituencies. The executive powers were vested in the Council of Ministers head by M. K. Priyobrata Singh, the younger brother of the Maharaja. He was appointed by the Maharaja of Manipur as a link between the earlier system of monarchial form of government and a newly established democratic form of government. The elections to the Manipur State Legislative Assembly under the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947 were held in Six candidates were elected uncontested, 5 from the hill areas and one from the valley (Jiri constituency). There were 192 candidates for the remaining 47 seats. In the valley, there were 160 candidates for 35 seats. 2 The Manipur State Congress, the Socialist Party, the Manipur Krishak Sabha and the Praja Shanti Sova were the political parties which put up their candidates in the elections. The Manipur State Congress had appealed to the voters to vote for the party. The party can usher Mahatma Gandhi s ideal of Ramrajya and Prajaraj. The party had promised full responsible government accountable to the people of Manipur. The Praja Shanti Sova which was established with the blessing of the Maharaja had attacked both the Congress and the Krishak Sabha. The party warned the people to be very careful about the Congress. The reason was that if voted to power, the party will support the merger of Manipur with Assam. Both the Congress and the Praja Shanti Sova called the Krishak Sabha as imposter. The Krishak Sabha was in reality the Communist. 3 The leaders 2 Ibid. 3 Dutta, P. S., (ed.), Electoral Politics in North East India, New Delhi: Guwahati, Assam: Omsons Publications, 1986: p. 69

3 32 and the members of Krishak Sabha were afraid of revealing their own identities. There were also independent candidates contesting the 1948 elections in both the valley and the hill areas of Manipur. The elections to the Manipur State Legislative Assembly were held from 11 June 1948 to 27 July The Manipur State Congress had won 15 seats, the Praja Shanti Sova 12 seats, the Manipur Krishak Sabha 5 seats and the Socialist Party 3. As many as 18 independent candidates were elected from Hill constituencies. There was also one nominated member namely M. K. Priyobrata by the Maharaja of Manipur. 4 As no party secured a majority in the elections held in 1948 under the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947, a popular coalition ministry led by Independents known as Praja Shanti and supported by Krishak Sabha and hill Independents was formed. 5 M. K. Priyobrata who was appointed by the Maharaja of Manipur became the Chief Minister of Manipur. The Council of Ministers had consisted of seven members, two from the hills, four from the valley and the Chief Minister. One significant feature of the democratic government of 1948 was that the Ministers who were already MLAs were elected by the elected members of the Manipur State Assembly. The opposition party in the Manipur State Legislative Assembly was the Manipur State Congress having 14 members in the House. The leader of the opposition was Suisa representing one hill constituency. Among the opposition members, it was S. Somorendra Singh who had contributed a lot in the functioning of the Manipur State Legislative Assembly. In the first Session of the Manipur State Legislative Assembly held on 7 th March, 1948, S. Somorendra Singh had criticized the functioning of the Council of Ministers for taking over law making 4 Intervbiewed with Y. Jiten Singh, ex minister, 30 January Ksehtri Bimola op cit, p. 225

4 33 power, not provided by the Manipur State Constitution Act, He read out the notice issued by the Council, all landed properties will be put to auction without notice to the owners unless the owners pay on or before the revenues due along with the arrears if any. 6 After hearing from both the ruling and the opposition side, the Speaker said, the opposition says that legislation should not have been made by present Council while supporters of the government say that the opposition says so because the opposition does not understand the Council Resolutions connected with this legislation. 7 In the first session of the Manipur State Legislative Assembly held in March, 1949, the opposition members like S. Somorendra Singh, Dr. Kampu, Shimray, E. Tompok, Gourachand and others took an active role in the discussion and deliberations of many issues in the House. The main issues taken up by the Assembly were collection of land revenue possession of landed property, export of rice from Manipur, transport system within the State of Manipur as well as the highways connecting Imphal with Dimapur as well as Imphal with Silchar through Jiribam. 8 The opposition members had pointed out the weakness of the government in dealing with these important issues. When the government had issued notification for the payment of land revenue within short period of time, the opposition members had requested the period of time for the payment of land revenue as Manipur had larger number of poor people. The advantages and the disadvantages of the export of rice from Manipur were pointed out by the opposition members in the proceedings of the Manipur State Assembly. The opposition members had focused more on the advantages of not exporting rice from Manipur. The 6 Proceedings of the 20 th Sitting of the First Session of the Manipur State Legislative Assembly, 7 March, Ibid. 8 Resistance, March, 1979

