Delimitation literally means the act or process of fixing limits or boundaries of territorial constituencies in a country or a province having a legislative body. The job of delimitation is assigned to a high power body. Such a body is known as Delimitation Commission or a Boundary Commission.
In India, such Delimitation Commissions have been constituted 4 times – in 1952 under the Delimitation Commission Act, 1952, in 1963 under Delimitation Commission Act, 1962, in 1973 under Delimitation Act, 1972 and in 2002 under Delimitation Act, 2002.
The Delimitation Commission in India is a high power body whose orders have the force of law and cannot be called in question before any court. These orders come into force on a date to be specified by the President of India in this behalf. The copies of its orders are laid before the House of the People and the State Legislative Assembly concerned,but no modifications are permissible therein by them.
http://www.delimitation-india.com/AboutDel.pdf
====================================
Delimitation precoess is being under taken in the state of Manipur. It may not be the worry of the plain areas, but as far as the hill areas is concern, it is very mush worth worrying and need a deep concentration. The people may be from the same progenitor but from the point of view of political equality, some mojor tribe enjoy the vast areas of the hill political affairs. It is time for all to think for the equality of the people for the whole of Manipur.
=================================
By Our Staff Reporter
IMPHAL, Dec 17: Legislators of the State lobbying for exclusion of Manipur from the ongoing delimitation exercise all over the country are hopeful that their campaign will be successful.
In their campaign to ex-clude Manipur from the de- limitation, the State legis-lators today called on NDA convenor George Fernan-des and CPM leader Basu- dev Archarya.
The all political party de-legation who are now in Delhi meeting central lea-ders urging for their cause on delimitation issue in-clude Dr L Chandramani and O Joy of MPP, MPCC vice-president Abdul Sa-lam, Congress MLAs E Dwi- jamani, Th Lokeshore, BJP Manipur unit president Dr Haobam Borbabu and NCP general secretary Sarat.
During the meeting with George Fernandes, the all party delegation pointed out that objection to deli-mitation process raised by the Northeastern States, particularly Manipur is based on valid ground as the 2001 census report is highly unrealistic. Imple-menting delimitation based on faulty census report will be inevitably bring in ill-consequences, they maintained.
Taking note of the ra-tional argument made by the all party delegation, George Fernandes reportedly assu-red all possible assistance to stall delimitation process in manipur.
Both George Fernandes and Basudev Archarya as-sured that necessary steps will be initiated to issue an ordinance so as to exclude the four left out NE States from the country wide exercise.
Before making their points to Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and AICC president Sonia Gandhi, the political leaders will urge upon Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee on the same cause.
Even though Chief Minister O Ibobi could not participate in today’s meeting with central leaders due to his engagement in NEC meeting, Ibobi will lead the all party delegation in tomorrow’s meeting with other central leaders.
So far, all the central political leaders approached by the all party delegation saw through their justified objection and assured necessary help, conveyed the political representatives while exuding confidence that the four left out North Eastern States shall be excluded from the delimitation exercise.
=====================
Advani assures all party team of support in delimitation issue
By : A Staff Reporter 12/11/2007 1:05:27 AM
IMPHAL, Dec 10: Delegates of the state all political party forum currently in New Delhi to campaign for delinking Manipur from the delimitation process met with the Opposition leader of the Lok Sabha, LK Advani today seeking his support for their demand seeking a halt to the delimitation process in the state.
The all party delegation briefed the BJP leader on various aspects of the controversial issue of delimitation in the state, and made it clear that carrying forward delimitation in Manipur on the basis of the ‘bogus’ 2001 census report would result in undesirable consequences, according to a statement of the NCP general secretary K Sharatkumar on behalf of the all political parties delegation.
The BJP leader has assured the delegation that he would suggest to the Central government to convene an all political parties meet to consider the delegation’s demands, particularly for delinking the states of Manipur, Nagaland, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh, which all have outstanding issues pertaining to the 2001 census report, from the current process of delimitation.
The all party delegation, led by Manipur chief minister O Ibobi Singh, is due to meet the BJP president Rajnath Singh, Congress president Sonia Gandhi and the Prime Minister later today, according to the statement.
The all party delegation has also expressed concern over the failure of MPCC president Gaikhangam to attend the meeting convened by the Delimitation Commission today along with associate members from Manipur, to discuss the delimitation work in the state, particularly the proposals contained in the draft working papers prepared by the commission.
Sharatkumar’s statement noted that Gaikhangam’s absence from the meeting was despite the earlier resolution adopted by the All Political Parties Forum to the effect that all associate members of the delimitation committee from Manipur should compulsorily attend today’s meeting.
An explanation would be sought for Gaikhangam’s absence from the meeting, the statement added.
=========================
19-member team led by CM to take delimitation issue to Centre
By : A Staff Reporter 12/6/2007 12:53:49 AM
IMPHAL, Dec 5: A meeting of all political parties has decided to send a 19-member delegation of political parties (national as well as regional) operating in the state to New Delhi on December 7 to pressurize the Central authorities not to conduct delimitation work based on “bogus” census report 2001.
The meeting also re-affirmed to continue the struggle by the All Political Party Forum not to allow delimitation works based on the 2001 census to go ahead in the state.
The all political parties meeting held at the chief minister’s bungalow early today reacted to the reports of some MLAs of the state in New Delhi fixing responsibility for any outcome arising out of the proposed delimitation process upon the chief minister.
They had observed that the report was meant to “sabotage” the ongoing efforts of all political parties in the state and to defeat the same.
The controversial census 2001 report came during the tenure of MLA M Hemanta as minister. But instead of fixing responsibility for the same on some people, the political parties in the state were fighting the issue together considering that it was for the state and not for some individuals, the meeting observed and condemned the statement of some people in the media.
Mention may be made that rebel Congress MLAs in a release from New Delhi have said that from the discussion with Justice Kuldip Singh, whom some of them called on, it appears that the only solution lies in issuing an ordinance by the Centre wherein the states like Manipur, Assam, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh are excluded from the delimitation.
The question is whether Ibobi would be able to impress upon the Central government for issuing such an ordinance, the rebels had asked and also said that if any unwanted things happen, the Ibobi led government should be entirely responsible.
‘It’s a big issue which would hurt the interest of the state and talking without the consent of the all political parties campaigning for not conducting of delimitation work based on 2001 census report is an act of irresponsibility,’ the all parties meeting resolved and appealed to refrain talking without authority.
The statement issued by the All Political Party Forum after the meeting reiterated that since the very beginning it was known that the delimitation works in the state was going to be conducted in a wrongful way, and the political parties in the state formed a forum of all political parties and have been giving pressure to all concerned officials, even by going to the Supreme Court.
The forum, All Political Party Forum has been campaigning since 2005 September by calling on the country’s Prime Minister, home minister, delimitation chairman etc. with copies of the resolution of the state Assembly.
The issue of delimitation has again arisen in the state even as a case on the same matter is pending with the Supreme Court after the proposed draft working paper of the delimitation commission of India for the state of Manipur based on the 2001 census was intimated to the associate members of the state in the delimitation committee.
It may be mentioned that the draft working papers on the delimitation of Assembly constituencies in Manipur prepared by the Delimitation Commission proposed to the reduction of the number of unreserved Assembly segments to four, with the number of ST reserved seats to be increased by three and SC reserved seats by one.
Earlier also on December 1, a meeting of the major political parties on Wednesday unanimously rejected the draft working paper of the delimitation commission of India for the state of Manipur based on the 2001 census.
The meeting also insisted the associate members of the delimitation commission for the state to attend the scheduled meeting on December 10 at New Delhi but no other comment came except rejecting the draft working papers.
The meeting which was held at the official bungalow of the chief minister today decided to call on the Prime Minister and Union home minister and chairman of the Delimitation Commission before the scheduled meeting of the working committee of the delimitation commission India for the state of Manipur to be held in New Delhi on December 10.
Today’s meeting also asked all the associate members of the delimitation committee for the state to attend the schedule meeting called by the Delimitation Commission of India with the associate members of delimitation committee from the state and to work out without further comment after putting strong rejection to the draft working papers of delimitation commission for the state.
The delegation will leave on December 7, said a statement issued by NCP on behalf of the all political parties of Manipur today.
The draft plan, mention may be made, was prepared by the commission based on the 2001 census figure which the state government rejected stating it was a “bogus figure”.
The draft work out paper also proposed to increase one Assembly constituency each in the said three hill districts after taking away one each from the valley districts of Imphal east, Imphal west and Bishenpur in the draft work paper.
A case regarding seeking cancellation of the census 2001 and re-conducting of the same is still pending with the Supreme Court and the hearing of the same is scheduled on January 25 next year.
Meanwhile, a release from the Manipur Information Centre said that state chief minister O Ibobi Singh along with 19 representatives of all political parties of Manipur will meet the Central leaders including the Prime Minister of India in connection with delimitation of assembly constituencies of Manipur after they all arrive here on December 7.
The 19 political leaders are Gaikhangam, president, MPCC, Dr. L Chandramani Singh, president, MPP, O Joy Singh, MLA, MPP, W Nipamacha Singh, president, RJD, Md Helaluddin Khan, MLA, RJD, Dr. Y Mohendra Singh, CPI(M), Sarat Salam, state secretary, CPI(M), P Parijat Singh, minister (health), CPI, Dr. M Nara Singh, CPI, Radhabinod Koijam, president, NCP, K Saratkumar Singh, NCP, Dr. S Dhananjoy, president, Samajwadi Party, S Lala Singh, Dr. H.Borbabu Singh, president BJP, Prof. S Tikendra Singh, BJP, W Kulabidhu Singh, ex-MP, president, JD(S), N Dhiren Singh, JD(S), Y Mani Singh, ex-minister, MSCP and M Ibomcha Singh, president , Samata Party.
=========================
Stance against Delimitation decried
The Sa Ngai Express By Our Staff Reporter
IMPHAL, Dec 4 : The Movement for Tribal People’s Rights Manipur (MTPRM) has expressed strong annoyance against the decision taken by the associate members of the Delimitation Commission of the State to oppose the Delimitation exercise.
The constant move by political parties of the State led by the Chief Minister is nothing but total disregard of the interest of the tribals even after the Constitu-tional provision has clearly provided for total delimitation of the country, remarked MTPRM in a press hand-out.
The State Government led by Chief Minister O Ibobi has been convening all party meetings time and again when certain benefit is likely to be extended to tribal people in order to derail such benefits, not only in any particular case but also in the issue pertaining to extension of 6th Schedule, Reservation Policy etc, it alleged.
Quoting a letter from the Delimitation Commission to the Delimitation Committee of Manipur, it said that delimitation is an exercise under Constitutional provision based on 2001 Census in which arbitrary decision cannot be taken for one State.
Contrary to the alleged perception of the political parties that the State may disintegrate if the delimitation is executed based on 2001 census, the MTPRM asserted that the State shall disintegrate if the delimitation is not duly implemented.
In case the delimitation process is stalled or derailed because of the constant moves by different political parties led by the State Government, they will be held responsible for any eventualities and tribal people may opt to stay outside the State, if the situation demands so, cautioned the MTPRM in the statement.
====================================
Delimitation toh kisai All Political Party meeting ah genkhom 2001 census pansan a Delimitation neih ahihleh buaina chial suak ding - O.Joy
IMPHAL NOV 30: Manipur a 2001 census pansan a Assembly constituency 60 omte a Delimitation neihna ding, Delimitation Commission of India in pan alak touhzel toh kisai in, tuni’n Manipur People's party in Central Committee meeting poimohtak MPP office ah nei ua, tua ah 2001 census diklou ahihman in, hiai dungzui a Manipur a Delimitation neih hithei
lou ding ahihdan leh nan theihtawp a nang ding in thupukna la uh hi’n tuni’n MPP makaite’n thuthaksaite mai ah gen uhi.
Hiai hun ah MPP President Dr. L. Chandramani, MLA O. Joy, MLA Dr. Ng. Bijoy, MLA R.K. Anand leh MLA I. Ibohanbi te kihel uhi. MPP President in agenna ah, Manipur a 2001 census diklou ahihdan All Political Party meeting in leng genkhomta ahih ban uah, hiai toh kisai a Delimitation bawllouhna dia Supreme Court of India a case khat All Political Party min a file hidan in gen hi. Hiai case toh kisai hearing Supreme court a January 25, 2008 chianga om ding ahihdan leng President in gen hi.
Delimitation Commission a Associate member MLA O.Joy in agenna ah, Delimitation Commission in 2001 census pansan a nasep a sawm teitei leh buaina chial suak lel ding ahihman in kintak a atawpsan dingin gen hi. Manipur kekna dia thil sailouh hoih dingin leng taklang hi. Aban agenna ah, Delimitation Commission a Associate member apang
Manipur apat, amah (O.Joy) chihlouh, Lok Sabha MP nih Manicharanamei, Dr.Th.Meinya, Phungzathang Tonsing, Gaikhangam, Ph.Parijat leh O.Ibobi Singh CM te hidan in leng gen hi. 2001 census pansan a Delimitation bawlna dia Working paper toh kisai velkhomna dia December 10, 2007 chianga Election Commission of India office, New Delhi a meeting om ding hidan inleng O. Joy in taklang hi.
Thudang khat ah, tuni nitaklam dak 5 vel apat CM Secretariat ah Chief Minister makaihna in All Political Party meeting khat neih in om a, tua hun ah hun paisa a 2001 census pansan a AC 60 te Delimitation neih theihlouh dia agensa uh pomkipna neithak ding uhi.
2001 census pansan a Manipur a Delimitation bawl hileh, Valley a Assembly seat 40 te 35 in kiamsuk dinga, singtang a 19 pen 23 in pung dia Kangpokpi unreserved leng ST reserved hidia SC a seat khat leng 2 in pung ding chih ahi.
=============================
Delimitation toh kisai All Political Party meeting ah genkhom 2001 census pansan a Delimitation neih ahihleh buaina chial suak ding - O.Joy
IMPHAL NOV 30: Manipur a 2001 census pansan a Assembly constituency 60 omte a Delimitation neihna ding, Delimitation Commission of India in pan alak touhzel toh kisai in, tuni’n Manipur People's party in Central Committee meeting poimohtak MPP office ah nei ua, tua ah 2001 census diklou ahihman in, hiai dungzui a Manipur a Delimitation neih hithei
lou ding ahihdan leh nan theihtawp a nang ding in thupukna la uh hi’n tuni’n MPP makaite’n thuthaksaite mai ah gen uhi.
Hiai hun ah MPP President Dr. L. Chandramani, MLA O. Joy, MLA Dr. Ng. Bijoy, MLA R.K. Anand leh MLA I. Ibohanbi te kihel uhi. MPP President in agenna ah, Manipur a 2001 census diklou ahihdan All Political Party meeting in leng genkhomta ahih ban uah, hiai toh kisai a Delimitation bawllouhna dia Supreme Court of India a case khat All Political Party min a file hidan in gen hi. Hiai case toh kisai hearing Supreme court a January 25, 2008 chianga om ding ahihdan leng President in gen hi.
Delimitation Commission a Associate member MLA O.Joy in agenna ah, Delimitation Commission in 2001 census pansan a nasep a sawm teitei leh buaina chial suak lel ding ahihman in kintak a atawpsan dingin gen hi. Manipur kekna dia thil sailouh hoih dingin leng taklang hi. Aban agenna ah, Delimitation Commission a Associate member apang
Manipur apat, amah (O.Joy) chihlouh, Lok Sabha MP nih Manicharanamei, Dr.Th.Meinya, Phungzathang Tonsing, Gaikhangam, Ph.Parijat leh O.Ibobi Singh CM te hidan in leng gen hi. 2001 census pansan a Delimitation bawlna dia Working paper toh kisai velkhomna dia December 10, 2007 chianga Election Commission of India office, New Delhi a meeting om ding hidan inleng O. Joy in taklang hi.
Thudang khat ah, tuni nitaklam dak 5 vel apat CM Secretariat ah Chief Minister makaihna in All Political Party meeting khat neih in om a, tua hun ah hun paisa a 2001 census pansan a AC 60 te Delimitation neih theihlouh dia agensa uh pomkipna neithak ding uhi.
2001 census pansan a Manipur a Delimitation bawl hileh, Valley a Assembly seat 40 te 35 in kiamsuk dinga, singtang a 19 pen 23 in pung dia Kangpokpi unreserved leng ST reserved hidia SC a seat khat leng 2 in pung ding chih ahi.
===================================
Who was in the dock during the 2001 census in Manipur?
By : H. Benjamin Mate
In my previous articles I dealt at length on issues of delimitation process to facilitate readers’ awareness on the sinister designs of the all political parties of Manipur led by the SPF Government to derail the delimitation process and thereby deprived the political rights of the tribal of Manipur bestowed by the Constitution of India under “Delimitation Act 2002.
Unfortunately, the Writ petition filed by me on behalf of various tribal organizations’, namely, ATSUM, KSO, and Kuki Chiefs’ Association and IMTDA etc…… of Manipur in the Imphal Bench of the Guwahati High Court dated December 2006 was not accorded appropriate judgment it rightfully deserved. It is evidenced now that, this was due to calibrated malafide intention and manipulations by the All Political Party Manipur in collusion with the State SPF Government.
The Honorable Guwahati High court instead, passed an order in January 19, 2007 in violation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Census Act & Rules of 1948 to re-count heads in 9 (Nine) sub-division of tribal District Viz, Senapati, Ukhrul and Chandel.
