Meitei Salami Slicing Policy: A Strategic Approach to Land Grabbing and Tribal Marginalization

The salami slicing policy refers to achieving a larger goal through incremental, almost imperceptible steps, making it difficult for others to notice. In geopolitics, an example of this is China’s actions in the South China Sea and along the Indo-China border. Similarly, this strategy appears to be employed by the Meitei-led government in Manipur, as evidenced by their seemingly biased actions, which have been widely criticized on social media and reflected in government-issued orders. Unfortunately, the Manipur government has come to be seen as synonymous with the Meitei government—a fact that should no longer remain an open secret. For too long, we have failed to recognize their broader plan to encroach upon our lands. It seems, however, that on May 3, 2023, their hidden agenda was exposed, perhaps as a consequence of divine justice. India is a federal democracy with a unitary bias, and our constitution embraces asymmetrical federalism. This ensures that some states or regions have greater autonomy than others, which highlights the beauty of our constitutional framework. During the colonial period, the British attempted to extend their control over tribal areas by introducing land revenue settlements, forest policies, and encouraging the entry of outsiders. However, these policies were met with fierce resistance, leading to tribal rebellions. Following these uprisings, the British Crown chose to minimize interference in tribal regions.

The Government of India Act of 1870 led to the creation of Special Areas, and the Scheduled District Act of 1874 established the Scheduled Areas. The Government of India Act of 1919 empowered the Governor-General to declare territories as backward tracts, introducing the concept of excluded and partially excluded areas. Later, the Government of India Act of 1935 formalized these categories, paving the way for the Fifth and Sixth Schedules in our constitution. Excluded areas primarily covered hilly regions in Northeast India under the Governor’s authority, while partially excluded areas aimed to protect tribal populations in states like Bihar, Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Maharashtra. When the Indian constitution came into force in 1950, these protections for tribal communities were incorporated. The Fifth Schedule safeguards tribal populations across most states, while the Sixth Schedule offers enhanced protections for northeast tribal communities—except those in Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh. For these exceptions, the constitution provides Special Provisions under Article 371C (introduced via the 27th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971) for Manipur and Article 371H for Arunachal Pradesh.

Interestingly, some northeastern states enjoy dual protection under special provisions and either the Fifth or Sixth Schedule. While the Indian government has granted special provisions to Manipur’s tribal communities to facilitate smooth state administration, it has repeatedly declined their demand for Sixth Schedule protections. This reluctance likely stems from the state’s proximity to Myanmar and concerns about the rise of regional political power. Ironically, this refusal has only intensified regional politics, as evident in the Manipur government’s persistent neglect of tribal groups, including the Nagas and Kukis. The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act of 1971, enacted when Manipur was a Union Territory, sought to grant some degree of autonomy to tribal communities. This autonomy functioned between 1973 and 1988, but the state government suspended it until resuming the six Autonomous District Councils between 2010 and 2020. Yet, as highlighted earlier, the Meitei-led government has systematically employed the salami slicing policy to erode even the minimal autonomy safeguarded by the constitution. Moreover, the Manipur Legislative Assembly’s Hill Areas Committee (HAC) order of 1972 remains largely ineffective—its provisions seem robust on paper but lack meaningful implementation in practice.

THE MEITEI GOVERNMENT’S LAND GRABBING STRATEGY

Had their secret agenda not been exposed on May 3, 2023, we might have found ourselves landless within the next decade, swallowed by their insidious plans. Among the tribals, the Kukis in Manipur have been the most naïve. Have we ever witnessed thousands of Meiteis settling in Kacha Naga areas? Certainly not. Yet, they have settled in Kuki territories in large numbers, amassing wealth and influence far beyond ours. If the Meitei leaders hadn’t ignited the conflict, we might never have realized that we were on track to becoming subservient to their interests in the coming years. Ironically, this ongoing conflict has turned into a blessing in disguise for us. However, if we cling to the ways of the past, we risk perishing sooner than we can imagine. My dear brethren, unless we recognize the bigger picture, we will remain stagnant, trapped in a state of underdevelopment with no hope for improvement. The conflict in Manipur is often attributed to narco-terrorism, poppy cultivation, and Meitei demands for Scheduled Tribe status. Yet, these narratives are mere propaganda crafted by Meitei intellectuals to rationalize their actions. Thankfully, social media has debunked much of their deceit. The true driving force behind their ethnic cleansing of the Kukis lies in a deeper issue: food security and their desperation to claim tribal lands, particularly those inhabited by the Kukis. There is a deliberate strategy in targeting the Kukis while sparing the Kacha Nagas—a hidden agenda that we will uncover in this discussion.

