During British colonial rule, Manipur was governed through a dual administrative system that acknowledged the distinct socio-political identities of the valley and hill people from pre-British times. The valley region, which included Imphal and the surrounding plains and made up 10% of the territory, was directly administered by the king under British suzerainty. In contrast, the hill regions, comprising 90% of the territory and predominantly inhabited by the Naga people, were governed by a separate institution known as DURBAR. This arrangement implicitly recognized the unique identities and governance needs of the valleys and hills.
The integration of Manipur into India following Maharaja Bodhchandra Singh’s accession required constitutional accommodations for the region’s legacy of dual administration, a system established by the British, who managed the Kangleipak (Manipur) princely state and the Naga Hills as separate entities. This accession exemplifies how historical contexts directly influence constitutional design. The colonial policy of “dual administration,” designed to protect the distinct socio-political identities and rights of the Hill people, left a lasting impact on the region’s political geography, presenting a challenge that the nascent Indian state could not overlook. The transition from the Merger Agreement to Article 371-C illustrates a pragmatic and evolving response to constitutional issues. Instead of imposing a uniform administrative framework, the Indian state devised a unique solution – the Hill Areas Committee – to balance the imperative of integration with the necessity of preserving regional autonomy.
While Article 371C of the Indian Constitution established a framework for shared governance, a critical analysis reveals that the state’s political institutions were strategically designed to limit its actual implementation. Consequently, the Manipur state apparatus, predominantly representing valley-based interests, accrued a monopoly of power that effectively neutralized the substantive autonomy envisioned by the Constitution. This approach can be interpreted as a New Delhi’s political strategy to integrate and administer restive hill areas, particularly targeting Naga communities whose historical aspirations for sovereignty, including the decision to remain outside the Indian Union, posed a fundamental challenge to India’s ambition to inherit British colonies.
Thus, the Hill Areas Committee (HAC), established under Article 371C, was rendered ineffective by legislative and administrative actions of the state. This containment turned what could have been a tool for self-governance into a mere symbolic entity, undermining the political rights it was intended to protect. This history of perceived institutional duplicity is not just a historical footnote; it has become deeply embedded in the collective consciousness of hill communities as a foundational narrative of political disenfranchisement, passed down from generation to generation as a collective unconscious archetype. This perpetuates a deep-seated distrust of state institutions and fuels the perception that constitutional safeguards are pliable tools for majoritarian control rather than guarantees of rights. Consequently, the legacy of the 1949 merger is not one of simple integration but rather one of unresolved constitutional contestation. The state’s approach to Article 371-C set a precedent for hill-valley relations that continues to shape the contemporary political dynamics of Manipur. It remains a central factor in understanding the region’s persistent ethnic tensions, as it directly influences ongoing conflicts over land, resources, and political representation in the state government and among various ethnic groups in the hill areas.
About the Author: KH. Pou, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at the University of Delhi and also serves as Editor-at-Large at ICNA. View all articles by the author.
Featured Image: Dozens of houses are seen vandalised and burnt after ethnic clashes and rioting in India’s Manipur state. Photograph: Altaf Qadri/AP
ICNA reserves all rights to the content submitted. The author’s views are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of icna.nl