Being aggrieved by the Honorable High Court order of January 19.2007 a Special leave Petition was again filed by me in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on behalf of different tribal organization of Manipur, challenging the Imphal Bench Guwahati High Court order of January 19, 2007, in which the Honorable Supreme Court after a series of hearing on 13/07/2007 finally stayed the Guwahati High Court order as impugned and unsustainable.
In the light of new development, Honorable CM. O.Ibobi led SPF Government on dated 01.08.07 has resolved to reject the 2001 census publication against the Supreme Court order to sabotage the delimitation process in Manipur which is against the spirit and intention of constitution of India and Census Act of 1948. The gross contempt and disregard of constitutional provisions shown by the incumbent and mainstream government of Manipur goes against the very spirit of peaceful co-existence is but condemnable.
The Registrar General and Census Commissioner has stated in their counter Affidavit filed in the Supreme Court that, the Guwahati High Court has erred in allowing the Writ Petition of All Political Party Manipur under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without appreciating the fact that the evidence in the present case is in question which cannot be verified at this stage by any means by the court intervention. Even by appointing the Special Commission, the population count that existed as on 1st March, 2001 in the sub-divisions under dispute, cannot be verified in the field after a lapse of 6 (six) years due to population and demographic changes on account of new births, deaths and inbound and out-bound migration of people. As such, the order dated 19.01.2007 passed by the Guwahati High Court Imphal Bench in Writ petition (PIL) No.16/2005 is not sustainable.
It also stated that the Imphal Bench Guwahati High Court has erred seriously by passing an order which is without taking into account the scheme of Census taking under the provisions of Census Act, 1948. Census is not merely counting of heads; it is total process of collecting, compiling, evaluating, analyzing and publishing or otherwise disseminating demographic, economic and social data pertaining, at a specified time, to all persons in a country or in a well delimited country. Besides, individual enumeration which is one of the essential features, there are three other requirements of census. These are Universality, Simultaneity at a defined periodicity and with a reference date. Thus, O Ibobi led SPF Government should know that, Census by definition is not a mere head count but a much larger statistical exercise to collect data on population at the same time and with defined periodicity. In India, the census has been conducted decennially and information has been collected on the number and characteristics of population across all geographical and administrative units under the provisions of the census Act, 1948 and the Census Rules 1990 made thereunder.
The process of census taking begins with a notification by the Central Government declaring its intention to conduct census under Sections 3 of the census Act 1948. This is followed by the appointment of census commissioner and the Director of Census Operation by the Central Government under the Act, census taking is a joint effort of both the central and state Governments. Whereas, the Director of Census Operation of the State is appointed by the Central Government under section 4(1) of the Act, the Census functionaries at district and lower levels are appointed by the State Government under Section 4(2) of the Census Act. Who else was there in the dock except the Mr. O.Ibobi lead SPF Government when Census 2001 was conducted in the State of Manipur? The Manipur State Cabinet decision of 1st August, 2007 was self contradictory and a disgrace for the whole State.
There is no provision to conduct re-census in the Census Act, 1948 once the area has been censused with reference to a date and time. Section 17A which has been added after 1993 amendment, confers powers to central Government to extend the provisions of this Act, with such restrictions and modifications as if thinks fit, to pretests, pilot studies, census of houses which precede population count and post enumeration checks and evaluation studies as may be deemed necessary for the purpose of census. The Hon’ble High Court also has erred in not taking into account the broad guidelines for entertaining the PIL as laid down by the Apex Court in Gurubayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and. – Vs – (2003) 7 Sec 546. C.K.Rajan and others. As per the Apex Court’s guidelines “the dispute between two warring groups purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as PIL. In the present case, the High Court has not appreciated the fact that there are two rival groups pursuing claims which are contradictory. The Manipur Pradesh Congress Committee (Congress-I) and others who have filed the present PIL praying for cancellation of census results on one side. And so are the Naga People’s Organization on the other, who has filed a writ Petition ©’ No.3226/2006 in the Guwahati High Court at Guwahati praying for restoration of provisional census results.
The Register General and Census Commissioner of India while releasing the final result of the Census of India, 2001 for India and the State of Manipur under Rule 5(1) (e) of the Census Rules, 1990 had cancelled the 2001 provisional census results in respect of three sub-division of Senapati district Viz., Mao,Maram, Paomata and Purul which were found to be unreliable after detailed demographic analysis and physical examination of census records. However, the Register General and census Commissioner of India had provided the estimated population figures in respect of the three sub-divisions as there is no provision in the census Act, 1948 to conduct re-census, once an area is censused with reference to a particular date and time. The Registrar General and census Commissioner of India has acted under the Provisions of the Census Act, 1948 and the census Rules 1990 as amended from time to time. Hence, once the Census final publication is publishes there is no provision under Census Act for considering the Provisional census reports or re-census.
These are trying times for the peoples of Manipur. The land we so-called …“Jewels that dwelth the land.” Our clarion call of pan-Manipur should be furthered. This land of bounty should be vetted from anti-nationals and anti-people. At these hours let us unite our efforts in furthering peace and prosperity and to let our “thousand flowers bloom.”
---------------------------------------------
The writer is the petitioner on the Delimitation issue in the Supreme Court of India on behalf of different tribal organization of Manipur.
Source: Imphal Free Press
====================================
Assembly in 2001 census phiat ; re-census bawl di’n thupuk;
Thupukna deihlouh ziakin Singtangmi MLA 10 potkhia
Imphal August 1: Manipur a 2001 census report dungzui a, Delimitation Commission of India in, Manipur sunga assembly segment omte proportionate representation omtheihna dia, re-adjustment bawlna dia Delimitation September 30, 2007 tan a hihfel dingin thusuah bawl hi. Hichibang om theihna bel, Manipur a All Political Party palai ten, 2001 census dungzui a Delimitation bawl hithei lou dingin, Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, ah PIL file a bawl dungzui un GHC in phiat a, himahleh Indo-Myanmar Trinal Development Association in Supreme Court ah chouna bawl uhi. Hiai dungzui in Supreme Court in GHC thutanna pen khawl sak in Delimitation Commission of India in, Manipur a Delimitation bawl dingin thusuah bawl hi. Hiai thu toh kisai in, tuni a assembly ah, Manipur Chief Minister O. Ibobi Singh in Government Business dan in, Manipur a Census report 2001 phiatna ding leh, census thak hihna ding a Inpi in thupukna lakna dingin polut hi.
Chief Minister in move abawl dan in, ' to order a fresh Census for the whole of Manipur by cancelling the Census 2001' 'impose a moratorium on all the delimitation exercises until the fresh census figure is published' pending publication of the fresh census, status quo of the existing Assembly constituencies be maintained and the Delimitation (Amendment) Act, 2003 (no. 3 of 2004) be executed' chih ahi.
CM in agenbehna ah, 2001 census dungzui in, Manipur a district khenkhat sunga sub division bangzah hiam ah, population abnormal growth leh abnormal low ahihdan muhsuah theih in om a, hichibang nungin re-census dingin panlak himahleh re-census bawlna mun khenkhat ah mipi'n kithuahpihna pelou ahihdan leng gen hi. Tunung a ding khualna a athak vilvel a census bawlthak kul ahihman in, Inpi a kuapeuh in hiai dia kithuahpihna pedingin leng ngetna nei hi. Chief Minister in aban agen zelna ah, Govt. of India in census pen adik chi henla, huai pansan a delimitation bawl ding chi leh kua'n anang thei dia chih ngaihdan leng gen hi.
Hiai tungtang ah, NPP President V. Hangkhanlian Thanlon MLA in bel, Delimitation process omsak ding, abnormal growth chihna munte singtang gam district ahihziakin, hiai thu Hill Areas Committee a piakkhiak hoih asak dan leng gen hi. Dr. Khasim Ruivah Chingai MLA leh Morung Makunga Chandel MLA ten' Census athak a bawl hitheilou ding leh, Delimitation process apai ding bangtak a paisak a September 30, 2007 sunga zoh hoihsak dan gen uhi. 2001 census diklou ahihleh bangziaka, ahuntak a bawl dik hilou, govt. in suahkhinta huainunga 9th assembly election bang leng neih zoh hita a, tua census diklou bawl thak ding chih pom theilou ahihdan uh leng gen uhi. Chandel MLA Morung Mokunga in agenbehna ah, 2001 census zoh a re-census bawlna ah Chandel a population kilam dang tuanlou ahihdan leng gen hi. Dr. Khasim Ruivah in Delimitation commission hun July 31, 2007 beita himahleh Manipur tel a India a state thum vel a Delimitation process zoh louhte September 30, 2007 tan zohtheihna dia Delimitation Commission in Govt. of India a ahun uh extend sak dia anget uh phalsak ahihnunga, Delimitation process apai ding bangtak a paisak hoih zaw ding hidan in gen a, Census om nawn ma 2025 tan tua 2001 census paitouh hoih ding hidan in leng gen hi.
Hiai thu toh kisai a kiselna sangtak a om nung in re-census bawl a, tua zohchiang a Delimitation bawl ding in Assembly in thupuk a, hiai toh kisai a Government of India a re-census bawl ding a ngatna piaklut pah leng lemsa uhi.
Hiai thupukna toh kisai in singtangmi MLA 10; Dr. Khasim Ruivah, K. Raina, V. Hangkhanlian, T. Hangkhanpau, Thangminlian, W. Keishing, A. Newmai, Danny Shaiza, Marung makunga leh Thangkholun ten Inpi potsan uhi.
================================
Cabinet in Census report- 2001 pomlou
Imphal july 30: Ninth Manipur Legislative Assembly a, emergency second session zingciang July 31 apat August 2, 2007 tan om ding toh kisai in, tuzinglam in Chief Minister Office ah Cabinet Minister te’n meeting poimohtak nei uhi.
Hiai hun ah, assembly session sunga genkhom ding, Manipur a assembly constituencies te Delimitation bawlna ding a Register of Census in Manipur Census report, 2001 asuah pen pom hithei lou dingin thupuk uhi.
Hiai assemly session hun sungin Salary & Allawances of the Chairman, Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) bill, 2007 leh govt. business leh private member business tuamtuamte genkhom hiding hi.
Hichibang kal ah, Assembly Speaker Dr. S. Budhichandra Singh in, Deputy Speaker teel ahihma, Singjamei MLA I.Hemochandra Singh in Chairman, Committee of Privileges and Ethics, Manipur Legislative Assembly dinmun len dingin thusuah bawl hi.
Delimitation ding toh kisai in, Manipur Chief Minister O. Ibobi Singh in zan nitak in, political leader tuamtuam toh meeting poimohtak khat Law minister Th.Debendra office ah neikhom uhi. Hiai hun ah delimitation issue toh kisai a, govt. dinmun ding nouneltak in genkhom uhi. Hiai meeting ah opposition lam apat MLA O. Joy, Dr. L. Chandramani,
Radhabinod Koijam MLA ban ah Advocate General of Manipur te leng kihel uhi. Assembly Constituency delimitation bawl theih louhna ding jiaka gen a omte bel, 2001 census pansan a bawl hileh, phaijang a AC 40 omte 37 in kiamsuk dinga, singtang a AC 20 omte 23 in pung ding chih ahi.
=============================
Left parties urged to exert pressure on govt, CPI leaders extend support to demand for delinking from delimitation process
By : A Staff Reporter 12/10/2007 1:10:55 AM
IMPHAL, Dec 9: Central leaders of the CPI have assured support to the campaign for delinking of Manipur from the delimitation process in a meeting with the all parties’ delegation from the state on Sunday at New Delhi.
The delegation of all political parties are campaigning for the exemption of Manipur along with other states of the northeast like Assam, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh, which have cases pending on the matter of the 2001 census report, from the purview of the delimitation commission. They are urging for an ordinance at an early date in this regard or otherwise maintenance of the “status quo” in respect of Manipur.
The delegation of the political parties of Manipur led by state chief minister O Ibobi Singh met the CPI leaders AB Bardhan and D Raja at Ajay Bhavan, CPI office at 11.30 am today. They also met CPI (M) leaders like Prakash Karat, national general secretary after the meeting with the CPI leaders, a statement of the NCP general secretary K Sharatkumar on behalf of the all political parties team from Manipur said.
The all political parties delegation comprised of all associate members of the delimitation commission for Manipur except Gaikhangam, president MPCC and Md. Hellaluddin, MLA and leader of Legislature Party RJD, a member of the delegation.
Gaikhangam, who has been staying at Delhi, mention may be made, arrived at Imphal today while Hellaluddin is in the national capital.
During the meetings, the delegation elaborately explained to the Left leaders the high growth rate of population in some hill districts and low growth rate in the valley districts of the state in the census report 2001 which resulted in its rejection by all political parties of the state.
They also briefed the leaders on their repeated appeal to the Delimitation Commission of India and the Central government as well, not to proceed with the delimitation process on the basis of the “bogus” census report 2001 stating that it was a table managed one.
Stating that since the Delimitation Commission of India had already completed and notified the delimitation process in respect of 25 states of the country, the delegation urged for full cooperation of the Left leaders to pressurize the Union government to exempt the cases in respect of Manipur, Assam, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh from the purview of the delimitation commission by issuing an ordinance.
The delegation also urged support to the demand for maintaining the status quo of Manipur, if the promulgation of an ordinance cannot be materialized by the Central government.
A statement issued on behalf of the all parties delegation said that the Left observed that the case of Manipur and other three states of the north east deserved to be measured by a different yardstick. While observing this, they also maintained that there was no protest against the census report 2001 from other states of the country other than the north eastern states.
Agreeing with the objections put forward by Manipur against the delimitation process which was based on the irregular census report 2001 in the north east states and opinion of state delegation to consider it as priority, the Left leaders, as partners of the UPA government at the Centre, assured maximum support in the de-linking of Manipur from the delimitation process.
Mention may be made that the delegation had also met the Union home minister Shivraj Patil and parliamentary affairs minister Janeshawar Mishra yesterday and submitted memorandums requesting exemption of Manipur from the purview of the delimitation as done in the case of Jammu and Kashmir.
=========================
What ails Manipur — I
By SK Victor
This question pricks the hearts of every citizen of Manipur. My humble appeal to every right thinking person of our society is to give a serious thought on this vexed issue and search for certain emancipatory strategies/alternatives to the prevalent cruel political deception, despotism, nepotism, religious fanaticism, and socio-economic morass. This challenging task, de-finitely requires the hands and minds of the intelligentsia of our society. Time has come for us to step out from the culture of dependency and start meticulous analysis of our problems, for no one knows our problems better than us. Let us start an emancipatory bandwagon. A journey of clear conscience with concerted efforts is the need of the hour. Yes, no human society exists in a vacuum, but we all exist under a well defined, social structure. In India we have democratic political structure (Parliamentary form of Government) and secularism (religious tolerance), mixed economy (socialism & ca-pitalism), and we have fundamental rights. All the existing 28 states, seven Union Territories come under the same social structure.
Comparative study reveals that there exists great socio-economic disparities, ever increasing polarization of social groups amongst Indian so-cieties. In our native state, Manipur it is ‘really very difficult to find appropriate words to describe the prevailing precarious and chaotic political, socio-economic situation, for the whole system is in quagmire. I have been wondering as to why and how is it that the same structure that generates and delivers political stability, economic parities, development of human resources, justice, religious tolerance, and social harmony to the people in other societies surprisingly generates and delivers the opposite to our people ? Is it due to differences in socializa-tion ? Yes definitely it is, for each generation inherits both good and evil political, socio-economic system, beliefs and practices from the precedent generations. And also each generation consciously or unconsciously creates its own problems. However, some die-hard problems and issues of the past often get multiplied in the present. The existing differences in law & order situation, socio-economic status, in short categorization of social groups in to ‘forward’ and ‘backward’ blocks are the results of socialization. That is, the ways in which family values, cultural values of the society are handed down to their children are the determinants of the quality of a society at the given time and space. The same applies to all the rest of the social structural sub-systems. And this is to a great extent inevitable and inexorable, for this is a universal social phenomenon. Therefore, it is not the structure that narrates do-mination, subjugation, socio-economic inequalities etc. etc. but it is the machineries/functionaries of the structure directly or indirectly responsible for the failure of our social systems (in our context). Hence, I don’t support change of structure at this juncture, because the same structure fulfils the aspirations, needs of the people in other societies. This clearly shows that something has gone wrong somewhere within the structure in our society.
In the context of Manipur, one finds it very easy to identify or recognise ‘who is who’ and ‘who get what’. For a better understanding of the issue let us divide the whole state into two blocks: The hill block and the valley block. Theoretically every citizen realise its social, political and economic existence in a democratic set up. Every one is equal before the law. Democracy provides opportunities for fullest expression, exercise of one’s talent, creativity, and personality development, which are clearly adequately guaranteed in a democratic set up like India. This still holds true in many societies, but unfortunately it does not longer hold true in our society.