5 34 deteriorating condition of the roads of Manipur and the need for framing new transport system was emphasised from the opposite site in the deliberations among the members of the Assembly. 9 The taxation system in Manipur was also taken up by the Manipur State Legislative Assembly. The opposition members had contributed to the discussion of the taxation system by highlighting the economic condition of the people of Manipur and their inability to pay higher amount of money as tax. The Manipur State Legislative Assembly in its sitting on 7 June 1949 in the Johnstone High School premises, the Election Case No. 3 of between P. Atoyaima Singh of Chajing and Md. Alimuddin and A. Kala Singh was taken up for the consideration of the House. The Speaker had informed the House about the judgement along with a copy from the Election Tribunal for information and necessary action. Md. Alimuddin was the Minister in charge of Jail, Medical, Public Health and Sanitation in the government headed by M. K. Priyobrata Singh. The verdict of the Election Tribunal was that the election of Md. Alimuddin from Lilong Assembly constituency. The Lilong constituency was a special constituency to elect two candidates- one for general and the other for Muslim. But in these 2 seats, only Muslim candidates namely Md. Abdul Kadir Khan and Md. Alimuddin were elected. The Speaker had read out the petition submitted to him by Md. Alimuddin requesting that no debate be held in the Assembly regarding his election case. Md. Alimuddin informed that under Section 36 of the Manipur State Courts Act, he will appeal to His Highness, the Maharajah regarding the judgement of the Election Tribunal. The Speaker again said that there can be no debate on this matter and therefore without reference to a legal 9 Intervbiewed with Y. Irabot Singh, ex minister, 24 June 2012

6 35 expert it is not proper to announce his seat void now. 10 There was exchange of view between the Speaker and the opposition members, S. Somorendra Singh and L. Achou Singh on the issue of having debate in the Assembly. The view of the Speaker was that no debate could be held as judicial decision is pending on the matter. The opposition member, S. Somorendra said that as there was no stay order in regard to the decision of the Tribunal, there can be a debate on the issue. When the Speaker again stuck to his decision of not having debate in the House, the opposition members led by S. Somorendra Singh had walked out from the sitting of the Assembly. 11 During the period from 1947 to 1949, the politics of Manipur was characterised by many complicated political issues. On one hand, Manipur for the first time had a democratic government formed by the elected representatives of the people (except the Chief Minister who was appointed by the Maharaja). The Democratic Government was formed under the provisions of the Manipur State Constitution Act, The Maharaja was the constitutional head and the Maharaja-in-Council was the supreme law making authority. This political development was a great achievement of the people of Manipur. On the other hand, Manipur being a Princely state on the eve of Indian Independence, her political status after Independence remains controversial till now. The Cabinet Mission sent by the British government headed by Clement Attlee in 1946 clearly said that the British government had no authority to hand over the Indian States including Manipur to the Dominion Government of India. With the lapse of British suzerainty, the Princely States will regain their sovereign political status. The Prime Minister of Great Britain, Clement Attlee 10 Government of Manipur, Assembly Proceedings, Manipur Legislative Assembly, 7 June Ibid.

7 But on the practical side, majority of the Princely States had 36 while speaking on the Indian Independence Bill in the House of Commons on 10 July 1947 said, With the ending of the treaties and agreements, the States regained their Independence. The Secretary of State for India, Lord Listowel also said in the House of Lords on 16 July, 1947, from the date when the New Dominions are set up, the treaties and agreements which gave us suzerainty over the States will become void They will then be entirely free to choose whether to associate with one or other of the Dominion government or to stand alone. The above views are clearly embodied in the Indian Independence Act, 1947 passed by the British Parliament. Under the provisions of the Act, the Princely States like Manipur are given three options i.e. a) to join India or b) to join Pakistan or c) to remain Independent. Thus theoretically and legally the Princely State like Manipur became Independent after 15 th August, already signed the Standstill Agreement, 1947, the Instrument of Accession, 1947 and lastly the Merger Agreement with the Dominion government of India. The Dominion Government of India as well as the Indian National Congress was very clear about the status of Princely States. The All India Congress Committee in its meeting held on 15 July, 1947 categorically had rejected the claim of some Indian States and the theory of the lapse of British paramountcy. Jawaharlal Nehru in the said meeting said, The States have only two alternatives- they could join the Union of India either individually or in groups. There is no third way out of the situation, third way meaning independence or special relation to a foreign power. 13 One of the resolutions of All India Congress Committee did not admit the right of any State in India to declare its independence 12 Ibid. 13 Kapur, A.C., The Indian Political System, S. Chand and Company Ltd., new Delhi, 1978, p. 81

8 37 and to live in isolation from the rest of India. The lapse of British paramountcy of the British Crown did not make the Indian States Independent. Manipur had already signed the Standstill Agreement, the Instrument of Accession on 11 August, 1947 just four days before the Indian Independence. The Standstill Agreement had provided for the continuance for the time being of all substituting Agreement and administrative arrangements in matters of common concern between the States and the Dominion of India or any part thereof. 14 The matters of common concern included Defence, Foreign Affairs, and Communications etc. The conclusion of the Standstill Agreement, therefore, meant that the Agreement had acted as a link between the Dominion government of Indian and Manipur any Indian State by maintaining the same relationship as it was under British Paramountcy. By signing the Instrument of Accession on 11 August, 1947, the Maharaja of Manipur had agreed to accede to India by surrendering important subjects. Thus the Standstill Agreement and the Instrument of Accession placed Manipur within the broad political framework of the Indian Dominion. Theoretically Manipur and other Indian states were independent but practically it was not. There were two important proposals for the integration of North- Eastern States. The first was the creation of Purbachal and the second was the formation of a Frontier Hill State. Of the two, the creation of Purbachal became more popular among the political circle. Manipur, Tripura, Cachar, the Lushai Hills etc. were included in the proposed Purbachal State. 15 The main objective of the plan was the unification of 14 Govt. of India, White Paper on Indian States, Ministry of States, Section Manipur State Congress, Supplementary Memorandum to the State, Re-Organisation Commission, 5 May 1955, p. 8

