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.

3 Dutta, P. S., (ed.), Electoral Politics in North East India, New Delhi: Guwahati, Assam: Omsons

Publications, 1986: p. 69

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 Intervbiewed with Y. Jiten Singh, ex minister, 30 January 2012

5 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 Proceedings of the 20

th 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

Government of Manipur, Assembly Proceedings, Manipur Legislative Assembly, 7 June 1949 11

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

Ibid. 13

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 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 82 15

Manipur State Congress, Supplementary Memorandum to the State, Re-Organisation Commission, 5 May 1955, p. 8

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. 65 17

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

S. Satradhari, op cit., p. 54 19

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 26th

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 21

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

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

Ibid. 25

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

Statement of Rishang Keishing, MP ‘Present Boundary’, 6 December, 1954, Imphal 33

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 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, 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 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.

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

Ibid, p. 11 38

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 full-

fledged 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 41

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

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 45

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

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 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 1967 51

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 no-

confidence 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 no-

confidence. 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

L. Achou Singh, “The Case of Manipur”, 1970, Imphal, p. 4 54

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.