LEGAL MANEUVERS AND MANIPULATION OF TRIBAL LANDS

Not only this, there is another act that tries to capture tribal land by the Meitei government, which is the introduction of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (MLR&LR) Act, 1960, modeled on the pattern of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. The MLR&LR Act was introduced to protect tribal land. For example, Section 158 prohibits the transfer of tribal land to a non-tribal without the permission of the Deputy Commissioner and the prior consent of the District Council. However, the Meitei government made several attempts to remove the restrictions on transfers to non-ST members by inserting a provision into Clause (b) of the section through the (Miscellaneous Amendment) Ordinance, 1976.

The next attempt to remove this restriction on transfers was the MLR and LR, 6th Amendment Bill, 1989, which proposed inserting new sections—158-A, 158-B, 158-C, and 158-D—after Section 158 of the principal Act, namely:

Section 158-A: Restriction on Land Transfer
Agricultural land can only be transferred to a person for personal cultivation. However, the Deputy Commissioner (DC) may, following prescribed rules, allow a non-tiller to purchase the land if no willing tiller is available to buy it.

Section 158-B: Restriction on Land Transfer to Non-Residents
Land cannot be transferred to anyone who is not an ordinary resident of the state. However, the Deputy Commissioner may permit the transfer to a person who has lived in the state for at least 30 years, even if they are not an ordinary resident.

Section 158-C: Restriction on New Settlements
No new settlements or marketplaces (machets) can be established in hill areas without state government approval. Such approval will only be granted if the new settlement or marketplace consists of 50-75 families. This provision conflicts with the District Council Act and Village Authority Act.

The proposed amendment removes the requirement for prior consent for land transfers within Manipur, including for individuals with a 30-year residence certificate from the Deputy Commissioner. It also seeks to repeal the Manipur Hill Area (House Tax) Act, 1966 by introducing an annual tax under Section 16-A of the MLR and LR Act. Additionally, it aims to regulate jhum (shifting) or migratory cultivation through rules designed to protect the environment, catchment areas, infrastructure projects, and prevent landslides near highways and major roads. Another amendment bill, called The Seventh Amendment Bill of 1992, published in the Gazette, proposed changes to remove restrictions on land transfers from tribals to non-tribals, regulate jhum cultivation in hill areas, and establish the Revenue Tribunal as the highest court for resolving disputes under the MLR and LR Act, 1960. These changes apply retrospectively from the 1975 amendment, and no further appeals on revenue matters can be made to the High Court or Supreme Court. That’s how the Meitei people have played the tribal people since the inception of Manipur as a Union Territory. They have stronger representation politically and economically than the tribals, and they have a larger population than all the Manipur Nagas and Kukis combined. The tribals in Manipur have been marginalized and subjugated by the majoritarian Meitei community. They want to eat every piece without leftovers. Even if there is a little leftover, they try to eat it, and if they can’t, they try to ruin it. That is why there have been tensions between the tribals and non-tribals. They knew they couldn’t fight both the Kacha Nagas and the Kukis, so they selected the Kuki people as they are more vulnerable than the Manipur Nagas. Therefore, the incumbent Crime Minister Biren Singh initiated the GO TO HILLS campaign to build better connections with the Kacha Nagas and sideline the Kukis. This GO TO HILLS campaign resulted in another narrative, which is that the Meitei and Kacha Nagas are “brothers.” This narrative allowed the communal government to start destroying Kuki villages, claiming that the villages were inside reserve forests or had fewer than 70 houses, as stipulated by Section 158-C of the MLR & LR Act. This contradicts the Village Authority Act, as mentioned earlier.