9 38 Cachar, Manipur, Tripura and Lushai Hills into a single political unit. But the plan was objected by not only Manipur but also Assam. Only some leaders of the Manipur State Congress had supported it. The Manipur Praja Sangha and the Krishak Sabha led by Hijam Irabot had objected strongly the proposed Purbachal Plan. The two organisations had convened a joint meeting on 21 September, 1948 at the Manipur Dramatic Union (MDU) Hall, Imphal to oppose and condemn the Plan. 16 People from all walks of life and from all directions came to attend the meeting. The government also took the necessary measures to control the emerging political situation of Manipur. There was a mass procession from Pungdongbam to attend the meeting at MDU Hall. Unfortunately there was a clash between the police force and the people participating in the procession at Pungdongbam. As a result of the clash, one police officer was killed. After this incident, the government of Manipur had banned the organisations headed by Irabot in Manipur. Irabot with some of his followers went underground after the Pungdongbam unfortunate incident. Though went underground Irabot had worked actively by having link with the communist oriented organisations of Burma. His activities became stronger and the proposed integration of Manipur with Burma had become a burning issue. 17 The second plan namely the creation of a Frontier Hill State was strongly objected by the Manipur State Congress. It was a plan to form a new state comprising of Manipur, Naga Hills and Lushai Hills. The Manipur State Congress had supported the formation of Purbachal State and opposed the formation of the Frontier Hill State. The Praja Sangha and the Krishak Sabha, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the 16 S. Satradhari, Manipur Itihasta Irabot, Imphal, 1972, p Kabui, Gangmumei, Leftist Movement: A Case Study of Irabot, Imphal, 1974

10 39 Purbachal Plan. The movement for opposing the Plan and resulted Irabot and some of his followers to go underground and banning of his two organisations by the government of Manipur. In the hill areas of Manipur, there were political tensions during the period when the Purbachal Plan and the Frontier hill State were hot political issues. In the North hills, under the leadership of A. Daiho an organisation called Naga Peoples League was formed and started a movement for integration of the Naga inhabited areas of Manipur with the Naga Hills of Assam. 18 A similar movement had also emerged in the south-west hill areas of Manipur. The movement was led by Mizo Union. The Mizo Union, from 1947 onwards, started a movement to merge the Mizo inhabited areas in Manipur into Lushai hills and as a part of the movement; they boycotted the election of Opposition Party in the Post-merger period The two main opposition parties namely the Manipur State Congress and the Socialist party had worked actively for the integration of Manipur into the Indian Union. The Manipur State Congress in one of its resolutions in the General session held at Imphal on 29 and 30 April, 1949 says, the state Congress views with deep concern the present international situation especially the Communist rising in the neighborhood state of Burma and feels that the consolidation of the Government of India all over India by completing the unification of India through integration and merging of the Native States, specially Manipur State which is an eastern gate way to India and which is now administered by a Pro-Communist and inefficient government is urgently 18 S. Satradhari, op cit., p Chaube, S. K., Hill Politics in North Eastern India, 1973, p. 194

11 40 required. 20 The Manipur State Congress at a later stage sent a team consisting of three delegates to Delhi to meet the President of the Indian National Congress and Sardar Vallabhai Patel for immediate integration of Manipur into the Indian Union. 21 The Merger Agreement was signed by the Maharaja of Manipur on 21 September The said Agreement was concluded between Shri Prakasha, the Governor of Assam on behalf of the Government of India and Maharaja Bodhachandra Singh. The Maharaja at first was not willing to sign the Agreement without the consent of his Council and that of the people of Manipur. 22 After four days of his stay at Shillong, Maharaja signed the Merger Agreement. At last, at a private meeting with the Governor, the Maharaja placed himself, without any reserve, in the Governor s hand to do as he considered best in the interest of India, Manipur and the ruler. 23 An order issued by the Secretary to the Ministry of State on 15 th October, 1949 had effected the complete integration of Manipur into the Indian Union. As a result, the Manipur State Legislative Assembly and the Council of Ministers were dissolved. The administration of Manipur was placed under direct administration of the Indian union. When the Constitution of India was enforced on 26 th January, 1950, Manipur was placed as a Part C State. An Advisory form of government was introduced. An advisory Council was inaugurated on 9 October The Part C States Act laid down that the President may for Manipur constitute a Council of Advisors consisting of such number of members as he thinks fit for the purpose of assisting the Chief 20 Manipur State Congress, General Session Resolution No. 2, 29 April 1949, Imphal 21 Intervbiewed with Y. Irabot Singh, ex minister, 30 January Letter from the Maharaja to Shri Prakasa, Dated 18 September 1949, Resistance, 25 September Nari Rustomji, Enchanted Frontiers, Calcutta, 1973, p. 109