When we talk about democracy, it inevitably takes us to power and authority sharing between the Hill and Valley blocks and their deniable fact is that the hill people have been deprived of their constitutional provision/rights. Democratic political power and authority are clearly concentrated in the hands of the valley people. For example out of the total 60 seats in the State Legislative Assembly 40 seats are occupied by the valley representing approx. 700 square miles and maximum 25,000 voters constitute a constituency in the valley. Whereas, only 20 seats are given to the Hill people who are representing approx. 8000 sq. miles, and maximum 40,000 constitute a constituency in the hills. This clearly makes the reorganisation of constituency (delimitation) inevitable. When the govt of India approved delimitation of constituencies, the valley people raised hue and cry and attempted their all out efforts to derail, repeal the supreme court verdict. Such an act or attitude of the valley people towards their fellow hill people may be rightly termed as ‘outright infringement on the constitutional rights of the hill people, and open denial of democratic power and authority sharing in nation building is completely inconsistent with the noble slogan ‘Hill-Valley oneness and peaceful co-existence’
Secondly, under Article 371 C of the Indian constitution, provision for formation of Hill areas Autonomous District Council is given. On attaining full-fledged statehood in the year 1972 an Act pertaining to the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council was passed. as a result, the Hill Areas Autonomous District Council had been activated till 1989. Interestingly, it took almost two decades for the Hill people to realise the farcical and ridiculous (provision) Act of 1971 - the popularly elected councillors were reduced to mere clerical staff of the Deputy Commissioner of the district, as a result, the Hill Areas Autonomous District Council was dissolved in the year 1989. And in turn the hill people demanded Sixth Schedule of the Indian constitution which was strongly opposed by the Valley people. However in view of the ever increasing needs of democratic decentralization of power & authority, a directive was issued by the then chief Minister of Manipur, Rishang Kei-shing, whereby under the aegis of the then Chairman, Hill Areas committee, Dr. M Horam a committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Professor BK Roy Burman in the year 1995. This committee drafted a proposal under the caption “Social Policy” and placed to the HAc and Manipur Legislative Assembly. Consequently, a Bill was passed by the Assembly which was submitted to the Governor of Manipur for his assent, and eventually the Bill received his assent on 31st Sept. 2000 and became an Act (The Manipur Hill Areas Autonomous District Council Act, 2000) under Manipur No.ll of 2000.
However, in the year 2006, the valley people clandestinely made the Act repealed deliberately by-passing the whole de-mocratic & legal processes. Such a surreptitious activities, sincerely speaking, do not augur well for all of us. I sincerely don’t know as to why and how the valley people are so indifferent and rude to their fellow hill people. And I don’t foresee any adverse repercussion upon the valley people by allowing the hill people to peacefully enjoy their constitutional rights. I rather foresee irrevocable violent conflict between the hill and valley people in the near future. I am very much emphatic about the impending socio-economic, and political upheaval in our society if we don’t mitigate and mend our ways today. I don’t think the hill people are pestering nor demanding which does not belong to them. There is no harm in mutual respect, interdependence, sharing and peaceful co-existence.
Thirdly, as I pointed out earlier one can easily identify and recognise ‘who is who’ and ‘who gets what, how, where, and why’ in this tiny state. For example almost 90% of the govt offices are manned by valley people. The so called reservation of seats for the SC/ST under ‘policy of positive discrimination’ seems to be locked inside the drawers of the concerned authorities. Hundreds of seats in many departments had been surreptitiously filled in by undeserving persons, many deserving ser-vants belonging to SC/ST are often denied promotion e.g. Shri C. Peter (IPS) is one of the latest victims of subjugation. We should be careful that by nature when people are denied development of their personality and suppress their mobility, high intensity conflict may ensue. Moreover, hill people have become very much aware of where, when, how and why crore of rupees, several schemes, projects meant for the hill people have been clandestinely diverted/diverting to the wrong people and department. I don’t deny the involvement of hill people in this illegal activities. Therefore, when I say, scarce resources including human resources development have not been equally used, tapped and distributed as per the rules, I don’t think my findings/statements are erroneous.
Fourthly, looking at the existing infrastructure, we clearly see a lopsided in-frastructural development in this tiny State. Hundreds of contractors, who are, in fact supposed to be important players in nation building, have become unscrupulous players. How many buildings, roads, bridges, dams etc. have been constructed in total negation of the given specifications, or lying incomplete/deserted. And how many funds have been lapsed, or fraudulent withdrawal of money without leaving a single spade mark ? Indeed, government of India has been so generous, and so genuine in its planning policies and programmes to bring our society at par with the rest of the world communities, but it always falls a prey in the hands of the avaricious and unscrupulous contractors. This is the generalised perception of common people towards the contractors. When we maintain a micro analysis we find the scapegoat and sandwiched positions of many contractors, and the illegal nexus, undercurrent between underground groups, politicians, and contractors. For example, a contractor starts doling out money to engineers, politicians/bureaucrats for inclusion of work proposal in the work programme. Next he starts the same illegal procedure, though with a much bigger amount for obtaining work order.
===========================
Delimitation Impact
Even as the grievances of the voters of eight Assembly segments of Thoubal and Jiribam are yet to be addressed, the State seems poised to see a realignment of the 60 Assembly seats and if things are not handled maturely then it could get sticky. As already reported and given wide coverage, the delimitation exercise is to be conducted on the basis of the 2001 census and while delimitation and realignment of Assembly seats is something which has to be accepted under the democracy that we all live in, it is the question of the basis under which the delimitation exercise is to be carried out, that has to be addressed too.
One reason why the proposed delimitation exercise was met with stiff resistance by the State Government and certain political parties, was undoubtedly the abnormal jump recorded in the decadal growth of population of some hill districts. According to the 2001 census, Senapati district recorded a decadal growth of 81.96 percent while Chandel showed a growth of 72.8 percent. It is this overwhelmingly high population growth which the State Government and some political parties found hard to accept and it is precisely because of this that the State Government sent a delegation to New Delhi recently to urge the Chairman of the Delimitation Commission, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Kuldip Singh, to halt the delimitation process.
As things stand today, the delimitation exercise is poised to take off and according to the new arrangement, Imphal East, Imphal West and Bishnupur districts are likely to lose one Assembly seat each while the hill districts of Ukhrul, Senapati and Chandel stand to gain one more seat each. As already hinted, the three seats that are likely to go to the hill districts will not be reserved but left open for any bonafide citizen of Manipur to contest the election.
In the existing arrangement, 19 of the 60 seats are reserved for the ST (Kangpokpi AC is not a reserved seat), one for SC (Sekmai) while the other 40 are open seats, including Kangpokpi. This means that while any bonafide citizen of Manipur can contest in the 40 seats, the 20 seats are reserved for ST and SC candidates. Even with the open status clause, the delimitation exercise will mean that three Assembly seats will go to representatives originally from the hills for election is not only about reserved seats or open seats but about vote banks and in a now ethnically polarized Manipur, the delimitation exercise means that we can expect to see more tribal MLAs in the Assembly from the next election.
There should be nothing wrong with such an arrangement but given the current situation and the ground reality, caution should be exercised to the maximum limit to see that the latest development does not give rise to any unwanted political rumblings, which will go on to mean much more than the mere number of MLAs or the number of ACs of the hill or valley areas. There are mischief mongers galore amongst our midst and each and every single responsible member of our society should ensure that such elements are not given any room to sow the seeds of their agenda.
It may sound a little far fetched at the moment, but perhaps the time has come for the Government to formulate a policy to see how the Assembly segments may be worked out according to some criteria other than the existing one such as Outer and Inner Manipur or hill and valley. In other words, make the electorates of some unreserved seats a mix and equal population, both from the hill and valley areas.
(Courtesy: The Sangai Express)
=======================
Manipur : Delimitation drive evokes protest
The issue of delimitation in Manipur is likely to snowball into a major controversy with the hill districts strongly opposing the move by the Okram Ibobi Singh government to skip the exercise.
An all-party delegation is currently in New Delhi to meet officials of the Delimitation Commission and press for maintaining status quo in the 60 Assembly constituencies in the state. However, the residents of the hill districts have formed a Joint Action Committee (JAC) to counter the move by the state government and political parties.
Following a resolution adopted by an all-party meeting last month, the Ibobi Singh-led delegation met the chairman of the commission, Justice Kuldip Singh and urged him to maintain the existing Assembly segments in the state. The delegation argued that ‘abnormal’ growth of population in some areas of both the hill and valley was unacceptable. As such, if the exercise was carried out on the basis of the 2001 census problems could crop up in the state, they said.
Crying foul over it, the JAC sent a memorandum to the commission chairman to take up the delimitation exercise on the basis of the 2001 census report. It expressed strong opposition to the decisions taken by the Ibobi Singh government and the all-party meeting, saying it was a denial of rights to the hill people.
The memorandum, signed by Ngatangmi Ningshen, secretary of the JAC, said though the hill districts account for 20,086 square km of the total state area of 22,325 square km, the five hill districts had only 20 Assembly seats while the four valley districts had 40.
‘As per the 2001 census, the total population of Manipur is 22,93,041 and as per the norms, each of the 60 Assembly constituencies should be delimited to 38,000 population both in the valley and the hill areas through the ongoing delimitation process in respect of Manipur,’ the memorandum said.
The decision taken by the Secular Progressive Front government and also by the all-party meeting to maintain the status quo of the existing constituencies was ‘simply deprivation of rights’ of the people living in the hill districts, it charged.
Reacting to the all-party meeting decision to include eight Assembly constituencies of the Outer Manipur parliamentary constituency in the Inner constituency while seeking status quo of the existing Assembly segments, the memorandum said it was an injustice to the hill people. The whole move had an ‘ulterior’ motive, it said. It went on to charge that the policy of the government was partisan.
====================
Delimitation Heat
Source: IMPHAL FREE PRESS
Posted: 2007-12-03
Except for four states including Manipur and Nagaland where court cases are pending, the delimitation exercise in the entire country has been completed and put into practice. In Manipur, the controversy is over the 2001 population census which reported an unprecedented rise in population in some hill districts and abnormally low population growth in certain pockets in the valley such as Lamshang, which normally, considering the urbanization process, should have seen much higher growth than the largely rural hills. The consequence of any delimitation on the basis of the 2001 census report would hence be the loss of three constituencies by the valley districts which would be gained by the hills. All efforts to conduct verification census in the specific areas which saw unnatural growth, to clear all doubts have been to no avail, as the matter by then had expectedly become too politicized. But it is a sword that cuts both ways. The valley districts would not like to lose any of its constituencies especially since there is a sense that the census report was not prepared honestly or correctly or both. There have been rumbling and posturing by certain political parties indicative of the likely scenario, should the delimitation actually be put into effect without first a verification of what is believed to be a false data. The trouble with places like Manipur where democracy has not taken roots deep enough is, power sharing is reduced to a raw number game. Otherwise there should not have been any problem either way. If indeed the hill population is shooting up the way the census report said it was, more constituencies should go there. But if on the other hand, serious doubts have been raised about the abnormal growth pattern of population with no credible explanation as to how this happened, without further ado, a verification headcount should have been agreed upon. But alas, Manipur today is beyond its rational self, and have come to be ruled by sectarian emotions.
The possible flaw in the data is one thing, but even if there have been mistakes, under normal circumstances there should have been little to make too much fuss over the matter. The biggest trouble as one sees it is not about where which constituency goes, but about crossing the reservation Rubicon. If three constituencies in the valley come to be incorporated into the hills, it is also would mean three general constituencies would end up as reserved seats, excluding and disenfranchising in the process, non-tribals who fall within these constituencies. A movement the other way around (from the reserved to the non-reserved) would also be objected to given Manipur’s reality, but that would not have caused as much injustice, for there is no clause in the statute book that forbids a tribal from contesting or exercising his franchise in a general seat. The state is already facing this problem in the case of seven assembly constituencies in the Thoubal district which are included in the Outer Manipur Parliamentary constituency. In this case, non tribals in these constituencies have franchise right but not to contest. Even then the injustice is obvious.
Nobody can be sure which way the court cases on the matter would swing, but purely on legality, perhaps the official census document, flawed or otherwise, honest or deceitful, may be given the court’s okay signal. A lot of unrest definitely can be expected whichever way the verdict goes, but one can suggest a way out by way of a half-way-house, and also one which one is convinced is just. Let the three new constituencies be made, and let them have majority tribal voters if the census report says this is the actual population make up, but under no circumstance allow conversion of general seats to reserved seats. That is to suggest, let these new constituencies be overlapping constituencies where there are both tribal and non-tribal voters, and also where both tribals and non-tribals can contest. In many ways, the valley constituencies are like this already. On an optimistic note, maybe this will be a way the impervious psychological wall between the hill and valley, tribal and non-tribal, can be breached. Things however do not always go the ideal way and this is what every sane man’s fear is at the moment. Whatever the outcome, one other prediction is safe. By the time the next decadal census happens in a few years from now, there is going to be an unhealthy contest for numbers, and we may see a population explosion in the state, albeit on paper only.
http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=headline&newsid=1725&typeid=0
==========================
19-member team led by CM to take delimitation issue to Centre
Imphal, December 05, 2007: A meeting of all political parties has decided to send a 19-member delegation of political parties (national as well as regional) operating in the state to New Delhi on December 7 to pressurize the Central authorities not to conduct delimitation work based on “bogus” census report 2001.
The meeting also re-affirmed to continue the struggle by the All Political Party Forum not to allow delimitation works based on the 2001 census to go ahead in the state.
The all political parties meeting held at the chief minister’s bungalow early today reacted to the reports of some MLAs of the state in New Delhi fixing responsibility for any outcome arising out of the proposed delimitation process upon the chief minister.
They had observed that the report was meant to “sabotage” the ongoing efforts of all political parties in the state and to defeat the same.
The controversial census 2001 report came during the tenure of MLA M Hemanta as minister. But instead of fixing responsibility for the same on some people, the political parties in the state were fighting the issue together considering that it was for the state and not for some individuals, the meeting observed and condemned the statement of some people in the media.
Mention may be made that rebel Congress MLAs in a release from New Delhi have said that from the discussion with Justice Kuldip Singh, whom some of them called on, it appears that the only solution lies in issuing an ordinance by the Centre wherein the states like Manipur, Assam, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh are excluded from the delimitation.
The question is whether Ibobi would be able to impress upon the Central government for issuing such an ordinance, the rebels had asked and also said that if any unwanted things happen, the Ibobi led government should be entirely responsible.
‘It’s a big issue which would hurt the interest of the state and talking without the consent of the all political parties campaigning for not conducting of delimitation work based on 2001 census report is an act of irresponsibility,’ the all parties meeting resolved and appealed to refrain talking without authority.
The statement issued by the All Political Party Forum after the meeting reiterated that since the very beginning it was known that the delimitation works in the state was going to be conducted in a wrongful way, and the political parties in the state formed a forum of all political parties and have been giving pressure to all concerned officials, even by going to the Supreme Court.
The forum, All Political Party Forum has been campaigning since 2005 September by calling on the country’s Prime Minister, home minister, delimitation chairman etc. with copies of the resolution of the state Assembly.
The issue of delimitation has again arisen in the state even as a case on the same matter is pending with the Supreme Court after the proposed draft working paper of the delimitation commission of India for the state of Manipur based on the 2001 census was intimated to the associate members of the state in the delimitation committee.
It may be mentioned that the draft working papers on the delimitation of Assembly constituencies in Manipur prepared by the Delimitation Commission proposed to the reduction of the number of unreserved Assembly segments to four, with the number of ST reserved seats to be increased by three and SC reserved seats by one.
Earlier also on December 1, a meeting of the major political parties on Wednesday unanimously rejected the draft working paper of the delimitation commission of India for the state of Manipur based on the 2001 census.
The meeting also insisted the associate members of the delimitation commission for the state to attend the scheduled meeting on December 10 at New Delhi but no other comment came except rejecting the draft working papers.
The meeting which was held at the official bungalow of the chief minister today decided to call on the Prime Minister and Union home minister and chairman of the Delimitation Commission before the scheduled meeting of the working committee of the delimitation commission India for the state of Manipur to be held in New Delhi on December 10.
Today’s meeting also asked all the associate members of the delimitation committee for the state to attend the schedule meeting called by the Delimitation Commission of India with the associate members of delimitation committee from the state and to work out without further comment after putting strong rejection to the draft working papers of delimitation commission for the state.
The delegation will leave on December 7, said a statement issued by NCP on behalf of the all political parties of Manipur today.
The draft plan, mention may be made, was prepared by the commission based on the 2001 census figure which the state government rejected stating it was a “bogus figure”.
The draft work out paper also proposed to increase one Assembly constituency each in the said three hill districts after taking away one each from the valley districts of Imphal east, Imphal west and Bishenpur in the draft work paper.
A case regarding seeking cancellation of the census 2001 and re-conducting of the same is still pending with the Supreme Court and the hearing of the same is scheduled on January 25 next year.
Meanwhile, a release from the Manipur Information Centre said that state chief minister O Ibobi Singh along with 19 representatives of all political parties of Manipur will meet the Central leaders including the Prime Minister of India in connection with delimitation of assembly constituencies of Manipur after they all arrive here on December 7.
The 19 political leaders are Gaikhangam, president, MPCC, Dr. L Chandramani Singh, president, MPP, O Joy Singh, MLA, MPP, W Nipamacha Singh, president, RJD, Md Helaluddin Khan, MLA, RJD, Dr. Y Mohendra Singh, CPI(M), Sarat Salam, state secretary, CPI(M), P Parijat Singh, minister (health), CPI, Dr. M Nara Singh, CPI, Radhabinod Koijam, president, NCP, K Saratkumar Singh, NCP, Dr. S Dhananjoy, president, Samajwadi Party, S Lala Singh, Dr. H.Borbabu Singh, president BJP, Prof. S Tikendra Singh, BJP, W Kulabidhu Singh, ex-MP, president, JD(S), N Dhiren Singh, JD(S), Y Mani Singh, ex-minister, MSCP and M Ibomcha Singh, president , Samata Party.
