Breaking News

Deadline expires: No MLA resign in Mnp

IMPHAL:None of tribal legislators except from four from Naga People’s Front (NPF) turned up to tender resignation as members of Manipur Legislative Assembly even as the deadline set by various tribal bodies expired on Wednesday.

Tribal civil bodies including student bodies had set September 30 deadline to the tribal legislators to resign as members of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, alleging that the three bills passed by the state Assembly to address ILPS issue infringed the tribal people and their lands.

The tribal based civil bodies have been launching various forms of protests registering strong protest against the passing of the three bills, The Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015, The Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment) Bill, 2015 and The Manipur Shops and Establishments (2nd Amendment) Bill, 2015. 

They have made in clear that they were apprehensive when “Manipur People” was defined as “persons of Manipur whose names are in the National Register of Citizens, 1951, Census Report 1951 and Village Directory of 1951 and their descendants who have contributed collective social, cultural and economic life in Manipur” in the Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015.

The four NPF members who had submitted their resignation papers but yet to be accepted by the Speaker were S T Nunglun Victor, Samuel Risom, V Alexender Pou and Dikho. They submitted their resignation papers on September 7 last.

However, other tribal MLAs are to yet to follow the suit of the NPF legislators. There are 20 tribal MLAs in the Manipur Legislative Assembly of 60 members.

As a part of pressing the MLAs to response positively, agitators in Churachandpur district have already targeted the houses of the legislators again in the last few days even as they had already torched the houses of all the six legislators including that of a minister from the district. 

On Tuesday evening, agitators who burnt the effigy of Henglep MLA T Manga Vaiphei also reportedly stormed the house of the MLA demanding his resignation. Manga Vaiphei is also the chairman of the Manipur Tribal Development Corporation.

The protestors mostly womenfolk shouted slogans demanding the MLA resign before September 30 which is the deadline set by the protesters for their resignation.

On the previous day, they had attacked the house of health minister Phungjathang at Churachandpur headquarters for the second time since the violent agitations that claimed lives of nine people including that of a minor.

On other hand, Coordinating Committee of All Tribal Students’ Union Manipur (ATSUM) Wednesday declared that the Manipur Legislative Assembly has committed a grave constitutional blunder intentionally while introducing and passing of the three bills as it does not follow the mandatory rules of procedures and conduct of Business under section 4 clause 1 and 2 which read as (i) all schedule matters is so far as they related to the Hill areas shall be with the purview of HAC. 

Protection of Manipur People Bill is a monetary bill untenable as per law and absolutely misleading to the people because Money Bill relates to imposition of taxes and expenditures likely to involve transaction affecting the consolidated fund of the union or state. 

According o the information and publicity wing of coordinating committee of two factions of ATSUM, the spirit of the bills has its social security objective hence the bill fails to fulfill the criteria of a money bill. 

The protection of Manipur people bill-2015 contained highly objectionable clauses which are clinically designed to deprive of the tribal rights and traditional lands. Section 2 of the bill reads - “It shall extend to the whole of Manipur” means the entire geographical area including of Hill areas, it said. 

The statement alleged that in Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms 7th Amendment Bill 2015 the notwithstanding clause in a statute  makes the provision independent of other provisions contained in the law, even if the other provisions contained in the law, even if the other provision provide to the country. It further added that under section 158 was not there in the Principal Act 1960.

No comments