03/09/2024
*CRITICAL OVERVIEW OF MANIPUR STATE GOVERNMENT BUDGET ALLOCATIONS: DISPARITIES AND IMPLICATIONS*
Since the inception of the Manipur state, there has been a persistent trend of financial allocations heavily favoring the Imphal Valley over the hill regions. This disparity has been a systemic issue, but recent budgets from 2017 to 2024 vividly highlight and reinforce these inequities.
*_BUDGET 2017 to 2020_*
● *Total Budget 2017-18: ₹12,187 crore*
☆ Valley Allocation: ₹9,000 crore (approx.)
☆ Hill Allocation: ₹1,200 crore (approx.)
● *Total Budget 2018-19: ₹13,731 crore*
☆ Valley Allocation: ₹10,200 crore (approx.)
☆ Hill Allocation: ₹1,450 crore (approx.)
● *Total Budget 2019-20: ₹16,581 crore*
☆ Valley Allocation: ₹12,000 crore (approx.)
☆ Hill Allocation: ₹1,750 crore (approx.)
*_BUDGET 2020 to 2024_*
● *Total Budget 2020-21: ₹20,107 crore*
☆ Valley Allocation: ₹15,200 crore (approx.)
☆ Hill Allocation: ₹2,100 crore (approx.)
● *Total Budget 2021-22: ₹24,590 crore*
☆ Valley Allocation: ₹18,300 crore (approx.)
☆ Hill Allocation: ₹2,400 crore (approx.)
● *Total Budget 2022-23: ₹35,022 crore (revised to ₹32,591 crore)*
☆ Valley Allocation: ₹25,000 crore (approx.)
☆ Hill Allocation: ₹4,000 crore (approx.)
● *Total Budget 2023-24_: ₹34,930 crore*
☆ Valley Allocation: ₹26,000 crore (approx.)
☆ Hill Allocation: ₹4,500 crore (approx.)
*_LAND AREA, POPULATION, and LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATION_*
● *Land Area:*
☆ Valley: Approximately 10% of the total land area of Manipur
☆ Hills: Approximately 90% of the total land area of Manipur
● *Population:*
☆ Valley: Approximately 60% of the state’s population
☆ Hills: Approximately 40% of the state’s population
● *Legislative Assembly Representation:*
☆ Valley: 40 MLAs
☆ Hills: 20 MLAs
*_DISPARITIES IN FUND ALLOCATION_*
Despite the hill regions constituting the majority of Manipur’s land area and a significant portion of its population, they consistently receive a fraction of the funds allocated to the valley regions.
● *Infrastructure Development*
☆ Valley: Substantial investments in urban infrastructure
☆ Hills: Minimal investment in essential infrastructure
● *Healthcare and Education*
☆ Valley: Well-funded healthcare and educational institutions
☆ Hills: Underfunded healthcare and educational facilities
● *Economic Development and Employment*
☆ Valley: Major investments in economic development initiatives
☆ Hills: Negligible economic development initiatives
*_COMPARISON WITH NEIGHBORING STATES_*
● *Sikkim*
☆ Population (2011): 6.1 lakh
☆ Budget (2023-24)_: ₹11,938.58 crore
☆ Normal Central Plan Assistance: At least 3 times more than Manipur hill areas!
● *Mizoram*
☆ Population (2011): 10.9 lakh
☆ Budget (2023-24): ₹14,209.48 crore
☆ Fund Allocation: At least 4 times more than Manipur hill areas!
● *Arunachal Pradesh*
☆ Population (2011): 14 lakh
☆ Budget (2024-25): ₹35,840.79 crore
☆ Fund Allocation: At least 6 times more than neighboring hill areas
*_SOURCES:_*
- Government of Manipur Budget Documents
- Census of India
- Manipur Legislative Assembly Records
- Ministry of Finance Reports
- Academic research papers on socio-economic disparities in Manipur
*_SUMMARY:_*
The budgetary allocations in Manipur from 2017 to 2024 starkly highlight the deep-rooted inequalities between the valley and hill regions. Despite the hill areas comprising 90% of the state’s land and hosting 40% of its population, the financial distributions have consistently favored the valley, which occupies only 10% of the land but receives a disproportionately large share of the budget. These inequities manifest across various sectors, from infrastructure development to healthcare, education, and economic opportunities. This pattern underscores a systemic bias and raises critical questions about the priorities and actions of our elected leaders, civil organizations, and student unions.