Source: The Imphal Free Press
===================================
Manipur parties reject draft working paper
From Sobhapati Samom
IMPHAL, Dec 1 – In a significant development, political parties in Manipur have rejected the draft working paper of the Delimitation Commission of India for Manipur based on the 2001 Census and loss of three constituencies in the valley.
Leaders of all the national and regional political parties sat together at the Chief Minister’s conference hall Friday and decided to call on the Prime Minister and Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil before the meeting of the working committee of the Ccommission to be held in New Delhi on December 10.
Friday’s meeting was convened by the Chief Minister O Ibobi Singh despite his indisposed condition and also resolved to hold another round of meeting of all political parties before leaving for New Delhi.
Manipur’s all political parties delegation is likely to leave Imphal for New Delhi either on December 7 or 8 and call on the PM and Home Minister. It had taken a hardline stance against the delimitation of Assembly segments in Manipur on the basis of the 2001 census, which would almost certainly lead to the severe reduction in the number of unreserved Assembly seats of the State.
MPP president, Dr L Chandramani reaffirmed its opposition to the delimitation process taken up without rectification of the 2001 Census.
Political parties took up their rejection move after a local vernacular published a news report to the effect that according to draft working paper the number of unreserved Assembly segments will be reduced by four, while the number of ST reserved seats will be increased by three and SC reserved seats by one.
http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/details.asp?id=dec0207/ne
=============================
Rectify `bogus` 2001 census before delimitation move: MPP
The Imphal Free Press
IMPHAL, Nov 30: The Manipur People`s Party, MPP, has taken a hardline stance against the delimitation of Assembly segments in Manipur on the basis of the 2001 census, which would almost certainly lead to the severe reduction in the number of unreserved Assembly seats of the state.
MPP president, Dr L Chandramani, addressing a press conference today, said the central committee of the Manipur People`s Party met today on the issue, and reaffirmed its opposition to the delimitation process taken up without rectification of the `bogus` 2001 census.
It may be mentioned, a report had appeared in one of the newspapers published here to the effect that draft working papers on the delimitation of Assembly constituencies in Manipur have been prepared by the Delimitation Commission, according to which the number of unreserved Assembly segments will be reduced by four, with the number of ST reserved seats to be increased by three and SC reserved seats by one.
Affirming this, Dr Chandramani said senior MPP leader O Joy Singh, who is an associate member of the state delimitation committee has received the draft working papers from the Delimitation Commission of India.
He said the draft working papers, which is based on the flawed 2001 census, three Assembly segments will go to the hill districts as reserved constituencies, and the number of unreserved Assembly seats in the valley would be reduced to 35. The number of SC reserved seats would increase to two from present single seat.
Dr Chandramani reiterated that his party did not opose the delimitation exercise by the Delimitation Commission of India in the state, but they opposed the process being undertaken based on the flawed 2001 census, regarding which many political parties of the state had repeatedly sought rectification.
The Prime Minister, Union home miniser, and concerned director of census, government of India, and the chairman, Delimitation Commisison of India were all aware that there is an error in the 2001 census of the state, due to the presence of abnormal population growth figures in respect of several hill and valley areas.
Delegates of various political parties of the state have also apprised the Central authorities to perform delimitation in the state only after rectification of the 2001 census, he also pointed out.
MLA O Joy Singh, who was also present, said the attempt of the Centre to enforce delimitation on the state by relying on the flawed 2001 census despite repeated requests to rectify the census beforehand will have serious consequences for the state, and result in an imbalance.
It is be taken as an attempt to disintegrate Manipur by the Centre, O Joy Singh maintained, and said the MPP will be taking a strong stance against the implementation of the delimitation.
MLAs Dr Ng Bijoy, and I Ibohalbi, also addressing the media, said the flawed 2001 census has created demographic imbalance in the state, and will have serious effect in terms of reservation etc.
They also warned that enforcement of the delimitation against the wishes of the people could lead to a constitutional crisis in the future, as the state Assembly had unanimously passed a resolution that delimitation in the state must be done only after the rectificationof the 2001 census.
They also observed MPP has taken a clearcut stance against the current delimitation exercise by the Delimitation Commission of India based on the 2001 census and will continue to give strong pressure to the Centre for halting the delimitation exercise immediately.
The party would launch serious steps against the Central government if their demand is neglected, they maintained
http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=headline&newsid=40255&typeid=1
====================================
Delimitation work resumes in Manipur
Manipur Information Centre
NEW DELHI, Aug 21: The Delimitation Commission of India has so far issued orders in respect of 25 states/Union Territories of the country. Replying to a question from Shantaram Laxman Naik, MP, Union minister of law and justice HR Bhardwaj in a wriiten reply in Rajya Sabha on Monday stated that the 25 states in which the delimitation had been completed were Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, National Capital Territory of Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Orissa, Pondicherry, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.
The Gauhati High Court passed its two different interim orders to suspend the delimitation work in Arunachal Pradesh and Assam. In another interim order, the Gauhati High Court directed the Delimitation Commission not to publish the final order in respect of Nagaland. Further, in respect of Manipur, the work of delimitation had been resumed after the stay given by the Supreme Court on the order dated 19.01.2007 of the Gauhati High Court.
The term of the Delimitation Commission has been extended till July 31, 2008 to complete its work.
The population criteria for undertaking delimitation were set down by the parliament. The government, however, received representations challenging the delimitation exercise on various grounds including inter alia that it would threaten the ethnic structure of political representation of north-eastern states and some other states as well.
http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=headline&newsid=39000&typeid=1
=========================
.: 7 :-
CHAPTER-jj
DELIMITATION OF CONSTITUENCIES
Constitutional ban on delimitation:
In. 1976, articles 81, 82 and 170 of the Constitution which, as originally enacted, provided, inter, alia, for the readjustment of seats and fresh delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies after each decennial census, were amended by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act to provide that until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2000 have been published, it shall
not be necessary to readjust the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the total number of seats in the State Legislative Assemblies and the division of States into territorial constituencies (both Parliamentary and Assembly). Consequently, subject to any changes as a result of special laws of Parliament, such as those relating to formation of new States or reorganization of States and* additions to the list of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes and Consti-r tutional amendments, the delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly*
constituencies as provided in the Delimitation of Parliamentary and. Assembly Constituencies Order, 1976, on the basis of the 19?l-Cen.sus figures will continue to be effective until th? fresh delimitation as
contemplated to be undertaken after the publication of .the figures for".
the first Census taken after the year 2000 A.D.
SPECIAL LAWS AND CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT:
In 1986, Parliament passed two special laws, one for the
establishment of the State of Mizoram, namely, the State of Mizoram
Act, 1986 and the other for the establishment of the State of Arunachal
Pradesh, namely, the State of Arunachal Pradesh Act, 1986. These
Acts provide for the delimitation of the Assembly constituencies of
the States by the Election Commission. In 1987, Parliament passed
a special law providing for the reorganization of the Union Territory
of Goa, Daman and Diu, namely, the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganization".
Act, 1987, which provided for the establishment of a new State of Goa
and for a new Union Territory of Daman and Diu. The Act also provides
for the delimitation of the Assembly constituencies of the new State
of Goa by the Election Commission.. The Constitution (Fif ty-Seventh
Amendment) Act, 1987 was passed by Parliament to provide for increased
representation to Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assemblies of
the States of Arunachai Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaiand.
Parliament also enacted the Constitution (Scheduled Tribe Order) Amendment
Act, 1987 to add to the list of Scheduled Tribes in Vieghalaya.The
Representation of the People (Third Amendment) Act, 1987 was enacted
by Parliament to specify the number of seats which shall be reserved
for the Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assemblies of the States
of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland. The consequent
work of determination of the Assembly constituencies in the States
of Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland in which seats shall be reserved
for the Scheduled Tribes was entrusted to the Election Commission
•through amendments made in the Representation of the People Act,
1950 by the Representation of the People (Second Amendment) Act,
1987.
DELIMITATION OF ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCIES
IN THE STATE OF MIZORAM:
The work relating to delimitation of Assembly constituencies
in the State of Mizoram had to be completed as expeditiousiy as possible
as the State of Mizoram Act contemplated the constitution of a
new Legislative Assembly for the State on the date of the formation
of the State itself. The work connected with the delimitation of constituencies,
revision of electoral rolls and the conduct of general election
for constituting the new Assembly had thus to be completed within
a very short time.
V *he State of Mizoram Act provided that the total number
of seats in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Mizoram to be
filled by persons, chosen by direct election from assembly constituencies
shall be forty and "hat the Election Commission shall distribute the
seats to single -.-nemb-.r. territorial constituencies and delimit them having
regard to the provisions of the Constitution and to the following
provisions: I
(a) All constituencies shall, as far as practicable, be geographically
compact areas and in delimiting them, regard
shall be had to physical features, existing boundaries
of administrative units, facilities of communication and
public convenience; and
S) Constituencies in which seats are reserved for the Scheduled
Tribes shall, as far as practicable, be located in
areas where a proportion of their population to the total
is the largest.
The Ack required the Election Commission to associate with itself as
associate members the sitting member of the House of the People representing
the Parliamentary constituency of Mizoram, namely, Shri Lalduhoma,
M.P. and..;such of the six^ members of the Legislative Assembly of the
• Q •
then existing Union Territory of Mizoram as the Speaker thereof may
nominate* The Speaker of Mizoram Legislative Assembly, vide his communication
dated the 29th September, 1986, nominated the following
six MLAs:-
(0
(if)
(iii)
(iv)
(v) i
(vi) ,
Brig.
Shri
Shri
Shri
Shri
Shri
T. Sailo.
3. Thanguama
M.Z. Hiphei.
Vanlainghaka.
Zalawma.
Liansuama.
As Brig.Sailo could not accept the nomination on account of ill-health,
the Speaker subsequently nominated Shri Zairemthanga as Associate
Member in his place. As the delimitation of the constituencies had to be
done on the basis of the 1971-popuiation figures, the Commission reformulated,
in the first instance, with the assistance of the officers from
the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Mizoram the data as to
population as ascertained at the 1971-Census in terms of the latest
administrative units and collected other necessary statistical data and
maps for preparation of the working paper containing delimitation of
the forty assembly constituencies. The working paper was prepared
and sent out to the Associate Members on the 2*fth October, 1986 with
a request that they should attend a meeting in the Office of the Commission
on the 18th November, 1986 for discussion on the working paper
and for preparing the draft proposal for the Commission. Ail the
Associate Members attended the meeting. Thanks to the willing cooperation
of the Associate Members, the meeting which commenced
at about 10 A.M. continued till 11 P.M. The suggestions of the
Associate Members were carefully considered. Though a substantial*
measure of consensus could be reached, it was found not feasible
to accommodate all their suggestions within the guidelines for delimitation
as given in fhe State of Mizoram Act. The Commission's
proposals, as modified after discussion with the Associate Members
together with the dissenting proposals of the Associate Members were
published in the Official Gazette (Extraordinary) of the Gazette of
India as well as the Gazette of Mizc^am on the 26th November,
1986. The last date for receipt of objections and suggestions from
public was fixed as 11th December, 1986.. A Camp Office of the
-* 10:-
Commission was opened ac Aizawl to receive the objections and
suggestions from the public. About fifty representations were received
from the public. Copies of the same were circulated to the Associate
Members for their information by the Camp Office and for considering
the representations, the Commission held public sittings at Saiba,
Lunglei and Aizawl on 15th, 16th and 17th December, 1986 respectively.
Wide publicity was given to the Commission's public sittings and
the persons who submitted representations were individually informed
of the sittings. Apart from the persons who sent their representations,
a number of persons representing different political and other
groups made oral submissions to the Commission at the public sittings.
After the public sittings, the Commission had a final round
of meeting with the Associate Members on the 18th December,
1986 at Aizawl for consideration of the Commission's draft proposals,
the dissenting proposals of the Associate Members and the various
suggestions and objections made at the public sittings. The various
suggestions which were in accordance with the guidelines provided
in the State of Mizoram Act, that is to say, suggestions for reducing
the disparities in the size of the constituencies in terms of population
and suggestions made with a view to equalising the population
on grounds of physical features, boundaries of administrative units,
communication facilities, geographical compactness or public convenience,
were accepted and the suggestions which were put mainly
from the point of vi*w of political or individual interest were
not accepted. The Commission's Order containing the delimitation
of the lorty assemblv constituencies of Mizoram was published
in the Official Gazette on the 30th December, 1986.
During the Chief Ejection Commissioner's visit to Mizoram
in connection with the delimitation work, representatives of students
met him on 14.12.1986 at Aizawl and represented that all the forty
seats allotted to the State of Mizoram should be reserved for the
Scheduled Tribes. It was explained to them that whereas all the
thirty seats in the then Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory
of Mizoram were general, under the provisions of the State of Mizoram
Act, 1986, thirty-eight, out of the forty seats would be reserved
for the Scheduled Tribes. It was also explained to them that the
Commission had to act in accordance with the law and under the'
law as it stood then, only thirty-eight seals could be reserved for
the Scheduled Tribes. An assurance was also given to them that
their point of view would be communicated to the Government
of India in due course*
DELIMITATION OF ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCIES IN THE
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Unlike the State of Mizoram Act, 1986, which required
'the holding • of a General Election [aftei^ completion of the work
relating to delimitation of Assembly constituencies and revision
of rolls] in such manner as to enable the new Legislative Assembly
•of •• that State to • function as from the date of establishment of
the State, the State of Arunachal Pradesh Act, 19S6, like other
~: 11:-
-earlier enactments relating to formation _of new States^ provided
for a transitional arrangement by way of a provisional Legislative
Assembly consisting of the elected members of the then existing
Union Territory of Arunachai Pradesh up to 21.3.1990. Thus, the
Act allowed more than adequate time for completion of (the work
relating to the delimitation of the Assembly constituenck'j in the
State.
The State of Arunachai Pradesh Act provided thatkhe total
number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Xrunachal
Pradesh to be filled by persons, chosen by direct elec; on from
assembly constituencies shall be forty and that the Election Commission
shall distribute the seats to single-member territorial const tuer;cies.
The guidelines for delimiting the constituencies as provided in the
Act are th? same as those provided in the State of Mizoram Act.
The Act a.so required the Election Commission to associate with
itself as Associate Members the sitting members of the House of
the People representing the Parliamentary constituencies of the
State, namely, (1) Shri P.K. Thungon, M.P., (2) Shri Wangpha Lowang,
M.P. and sjch six of the members of the Arunachai Pradesh Legisia-
. • s
Tive Assembly as the Speaker thereof may nominate. The Speaker
oi the Arunachai Pradesh Legislative Assembly, vide his communication,
dated the 10th March, 1987, nominated the following six
members of the Assembiy:-
(i) Shri Todak Basar (Minister).
(iiV Shri T.L. Rajkumar (Speaker)
tin) Shri Tsering Tashi (Minister)
(tv) Shri Tadak Dulom (Minister)
(v) Shri Gyati Takka and
(vi) Kumari Komoii Masang.
The delimitation of the constituencies has to be on the basis of
the 1971-population figures and, accordingly, the data as to population
as ascertained at the 1971-Census was reformulated with reference
to the latest administrative units and other necessary statistical
data and maps for preparation of the working paper containing
delimitation of the forty Assembly constituencies were also collected.
Thereafter, the Commission prepared a working paper and the same
v/as sent to the Associate Members on the 21st August, 1987 with
the request that they should attend a meeting in the office of the
Commission on the 5th October, 1987 for discussion on the working
paper and for preparing the draft proposals of the Commission.
In the meantime, the Commission was informed about the denrund
for increasing the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly
of Arunachai Pradesh from forty to sixty. The Commission accordingly
decided to posx/one the consideration of the working paper pending
the decision oi the Government with respect to the said demand.
http://eci.gov.in/Eci_Publications/books/deli/ECI-Report-86-87.pdf
=====================
Enumerators Must Explain
Source: IMPHAL FREE PRESS
Posted: 2007-08-13
The bad blood over the delimitation issue resulting out of the dispute over the authenticity of the 2001 census report is, to say the least, too much ado about nothing. If there is something abnormal and reasonable doubts that there were flaws in it have arisen, the simplest remedy is to hold another headcount. Considering the kind of population figure that we are dealing with here, this should not be too much trouble. In the hot contest for political one-up-man-ship between the various communities in the state, the intent of a second census exercise, if at all, may be attributed to vested interests, as much as the manner in which the initial report is seen as artificially inflated to further certain other agenda. This can however be overcome if neutral agents and officials from a third state were to supervise. If the government as well as the census commission are willing, the expenses involved too should not be too much of a hurdle either. At this moment, it does seem this is exactly the case, with none other than the Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh himself assuring that pending a resolution to the controversy, there would be no delimitation of Assembly constituencies in the state.