12 41 Commissioner in the discharge of his functions. Thus the members of the Advisory Council in Manipur were nominated by the President of India in consultation with the Chief Commissioner of Manipur. The members of the Council were S. Krishna Mohan Singh, H. Dwijamani Sarma, S. Tombi Singh, Dr. L. Kampu, and A. Daiho. The first three were prominent leaders of the Congress party. 24 There was practically no opposition in the Advisory form of government. The Chief Commissioner was the real head of administration. The main function of the Advisors was to render advice to the Chief Commissioner. The Advisors had no right to interfere in day to day functioning of the Administration. The Chief Commissioner had consulted the Advisors on any matter concerning the administration of the State and on matters of policy. Of course, the members could move resolutions and interpellate on subjects with certain limitations. The Chief Commissioner could refuse information to the Advisors in public interest. The Chief Commissioner also could disallow discussion on any subject. He presided over the meetings of the Council. The advice given by the Advisors was not binding on the Chief Commissioner. The law making power and the authority to pass the annual budget of Manipur was the parliament. Thus the Advisory form of government in Manipur from 1950 to 1956 was not a democratic one. On the other hand, it was an authoritarian system of administration under the Chief Commissioner of Manipur. 25 Being dissatisfied with the working of the Advisory Council and the placement of Manipur as a Part C State, the political parties had started a movement for the restoration of the democratic government of The democratic and responsible form of government which was 24 Ibid. 25 Intervbiewed with Nimaichand Luwang, ex minister, 27 January 2011

13 42 introduced in 1948 was abolished. One representation to the President of India puts it: Since the State of Manipur was integrated to the Centre, a gloomy phase of life heralded because of the continued deprivation of the legitimate political and civic rights of the people. The dissolution of the popularly elected Legislative Assembly with the responsible Ministry and the forced imposition of the unsuited autocratic rule of the Chief Commissioner resulted to the persistent rise of irresistible feelings of discontent and frustration in every nook and corner of the State. 26 It can be said that since the day of the merger of Manipur with the Indian Union, the people of Manipur had been demanding restoration of responsible government in Manipur. The MPs belonging to the opposition parties of Manipur, Tripura and Kutch long with some opposition leaders submitted a memorandum to the government of India pleading for the introduction of a Legislative Assembly rather than the Advisory Council in the Part C States. The CPI, Manipur State Committee also supported the bill put up in Parliament for the establishment of Legislative Assembly in Manipur, Tripura and Kutch in its meeting held on 7, 8, 9 September Rishang Keishing, an MP belonging to Socialist Party of Indian from Manipur had demanded in Parliament a democratic government in Manipur. He argued that the people of all types of States should enjoy equal rights and status and said that the Advisory Council given by the government was most undemocratic and reactionary, which even the Imperialist power had not adopted. 28 The Democratic Front which was formed by the opposition parties namely the Communist Party of India, the Samyukta Socialist Party etc. had submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister of India. The Democratic Front said, Our 26 Memorandum submitted by the Manipur Youth Demand Committee to the President of India for the Restoration of Responsible Govt. in Manipur, Resolution of the Manipur State Committee (CPI), 7 September, 1953 to 9 September, Prajatantra, Manipuri local daily vernacular, Imphal, 12 April 1953

14 43 immediate demand is the establishment of responsible government in Manipur by setting up a council of Ministers responsible to the Legislature elected on adult franchise. 29 A strong United Front consisting of the opposition parties was considered essential for the common demand of Legislative Assembly. A strong democratic front (leftist) would bring the right of self determination in Manipur. 30 The Manipur Revolutionary Party took the extreme step demanding that a Legislative Assembly should be established within 15 days. 31 The Praja Socialist Party of Manipur had observed 25 June 1954 as the Assembly Demand day. A movement for the restoration of responsible government of 1948 was started by the Socialist Party of Manipur. A large number of people were arrested in connection with the Satyagraha movement demanding the revival of the responsible government, The movement had lasted for about six months. Dr. Ram Monohar Lohia, the leader of the Socialist party in India came to Manipur and addressed a public meeting at Bir Tikendrajit Park, Imphal. The government had promulgated Section 144 in the Park and adjoining areas. Defying the order, a large number of people came to attend the meeting Dr. Lohia and State Socialist leaders namely L. Achouba Singh and Th. Chandrasekhar Singh were arrested and imprisoned. Rishang Keishing, Socialist MP from Manipur said, There is no reason why the people of Manipur should wait for the publication of the Commission report, as advised by our Prime Minister, and remain deprived of the democratic rights enjoyed by the people of the rest of India and suffer humiliation at the hands of the bureaucratic regime of 29 Memorandum Submitted to the Prime Minister of India by Th. Bira Singh Secretary Democratic Front, Manipur, 23 October Ibid. 31 Meeting of the Manipur Revolutionary Party at Pologround, August, 1953, Imphal

