Understanding Kangla Resolution and Challenges Ahead

The Six Points Kangla Resolution stands as an expression of Manipur’s regional aspirations, encompassing a set of demands that address pivotal issues. It asserts the commitment of the political leadership to exert pressure on the central government for positive action. The six demands include the implementation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) with 1951 as the base year, the deportation of illegal immigrants following NRC updates to their native places, and the abrogation of the Suspension of Operation (SoO) agreement with Kuki militant groups. The resolution also calls for action against these groups, the relocation of Myanmar refugees to Mizoram, the fencing of the Manipur-Myanmar border, substituting Assam Rifles with other paramilitary forces, and excluding illegal Kuki immigrants from the Scheduled Tribes list.
This commitment places responsibility on Manipur’s Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) and Members of Parliament (MPs), compelling them to sign the resolution and pledge that they will collectively pressure the central government for the fulfillment of these demands. Importantly, these demands are crafted to avoid potential issues with other communities. Notably, the resolution does not touch upon the contentious Scheduled Tribe (ST) demand and remains silent on the rehabilitation of Meiteis expelled from hill districts in the aftermath of violence. There may be an implicit understanding that once the core demands are met, other considerations can be addressed subsequently.
Moreover, some of these demands in the resolution were previously discussed and partially addressed by the Manipur government. There is already a Supreme Court ruling against categorizing illegal immigrants as belonging to scheduled tribes. There is ongoing preparation by the state government to update the NRC by making the base year 1961. In examining these demands, the crux appears to be the abrogation of the SoO agreement with Kuki militants. While there was a previous cabinet decision to revoke the SoO agreement, subsequent contestation arose from the side of the central government.
The constitutional legality of the SoO agreements poses a critical issue, given that these agreements involve state entities engaging with armed groups fighting against other tribes rather than against Indian security forces with separatist agendas. The core problem lies in engaging with these groups politically and through talks, with the SoO identified as the heart of the entire crisis. Keeping these concerns in mind, there is popular demand for revoking SoO. A cabinet decision for the abrogation of SoO has been submitted to the central government, and indications from the MHA envoy given to Arambai Tenggol leaders suggest the Home Minister at the Centre is inclined towards abrogating the agreement with the Kukis. Another demand, the replacement of Assam Rifles, could be potentially challenging, but we should understand that politics is full of surprises. If the SoO agreement is abrogated, Assam Rifles may be compelled to act antagonistically towards Kuki militants.
It appears that the MLAs need only urge the central government, as these demands are viewed positively by the central government. The primary challenge revolves around building pressure on the central government by getting these MLAs inside the State Legislative Assembly. The assembly’s active involvement is crucial to prevent the Kangla Resolution from losing significance. Challenges may emerge in the assembly, particularly regarding the status and involvement of Kuki MLAs, and potential issues from Naga MLAs, given the NSCN IM’s opposition to the removal of the free movement regime.
Recognizing the urgency, the call for an assembly sitting is pivotal to assert pressure, signaling the seriousness of Manipur’s demands, to facilitate coordinated efforts, strategic planning, and a united front among MLAs to effectively communicate and advocate for the Six Points Kangla Resolution before the central government.