Early phase of
Opposition Party in Manipur 1948-1969
2.1 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
31
time. The Committee had framed a Constitution called Manipur State
Constitution Act, 1947. 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 1948. 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.
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 1948. 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 7th March, 1948, S. Somorendra Singh had criticized the
functioning of the Council of Ministers for taking over law making
4
5
Intervbiewed with Y. Jiten Singh, ex minister, 30 January 2012
Ksehtri Bimola op cit, p. 225
33
power, not provided by the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947. 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 31-3-49 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
th
Proceedings of the 20 Sitting of the First Session of the Manipur State Legislative Assembly, 7
March, 1949
7
Ibid.
8
Resistance, March, 1979
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
1948-49 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
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, 1947. 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
11
Government of Manipur, Assembly Proceedings, Manipur Legislative Assembly, 7 June 1949
Ibid.
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 15th August,
1947.12
But on the practical side, majority of the Princely States had
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
13
Ibid.
Kapur, A.C., The Indian Political System, S. Chand and Company Ltd., new Delhi, 1978, p. 81
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 NorthEastern 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 82
Manipur State Congress, Supplementary Memorandum to the State, Re-Organisation Commission,
5 May 1955, p. 8
15
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
17
S. Satradhari, Manipur Itihasta Irabot, Imphal, 1972, p. 65
Kabui, Gangmumei, Leftist Movement: A Case Study of Irabot, Imphal, 1974
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 1948-1949 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 1948.19
2.2 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
19
S. Satradhari, op cit., p. 54
Chaube, S. K., Hill Politics in North Eastern India, 1973, p. 194
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 1949. 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 15th 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 1950. 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
Intervbiewed with Y. Irabot Singh, ex minister, 30 January 2012
22
Letter from the Maharaja to Shri Prakasa, Dated 18 September 1949, Resistance, 25 September
1974
23
Nari Rustomji, Enchanted Frontiers, Calcutta, 1973, p. 109
21
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
1948. The democratic and responsible form of government which was
24
25
Ibid.
Intervbiewed with Nimaichand Luwang, ex minister, 27 January 2011
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 1953.27 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, 1960
27
Resolution of the Manipur State Committee (CPI), 7 September, 1953 to 9 September, 1953
28
Prajatantra, Manipuri local daily vernacular, Imphal, 12 April 1953
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, 1948. 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 1952
30
Ibid.
31
Meeting of the Manipur Revolutionary Party at Pologround, August, 1953, Imphal
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 1954. 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
33
Statement of Rishang Keishing, MP ‘Present Boundary’, 6 December, 1954, Imphal
PSP- ‘Facts about Manipur Satyagraha’, Anouba Samaj, 15 December, 1954
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, 1956.
2.3 Opposition Party during Territorial Council
A Territorial Council Consisting of 30 elected and two nominated
members was formed in 1957. 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
46
The main opposition, the Socialist Party had resumed the
movement for the restoration of responsible government, 1948 on 11
April, 1960.35 Before starting the movement; the Assembly Demand CoOrdination 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, 1960. 36 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 CoOrdination 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.
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 30th 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
38
Ibid, p. 11
Proceedings of the Manipur Territorial Council, Vol. IV, 1960, p. 210
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
14th 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, 1963. 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. 12-13
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 16th 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
state.43
We may also study the electoral politics of Manipur after granting
Legislative Assembly to Manipur in 1963. 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 2012
Y. Yaima Singh, proceedings of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, Fifth Session, 1966-1967, Vol. XXX
VIII, Imphal, 1967, p. 141
42
Th. Chandrasekhar Singh, Ibid, p. 148
43
L. Achou Singh, Proceedings of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, Third Session, 1968-69, Vol.VII,
Imphal, 1969, p. 44
41
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 1948.45 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
CPI (Manipur State Council) Election in Manipur, Imphal, 1967, p. 3
46
Ibid, pp. 26-29
47
Simanta Patrika, Manipuri local daily vernacular, Imphal, 22 August 1966
45
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, 1967. 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, 1967. 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, 1967.48
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, 1963-1977, Imphal, 1978, p. 13
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 1967.49 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
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 1967. 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 NoConfidence 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
51
Simanta Patrika, 14 October 1967
Kshetri Bimola, op cit., p. 231
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 1968.
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 1968. The noconfidence motion was defeated for the second time by 21 votes to 10.
52
Simanta Patrika, Manipuri local daily vernacular, Imphal, 8 December 1967
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 1969. 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.
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 1968. 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, 1968. 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, 1968. The newly formed
Manipur People‟s Party also joined the Statehood movement started by
the opposition parties.
53
54
L. Achou Singh, “The Case of Manipur”, 1970, Imphal, p. 4
Ibid.