15 44 Chief Commissioner and Council of Advisors in this way. 32 He also expressed that the hill organisations and the hill people also resented very much the abolition of the Legislative Assembly. The hill people were protesting against the rule of the Chief Commissioner in their own way. Another opposition party, the Praja Socialist Party had decided to launch the movement from November, 1954 if the Central government did not make a declaration before the end of September, 1954 fulfilling their demands. The party also sent a deputation to meet the Home Minister and the Prime Minister in this regard. The delegation had informed the Home Minister about the irresponsible and irresponsive Chief Commissioner s rule could not be tolerated even for a single day and urged the government to fulfill the democratic aspiration of the people by restoring responsible government in Manipur. 33 On the issue of the restoration of responsible government, 1948, all the colleges of Imphal had observed a general strike on 20 November There were procession and rallies shouting slogans for the restoration of responsible government in Manipur. The opposition parties had formed the United Front Organizing Committee to take up action regarding the movement. Later, the said committee was converted into the United Assembly Demand Committee under the Chairmanship of Th. Meghachandra Singh, CPI. The opposition parties had observed 9 January 1955 as Manipur Satyagraha Day. The day was observed in different parts of India such as Bombay, Poona, Calcutta and Gauhati. The then MP, L. Jugeshwor Singh said in the Lok Sabha, If the establishment of a responsible government is delayed or 32 Statement of Rishang Keishing, MP Present Boundary, 6 December, 1954, Imphal 33 PSP- Facts about Manipur Satyagraha, Anouba Samaj, 15 December, 1954

16 45 the Commission had decided otherwise and if their demands were not granted, who knows that this lull is a lull before the storm. 34 All the hill organisations and the hill people had actively participated in the movement for the restoration of responsible government, 1948 in Manipur. The hill organisations had submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister of India demanding responsible government in Manipur. The movement was strongly supported by the national leaders of Communist Party of India and the Socialist Parties. The movement led by the opposition parties had continued for 6 months and ended with the publication of the State Re-organisation Commission Report. The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of India was passed by Parliament granting the creation of a legislature in Manipur by the passing of the Territorial Councils Act, Opposition Party during Territorial Council A Territorial Council Consisting of 30 elected and two nominated members was formed in For the first time, Manipur had an elected body consisting of representatives of the people for the administration of the State. The credit for achieving an elected body in the form of Territorial Council as the result of the movement should rightly go to the opposition parties namely the Samyukta Socialist Party, the Praja Socialist Party and the Communist Party of India. The people of Manipur were not satisfied with the granting of the Territorial Council. The Council did not possess law making, financial and judicial powers. Its main function was the normal administrative work. This dissatisfaction on the part of the people and the political parties had led to the revival of the movement with stronger force. 34 Ngasi, Manipuri local daily vernacular, Imphal, 21 January 1955

17 46 The main opposition, the Socialist Party had resumed the movement for the restoration of responsible government, 1948 on 11 April, Before starting the movement; the Assembly Demand Co- Ordination Committee had submitted memorandums to the Union government, New Delhi. A Deputation was also sent to meet the President of India, the Prime Minister and the Home Minister. The Assembly Demand Co-Ordination consisted of representatives of the Opposition parties namely a) the Samyukta Socialist Party, b) the Praja Socialist Party and c) the Communist Party of India. In order to mobilise the youths and the students of Manipur, a youth assembly Demand Committee was formed on 16 April, To get the support of the womenfolk, a women s Assembly Demand Committee was also formed. Under the guidance and supervision of Demand Co-Ordination Committee, there was peaceful picketing of Courts and government offices etc. The movement was in the form of Civil Disobedience campaign. Many people had suffered due to lathi charges, tear gassing and firing resorted by the police. In order to control the movement the government had promulgated Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code. In defiance of Section 144, the Assembly Demand Co- Ordination Committee had observed 16 May 1960 as Civil Resistance Day. The leaders of the movement belonging to the opposition parties, i.e. the Samyukta Socialist Party, the Praja Socialist Party and the Communist Party of India were arrested in connection with the movement. More than 500 persons were also arrested and put into jail. 35 Assembly Demand Co-Ordination Committee, Why Responsible Government for Manipur, Imphal, 1960, p. I 36 Ibid.

