Author: Ranjeet Luitel
The parliamentary debate over the Manipur budget and supplementary grants has started a discussion about governance, constitutional provisions, and the state’s ongoing crisis. The debate highlighted concerns, including alleged constitutional violations, insufficient budgetary allocations, economic distress, and a perceived lack of political accountability. The discussions in Parliament, featuring voices across party lines, reflect the complexities of the situation in Manipur and the need for urgent solutions.
Allegations of Bypassing Article 371C
One of the most contentious issues raised in the debate was the alleged bypassing of Article 371C of the Indian Constitution, which provides special provisions for the administration of Manipur’s hill areas. Alfred K.S. Arthur, in his speech, emphasized that the constitutional mandate requiring budgetary proposals to be reviewed by a committee was not followed, stating that plans for the hill areas and the rest of the state must be presented to the committee, with its views considered before finalization.
“We have already bypassed the Constitution for the budget,” Arthur stated, pointing out the disproportionate distribution of resources between Manipur’s hills and valley regions.
This allegation reflects a concern about constitutional governance in the state, as failure to adhere to such provisions raises questions about the legality of budget allocations. Furthermore, Arthur highlighted that presidential proclamations regarding separate budgetary considerations for the hill and valley regions were ignored.
Addressing the Needs of Displaced Persons
Dr. A. Bimol Akoijam criticized the Manipur budget for failing to reflect the severity of the crisis, especially in the wake of ongoing ethnic violence that has led to the displacement of around sixty thousand people. Dr. A. Bimol Akoijam, argue that the current budget is insufficient to address the crisis, especially for internally displaced persons (IDPs).
“This budget speaks of the exclusions and the contemptuous nature in which the present government has dealt with the state of Manipur. With 60,000 displaced people—how do you expect that kind of economy of a state to deal with this crisis without the help of the center?”
His concern was echoed by other opposition members who questioned whether Manipur’s economy could sustain the burden of relief and rehabilitation efforts without increased central assistance.
The debate also brought attention to Manipur’s fiscal health, with Akoijam highlighting that the state’s fiscal liabilities stand at 37.7% of its Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP).
Given this precarious economic situation, opposition leaders questioned how the government planned to provide relief to displaced persons, ensure economic recovery, and promote long-term development.
Additionally, Arthur pointed out that crucial welfare schemes like MGNREGA have not seen an increase in funding, and in some cases, material components for work projects remain unreleased. This has affected rural employment and livelihood support, particularly for communities already struggling with displacement and instability.
The Absence of Political Will?
The lack of visible leadership in response to Manipur’s crisis was a recurring theme in the debate. Opposition’s common point of contention was the Prime Minister’s absence from Manipur, despite the scale of violence and displacement.
Dr. Akoijam expressed his frustration with the lack of engagement from the country’s highest leadership:
“I was hurt that the prime minister did not visit. Today, I’m almost indifferent whether he visits the state or not; it does not matter anymore. But the rest of the country should know that there is no visa issue for the prime minister to visit the country.”
Similarly, Gaurav Gogoi and Abhay Kumar Sinha raised concerns over the government’s “shocking silence” on the crisis. Sinha lamented: “But the Honorable Prime Minister could not find even a minute to visit Manipur. This is shocking.”
Sayani Ghosh took a more direct approach, pointing out the Prime Minister’s frequent travels abroad and within India, while allegedly ignoring the burning issues in Manipur.
The opposition argued that this perceived indifference from the central government sends a message of neglect to the people of Manipur, further alienating them from the national leadership. The lack of a personal visit by the Prime Minister has become a symbolic issue, with many MPs equating it with a broader governance failure.
Economic Distress and Development Imbalances: A Struggling Economy
Economic concerns took center stage in the debate, with opposition members questioning why Manipur’s economy remains fragile despite increased infrastructure investments in the Northeast.
Dr. Akoijam described the economic state of Manipur as dire, pointing to its high debt burden and a lack of focus on productive sectors such as agriculture and horticulture.