*_UNDERSTANDING THE UNDERLYING REASONS:_*
● *Political Marginalization:* With only 20 MLAs representing the hill areas compared to 40 from the valley, there’s an inherent imbalance in legislative power.
● *Strategic Neglect:* There may be deliberate efforts to underfund the hill areas to maintain control over these regions by ensuring they remain economically dependent.
● *Lack of Unified Advocacy:* The divisions within hill leadership, whether by party lines or factional interests, weaken their collective bargaining power.
*_QUESTIONS FOR CRITICAL REFLECTION!_*
1. *What historical, social, or political factors have allowed regional disparities in development and funding to persist in Manipur?*
2. *What actionable steps can be taken to address these disparities in a manner that benefits all communities, including those in hill regions?*
3. *What challenges have Hill MLAs encountered in advocating for fairer fund allocation, and how can these challenges be overcome?*
4. *How can civil organizations and student unions enhance their efforts to promote equitable development and create meaningful change?*
5. *What strategies can leaders implement to ensure that the development needs of underrepresented regions are no longer neglected?*
6. *What role can communities play in ensuring a more equitable distribution of resources, and how can they effectively collaborate with policymakers?*
7. *What legal and constitutional options are available to correct funding imbalances, and should these be pursued alongside ongoing political movements like the Naga issue?*
8. *Could pursuing legal and constitutional rights now strengthen or hinder the Naga political movement, and how can these two objectives be harmonized?*
*_LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RECOURSE:_*
☆ *Article 2:* Admission or establishment of new states
☆ *Article 3:* Formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries, or names of existing states
☆ *Article 14:* Right to Equality
☆ *Article 21:* Right to Life and Liberty
☆ *Article 38:* State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people
☆ *Article 371C:* Special provisions for the administration of the hill areas of Manipur
☆ *Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:* Section 226 (Mandamus) to direct the government to allocate funds equally
☆ *Sixth Schedule:* Greater autonomy and local governance for the hill regions
☆ *Public Interest Litigation (PIL):* Challenge systemic underfunding and demand equitable resource distribution
☆ *Finance Commission’s Recommendations:* Secure better allocations for the hill regions
☆ *State Reorganization:* Explore the possibility of reorganizing Manipur for more equitable governance
*_SIMILAR INSTANCES AND LESSONS LEARNED:_*
1. *Telangana Statehood Movement:* The creation of Telangana was a result of persistent demands for equitable resource distribution, better administration, and self-governance.
2. *Bodoland Territorial Region (BTR):* The Bodos in Assam successfully negotiated for a separate autonomous region under the 6th Schedule.
3. *Gorkhaland Movement:* The ongoing demand for a separate state of Gorkhaland in West Bengal highlights the challenges of regional identity and economic neglect.
4. *Jharkhand Statehood Movement:* The demand for a separate state of Jharkhand was rooted in the region's economic exploitation and cultural marginalization within Bihar.
5. *Sikkim’s Merger with India (1975):* Sikkim's merger with India was driven by demands for better governance and development.
*_WAKE-UP CALL: !_*
The time has come for Hill MLAs, civil organizations, student unions, and concerned citizens to unite and recognize our collective responsibility in tackling this pressing challenge. Each of us has a crucial role to play, and no single entity can succeed on its own. A concerted effort, characterized by strong cooperation and coordination, is indispensable. We must engage in comprehensive discussions and build a broad consensus, particularly with our Naga Political Groups (NPGs), to ensure that the courses and steps we take in our pursuit of equitable development and justice within the constitutional framework of India not only avoid hindering but actively strengthen and reinforce our political rights and aspirations.
Markson V Luikham