18 47 The Assembly Demand Co-Ordination Committee had also submitted several charges against the Chief Commissioner and the bureaucrats of Manipur administration to the Union government. The charge sheet contained serious complaints of the people against the government such as the problem of de-manipurisation of key posts in the Civil Service, rising price of rice and famine condition prevailing in Manipur, corruption, wastage and non-implementation of plan schemes in various Departments, Naga trouble on Manipur borders and a host of lapses on the post of the Manipur administration. All these problems can be solved effectively by a popular and democratic government and not by a Chief Commissioner and his bureaucratic machinery. The real and lasting solution would lie in the establishment of responsible government in Manipur. The denial of fundamental civil and political right of self government in Manipur is a challenge and the people are prepared to accept it in that spirit. 37 The Territorial Council had also discussed the demand of a Legislative Assembly in Manipur as moved by the opposition parties. A resolution was passed by the Territorial Council on 23 September 1960 in its 30 th Session. 38 a. In order to bring up Manipur to Statehood, the government of India should amend the Constitution of India. b. In order to safeguard the owners of the hills and the valley of Manipur, a strong form of administration agreed upon be introduced. c. As a sure step for establishing a Legislative Assembly in Manipur, more powers be given to the Manipur Territorial Council before the general elections take place. 37 Ibid, p Proceedings of the Manipur Territorial Council, Vol. IV, 1960, p. 210

19 48 The movement led by the opposition parties, the Socialist Party, the Praja Socialist party and the Communist Party of India and later joined by the Congress demanding a Legislative Assembly in Manipur was a very strong political force in Manipur. But the response from the Union government was not a satisfactory one. Some of the main given were that the demand of the people of Manipur for a responsible form of government having a Legislative Assembly had not yet been granted on account of the scanty financial resources, small population and the size of the territory. In the Lok Sabha the Union Home Minister had made a statement on 26 April, 1960 that the annual revenue was only Rs. 35 Lakhs and the annual expenditure for Manipur was more than Rs. 5 Crores and that Parliament would not have any sympathy or support towards the movement. 39 To this the Assembly Demand Co-Ordination Committee had responded that no State in the Union can survive without loans and grants from the Centre and economic viability is hardly a convincing argument against autonomy or Statehood or responsible government. The Union Government had responded to the movement of the opposition paries for granting a Legislative Assembly to Manipur by the 14 th Amendment of the Constitution, 1962, Article-239 A was inserted to the Constitution of India, granting a Legislative Assembly to Manipur consisting of 30 elected and 2 nominated members. Accordingly, the existing Territorial Council had been converted into a Territorial Assembly in July, The upgradation of the Territorial Council into a Legislative Assembly was the fruit of the long struggle of the opposition parties i.e. the Socialist Party, the Praja Socialist Party and the Communist party of India. The then Chairman of the Territorial Council 39 Assembly Demands Co-Ordination Committee, op cit., pp

20 state. 43 We may also study the electoral politics of Manipur after granting 49 of India M. Koireng Singh became the first Chief Minister of Manipur after the merger of Manipur into the Indian Union. 40 The opposition parties and the people of Manipur were not satisfied with the granting of Legislative Assembly consisting of 30 elected and 2 nominated members. In the meantime, the granting of fullfledged status of Statehood to the Naga Hills of Assam in December, 1963 had greatly influenced the people and the opposition parties of Manipur. The issues of granting Statehood to Manipur were hotly debated among the leaders of the opposition parties. The demand for Statehood to Manipur was greatly strengthened by the granting of Statehood to Nagaland having lesser economic resources and small population, The neighboring state of Nagaland has become the 16 th full-fledged State in India. But in comparison of the two states, our Manipur is not inferior to Nagaland in many respects. But the Statehood of Manipur had been deprived by the government of India. 41 One leader of the opposition, Socialist party, Th. Chandrasekhar Singh said in the Legislative Assembly while discussing the issue of the demand of Statehood to Manipur, we feel very much about the step motherly attitude towards Manipur. 42 The leader of the opposition, L. Achou Singh, Socialist said, we have no right to cast vote in the Presidential election. We are in the grade of second class citizen. It is our crying need to have full-fledged Legislative Assembly to Manipur in It was in February, 1967 that elections to the Legislative Assembly consisting of 30 elected members 40 Intervbiewed with I. Ibohanbi Singh, opposition leader, 28 June Y. Yaima Singh, proceedings of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, Fifth Session, , Vol. XXX VIII, Imphal, 1967, p Th. Chandrasekhar Singh, Ibid, p L. Achou Singh, Proceedings of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, Third Session, , Vol.VII, Imphal, 1969, p. 44