To confirm that something is indeed wrong or otherwise in the present population figures, there are yet other existing and current enumerations, official and unofficial, to compare with. The electoral roll is one such. Now that photo identity cards are being issued to those in the electoral roll, there are much less chances of wilful and sinister duplications. There are also other records like those maintained by grassroots bodies such as the Anganwadis to refer to, although here too the pressures to inflate numbers is tangible, hence may not be accurate. In the hills, the number of households listed as liable for house tax should again be a guide to make an estimate of the population. If all these figures are reconcilable to an acceptable margin of differences, maybe the current census figure is not way off the mark, but if on the other hand, these figures are found to be too widely disparate to be tallied, then it must be agreed that something did go seriously wrong.
But the one question that for some reasons has not been addressed enough is, if there is such an extraordinary jump or slump in the population growth rates in different pockets of the state, should not those who were responsible for collecting and tabulating these numbers be asked to explain. If all the problems the state is faced with currently on the census issue is on account of either incompetence, or worse still lethargy, of these employees of the government, shouldn’t they be penalised? The census report is a very vital document, with profound implications on drawing up blueprints on the directions the nation’s economy and politics are to be steered, hence tampering with this for whatever the reason, cannot be treated as a trivial offence. Already a stormy Assembly session has been a direct consequence of this controversy; a joint delegation of political parties in the state has had to rush to New Delhi to point out to the relevant authorities why the 2001 census in the case of Manipur raises doubts of authenticity, expending precious money and time; more than all this, the issue has been the cause of more bad blood in the strained relations between the hills and valley. After all this, those who committed this mistake, or crime as the case may turn out to be, cannot be exonerated easily if there are no credible and acceptable explanations. We wonder why the government has not begun such a query.
Whatever is the final outcome, one thing is pertinent. If a delimitation of constituencies must go ahead on the basis of the 2001 census, since in all likelihood the boundaries between the reserved and open seats would be breached in three new constituencies, to ensure that nobody loses his democratic voting or contesting rights, these new constituencies must remain open seats. But before any such step is taken, why must anybody object to another census in the whole state, or at least in the areas where population growth rates have been abnormal.
http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=headline&newsid=1634&typeid=0
====================
Delimitation of Constituencies Issue
Advani assures support to Manipur all party team:
Imphal, Dec 10: Delegates of the state all political party forum currently in New Delhi to campaign for delinking Manipur from the delimitation process met with the Opposition leader of the Lok Sabha, LK Advani on Monday seeking his support for their demand seeking a halt to the delimitation process in the state.
The all party delegation briefed the BJP leader on various aspects of the controversial issue of delimitation in the state, and made it clear that carrying forward delimitation in Manipur on the basis of the ‘bogus’ 2001 census report would result in undesirable consequences, according to a statement of the NCP general secretary K Sharatkumar on behalf of the all political parties delegation.
The BJP leader has assured the delegation that he would suggest to the Central government to convene an all political parties meet to consider the delegation’s demands, particularly for delinking the states of Manipur, Nagaland, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh, which all have outstanding issues pertaining to the 2001 census report, from the current process of delimitation.
The all party delegation, led by Manipur chief minister O Ibobi Singh, was due to meet the BJP president Rajnath Singh, Congress president Sonia Gandhi and the Prime Minister later on Monday, according to the statement.
The all party delegation has also expressed concern over the failure of MPCC president Gaikhangam to attend the meeting convened by the Delimitation Commission today along with associate members from Manipur, to discuss the delimitation work in the state, particularly the proposals contained in the draft working papers prepared by the commission.
Sharatkumar’s statement noted that Gaikhangam’s absence from the meeting was despite the earlier resolution adopted by the All Political Parties Forum to the effect that all associate members of the delimitation committee from Manipur should compulsorily attend Monday’s meeting.
An explanation would be sought for Gaikhangam’s absence from the meeting, the statement added.
Source: The Imphal Free Press
========================
PM in favour of re-census, delimitation freeze: O Ibobi
The Imphal Free Press
IMPHAL, Aug 9: Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh has responded favourably to the plea of the all political delegation from Manipur for conducting a fresh census and freezing the delimitation process in the state, chief minister Ibobi Singh said.
Speaking to mediapersons this afternoon at a specially convened press conference, chief minister O Ibobi Singh said during the meeting with the state delegation yesterday, the Prime Minister has assured that due consideration would be given to the stance of the political parties of Manipur on the problems that have come up with regard to the delimitation process, and all measures would be taken to ensure that these problems are settled peacefully.
The CM returned to Imphal this afternoon with other members of the all political party delegation which had called on the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and other Central leaders in New Delhi on the delimitation issue.
Briefing the media on the outcome of the trip, the chief minister said a memorandum signed by 18 representatives of various political parties, had been submitted to the Prime Minister, and also to UPA chief Sonia Gandhi and the head of the delimitation commission, Kuldip Singh highlighting the errors in the 2001 census, and raising the demand to hold a fresh census for the state, to impose a moratorium on delimitation exercises, and maintaining status quo of the existing Assembly constituencies until the fresh census figure is published.
He said the Prime Minister, who acknowledged that errors with the 2001 census figures had also been reported from other states, assured that every effort would be made to avoid the problems that would be created if the delimitation process goes ahead on the basis of faulty census figures.
During their meeting with her, the UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi counselled the political delegation to coordinate with the Union home minister to settle the issue so that problems do not arise in the future.
Reiterating the stance of the state’s political parties, the CM stressed that accuracy of the 2001 census figures was seriously in doubt, because of the abnormally high and abnormally low population growths reported in some areas of the state.
He maintained they are not opposing the delimitation process because of the fear that valley areas may lose some assembly segments to the hill districts. Their point is that delimitation should be done only after the abnormal growths in hill and valley areas are verified, he said.
This is why they have sought cancellation of the census 2001 and sought for a recensus, he said.
He noted that similar problems were reported in the Nagaland, where Dimapur recorded abnormally high population growth, while Mokokchung saw abnormally low growth.
There are similar problems in Assam because of inflow of migrants from Bangladesh in the Barak Valley. There are also problems in Arunachal Pradesh, he said.
He said census enumerators appear not to have done their work properly, and asserted that when recensus is carried out, it has to be done transparently.
MPP president Dr L Chandramani, RJD president W Nipamacha, MPCC president Gaikhangam, BJP president H Borbabu, prof. Mohendro of the CPI(M), ex-MLA Dr M Nara, ex-MLA, Y Mani, MLA Surchandra, and ex-Speaker S Dhananjoy also attended the press meet.
http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=headline&newsid=38875&typeid=4
==================
Much More...........................
In India, such Delimitation Commissions have been constituted 4 times – in 1952 under the Delimitation Commission Act, 1952, in 1963 under Delimitation Commission Act, 1962, in 1973 under Delimitation Act, 1972 and in 2002 under Delimitation Act, 2002.
The Delimitation Commission in India is a high power body whose orders have the force of law and cannot be called in question before any court. These orders come into force on a date to be specified by the President of India in this behalf. The copies of its orders are laid before the House of the People and the State Legislative Assembly concerned,but no modifications are permissible therein by them.
http://www.delimitation-india.com/AboutDel.pdf
====================================
Delimitation precoess is being under taken in the state of Manipur. It may not be the worry of the plain areas, but as far as the hill areas is concern, it is very mush worth worrying and need a deep concentration. The people may be from the same progenitor but from the point of view of political equality, some mojor tribe enjoy the vast areas of the hill political affairs. It is time for all to think for the equality of the people for the whole of Manipur.
=================================
By Our Staff Reporter
IMPHAL, Dec 17: Legislators of the State lobbying for exclusion of Manipur from the ongoing delimitation exercise all over the country are hopeful that their campaign will be successful.
In their campaign to ex-clude Manipur from the de- limitation, the State legis-lators today called on NDA convenor George Fernan-des and CPM leader Basu- dev Archarya.
The all political party de-legation who are now in Delhi meeting central lea-ders urging for their cause on delimitation issue in-clude Dr L Chandramani and O Joy of MPP, MPCC vice-president Abdul Sa-lam, Congress MLAs E Dwi- jamani, Th Lokeshore, BJP Manipur unit president Dr Haobam Borbabu and NCP general secretary Sarat.
During the meeting with George Fernandes, the all party delegation pointed out that objection to deli-mitation process raised by the Northeastern States, particularly Manipur is based on valid ground as the 2001 census report is highly unrealistic. Imple-menting delimitation based on faulty census report will be inevitably bring in ill-consequences, they maintained.
Taking note of the ra-tional argument made by the all party delegation, George Fernandes reportedly assu-red all possible assistance to stall delimitation process in manipur.
Both George Fernandes and Basudev Archarya as-sured that necessary steps will be initiated to issue an ordinance so as to exclude the four left out NE States from the country wide exercise.
Before making their points to Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and AICC president Sonia Gandhi, the political leaders will urge upon Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee on the same cause.
Even though Chief Minister O Ibobi could not participate in today’s meeting with central leaders due to his engagement in NEC meeting, Ibobi will lead the all party delegation in tomorrow’s meeting with other central leaders.
So far, all the central political leaders approached by the all party delegation saw through their justified objection and assured necessary help, conveyed the political representatives while exuding confidence that the four left out North Eastern States shall be excluded from the delimitation exercise.
=====================
Advani assures all party team of support in delimitation issue
By : A Staff Reporter 12/11/2007 1:05:27 AM
IMPHAL, Dec 10: Delegates of the state all political party forum currently in New Delhi to campaign for delinking Manipur from the delimitation process met with the Opposition leader of the Lok Sabha, LK Advani today seeking his support for their demand seeking a halt to the delimitation process in the state.
The all party delegation briefed the BJP leader on various aspects of the controversial issue of delimitation in the state, and made it clear that carrying forward delimitation in Manipur on the basis of the ‘bogus’ 2001 census report would result in undesirable consequences, according to a statement of the NCP general secretary K Sharatkumar on behalf of the all political parties delegation.
The BJP leader has assured the delegation that he would suggest to the Central government to convene an all political parties meet to consider the delegation’s demands, particularly for delinking the states of Manipur, Nagaland, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh, which all have outstanding issues pertaining to the 2001 census report, from the current process of delimitation.
The all party delegation, led by Manipur chief minister O Ibobi Singh, is due to meet the BJP president Rajnath Singh, Congress president Sonia Gandhi and the Prime Minister later today, according to the statement.
The all party delegation has also expressed concern over the failure of MPCC president Gaikhangam to attend the meeting convened by the Delimitation Commission today along with associate members from Manipur, to discuss the delimitation work in the state, particularly the proposals contained in the draft working papers prepared by the commission.
Sharatkumar’s statement noted that Gaikhangam’s absence from the meeting was despite the earlier resolution adopted by the All Political Parties Forum to the effect that all associate members of the delimitation committee from Manipur should compulsorily attend today’s meeting.
An explanation would be sought for Gaikhangam’s absence from the meeting, the statement added.
=========================
19-member team led by CM to take delimitation issue to Centre
By : A Staff Reporter 12/6/2007 12:53:49 AM
IMPHAL, Dec 5: A meeting of all political parties has decided to send a 19-member delegation of political parties (national as well as regional) operating in the state to New Delhi on December 7 to pressurize the Central authorities not to conduct delimitation work based on “bogus” census report 2001.
The meeting also re-affirmed to continue the struggle by the All Political Party Forum not to allow delimitation works based on the 2001 census to go ahead in the state.
The all political parties meeting held at the chief minister’s bungalow early today reacted to the reports of some MLAs of the state in New Delhi fixing responsibility for any outcome arising out of the proposed delimitation process upon the chief minister.
They had observed that the report was meant to “sabotage” the ongoing efforts of all political parties in the state and to defeat the same.
The controversial census 2001 report came during the tenure of MLA M Hemanta as minister. But instead of fixing responsibility for the same on some people, the political parties in the state were fighting the issue together considering that it was for the state and not for some individuals, the meeting observed and condemned the statement of some people in the media.
Mention may be made that rebel Congress MLAs in a release from New Delhi have said that from the discussion with Justice Kuldip Singh, whom some of them called on, it appears that the only solution lies in issuing an ordinance by the Centre wherein the states like Manipur, Assam, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh are excluded from the delimitation.
The question is whether Ibobi would be able to impress upon the Central government for issuing such an ordinance, the rebels had asked and also said that if any unwanted things happen, the Ibobi led government should be entirely responsible.
‘It’s a big issue which would hurt the interest of the state and talking without the consent of the all political parties campaigning for not conducting of delimitation work based on 2001 census report is an act of irresponsibility,’ the all parties meeting resolved and appealed to refrain talking without authority.
The statement issued by the All Political Party Forum after the meeting reiterated that since the very beginning it was known that the delimitation works in the state was going to be conducted in a wrongful way, and the political parties in the state formed a forum of all political parties and have been giving pressure to all concerned officials, even by going to the Supreme Court.
The forum, All Political Party Forum has been campaigning since 2005 September by calling on the country’s Prime Minister, home minister, delimitation chairman etc. with copies of the resolution of the state Assembly.
The issue of delimitation has again arisen in the state even as a case on the same matter is pending with the Supreme Court after the proposed draft working paper of the delimitation commission of India for the state of Manipur based on the 2001 census was intimated to the associate members of the state in the delimitation committee.
It may be mentioned that the draft working papers on the delimitation of Assembly constituencies in Manipur prepared by the Delimitation Commission proposed to the reduction of the number of unreserved Assembly segments to four, with the number of ST reserved seats to be increased by three and SC reserved seats by one.
Earlier also on December 1, a meeting of the major political parties on Wednesday unanimously rejected the draft working paper of the delimitation commission of India for the state of Manipur based on the 2001 census.
The meeting also insisted the associate members of the delimitation commission for the state to attend the scheduled meeting on December 10 at New Delhi but no other comment came except rejecting the draft working papers.
The meeting which was held at the official bungalow of the chief minister today decided to call on the Prime Minister and Union home minister and chairman of the Delimitation Commission before the scheduled meeting of the working committee of the delimitation commission India for the state of Manipur to be held in New Delhi on December 10.
Today’s meeting also asked all the associate members of the delimitation committee for the state to attend the schedule meeting called by the Delimitation Commission of India with the associate members of delimitation committee from the state and to work out without further comment after putting strong rejection to the draft working papers of delimitation commission for the state.
The delegation will leave on December 7, said a statement issued by NCP on behalf of the all political parties of Manipur today.
The draft plan, mention may be made, was prepared by the commission based on the 2001 census figure which the state government rejected stating it was a “bogus figure”.
The draft work out paper also proposed to increase one Assembly constituency each in the said three hill districts after taking away one each from the valley districts of Imphal east, Imphal west and Bishenpur in the draft work paper.
A case regarding seeking cancellation of the census 2001 and re-conducting of the same is still pending with the Supreme Court and the hearing of the same is scheduled on January 25 next year.
Meanwhile, a release from the Manipur Information Centre said that state chief minister O Ibobi Singh along with 19 representatives of all political parties of Manipur will meet the Central leaders including the Prime Minister of India in connection with delimitation of assembly constituencies of Manipur after they all arrive here on December 7.
The 19 political leaders are Gaikhangam, president, MPCC, Dr. L Chandramani Singh, president, MPP, O Joy Singh, MLA, MPP, W Nipamacha Singh, president, RJD, Md Helaluddin Khan, MLA, RJD, Dr. Y Mohendra Singh, CPI(M), Sarat Salam, state secretary, CPI(M), P Parijat Singh, minister (health), CPI, Dr. M Nara Singh, CPI, Radhabinod Koijam, president, NCP, K Saratkumar Singh, NCP, Dr. S Dhananjoy, president, Samajwadi Party, S Lala Singh, Dr. H.Borbabu Singh, president BJP, Prof. S Tikendra Singh, BJP, W Kulabidhu Singh, ex-MP, president, JD(S), N Dhiren Singh, JD(S), Y Mani Singh, ex-minister, MSCP and M Ibomcha Singh, president , Samata Party.
=========================
Stance against Delimitation decried
The Sa Ngai Express By Our Staff Reporter
IMPHAL, Dec 4 : The Movement for Tribal People’s Rights Manipur (MTPRM) has expressed strong annoyance against the decision taken by the associate members of the Delimitation Commission of the State to oppose the Delimitation exercise.
The constant move by political parties of the State led by the Chief Minister is nothing but total disregard of the interest of the tribals even after the Constitu-tional provision has clearly provided for total delimitation of the country, remarked MTPRM in a press hand-out.
The State Government led by Chief Minister O Ibobi has been convening all party meetings time and again when certain benefit is likely to be extended to tribal people in order to derail such benefits, not only in any particular case but also in the issue pertaining to extension of 6th Schedule, Reservation Policy etc, it alleged.
Quoting a letter from the Delimitation Commission to the Delimitation Committee of Manipur, it said that delimitation is an exercise under Constitutional provision based on 2001 Census in which arbitrary decision cannot be taken for one State.
Contrary to the alleged perception of the political parties that the State may disintegrate if the delimitation is executed based on 2001 census, the MTPRM asserted that the State shall disintegrate if the delimitation is not duly implemented.
In case the delimitation process is stalled or derailed because of the constant moves by different political parties led by the State Government, they will be held responsible for any eventualities and tribal people may opt to stay outside the State, if the situation demands so, cautioned the MTPRM in the statement.
