Gradually, the Kuki-Zos have been more forthcoming and citing Article 239 A of the Constitution. Before long, they were more specific and began to demand a Union territory status with a legislature. Article 239A is about “Creation of Local Legislatures or Council of Ministers or both for certain Union territories --- (1) Parliament may by law create ......... (a) a body, whether elected or partly nominated and partly nominated and partly elected, to function as a legislature for the Unin territory, or (b) a Council of Ministers , or both with such constitution, powers and functions, in each case, as may be specified in the law”. Even in their memorandum to Governor Ajay Bhalla after the state was brought under President’s rule on February 13 they urged that the critical matters flagged in it need to be addressed .....to alleviate public suffering at the earliest. And this, they are seeking “pending political settlement of our demand for separate administration in the form of UT with Legislature”.

Thereafter, in the course of dialogue with Union home ministry team led by advisor (North-East) A K Mishra they reiterated their demand but this time round Mishra frankly told the delegation this demand was not part of the government’s action plan to resolve the contentious Manipur issue. Significantly, in two-three weeks after the submission of the memorandum to the Governor on February 22 and getting “a frank response” from the home ministry’s advisor (N-E), in what may be termed as an extension of the basic demand, referendum as a starting point has been mooted. They have made it a low-key affair of what is a subtle move. Information available with IPA suggests that it will be their own version of ‘referendum’ with just two options – one for those who want creation of a separate administration in the format of a Union Territory with a legislature; the other for those who want to remain as inhabitants of Manipur as at present.

The proponents of separation are confident that the first option will have overwhelming support and, therefore, their demand will have the stamp of “people’s mandate”, armed with which the Kuki-Zo organisations can approach the Union government for consideration. Though the state administration will not be in the picture at all yet it will be somewhat akin to many examples of state legislatures adopting resolutions on issues of state importance and people’s expectations but remain pending with the Centre which is the competent authority for enabling parliamentary okay. The Kuki outfits must be aware of their limitations and it is possible that they are trying to assess the reaction of the people to the idea.

The Meitei outfits have always pleaded for integrated Manipur as it is currently and in fact the name of one of their established platforms is Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (Cocomi). But in very recent days opposition to the ‘referendum’ proposal has been voiced by Thadou Inpi Manipur (Tim), which claims to be the apex body of Thadou tribe in the state. Tim emphasises that Thadou is a distinct ethnic group of people ; “Thadou is not Kuki or underneath Kuki or part of Kuki, but a separate, independent entity” Any organisation that portrays Thadou as Kuki is illegitimate. This specific clarification is part of Thadou Convention Declaration, 2024, according to a signed statement issued by Tim president M James Thadou.

Tim has argued that the Constitution does not permit any organisation or group within the sovereign territory of India unless expressly authorised by an Act of Parliament. The Tim president made the remarks while referring to social media reports regarding the invitation extended to some Thadou individuals to participate in the proposed Kuki-Zo referendum for a separate administration.

Referendums of immense political significance shortly before and after India’s Independence : On July 6, 1947 Sylhet then part of Assam opted to join East Pakistan which later became Bangladesh ; in the course of July 1947 then North-West Frontier Province, which later came to be known as Paktunkhwa, opted for Pakistan. After Independence, in the course of February 1948 the outcome of a Plebiscite saw Junagadh in Gujarat become part of India Junagadh had a Hindu majority population but a Muslim ruler who preferred to annexe with Pakistan but ultimately the people’s will prevailed ; later in 1960s, the results of a referendum saw Goa under Portuguese rule for a long time became part of India and on April 14, 1975 the then regime in Sikkim, whose foreign affairs and defence were India’s responsibility under a protocol, decided to merge with India following a referendum.

In this context, it may be mentioned that the Constitution does not have a specific provision for or against referendum. The immediate past Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud had on August 9, 2023 observed that seeking public opinion in a constitutional democracy like India has to be through established institutions and there is no question of referendum under the country’s Constitution. Chandrachud, heading a five-judge Constitution Bench, was then hearing petitions challenging the changes made to Article 370 of the Constitution. (IPA Service)