21 50 were held. The elections were fought by the ruling party, the Congress and the opposition parties namely the Samyukta Socialist party, the Praja Socialist party, the Communist Party of India and the Communist Party of India (CPI-M). An electoral Alliance called United Democratic Front was formed by two State parties namely the nationalist Socialist Democratic Party and the Manipur Socialist Party. 44 The Communist Party of India in its election manifesto said that the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India were not implemented in Manipur because of the dissolution of the Manipur Legislative Assembly in The party had also criticized the food policy of the government. The party offered a 16 point programme. Some of them were the integrity of the hills and valley of Manipur, the confirmation of Statehood on Manipur, special autonomy for the hill areas of Manipur, amendment of the Land Revenue and Reforms Act, nationalisation of banks, re-organisation of education policy, and inclusion of Manipuri language in the VIII schedule of the Constitution of India etc. 46 The party made an alliance with the Socialist parties in order to defeat the Congress. The Congress on the other hand made it clear that the opposition parties will not be able to capture power, the alliance made between the Communist and the Socialist parties shows that they do not have clear political ideology and principles and that the Congress alone will be able to form a stable ministry in Manipur. 47 Among the opposition parties, the Samyukta Socialist Party was able to capture 4 seats out of 12 seats contested. Another opposition party, the Communist Party of India could secure only 1 seat out of 6 44 The Two State Political parties were not recognized by the Election Commission of India 45 CPI (Manipur State Council) Election in Manipur, Imphal, 1967, p Ibid, pp Simanta Patrika, Manipuri local daily vernacular, Imphal, 22 August 1966

22 51 seats contested. The other opposition parties, the Communist Party of India (M) and the Praja Socialist party could not open their accounts in the elections, The opposition parties altogether had secured 5 seats only whereas the Independents secured 9 seats out of 29 seats contested. The ruling Congress Party had secured half of the total seats i.e. 15 in the Assembly elections, It may be noted that the opposition parties namely the Samyukta Socialist Party, the Praja Socialist party, the Communist Party of India and the Communist Party of India (M) had put up their candidates only in the valley whereas the Congress Party had contested in both the valley and the hills of Manipur. Thus the opposition parties though worked hard in the elections in order to defeat the Congress were not able to do so. The opposition parties had failed to defeat the Congress in the electoral politics of Manipur. The Congress had 16 seats in the Assembly including one uncontested one. The two nominated members and seven independents had joined the Congress. With 25 members on its support the Congress had formed government with M. Koireng Singh as the Chief Minister. The Congress Ministry headed by M. Koireng Singh was sworn on 20 March, Soon after the formation of Koireng Ministry, there developed a conflict among the leaders of the Congress party. S. Tombi Singh, who was elected Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, was deadly against the Chief Minister, M. Koireng Singh. Before becoming the Speaker, Salam Tombi was an MP in the Lok Sabha representing Inner Manipur Parliamentary constituency. There was two rival groups within the Congress, one group led by Salam Tombi Singh and the other group led by the Chief Minister, M. Koireng Singh. The Congress Under the 48 Th. Gokul Singh, Defection in Manipur, , Imphal, 1978, p. 13

23 52 influence of the Chief Minister had charged that S. Tombi Singh was responsible for all the attacks against him. Therefore the Chief Minister, M. Koireng Singh had persuaded the Congress Legislature Party to adopt a resolution removing S. Tombi Singh from the Speakership. The Deputy Speaker was also the target of the rival group led by the Chief Minister, M. Koireng Singh. Sensing the move from the government side, the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker had resigned from their respective positions and left the Congress Party. Eight other members also left the Congress party and joined the Speaker and the Deputy Minister. They were L. Thambou, S. Angou, Ashraf Ali, Ch. Rajmohon, Shoukhothang Ason, D. Kipgen, K. Envy and R.T. Shining. The eighteen MLAs who left the Congress were joined by seven members of the opposition. They together formed the United Legislature Front consisting of 17 members on 21 September The opposition parties though small in number at first was given a political push by the defection of 10 MLAs from the Congress ruling party. The emerging political force of the opposition in the form of United Legislature Front had led to the resignation of the Congress Ministry led by M. Koireng Singh. The opposition under the name of United Left Front had elected L. Thambou Singh as their leader. The new United Front Ministry was sworn in on 13 October 1967 with L. Thambou Singh as Chief Minister. It was one achievement of the opposition parties namely the Socialist Party, the Praja Socialist Party and the Communist Party of India to overthrow the Congress ministry, of course with the help and support of the defectors from the Congress party. The Congress party led by M. Koireng Singh, the former Chief Minister of Manipur struggled politically in order to topple the United 49 Kshetri Bimola, op cit., p. 230

24 53 Front Ministry led by M. Koireng Singh. The Congress as an opposition party had reviewed the weak points and loopholes of the party while in power. Within very short time, the opposition Congress was given a chance by the sudden development within the members of the United Front Ministry. On the plea that there was no representation of Kuki community in the Cabinet, one member of the ruling United Front namely Demjalam Kipgen defected from the ruling Coalition and rejoined the Congress. 50 This had resulted in the reduction of the strength of United Front to 16. The opposition Congress party had raised a no-confidence motion against the United Front Ministry headed by L. Thambou Singh. A very interesting political development might be the first of its kind in the state politics of India took place. The discussion on no-confidence motion took place on 23 October The discussion was going on among the members of the Legislative Assembly, both ruling and opposition. Everyone was expecting that after the discussion vote will be taken, thereby deciding the fate of the ministry. S. Tombi Singh was the Speaker and Kh. Chaoba Singh was the Deputy Speaker. To the surprise of all, including his own supporters, the Speaker, S. Tombi Singh adjourned the House on the ground that he had to attend to urgent call of nature. 51 When the House met on 24 October 1967, the discussion on No- Confidence motion was to be taken up, there was no one to preside over the discussion. The Speaker, S. Tombi Singh, the Deputy Speaker, Kh. Chaoba Singh, L. Achou Singh and K. Envy who were in the panel of Speakership all resigned from their respective positions. The Secretary to the Legislative Assembly had requested the House to elect a Speaker to conduct the proceedings of the House. But both the ruling and the 50 Simanta Patrika, 14 October Kshetri Bimola, op cit., p. 231