====================================
Delimitation toh kisai All Political Party meeting ah genkhom 2001 census pansan a Delimitation neih ahihleh buaina chial suak ding - O.Joy
IMPHAL NOV 30: Manipur a 2001 census pansan a Assembly constituency 60 omte a Delimitation neihna ding, Delimitation Commission of India in pan alak touhzel toh kisai in, tuni’n Manipur People's party in Central Committee meeting poimohtak MPP office ah nei ua, tua ah 2001 census diklou ahihman in, hiai dungzui a Manipur a Delimitation neih hithei
lou ding ahihdan leh nan theihtawp a nang ding in thupukna la uh hi’n tuni’n MPP makaite’n thuthaksaite mai ah gen uhi.
Hiai hun ah MPP President Dr. L. Chandramani, MLA O. Joy, MLA Dr. Ng. Bijoy, MLA R.K. Anand leh MLA I. Ibohanbi te kihel uhi. MPP President in agenna ah, Manipur a 2001 census diklou ahihdan All Political Party meeting in leng genkhomta ahih ban uah, hiai toh kisai a Delimitation bawllouhna dia Supreme Court of India a case khat All Political Party min a file hidan in gen hi. Hiai case toh kisai hearing Supreme court a January 25, 2008 chianga om ding ahihdan leng President in gen hi.
Delimitation Commission a Associate member MLA O.Joy in agenna ah, Delimitation Commission in 2001 census pansan a nasep a sawm teitei leh buaina chial suak lel ding ahihman in kintak a atawpsan dingin gen hi. Manipur kekna dia thil sailouh hoih dingin leng taklang hi. Aban agenna ah, Delimitation Commission a Associate member apang
Manipur apat, amah (O.Joy) chihlouh, Lok Sabha MP nih Manicharanamei, Dr.Th.Meinya, Phungzathang Tonsing, Gaikhangam, Ph.Parijat leh O.Ibobi Singh CM te hidan in leng gen hi. 2001 census pansan a Delimitation bawlna dia Working paper toh kisai velkhomna dia December 10, 2007 chianga Election Commission of India office, New Delhi a meeting om ding hidan inleng O. Joy in taklang hi.
Thudang khat ah, tuni nitaklam dak 5 vel apat CM Secretariat ah Chief Minister makaihna in All Political Party meeting khat neih in om a, tua hun ah hun paisa a 2001 census pansan a AC 60 te Delimitation neih theihlouh dia agensa uh pomkipna neithak ding uhi.
2001 census pansan a Manipur a Delimitation bawl hileh, Valley a Assembly seat 40 te 35 in kiamsuk dinga, singtang a 19 pen 23 in pung dia Kangpokpi unreserved leng ST reserved hidia SC a seat khat leng 2 in pung ding chih ahi.
=============================
Delimitation toh kisai All Political Party meeting ah genkhom 2001 census pansan a Delimitation neih ahihleh buaina chial suak ding - O.Joy
IMPHAL NOV 30: Manipur a 2001 census pansan a Assembly constituency 60 omte a Delimitation neihna ding, Delimitation Commission of India in pan alak touhzel toh kisai in, tuni’n Manipur People's party in Central Committee meeting poimohtak MPP office ah nei ua, tua ah 2001 census diklou ahihman in, hiai dungzui a Manipur a Delimitation neih hithei
lou ding ahihdan leh nan theihtawp a nang ding in thupukna la uh hi’n tuni’n MPP makaite’n thuthaksaite mai ah gen uhi.
Hiai hun ah MPP President Dr. L. Chandramani, MLA O. Joy, MLA Dr. Ng. Bijoy, MLA R.K. Anand leh MLA I. Ibohanbi te kihel uhi. MPP President in agenna ah, Manipur a 2001 census diklou ahihdan All Political Party meeting in leng genkhomta ahih ban uah, hiai toh kisai a Delimitation bawllouhna dia Supreme Court of India a case khat All Political Party min a file hidan in gen hi. Hiai case toh kisai hearing Supreme court a January 25, 2008 chianga om ding ahihdan leng President in gen hi.
Delimitation Commission a Associate member MLA O.Joy in agenna ah, Delimitation Commission in 2001 census pansan a nasep a sawm teitei leh buaina chial suak lel ding ahihman in kintak a atawpsan dingin gen hi. Manipur kekna dia thil sailouh hoih dingin leng taklang hi. Aban agenna ah, Delimitation Commission a Associate member apang
Manipur apat, amah (O.Joy) chihlouh, Lok Sabha MP nih Manicharanamei, Dr.Th.Meinya, Phungzathang Tonsing, Gaikhangam, Ph.Parijat leh O.Ibobi Singh CM te hidan in leng gen hi. 2001 census pansan a Delimitation bawlna dia Working paper toh kisai velkhomna dia December 10, 2007 chianga Election Commission of India office, New Delhi a meeting om ding hidan inleng O. Joy in taklang hi.
Thudang khat ah, tuni nitaklam dak 5 vel apat CM Secretariat ah Chief Minister makaihna in All Political Party meeting khat neih in om a, tua hun ah hun paisa a 2001 census pansan a AC 60 te Delimitation neih theihlouh dia agensa uh pomkipna neithak ding uhi.
2001 census pansan a Manipur a Delimitation bawl hileh, Valley a Assembly seat 40 te 35 in kiamsuk dinga, singtang a 19 pen 23 in pung dia Kangpokpi unreserved leng ST reserved hidia SC a seat khat leng 2 in pung ding chih ahi.
===================================
Who was in the dock during the 2001 census in Manipur?
By : H. Benjamin Mate
In my previous articles I dealt at length on issues of delimitation process to facilitate readers’ awareness on the sinister designs of the all political parties of Manipur led by the SPF Government to derail the delimitation process and thereby deprived the political rights of the tribal of Manipur bestowed by the Constitution of India under “Delimitation Act 2002.
Unfortunately, the Writ petition filed by me on behalf of various tribal organizations’, namely, ATSUM, KSO, and Kuki Chiefs’ Association and IMTDA etc…… of Manipur in the Imphal Bench of the Guwahati High Court dated December 2006 was not accorded appropriate judgment it rightfully deserved. It is evidenced now that, this was due to calibrated malafide intention and manipulations by the All Political Party Manipur in collusion with the State SPF Government.
The Honorable Guwahati High court instead, passed an order in January 19, 2007 in violation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Census Act & Rules of 1948 to re-count heads in 9 (Nine) sub-division of tribal District Viz, Senapati, Ukhrul and Chandel.
Being aggrieved by the Honorable High Court order of January 19.2007 a Special leave Petition was again filed by me in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on behalf of different tribal organization of Manipur, challenging the Imphal Bench Guwahati High Court order of January 19, 2007, in which the Honorable Supreme Court after a series of hearing on 13/07/2007 finally stayed the Guwahati High Court order as impugned and unsustainable.
In the light of new development, Honorable CM. O.Ibobi led SPF Government on dated 01.08.07 has resolved to reject the 2001 census publication against the Supreme Court order to sabotage the delimitation process in Manipur which is against the spirit and intention of constitution of India and Census Act of 1948. The gross contempt and disregard of constitutional provisions shown by the incumbent and mainstream government of Manipur goes against the very spirit of peaceful co-existence is but condemnable.
The Registrar General and Census Commissioner has stated in their counter Affidavit filed in the Supreme Court that, the Guwahati High Court has erred in allowing the Writ Petition of All Political Party Manipur under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without appreciating the fact that the evidence in the present case is in question which cannot be verified at this stage by any means by the court intervention. Even by appointing the Special Commission, the population count that existed as on 1st March, 2001 in the sub-divisions under dispute, cannot be verified in the field after a lapse of 6 (six) years due to population and demographic changes on account of new births, deaths and inbound and out-bound migration of people. As such, the order dated 19.01.2007 passed by the Guwahati High Court Imphal Bench in Writ petition (PIL) No.16/2005 is not sustainable.
It also stated that the Imphal Bench Guwahati High Court has erred seriously by passing an order which is without taking into account the scheme of Census taking under the provisions of Census Act, 1948. Census is not merely counting of heads; it is total process of collecting, compiling, evaluating, analyzing and publishing or otherwise disseminating demographic, economic and social data pertaining, at a specified time, to all persons in a country or in a well delimited country. Besides, individual enumeration which is one of the essential features, there are three other requirements of census. These are Universality, Simultaneity at a defined periodicity and with a reference date. Thus, O Ibobi led SPF Government should know that, Census by definition is not a mere head count but a much larger statistical exercise to collect data on population at the same time and with defined periodicity. In India, the census has been conducted decennially and information has been collected on the number and characteristics of population across all geographical and administrative units under the provisions of the census Act, 1948 and the Census Rules 1990 made thereunder.
The process of census taking begins with a notification by the Central Government declaring its intention to conduct census under Sections 3 of the census Act 1948. This is followed by the appointment of census commissioner and the Director of Census Operation by the Central Government under the Act, census taking is a joint effort of both the central and state Governments. Whereas, the Director of Census Operation of the State is appointed by the Central Government under section 4(1) of the Act, the Census functionaries at district and lower levels are appointed by the State Government under Section 4(2) of the Census Act. Who else was there in the dock except the Mr. O.Ibobi lead SPF Government when Census 2001 was conducted in the State of Manipur? The Manipur State Cabinet decision of 1st August, 2007 was self contradictory and a disgrace for the whole State.
There is no provision to conduct re-census in the Census Act, 1948 once the area has been censused with reference to a date and time. Section 17A which has been added after 1993 amendment, confers powers to central Government to extend the provisions of this Act, with such restrictions and modifications as if thinks fit, to pretests, pilot studies, census of houses which precede population count and post enumeration checks and evaluation studies as may be deemed necessary for the purpose of census. The Hon’ble High Court also has erred in not taking into account the broad guidelines for entertaining the PIL as laid down by the Apex Court in Gurubayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and. – Vs – (2003) 7 Sec 546. C.K.Rajan and others. As per the Apex Court’s guidelines “the dispute between two warring groups purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as PIL. In the present case, the High Court has not appreciated the fact that there are two rival groups pursuing claims which are contradictory. The Manipur Pradesh Congress Committee (Congress-I) and others who have filed the present PIL praying for cancellation of census results on one side. And so are the Naga People’s Organization on the other, who has filed a writ Petition ©’ No.3226/2006 in the Guwahati High Court at Guwahati praying for restoration of provisional census results.
The Register General and Census Commissioner of India while releasing the final result of the Census of India, 2001 for India and the State of Manipur under Rule 5(1) (e) of the Census Rules, 1990 had cancelled the 2001 provisional census results in respect of three sub-division of Senapati district Viz., Mao,Maram, Paomata and Purul which were found to be unreliable after detailed demographic analysis and physical examination of census records. However, the Register General and census Commissioner of India had provided the estimated population figures in respect of the three sub-divisions as there is no provision in the census Act, 1948 to conduct re-census, once an area is censused with reference to a particular date and time. The Registrar General and census Commissioner of India has acted under the Provisions of the Census Act, 1948 and the census Rules 1990 as amended from time to time. Hence, once the Census final publication is publishes there is no provision under Census Act for considering the Provisional census reports or re-census.
These are trying times for the peoples of Manipur. The land we so-called …“Jewels that dwelth the land.” Our clarion call of pan-Manipur should be furthered. This land of bounty should be vetted from anti-nationals and anti-people. At these hours let us unite our efforts in furthering peace and prosperity and to let our “thousand flowers bloom.”
---------------------------------------------
The writer is the petitioner on the Delimitation issue in the Supreme Court of India on behalf of different tribal organization of Manipur.
Source: Imphal Free Press
====================================
Assembly in 2001 census phiat ; re-census bawl di’n thupuk;
Thupukna deihlouh ziakin Singtangmi MLA 10 potkhia
Imphal August 1: Manipur a 2001 census report dungzui a, Delimitation Commission of India in, Manipur sunga assembly segment omte proportionate representation omtheihna dia, re-adjustment bawlna dia Delimitation September 30, 2007 tan a hihfel dingin thusuah bawl hi. Hichibang om theihna bel, Manipur a All Political Party palai ten, 2001 census dungzui a Delimitation bawl hithei lou dingin, Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, ah PIL file a bawl dungzui un GHC in phiat a, himahleh Indo-Myanmar Trinal Development Association in Supreme Court ah chouna bawl uhi. Hiai dungzui in Supreme Court in GHC thutanna pen khawl sak in Delimitation Commission of India in, Manipur a Delimitation bawl dingin thusuah bawl hi. Hiai thu toh kisai in, tuni a assembly ah, Manipur Chief Minister O. Ibobi Singh in Government Business dan in, Manipur a Census report 2001 phiatna ding leh, census thak hihna ding a Inpi in thupukna lakna dingin polut hi.
Chief Minister in move abawl dan in, ' to order a fresh Census for the whole of Manipur by cancelling the Census 2001' 'impose a moratorium on all the delimitation exercises until the fresh census figure is published' pending publication of the fresh census, status quo of the existing Assembly constituencies be maintained and the Delimitation (Amendment) Act, 2003 (no. 3 of 2004) be executed' chih ahi.
CM in agenbehna ah, 2001 census dungzui in, Manipur a district khenkhat sunga sub division bangzah hiam ah, population abnormal growth leh abnormal low ahihdan muhsuah theih in om a, hichibang nungin re-census dingin panlak himahleh re-census bawlna mun khenkhat ah mipi'n kithuahpihna pelou ahihdan leng gen hi. Tunung a ding khualna a athak vilvel a census bawlthak kul ahihman in, Inpi a kuapeuh in hiai dia kithuahpihna pedingin leng ngetna nei hi. Chief Minister in aban agen zelna ah, Govt. of India in census pen adik chi henla, huai pansan a delimitation bawl ding chi leh kua'n anang thei dia chih ngaihdan leng gen hi.
Hiai tungtang ah, NPP President V. Hangkhanlian Thanlon MLA in bel, Delimitation process omsak ding, abnormal growth chihna munte singtang gam district ahihziakin, hiai thu Hill Areas Committee a piakkhiak hoih asak dan leng gen hi. Dr. Khasim Ruivah Chingai MLA leh Morung Makunga Chandel MLA ten' Census athak a bawl hitheilou ding leh, Delimitation process apai ding bangtak a paisak a September 30, 2007 sunga zoh hoihsak dan gen uhi. 2001 census diklou ahihleh bangziaka, ahuntak a bawl dik hilou, govt. in suahkhinta huainunga 9th assembly election bang leng neih zoh hita a, tua census diklou bawl thak ding chih pom theilou ahihdan uh leng gen uhi. Chandel MLA Morung Mokunga in agenbehna ah, 2001 census zoh a re-census bawlna ah Chandel a population kilam dang tuanlou ahihdan leng gen hi. Dr. Khasim Ruivah in Delimitation commission hun July 31, 2007 beita himahleh Manipur tel a India a state thum vel a Delimitation process zoh louhte September 30, 2007 tan zohtheihna dia Delimitation Commission in Govt. of India a ahun uh extend sak dia anget uh phalsak ahihnunga, Delimitation process apai ding bangtak a paisak hoih zaw ding hidan in gen a, Census om nawn ma 2025 tan tua 2001 census paitouh hoih ding hidan in leng gen hi.
Hiai thu toh kisai a kiselna sangtak a om nung in re-census bawl a, tua zohchiang a Delimitation bawl ding in Assembly in thupuk a, hiai toh kisai a Government of India a re-census bawl ding a ngatna piaklut pah leng lemsa uhi.
Hiai thupukna toh kisai in singtangmi MLA 10; Dr. Khasim Ruivah, K. Raina, V. Hangkhanlian, T. Hangkhanpau, Thangminlian, W. Keishing, A. Newmai, Danny Shaiza, Marung makunga leh Thangkholun ten Inpi potsan uhi.
================================
Cabinet in Census report- 2001 pomlou
Imphal july 30: Ninth Manipur Legislative Assembly a, emergency second session zingciang July 31 apat August 2, 2007 tan om ding toh kisai in, tuzinglam in Chief Minister Office ah Cabinet Minister te’n meeting poimohtak nei uhi.
Hiai hun ah, assembly session sunga genkhom ding, Manipur a assembly constituencies te Delimitation bawlna ding a Register of Census in Manipur Census report, 2001 asuah pen pom hithei lou dingin thupuk uhi.
Hiai assemly session hun sungin Salary & Allawances of the Chairman, Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) bill, 2007 leh govt. business leh private member business tuamtuamte genkhom hiding hi.
Hichibang kal ah, Assembly Speaker Dr. S. Budhichandra Singh in, Deputy Speaker teel ahihma, Singjamei MLA I.Hemochandra Singh in Chairman, Committee of Privileges and Ethics, Manipur Legislative Assembly dinmun len dingin thusuah bawl hi.
Delimitation ding toh kisai in, Manipur Chief Minister O. Ibobi Singh in zan nitak in, political leader tuamtuam toh meeting poimohtak khat Law minister Th.Debendra office ah neikhom uhi. Hiai hun ah delimitation issue toh kisai a, govt. dinmun ding nouneltak in genkhom uhi. Hiai meeting ah opposition lam apat MLA O. Joy, Dr. L. Chandramani,
Radhabinod Koijam MLA ban ah Advocate General of Manipur te leng kihel uhi. Assembly Constituency delimitation bawl theih louhna ding jiaka gen a omte bel, 2001 census pansan a bawl hileh, phaijang a AC 40 omte 37 in kiamsuk dinga, singtang a AC 20 omte 23 in pung ding chih ahi.
