The quiet shift in wording that shakes Manipur’s Governance

In a democratic system where every word enshrined in law carries weight, the sanctity of legislative records must remain inviolable. Former Chief Minister N. Biren Singh’s recent revelation about a critical discrepancy in the Manipur Legislative Assembly’s version of the Hill Areas Committee Order, 1972, demands more than passing attention. It points not only to a legal oversight but to the possibility of systemic manipulation with far-reaching consequences for governance, legality, and inter-community trust in the hill areas of Manipur.
At the heart of Biren Singh’s concern is a seemingly minor change in wording—Clause 9 of the Second Schedule under Scheduled Matters originally read in the Gazette of India as “The appointment of succession of Chiefs or Headman.” In the Manipur Legislative Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, however, it appears as “The appointment or succession of Chief or Headman.” To the lay reader, this difference might seem a matter of linguistic style. But in legal and administrative practice, it alters the scope and intent of the law.
The original phrasing implies a structured oversight of traditional succession—reflecting respect for existing customary processes in tribal and village leadership. The altered version, however, introduces an element of discretionary appointment, suggesting that new leaders can be installed outside the framework of established customs. Such a change, whether intentional or accidental, carries enormous implications.
This revision, as Biren Singh alleges, has facilitated a wave of village declarations and the installation of new chiefs or headmen, sometimes without clear traditional or legal backing. It has given rise to a parallel system of authority that can undermine age-old tribal institutions, disrupt social hierarchies, and fuel land-related conflicts. The ripple effects include disputes over territorial boundaries, contested claims over settlement legitimacy, and challenges to administrative control in already fragile regions.
If such a change in legislative records did occur without due process, the implications are grave. It raises questions not just about policy misinterpretation, but about possible manipulation of legal texts to enable backdoor expansion of influence, authority, or settlements. In a state as ethnically and culturally diverse as Manipur, such actions—if proven true—can deepen existing fault lines.
The former Chief Minister’s call for an independent inquiry is both timely and necessary. It is critical to ascertain how and when this change was made and under whose authority. Was this a clerical error, an editorial lapse, or a deliberate act? Transparency is essential to restore public confidence in the integrity of the legislative process. Moreover, an audit of how many villages have been declared and how many chiefs or headmen appointed under this altered clause will help determine the practical consequences of the discrepancy.
This incident also brings to the fore a broader issue—how secure are our legislative texts from unnotified alterations? Who ensures consistency between the official Gazette, Assembly rulebooks, and administrative execution? The legislature, executive, and judiciary must work in synergy to protect the fidelity of such documents.
Manipur’s hill areas are governed not just by legal instruments but by the trust that communities place in long-standing traditions. Any effort—direct or indirect—that dilutes this balance risks destabilising an already sensitive region. It is essential for the government to respond with seriousness, not defensiveness. An inquiry must be followed by corrective legislative action, if needed, to clarify and reaffirm the original legal intent.
The editorial position of Imphal Times is clear: This matter is not about politics or party rivalry. It is about the principles of governance, the protection of constitutional values, and the preservation of communal harmony. If words can be quietly changed to shift the meaning of law, then democracy itself is vulnerable. We urge the Governor of Manipur and all relevant constitutional authorities to act decisively—not just to probe this matter but to prevent such occurrences in the future.
The integrity of law begins with the integrity of language. Manipur cannot afford to let either be compromised.