KUKI PEOPLE’S FIGHT FOR UNION TERRITORY AND SELF-GOVERNANCE

The Kuki people are ruled by Kuki Chiefs, who hold final authority in the village. The chief sets up and owns everything, while the villagers act as tenants. When the chief’s younger brother marries, he gives him a piece of land to establish another small village. This tradition has continued to this day, leading to the continuous growth of villages in Kuki areas. In contrast, the Nagas are governed by a Chairmanship, which is more democratic than the Kuki chieftaincy. The Kacha Nagas have community land, lineage or clan land, and individual land. However, in Kuki traditions, the land solely belongs to the chief, reflecting an anachronistic feudal legacy. If we compare the two tribal lifestyles, it seems more challenging to settle in Kuki areas than in Kacha Naga areas. However, in reality, you will find Meiteis settled only in Kuki areas, with no presence in Kacha Naga-dominated regions. This highlights that Kuki and Meitei people had a better connection and friendly relations in the past compared to the Manipur Nagas. But what has led to the current conflict against the Kukis is both disturbing and quite interesting. I leave it to you to explore this question further instead of discussing it here. In addition to this, the Manipur (Village Authority in Hill Areas) Act, 1956 weakened the Kuki chieftaincy. In 1892, Maxwell, the then political agent of Manipur, introduced a house tax of Rs. 2 per homestead in the valley and Rs. 3 per house per annum in the hill areas. This was followed by another significant development: Col. J. Shakespeare, the political agent of Manipur from 1905 to 1908, demarcated the Kuki tribal chiefs’ lands and issued pattas to all village chiefs, thereby strengthening and legalizing the chiefs’ rights over the land. However, when the MLR & LR Act was introduced, if Kuki chiefs failed to pay house taxes and land revenue, they became landless, even though they had lived on that land for generations. At present, there are no proper tribal land records in Manipur, and the MLR & LR Act is implemented in some parts of tribal areas, particularly in Kuki-dominated regions. The Meitei government has also extended its influence into Kuki ancestral land by building their king’s statue in Moreh and another in Singat, similar to how the Vedic people extended their dominance by building stupas and making sacrifices. However, just as the Dasyus opposed the Vedic sacrifices, the Kuki people opposed the Meitei building their king’s statue in Kuki areas. Yet, they succeeded, thanks to Meitei puppets and traitors among the Kukis who valued the enemy over their own. I hope that when these people reflect on their actions, they will realize their mistakes in helping the Meitei government.

The Meitei claim for Scheduled Tribe status is quite hilarious. They hate the tribals so much and yet they are claiming to be tribals. Of course, all of Homo sapiens were once upon a time nomadic and tribal when we spread from Africa, but all of us can’t become tribals today because there is a yardstick in modern-day society. Even if the Meitei are eligible for Scheduled Tribe status, the decision by the Manipur High Court declaring them as STs is totally wrong and misleading. There was already a judgment in the year 2000 in the case of Milind vs. State of Maharashtra where the judges concluded that the state government or High Court has no power to declare that a certain community should be classified as STs. The power lies with the President. This is also one of the Meitei’s salami slicing policies. The Meitei people have dominance over the tribal people, especially in their exertion of power over the Kuki people. This indicates that the majority of the Kuki people are still in the stage of hunter-gatherers and living a pastoral life. They can be manipulated as most of them are illiterate, though a few are educated but still unaware of the Meitei’s salami slicing policy. Looking at history, when the rise of metal (the Copper Age) and the Bronze Age occurred, war was seldom. But with the advent of the Iron Age, warfare became frequent across the world. For instance, the Indian subcontinent was frequently attacked by Indo-Greeks, Sakas, Parthians, Kushanas, and so on. My point is that when there is an increase in technology, human greed becomes insurmountable, and people want more land for food security. The Russia-Ukraine war may have different reasons, but one of those reasons is Russia’s food security. Most of Russia’s land is infertile, while the majority of Ukraine’s land is fertile. When Russia launched a full-scale war, they immediately occupied eastern Ukraine and took tonnes of wheat from the region. Similarly, the Meitei government’s population is increasing, which is why they need more land for people to settle in and for food security for future generations. They have come up with different ingenious ways to circumvent the laws in the Constitution to take away our land. This is the reason they started a war against the Kukis and formed an alliance with the Kacha Nagas.

Looking at the origins of the Manipur violence from May 3, 2023, to the present, the Kacha Nagas and the Meitei community appear to have formed an alliance to further subjugate the Kuki community. It is noteworthy that the Meitei can now settle in Kacha Naga areas, knowing they cannot return to Kuki-dominated regions—areas once protected by their long-time allies, who even safeguarded their king from enemies. This leniency toward the Kacha Nagas suggests that the Meitei may be attempting to influence them, much like their past interactions with the Kukis. If the Kacha Nagas align with the Meitei, it could indicate that they have abandoned hope for achieving Greater Nagalim and now view coexistence with the Meitei as a preferable option, despite the Meitei historically being obstacles to their aspirations. Given the ongoing violence, the Kacha Nagas should ideally support the Kuki community, which advocates for the rights of not only Manipur’s tribes but tribal communities across the country. However, the dynamics seem to have shifted. In this context, the Kuki demand for a Union Territory with its own legislature appears both constitutional and valid. The decision now lies with the central government. One potential solution could involve merging the Meitei and Manipur Naga regions into a single state, given their stronger alliance, while granting the Kukis a Union Territory with legislative powers. Such a step could address the long-standing oppression of the Kukis and pave the way for lasting peace in Manipur.

Seilalmuon Haokip is the Information & Publicity Secretary of KSO Bangalore