=============================
Left parties urged to exert pressure on govt, CPI leaders extend support to demand for delinking from delimitation process
By : A Staff Reporter 12/10/2007 1:10:55 AM
IMPHAL, Dec 9: Central leaders of the CPI have assured support to the campaign for delinking of Manipur from the delimitation process in a meeting with the all parties’ delegation from the state on Sunday at New Delhi.
The delegation of all political parties are campaigning for the exemption of Manipur along with other states of the northeast like Assam, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh, which have cases pending on the matter of the 2001 census report, from the purview of the delimitation commission. They are urging for an ordinance at an early date in this regard or otherwise maintenance of the “status quo” in respect of Manipur.
The delegation of the political parties of Manipur led by state chief minister O Ibobi Singh met the CPI leaders AB Bardhan and D Raja at Ajay Bhavan, CPI office at 11.30 am today. They also met CPI (M) leaders like Prakash Karat, national general secretary after the meeting with the CPI leaders, a statement of the NCP general secretary K Sharatkumar on behalf of the all political parties team from Manipur said.
The all political parties delegation comprised of all associate members of the delimitation commission for Manipur except Gaikhangam, president MPCC and Md. Hellaluddin, MLA and leader of Legislature Party RJD, a member of the delegation.
Gaikhangam, who has been staying at Delhi, mention may be made, arrived at Imphal today while Hellaluddin is in the national capital.
During the meetings, the delegation elaborately explained to the Left leaders the high growth rate of population in some hill districts and low growth rate in the valley districts of the state in the census report 2001 which resulted in its rejection by all political parties of the state.
They also briefed the leaders on their repeated appeal to the Delimitation Commission of India and the Central government as well, not to proceed with the delimitation process on the basis of the “bogus” census report 2001 stating that it was a table managed one.
Stating that since the Delimitation Commission of India had already completed and notified the delimitation process in respect of 25 states of the country, the delegation urged for full cooperation of the Left leaders to pressurize the Union government to exempt the cases in respect of Manipur, Assam, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh from the purview of the delimitation commission by issuing an ordinance.
The delegation also urged support to the demand for maintaining the status quo of Manipur, if the promulgation of an ordinance cannot be materialized by the Central government.
A statement issued on behalf of the all parties delegation said that the Left observed that the case of Manipur and other three states of the north east deserved to be measured by a different yardstick. While observing this, they also maintained that there was no protest against the census report 2001 from other states of the country other than the north eastern states.
Agreeing with the objections put forward by Manipur against the delimitation process which was based on the irregular census report 2001 in the north east states and opinion of state delegation to consider it as priority, the Left leaders, as partners of the UPA government at the Centre, assured maximum support in the de-linking of Manipur from the delimitation process.
Mention may be made that the delegation had also met the Union home minister Shivraj Patil and parliamentary affairs minister Janeshawar Mishra yesterday and submitted memorandums requesting exemption of Manipur from the purview of the delimitation as done in the case of Jammu and Kashmir.
=========================
What ails Manipur — I
By SK Victor
This question pricks the hearts of every citizen of Manipur. My humble appeal to every right thinking person of our society is to give a serious thought on this vexed issue and search for certain emancipatory strategies/alternatives to the prevalent cruel political deception, despotism, nepotism, religious fanaticism, and socio-economic morass. This challenging task, de-finitely requires the hands and minds of the intelligentsia of our society. Time has come for us to step out from the culture of dependency and start meticulous analysis of our problems, for no one knows our problems better than us. Let us start an emancipatory bandwagon. A journey of clear conscience with concerted efforts is the need of the hour. Yes, no human society exists in a vacuum, but we all exist under a well defined, social structure. In India we have democratic political structure (Parliamentary form of Government) and secularism (religious tolerance), mixed economy (socialism & ca-pitalism), and we have fundamental rights. All the existing 28 states, seven Union Territories come under the same social structure.
Comparative study reveals that there exists great socio-economic disparities, ever increasing polarization of social groups amongst Indian so-cieties. In our native state, Manipur it is ‘really very difficult to find appropriate words to describe the prevailing precarious and chaotic political, socio-economic situation, for the whole system is in quagmire. I have been wondering as to why and how is it that the same structure that generates and delivers political stability, economic parities, development of human resources, justice, religious tolerance, and social harmony to the people in other societies surprisingly generates and delivers the opposite to our people ? Is it due to differences in socializa-tion ? Yes definitely it is, for each generation inherits both good and evil political, socio-economic system, beliefs and practices from the precedent generations. And also each generation consciously or unconsciously creates its own problems. However, some die-hard problems and issues of the past often get multiplied in the present. The existing differences in law & order situation, socio-economic status, in short categorization of social groups in to ‘forward’ and ‘backward’ blocks are the results of socialization. That is, the ways in which family values, cultural values of the society are handed down to their children are the determinants of the quality of a society at the given time and space. The same applies to all the rest of the social structural sub-systems. And this is to a great extent inevitable and inexorable, for this is a universal social phenomenon. Therefore, it is not the structure that narrates do-mination, subjugation, socio-economic inequalities etc. etc. but it is the machineries/functionaries of the structure directly or indirectly responsible for the failure of our social systems (in our context). Hence, I don’t support change of structure at this juncture, because the same structure fulfils the aspirations, needs of the people in other societies. This clearly shows that something has gone wrong somewhere within the structure in our society.
In the context of Manipur, one finds it very easy to identify or recognise ‘who is who’ and ‘who get what’. For a better understanding of the issue let us divide the whole state into two blocks: The hill block and the valley block. Theoretically every citizen realise its social, political and economic existence in a democratic set up. Every one is equal before the law. Democracy provides opportunities for fullest expression, exercise of one’s talent, creativity, and personality development, which are clearly adequately guaranteed in a democratic set up like India. This still holds true in many societies, but unfortunately it does not longer hold true in our society.
When we talk about democracy, it inevitably takes us to power and authority sharing between the Hill and Valley blocks and their deniable fact is that the hill people have been deprived of their constitutional provision/rights. Democratic political power and authority are clearly concentrated in the hands of the valley people. For example out of the total 60 seats in the State Legislative Assembly 40 seats are occupied by the valley representing approx. 700 square miles and maximum 25,000 voters constitute a constituency in the valley. Whereas, only 20 seats are given to the Hill people who are representing approx. 8000 sq. miles, and maximum 40,000 constitute a constituency in the hills. This clearly makes the reorganisation of constituency (delimitation) inevitable. When the govt of India approved delimitation of constituencies, the valley people raised hue and cry and attempted their all out efforts to derail, repeal the supreme court verdict. Such an act or attitude of the valley people towards their fellow hill people may be rightly termed as ‘outright infringement on the constitutional rights of the hill people, and open denial of democratic power and authority sharing in nation building is completely inconsistent with the noble slogan ‘Hill-Valley oneness and peaceful co-existence’
Secondly, under Article 371 C of the Indian constitution, provision for formation of Hill areas Autonomous District Council is given. On attaining full-fledged statehood in the year 1972 an Act pertaining to the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council was passed. as a result, the Hill Areas Autonomous District Council had been activated till 1989. Interestingly, it took almost two decades for the Hill people to realise the farcical and ridiculous (provision) Act of 1971 - the popularly elected councillors were reduced to mere clerical staff of the Deputy Commissioner of the district, as a result, the Hill Areas Autonomous District Council was dissolved in the year 1989. And in turn the hill people demanded Sixth Schedule of the Indian constitution which was strongly opposed by the Valley people. However in view of the ever increasing needs of democratic decentralization of power & authority, a directive was issued by the then chief Minister of Manipur, Rishang Kei-shing, whereby under the aegis of the then Chairman, Hill Areas committee, Dr. M Horam a committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Professor BK Roy Burman in the year 1995. This committee drafted a proposal under the caption “Social Policy” and placed to the HAc and Manipur Legislative Assembly. Consequently, a Bill was passed by the Assembly which was submitted to the Governor of Manipur for his assent, and eventually the Bill received his assent on 31st Sept. 2000 and became an Act (The Manipur Hill Areas Autonomous District Council Act, 2000) under Manipur No.ll of 2000.
However, in the year 2006, the valley people clandestinely made the Act repealed deliberately by-passing the whole de-mocratic & legal processes. Such a surreptitious activities, sincerely speaking, do not augur well for all of us. I sincerely don’t know as to why and how the valley people are so indifferent and rude to their fellow hill people. And I don’t foresee any adverse repercussion upon the valley people by allowing the hill people to peacefully enjoy their constitutional rights. I rather foresee irrevocable violent conflict between the hill and valley people in the near future. I am very much emphatic about the impending socio-economic, and political upheaval in our society if we don’t mitigate and mend our ways today. I don’t think the hill people are pestering nor demanding which does not belong to them. There is no harm in mutual respect, interdependence, sharing and peaceful co-existence.
Thirdly, as I pointed out earlier one can easily identify and recognise ‘who is who’ and ‘who gets what, how, where, and why’ in this tiny state. For example almost 90% of the govt offices are manned by valley people. The so called reservation of seats for the SC/ST under ‘policy of positive discrimination’ seems to be locked inside the drawers of the concerned authorities. Hundreds of seats in many departments had been surreptitiously filled in by undeserving persons, many deserving ser-vants belonging to SC/ST are often denied promotion e.g. Shri C. Peter (IPS) is one of the latest victims of subjugation. We should be careful that by nature when people are denied development of their personality and suppress their mobility, high intensity conflict may ensue. Moreover, hill people have become very much aware of where, when, how and why crore of rupees, several schemes, projects meant for the hill people have been clandestinely diverted/diverting to the wrong people and department. I don’t deny the involvement of hill people in this illegal activities. Therefore, when I say, scarce resources including human resources development have not been equally used, tapped and distributed as per the rules, I don’t think my findings/statements are erroneous.
Fourthly, looking at the existing infrastructure, we clearly see a lopsided in-frastructural development in this tiny State. Hundreds of contractors, who are, in fact supposed to be important players in nation building, have become unscrupulous players. How many buildings, roads, bridges, dams etc. have been constructed in total negation of the given specifications, or lying incomplete/deserted. And how many funds have been lapsed, or fraudulent withdrawal of money without leaving a single spade mark ? Indeed, government of India has been so generous, and so genuine in its planning policies and programmes to bring our society at par with the rest of the world communities, but it always falls a prey in the hands of the avaricious and unscrupulous contractors. This is the generalised perception of common people towards the contractors. When we maintain a micro analysis we find the scapegoat and sandwiched positions of many contractors, and the illegal nexus, undercurrent between underground groups, politicians, and contractors. For example, a contractor starts doling out money to engineers, politicians/bureaucrats for inclusion of work proposal in the work programme. Next he starts the same illegal procedure, though with a much bigger amount for obtaining work order.
===========================
Delimitation Impact
Even as the grievances of the voters of eight Assembly segments of Thoubal and Jiribam are yet to be addressed, the State seems poised to see a realignment of the 60 Assembly seats and if things are not handled maturely then it could get sticky. As already reported and given wide coverage, the delimitation exercise is to be conducted on the basis of the 2001 census and while delimitation and realignment of Assembly seats is something which has to be accepted under the democracy that we all live in, it is the question of the basis under which the delimitation exercise is to be carried out, that has to be addressed too.
One reason why the proposed delimitation exercise was met with stiff resistance by the State Government and certain political parties, was undoubtedly the abnormal jump recorded in the decadal growth of population of some hill districts. According to the 2001 census, Senapati district recorded a decadal growth of 81.96 percent while Chandel showed a growth of 72.8 percent. It is this overwhelmingly high population growth which the State Government and some political parties found hard to accept and it is precisely because of this that the State Government sent a delegation to New Delhi recently to urge the Chairman of the Delimitation Commission, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Kuldip Singh, to halt the delimitation process.
As things stand today, the delimitation exercise is poised to take off and according to the new arrangement, Imphal East, Imphal West and Bishnupur districts are likely to lose one Assembly seat each while the hill districts of Ukhrul, Senapati and Chandel stand to gain one more seat each. As already hinted, the three seats that are likely to go to the hill districts will not be reserved but left open for any bonafide citizen of Manipur to contest the election.
In the existing arrangement, 19 of the 60 seats are reserved for the ST (Kangpokpi AC is not a reserved seat), one for SC (Sekmai) while the other 40 are open seats, including Kangpokpi. This means that while any bonafide citizen of Manipur can contest in the 40 seats, the 20 seats are reserved for ST and SC candidates. Even with the open status clause, the delimitation exercise will mean that three Assembly seats will go to representatives originally from the hills for election is not only about reserved seats or open seats but about vote banks and in a now ethnically polarized Manipur, the delimitation exercise means that we can expect to see more tribal MLAs in the Assembly from the next election.
There should be nothing wrong with such an arrangement but given the current situation and the ground reality, caution should be exercised to the maximum limit to see that the latest development does not give rise to any unwanted political rumblings, which will go on to mean much more than the mere number of MLAs or the number of ACs of the hill or valley areas. There are mischief mongers galore amongst our midst and each and every single responsible member of our society should ensure that such elements are not given any room to sow the seeds of their agenda.
It may sound a little far fetched at the moment, but perhaps the time has come for the Government to formulate a policy to see how the Assembly segments may be worked out according to some criteria other than the existing one such as Outer and Inner Manipur or hill and valley. In other words, make the electorates of some unreserved seats a mix and equal population, both from the hill and valley areas.
(Courtesy: The Sangai Express)
=======================
Manipur : Delimitation drive evokes protest
The issue of delimitation in Manipur is likely to snowball into a major controversy with the hill districts strongly opposing the move by the Okram Ibobi Singh government to skip the exercise.
An all-party delegation is currently in New Delhi to meet officials of the Delimitation Commission and press for maintaining status quo in the 60 Assembly constituencies in the state. However, the residents of the hill districts have formed a Joint Action Committee (JAC) to counter the move by the state government and political parties.
Following a resolution adopted by an all-party meeting last month, the Ibobi Singh-led delegation met the chairman of the commission, Justice Kuldip Singh and urged him to maintain the existing Assembly segments in the state. The delegation argued that ‘abnormal’ growth of population in some areas of both the hill and valley was unacceptable. As such, if the exercise was carried out on the basis of the 2001 census problems could crop up in the state, they said.
Crying foul over it, the JAC sent a memorandum to the commission chairman to take up the delimitation exercise on the basis of the 2001 census report. It expressed strong opposition to the decisions taken by the Ibobi Singh government and the all-party meeting, saying it was a denial of rights to the hill people.
The memorandum, signed by Ngatangmi Ningshen, secretary of the JAC, said though the hill districts account for 20,086 square km of the total state area of 22,325 square km, the five hill districts had only 20 Assembly seats while the four valley districts had 40.
‘As per the 2001 census, the total population of Manipur is 22,93,041 and as per the norms, each of the 60 Assembly constituencies should be delimited to 38,000 population both in the valley and the hill areas through the ongoing delimitation process in respect of Manipur,’ the memorandum said.
The decision taken by the Secular Progressive Front government and also by the all-party meeting to maintain the status quo of the existing constituencies was ‘simply deprivation of rights’ of the people living in the hill districts, it charged.
Reacting to the all-party meeting decision to include eight Assembly constituencies of the Outer Manipur parliamentary constituency in the Inner constituency while seeking status quo of the existing Assembly segments, the memorandum said it was an injustice to the hill people. The whole move had an ‘ulterior’ motive, it said. It went on to charge that the policy of the government was partisan.
====================
Delimitation Heat
Source: IMPHAL FREE PRESS
Posted: 2007-12-03
Except for four states including Manipur and Nagaland where court cases are pending, the delimitation exercise in the entire country has been completed and put into practice. In Manipur, the controversy is over the 2001 population census which reported an unprecedented rise in population in some hill districts and abnormally low population growth in certain pockets in the valley such as Lamshang, which normally, considering the urbanization process, should have seen much higher growth than the largely rural hills. The consequence of any delimitation on the basis of the 2001 census report would hence be the loss of three constituencies by the valley districts which would be gained by the hills. All efforts to conduct verification census in the specific areas which saw unnatural growth, to clear all doubts have been to no avail, as the matter by then had expectedly become too politicized. But it is a sword that cuts both ways. The valley districts would not like to lose any of its constituencies especially since there is a sense that the census report was not prepared honestly or correctly or both. There have been rumbling and posturing by certain political parties indicative of the likely scenario, should the delimitation actually be put into effect without first a verification of what is believed to be a false data. The trouble with places like Manipur where democracy has not taken roots deep enough is, power sharing is reduced to a raw number game. Otherwise there should not have been any problem either way. If indeed the hill population is shooting up the way the census report said it was, more constituencies should go there. But if on the other hand, serious doubts have been raised about the abnormal growth pattern of population with no credible explanation as to how this happened, without further ado, a verification headcount should have been agreed upon. But alas, Manipur today is beyond its rational self, and have come to be ruled by sectarian emotions.
The possible flaw in the data is one thing, but even if there have been mistakes, under normal circumstances there should have been little to make too much fuss over the matter. The biggest trouble as one sees it is not about where which constituency goes, but about crossing the reservation Rubicon. If three constituencies in the valley come to be incorporated into the hills, it is also would mean three general constituencies would end up as reserved seats, excluding and disenfranchising in the process, non-tribals who fall within these constituencies. A movement the other way around (from the reserved to the non-reserved) would also be objected to given Manipur’s reality, but that would not have caused as much injustice, for there is no clause in the statute book that forbids a tribal from contesting or exercising his franchise in a general seat. The state is already facing this problem in the case of seven assembly constituencies in the Thoubal district which are included in the Outer Manipur Parliamentary constituency. In this case, non tribals in these constituencies have franchise right but not to contest. Even then the injustice is obvious.