25 54 opposition groups were not interested as their main concern was to save the ministry on the one hand and to topple the ministry on the other. The membership of the United Front and the Congress were equally balanced i.e. 16/16 on each side. There was none to preside over the House. The Secretary then announced that as the House could not appoint a Presiding Officer, he would refer the matter to the Administrator. The Administrator prorogued the House on 24 October 1967 itself. Manipur was under President s Rule after the 12 days United Front Ministry could not prove its majority in the House. During the President s Rule, the Congress had tried hard to regain its majority strength in the House. Within three months time, the defections from the Congress except S. Tombi Singh and Kh. Chaoba had come back to the Congress party. 52 Two other members namely Md. Ashraf Ali and K. Envy also joined the Congress. The Strength of the Congress in the Legislative Assembly had increased to 22 in a House of 30. The President s Rule was revoked and a Congress ministry headed by M.Koireng Singh was sworn in on 19 February The third Congress Ministry led by M. Koireng Singh was not free from conflicts and dissatisfaction among the Congress leaders regarding the ministerial berths. The opposition led by its leader L. Achou Singh, Socialist had taken advantage of the situation. L. Achou Singh, the leader of the opposition moved a motion of no confidence against the Congress Ministry. There were charges and counter charges against the ministry while discussing the no-confidence motion. But the no-confidence motion was defeated by 17 votes to nine. L. Achou Singh again made a second attempt to topple the Congress Ministry on 23 September The noconfidence motion was defeated for the second time by 21 votes to Simanta Patrika, Manipuri local daily vernacular, Imphal, 8 December 1967

26 55 There was division among the members who had supported the first noconfidence. Some of them who had supported the motion, later voted against the motion in the second no-confidence motion. The opposition led by L. Achou Singh did not lose faith in its twice failure to defeat the Congress led Koireng Ministry. Taking advantage of new development among the Congress leaders for not getting ministerial berths, the opposition made a determined attack to unseat the Congress Ministry. It was on 23 September 1969 that a motion of no-confidence against the Ministry was moved by Y. Yaima Singh, an opposition member. After discussion of the no-confidence motion by both ruling and opposition MLAs, the motion was put to vote. The no-confidence motion was passed by 19 votes to 14 the next day i.e. 24 September At last the opposition led by L. Achou Singh was able to defeat the Congress Ministry headed by M. Koireng Singh. The United Legislative Front formed by the opposition had requested the Chief Commissioner to allow forming the next Ministry. But the Chief Commissioner in view of the emerging trend of political instability did not warrant the formation of a new ministry by the opposition. As a matter of fact since the Territorial Assembly elections, the government formed by the Congress and the opposition did not last long. And more importantly the government formed by the opposition under the name of United Left Front Ministry on 13 October, 1967 could last only for 12 days. The reason could be that the opposition parties namely the Samyukta Socialist Party, the Communist Party of India could gain its majority strength only through defection from the ruling group. The fall of the United Left Front Ministry had clearly shown that the opposition could not depend on the defections for ministerial stability or for long political planning.

27 56 The opposition parties namely the Samyukta Socialist Party, the Praja Socialist Party, the Communist Party of India had played their effective role not only within the Legislative Assembly but also in the larger politics of the State. As the people of Manipur were not satisfied with the granting of Territorial Assembly in 1963, the necessity for starting a stronger movement for full-fledged Statehood status for Manipur within the Indian Union was felt. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) was another party which joined the movement. The movement, it may be said, was a continuation of the earlier movement demanding a Legislative Assembly for Manipur. The four opposition parties, i.e. the Samyukta Socialist Party, the Praja Socialist Party, the Communist Party of India and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) geared up their political strength in the movement demanding full-fledged statehood status for Manipur. The opposition parties staged demonstrations during the visit of Y. B. Chavan, the then Union Home Minister and other Central leaders to Manipur in The opposition parties had urged the Central leaders to grant full- fledged Statehood for Manipur. 53 The Congress Party also had joined the movement at a later stage. A Congress Delegation went to New Delhi in November, The Congress delegations were told by the Central leaders that it was not the opportune time to raise the issue as the entire region was politically unstable. 54 In the meantime, one new political party named the Manipur People s Party was formed by the defectors from the Congress party in December, The newly formed Manipur People s Party also joined the Statehood movement started by the opposition parties. 53 L. Achou Singh, The Case of Manipur, 1970, Imphal, p Ibid.