The answer lies in geography and climate.
Constitutional Safeguards, Institutional Practice, and Contemporary Challenges
Abstract
Article 371C of the Indian Constitution was introduced as a special provision to safeguard the political, administrative, and cultural interests of the tribal communities inhabiting the hill areas of Manipur. Enacted in the context of Manipur’s transition to statehood, the provision sought to institutionalise participatory governance through the Hill Areas Committee (HAC) and to assign special responsibility to the Governor for hill administration. Despite its constitutional significance, Article 371C has remained under-implemented and institutionally weakened. This paper examines the historical origins, constitutional intent, institutional mechanisms, and practical limitations of Article 371C, situating it within Manipur’s broader ethnic and governance landscape. It argues that the erosion of Article 371C has contributed to tribal alienation and governance crises, and that strengthening its implementation is essential for democratic legitimacy and ethnic accommodation in Manipur.
Asymmetric Federalism and Tribal Autonomy in Northeast India
1. Introduction
India’s constitutional
design accommodates diversity through asymmetric federal arrangements,
particularly in regions with distinct ethnic, cultural, and historical
identities. The North-Eastern region exemplifies this approach through a range
of special provisions, most notably Article 371A, Article 371C, and the Sixth
Schedule of the Constitution.
While all three mechanisms aim to protect tribal interests, they differ significantly in legal strength, institutional autonomy, and enforceability. This section undertakes a comparative legal analysis to assess how far Article 371C measures up against the more robust autonomy frameworks under Article 371A and the Sixth Schedule.
As the Russia–Ukraine war grinds into yet another year, diplomacy has re-entered the spotlight, though not without controversy and deep uncertainty. Recent proposals circulating among Kyiv, Moscow, Washington and European capitals suggest a possible shift from maximalist war aims to pragmatic, if uncomfortable, compromises. Yet peace remains fragile, conditional, and far from assured.
Lamka, the commercial heartbeat of southern Manipur, is expanding rapidly in size, population, and economic activity. Yet its basic infrastructure - especially its roads - remains painfully behind. Daily commuters already know the routine: jolting through deep potholes, navigating half-finished drain lines, and breathing air thick with dust or diesel fumes. What should be a bustling, connected township instead feels like a maze of neglected terrain.
From Imphal to Churachandpur, from Kangpokpi to Moreh, Manipur today sits under an uneasy calm. The gunfire has decreased, markets have partially reopened, and highways are operating under heavy security. Yet for ordinary citizens, this is not peace. It is a tense silence layered with fear, separation, and deep mistrust. Neighbours who once shared daily life now live across guarded buffer zones. What Manipur is witnessing is not reconciliation - but enforced coexistence under military watch.
.jpeg)
The biblical narrative of the Wise Men from the East—traditionally known as the Magi - occupies a brief yet profound place in the Gospel of Matthew (2:1–12). Though appearing only once in the New Testament, their journey has exerted immense influence on Christian theology, intercultural philosophy, and global ethics. The Magi symbolize seekers of truth, bearers of wisdom across civilizations, and agents of peace who transcend political fear and ethnic boundaries. In the contemporary world - marked by conflict, fragmentation, religious intolerance, and epistemic crisis - the journey of the Magi stands as a powerful parable for ethical leadership, spiritual discernment, and cross-cultural cooperation (Brown, 1993; Wright, 2001).