57
In October 1969, the five opposition parties namely the Samyukta
Socialist Party, the Praja Socialist Party, the Communist Party of India,
the Communist Party of India (M) and the Manipur People‟s Party
formed the United Action Committee. This United Action Committee had
started a vigorous campaign for achieving full-fledged Statehood status.
The All Parties Statehood Demand Coordinating Body was constituted
consisting of the Congress Party and five constituent opposition parties of
the United Action Committee. As all the political parties of Manipur,
both ruling and opposition had united in the All Parties Statehood
Demand Coordinating Body, the demand for full fledged Statehood for
Manipur could no longer be ignored by the Government of India. It was
on 9th May, 1970, that an All Parties Parliamentary Delegation had visited
Manipur to examine and assess the political situation arising out of the
demand of Statehood by the political parties. The All Parties Statehood
Demand Coordinating Body had organized a big rally on the day of the
visit of the All Parties Parliamentary Delegation and submitted a
memorandum. The memorandum said, “The Spontaneity and unanimity
among all sections of the people in this movement have reached their
peak”.55
The All Parties Parliamentary Delegation on their return to New
Delhi had submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister and the Home
Minister urging upon the Union Government to grant Statehood to
Manipur before it was too late. In response to the memorandum submitted
by the All Parties Parliamentary Delegation, the Union government had
upgraded the post of the Administrator from the Chief Commissioner to
the lieutenant Governor. The Lieutenant Governor was empowered to
take decisions on the spot without frequent reference to the Centre. The
55
Memorandum Submitted to the Honorable Members of Parliament Visiting Manipur on 9 May 1970
by APSDCB, Manipur
58
Union government might have taken the above step thinking that the
upgradation of the Administrator to that of Lieutenant Governor could
satisfy the people of Manipur to some extent. But this had failed to satisfy
the people and the political parties, mainly the opposition parties who had
been agitating for a full-fledged Statehood for a number of years. The
movement for Statehood became very strong after the announcement of
Statehood for Himachal Pradesh on 31 July 1970. The All Parties
Statehood Demand Coordinating Body had boycotted the Independence
Day, 1970 on the issue of Statehood for Manipur. The All parties
Statehood Demand
Coordinating Body had organized a Civil
Disobedience movement from 17 August, 1970 demanding full-fledged
status for Manipur within the Indian Union.
The demand full-fledged Statehood for Manipur by the people and
the opposition parties and later joined by the ruling Congress Party for
about 22 years was fulfilled when the Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi
made an announcement in the Lok Sabha on 3 September, 1970 about the
decision of the Government of India accepting the granting of Statehood
to Manipur. It was after the announcement made by the Prime Minister
that the movement demanding Statehood for Manipur by the political
parties and the people of Manipur was called off. The bill for granting
Statehood to Manipur was introduced in Parliament on 9 December 1971.
The President of India had given his assent to the bill passed by both
Houses of Parliament on 21 January 1972. On the same day, the Prime
Minister, Indira Gandhi formally inaugurated Manipur as a full-fledged
State within the Indian Union.
59
2.4 Concluding observation
The early phase of opposition in Manipur from 1963 to 1969 is
characterised by some important features. The first is that the opposition
parties during the period 1963 to 1969 were all national political parties
namely the Samyukta Socialist Party, the Praja Socialist Party, the
Communist Party of India and the Communist Party of India (Marxist).
Being national political parties, their role in the political movement in
Manipur was supported and supplemented by the active role of the
national leaders belonging to these parities. Second, the leaders and the
members of the opposition parties during this period were guided by clear
political ideologies and principles of their respective political parties. The
opposition parties namely the Samyukta Socialist Party, the Praja
Socialist Party, the Communist Party of India and the Communist Party
of India (Marxist) have their distinctive political ideologies and
principles.
The new regional political party i.e. the Manipur People‟s Party
which joined the wagon of opposition in the late 1960s was also guided
by the spirit of regionalism autonomy and decentralisation of the political
system. Third, the leaders and members of the opposition during the
period, 1963 to 1969 were very popular and known political personalities
of Manipur. Some of them were L. Achou Singh and Th. Chandrashekher
Singh of the Samyukta Socialist Party, Th. Bira Singh, M. Meghachandra
Singh, Ng. Mohendra Singh, and M. Ibohal Singh of the Communist
Party of India. The movement for the restoration of responsible
government of 1948 in the 1950s, movement demanding a Legislative
Assembly in the early 1960s and later movement for granting full-fledged
status to Manipur in the middle of 1960s were under the guidance and
supervision of these leaders. They were not after political position and
60
power unlike present day political leaders. There were firm believers in
their respective political ideologies and principles and were always ready
to fight and struggle for the political rights of the people.