He highlighted that 61% of the revenue expenditure, with roughly 45% allocated to salaries and pensions, leaves limited scope for development. With these financial constraints, it is inconceivable that the government to believe that Manipur can recover without significant central assistance.
Arthur reinforced this argument by emphasizing the need to invest in the state’s core economic areas, particularly in the hill regions, where people rely heavily on agriculture for survival.
Gaurav Gogoi, meanwhile, argued that the government was more concerned about controlling the media narrative than addressing economic issues. His argument reflects a larger concern that despite assurances of development and economic revival, the ground realities in Manipur tell a different story.
Political Accountability: Who Will Take Responsibility?
A critical element of the debate was the question of accountability. With the imposition of President’s Rule in Manipur, several MPs demanded clarity on who would take moral responsibility for the state’s crisis.
Gogoi called for Home Minister Amit Shah to take accountability, “The Home Minister must take moral responsibility for what has happened in Manipur.”
Sayani Ghosh, on the other hand, suggested that President’s Rule was imposed not out of necessity but to protect the ruling party’s image.
“The double engine ran over the people of Manipur.”
She took a pot shot on the BJP’s “double-engine government” narrative, which emphasizes synergy between the central and state governments in BJP-ruled states.
A Fractured Relationship with the Union
Perhaps the most alarming argument came from Dr. Akoijam, who warned that the government’s actions were fueling anti-India sentiment in Manipur.
“People have begun to start asking questions about the relationship between our state and the Union of India. People are remembering the Instrument of Accession and the controversial Merger Agreement. Why? Because you have allowed the feelings to be groomed like that.”
This statement underscores a dangerous trend—the deterioration of trust between Manipur and the central government. Opposition leaders argue that policies implemented in the state have deepened ethnic and regional divides, further alienating communities from mainstream governance.
On the other hand, Tapir Gao underscored the development work done in the Northeast, arguing that Manipur is benefiting from improved connectivity and integration with the rest of the country.
Adv K. Francis George emphasized the need to restore trust and religious harmony, particularly by rebuilding religious sites destroyed during the violence.
“Rebuilding these is not mere reconstruction; it is an act of healing.”
He rightly pointed out that rebuilding Manipur is not just about economic recovery—it is about healing wounds. The destruction of religious sites has deepened the divide, and their restoration must be seen as an act of reconciliation, not just infrastructure development.
Counterarguments and Defenses: The Government’s Perspective
Government representatives pushed back against the criticism, with Biplab Kumar Deb and Tapir Gao defending the increased budgetary allocations for Manipur. They emphasized that President’s Rule was imposed due to constitutional requirements, not political motives.
Sambit Patra countered allegations of government apathy by citing financial aid for internally displaced persons (IDPs). He highlighted that the government has provided housing, financial aid, employment, education, and healthcare support for Manipur’s internally displaced persons (IDPs).
While Ramprit Mandal called for peace and stability, supporting the budget measures as necessary for Manipur’s recovery, Sambit Patra gave the following data: Displaced families have received ₹30 crore in aid and ₹27 crore for housing reconstruction, while ₹280 crore has been allocated for relief camps and ₹32 crore for farmers. Education support includes free admission for 11,763 displaced students and ₹5,000 each for 1,000 college students.
Conclusion: A State in Crisis, A Nation in Debate
The parliamentary debate on Manipur’s budget exposed deep divisions in the political and governance discourse surrounding the state’s crisis. Key concerns such as constitutional violations, budgetary inadequacies, economic distress, political neglect, and divisive policies dominated discussions, with opposition leaders demanding greater accountability.
While the government defended its actions, the overarching sentiment remains one of discontent and urgency. The challenge ahead lies in finding a comprehensive, inclusive solution that prioritizes reconciliation, economic revival, and constitutional integrity, ensuring that Manipur moves toward stability rather than deeper turmoil.