Nobody can be sure which way the court cases on the matter would swing, but purely on legality, perhaps the official census document, flawed or otherwise, honest or deceitful, may be given the court’s okay signal. A lot of unrest definitely can be expected whichever way the verdict goes, but one can suggest a way out by way of a half-way-house, and also one which one is convinced is just. Let the three new constituencies be made, and let them have majority tribal voters if the census report says this is the actual population make up, but under no circumstance allow conversion of general seats to reserved seats. That is to suggest, let these new constituencies be overlapping constituencies where there are both tribal and non-tribal voters, and also where both tribals and non-tribals can contest. In many ways, the valley constituencies are like this already. On an optimistic note, maybe this will be a way the impervious psychological wall between the hill and valley, tribal and non-tribal, can be breached. Things however do not always go the ideal way and this is what every sane man’s fear is at the moment. Whatever the outcome, one other prediction is safe. By the time the next decadal census happens in a few years from now, there is going to be an unhealthy contest for numbers, and we may see a population explosion in the state, albeit on paper only.
http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=headline&newsid=1725&typeid=0
==========================
19-member team led by CM to take delimitation issue to Centre
Imphal, December 05, 2007: A meeting of all political parties has decided to send a 19-member delegation of political parties (national as well as regional) operating in the state to New Delhi on December 7 to pressurize the Central authorities not to conduct delimitation work based on “bogus” census report 2001.
The meeting also re-affirmed to continue the struggle by the All Political Party Forum not to allow delimitation works based on the 2001 census to go ahead in the state.
The all political parties meeting held at the chief minister’s bungalow early today reacted to the reports of some MLAs of the state in New Delhi fixing responsibility for any outcome arising out of the proposed delimitation process upon the chief minister.
They had observed that the report was meant to “sabotage” the ongoing efforts of all political parties in the state and to defeat the same.
The controversial census 2001 report came during the tenure of MLA M Hemanta as minister. But instead of fixing responsibility for the same on some people, the political parties in the state were fighting the issue together considering that it was for the state and not for some individuals, the meeting observed and condemned the statement of some people in the media.
Mention may be made that rebel Congress MLAs in a release from New Delhi have said that from the discussion with Justice Kuldip Singh, whom some of them called on, it appears that the only solution lies in issuing an ordinance by the Centre wherein the states like Manipur, Assam, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh are excluded from the delimitation.
The question is whether Ibobi would be able to impress upon the Central government for issuing such an ordinance, the rebels had asked and also said that if any unwanted things happen, the Ibobi led government should be entirely responsible.
‘It’s a big issue which would hurt the interest of the state and talking without the consent of the all political parties campaigning for not conducting of delimitation work based on 2001 census report is an act of irresponsibility,’ the all parties meeting resolved and appealed to refrain talking without authority.
The statement issued by the All Political Party Forum after the meeting reiterated that since the very beginning it was known that the delimitation works in the state was going to be conducted in a wrongful way, and the political parties in the state formed a forum of all political parties and have been giving pressure to all concerned officials, even by going to the Supreme Court.
The forum, All Political Party Forum has been campaigning since 2005 September by calling on the country’s Prime Minister, home minister, delimitation chairman etc. with copies of the resolution of the state Assembly.
The issue of delimitation has again arisen in the state even as a case on the same matter is pending with the Supreme Court after the proposed draft working paper of the delimitation commission of India for the state of Manipur based on the 2001 census was intimated to the associate members of the state in the delimitation committee.
It may be mentioned that the draft working papers on the delimitation of Assembly constituencies in Manipur prepared by the Delimitation Commission proposed to the reduction of the number of unreserved Assembly segments to four, with the number of ST reserved seats to be increased by three and SC reserved seats by one.
Earlier also on December 1, a meeting of the major political parties on Wednesday unanimously rejected the draft working paper of the delimitation commission of India for the state of Manipur based on the 2001 census.
The meeting also insisted the associate members of the delimitation commission for the state to attend the scheduled meeting on December 10 at New Delhi but no other comment came except rejecting the draft working papers.
The meeting which was held at the official bungalow of the chief minister today decided to call on the Prime Minister and Union home minister and chairman of the Delimitation Commission before the scheduled meeting of the working committee of the delimitation commission India for the state of Manipur to be held in New Delhi on December 10.
Today’s meeting also asked all the associate members of the delimitation committee for the state to attend the schedule meeting called by the Delimitation Commission of India with the associate members of delimitation committee from the state and to work out without further comment after putting strong rejection to the draft working papers of delimitation commission for the state.
The delegation will leave on December 7, said a statement issued by NCP on behalf of the all political parties of Manipur today.
The draft plan, mention may be made, was prepared by the commission based on the 2001 census figure which the state government rejected stating it was a “bogus figure”.
The draft work out paper also proposed to increase one Assembly constituency each in the said three hill districts after taking away one each from the valley districts of Imphal east, Imphal west and Bishenpur in the draft work paper.
A case regarding seeking cancellation of the census 2001 and re-conducting of the same is still pending with the Supreme Court and the hearing of the same is scheduled on January 25 next year.
Meanwhile, a release from the Manipur Information Centre said that state chief minister O Ibobi Singh along with 19 representatives of all political parties of Manipur will meet the Central leaders including the Prime Minister of India in connection with delimitation of assembly constituencies of Manipur after they all arrive here on December 7.
The 19 political leaders are Gaikhangam, president, MPCC, Dr. L Chandramani Singh, president, MPP, O Joy Singh, MLA, MPP, W Nipamacha Singh, president, RJD, Md Helaluddin Khan, MLA, RJD, Dr. Y Mohendra Singh, CPI(M), Sarat Salam, state secretary, CPI(M), P Parijat Singh, minister (health), CPI, Dr. M Nara Singh, CPI, Radhabinod Koijam, president, NCP, K Saratkumar Singh, NCP, Dr. S Dhananjoy, president, Samajwadi Party, S Lala Singh, Dr. H.Borbabu Singh, president BJP, Prof. S Tikendra Singh, BJP, W Kulabidhu Singh, ex-MP, president, JD(S), N Dhiren Singh, JD(S), Y Mani Singh, ex-minister, MSCP and M Ibomcha Singh, president , Samata Party.
Source: The Imphal Free Press
===================================
Manipur parties reject draft working paper
From Sobhapati Samom
IMPHAL, Dec 1 – In a significant development, political parties in Manipur have rejected the draft working paper of the Delimitation Commission of India for Manipur based on the 2001 Census and loss of three constituencies in the valley.
Leaders of all the national and regional political parties sat together at the Chief Minister’s conference hall Friday and decided to call on the Prime Minister and Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil before the meeting of the working committee of the Ccommission to be held in New Delhi on December 10.
Friday’s meeting was convened by the Chief Minister O Ibobi Singh despite his indisposed condition and also resolved to hold another round of meeting of all political parties before leaving for New Delhi.
Manipur’s all political parties delegation is likely to leave Imphal for New Delhi either on December 7 or 8 and call on the PM and Home Minister. It had taken a hardline stance against the delimitation of Assembly segments in Manipur on the basis of the 2001 census, which would almost certainly lead to the severe reduction in the number of unreserved Assembly seats of the State.
MPP president, Dr L Chandramani reaffirmed its opposition to the delimitation process taken up without rectification of the 2001 Census.
Political parties took up their rejection move after a local vernacular published a news report to the effect that according to draft working paper the number of unreserved Assembly segments will be reduced by four, while the number of ST reserved seats will be increased by three and SC reserved seats by one.
http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/details.asp?id=dec0207/ne
=============================
Rectify `bogus` 2001 census before delimitation move: MPP
The Imphal Free Press
IMPHAL, Nov 30: The Manipur People`s Party, MPP, has taken a hardline stance against the delimitation of Assembly segments in Manipur on the basis of the 2001 census, which would almost certainly lead to the severe reduction in the number of unreserved Assembly seats of the state.
MPP president, Dr L Chandramani, addressing a press conference today, said the central committee of the Manipur People`s Party met today on the issue, and reaffirmed its opposition to the delimitation process taken up without rectification of the `bogus` 2001 census.
It may be mentioned, a report had appeared in one of the newspapers published here to the effect that draft working papers on the delimitation of Assembly constituencies in Manipur have been prepared by the Delimitation Commission, according to which the number of unreserved Assembly segments will be reduced by four, with the number of ST reserved seats to be increased by three and SC reserved seats by one.
Affirming this, Dr Chandramani said senior MPP leader O Joy Singh, who is an associate member of the state delimitation committee has received the draft working papers from the Delimitation Commission of India.
He said the draft working papers, which is based on the flawed 2001 census, three Assembly segments will go to the hill districts as reserved constituencies, and the number of unreserved Assembly seats in the valley would be reduced to 35. The number of SC reserved seats would increase to two from present single seat.
Dr Chandramani reiterated that his party did not opose the delimitation exercise by the Delimitation Commission of India in the state, but they opposed the process being undertaken based on the flawed 2001 census, regarding which many political parties of the state had repeatedly sought rectification.
The Prime Minister, Union home miniser, and concerned director of census, government of India, and the chairman, Delimitation Commisison of India were all aware that there is an error in the 2001 census of the state, due to the presence of abnormal population growth figures in respect of several hill and valley areas.
Delegates of various political parties of the state have also apprised the Central authorities to perform delimitation in the state only after rectification of the 2001 census, he also pointed out.
MLA O Joy Singh, who was also present, said the attempt of the Centre to enforce delimitation on the state by relying on the flawed 2001 census despite repeated requests to rectify the census beforehand will have serious consequences for the state, and result in an imbalance.
It is be taken as an attempt to disintegrate Manipur by the Centre, O Joy Singh maintained, and said the MPP will be taking a strong stance against the implementation of the delimitation.
MLAs Dr Ng Bijoy, and I Ibohalbi, also addressing the media, said the flawed 2001 census has created demographic imbalance in the state, and will have serious effect in terms of reservation etc.
They also warned that enforcement of the delimitation against the wishes of the people could lead to a constitutional crisis in the future, as the state Assembly had unanimously passed a resolution that delimitation in the state must be done only after the rectificationof the 2001 census.
They also observed MPP has taken a clearcut stance against the current delimitation exercise by the Delimitation Commission of India based on the 2001 census and will continue to give strong pressure to the Centre for halting the delimitation exercise immediately.
The party would launch serious steps against the Central government if their demand is neglected, they maintained
http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=headline&newsid=40255&typeid=1
====================================
Delimitation work resumes in Manipur
Manipur Information Centre
NEW DELHI, Aug 21: The Delimitation Commission of India has so far issued orders in respect of 25 states/Union Territories of the country. Replying to a question from Shantaram Laxman Naik, MP, Union minister of law and justice HR Bhardwaj in a wriiten reply in Rajya Sabha on Monday stated that the 25 states in which the delimitation had been completed were Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, National Capital Territory of Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Orissa, Pondicherry, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.
The Gauhati High Court passed its two different interim orders to suspend the delimitation work in Arunachal Pradesh and Assam. In another interim order, the Gauhati High Court directed the Delimitation Commission not to publish the final order in respect of Nagaland. Further, in respect of Manipur, the work of delimitation had been resumed after the stay given by the Supreme Court on the order dated 19.01.2007 of the Gauhati High Court.
The term of the Delimitation Commission has been extended till July 31, 2008 to complete its work.
The population criteria for undertaking delimitation were set down by the parliament. The government, however, received representations challenging the delimitation exercise on various grounds including inter alia that it would threaten the ethnic structure of political representation of north-eastern states and some other states as well.
http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=headline&newsid=39000&typeid=1
=========================
.: 7 :-
CHAPTER-jj
DELIMITATION OF CONSTITUENCIES
Constitutional ban on delimitation:
In. 1976, articles 81, 82 and 170 of the Constitution which, as originally enacted, provided, inter, alia, for the readjustment of seats and fresh delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies after each decennial census, were amended by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act to provide that until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2000 have been published, it shall
not be necessary to readjust the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the total number of seats in the State Legislative Assemblies and the division of States into territorial constituencies (both Parliamentary and Assembly). Consequently, subject to any changes as a result of special laws of Parliament, such as those relating to formation of new States or reorganization of States and* additions to the list of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes and Consti-r tutional amendments, the delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly*
constituencies as provided in the Delimitation of Parliamentary and. Assembly Constituencies Order, 1976, on the basis of the 19?l-Cen.sus figures will continue to be effective until th? fresh delimitation as
contemplated to be undertaken after the publication of .the figures for".
the first Census taken after the year 2000 A.D.
SPECIAL LAWS AND CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT:
In 1986, Parliament passed two special laws, one for the
establishment of the State of Mizoram, namely, the State of Mizoram
Act, 1986 and the other for the establishment of the State of Arunachal
Pradesh, namely, the State of Arunachal Pradesh Act, 1986. These
Acts provide for the delimitation of the Assembly constituencies of
the States by the Election Commission. In 1987, Parliament passed
a special law providing for the reorganization of the Union Territory
of Goa, Daman and Diu, namely, the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganization".
Act, 1987, which provided for the establishment of a new State of Goa
and for a new Union Territory of Daman and Diu. The Act also provides
for the delimitation of the Assembly constituencies of the new State
of Goa by the Election Commission.. The Constitution (Fif ty-Seventh
Amendment) Act, 1987 was passed by Parliament to provide for increased
representation to Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assemblies of
the States of Arunachai Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaiand.
Parliament also enacted the Constitution (Scheduled Tribe Order) Amendment
Act, 1987 to add to the list of Scheduled Tribes in Vieghalaya.The
Representation of the People (Third Amendment) Act, 1987 was enacted
by Parliament to specify the number of seats which shall be reserved
for the Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assemblies of the States
of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland. The consequent
work of determination of the Assembly constituencies in the States
of Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland in which seats shall be reserved
for the Scheduled Tribes was entrusted to the Election Commission
•through amendments made in the Representation of the People Act,
1950 by the Representation of the People (Second Amendment) Act,
1987.
DELIMITATION OF ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCIES
IN THE STATE OF MIZORAM:
The work relating to delimitation of Assembly constituencies
in the State of Mizoram had to be completed as expeditiousiy as possible
as the State of Mizoram Act contemplated the constitution of a
new Legislative Assembly for the State on the date of the formation
of the State itself. The work connected with the delimitation of constituencies,
revision of electoral rolls and the conduct of general election
for constituting the new Assembly had thus to be completed within
a very short time.
V *he State of Mizoram Act provided that the total number
of seats in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Mizoram to be
filled by persons, chosen by direct election from assembly constituencies
shall be forty and "hat the Election Commission shall distribute the
seats to single -.-nemb-.r. territorial constituencies and delimit them having
regard to the provisions of the Constitution and to the following
provisions: I
(a) All constituencies shall, as far as practicable, be geographically
compact areas and in delimiting them, regard
shall be had to physical features, existing boundaries
of administrative units, facilities of communication and
public convenience; and
S) Constituencies in which seats are reserved for the Scheduled
Tribes shall, as far as practicable, be located in
areas where a proportion of their population to the total
is the largest.
The Ack required the Election Commission to associate with itself as
associate members the sitting member of the House of the People representing
the Parliamentary constituency of Mizoram, namely, Shri Lalduhoma,
M.P. and..;such of the six^ members of the Legislative Assembly of the
• Q •
then existing Union Territory of Mizoram as the Speaker thereof may
nominate* The Speaker of Mizoram Legislative Assembly, vide his communication
dated the 29th September, 1986, nominated the following
six MLAs:-
(0
(if)
(iii)
(iv)
(v) i
(vi) ,
Brig.
Shri
Shri
Shri
Shri
Shri
T. Sailo.
3. Thanguama
M.Z. Hiphei.
Vanlainghaka.
Zalawma.
Liansuama.
As Brig.Sailo could not accept the nomination on account of ill-health,
the Speaker subsequently nominated Shri Zairemthanga as Associate
Member in his place. As the delimitation of the constituencies had to be
done on the basis of the 1971-popuiation figures, the Commission reformulated,
in the first instance, with the assistance of the officers from
the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Mizoram the data as to
population as ascertained at the 1971-Census in terms of the latest
administrative units and collected other necessary statistical data and
maps for preparation of the working paper containing delimitation of
the forty assembly constituencies. The working paper was prepared
and sent out to the Associate Members on the 2*fth October, 1986 with
a request that they should attend a meeting in the Office of the Commission
on the 18th November, 1986 for discussion on the working paper
and for preparing the draft proposal for the Commission. Ail the
Associate Members attended the meeting. Thanks to the willing cooperation
of the Associate Members, the meeting which commenced
at about 10 A.M. continued till 11 P.M. The suggestions of the
Associate Members were carefully considered. Though a substantial*
measure of consensus could be reached, it was found not feasible
to accommodate all their suggestions within the guidelines for delimitation
as given in fhe State of Mizoram Act. The Commission's
proposals, as modified after discussion with the Associate Members
together with the dissenting proposals of the Associate Members were
published in the Official Gazette (Extraordinary) of the Gazette of
India as well as the Gazette of Mizc^am on the 26th November,
1986. The last date for receipt of objections and suggestions from
public was fixed as 11th December, 1986.. A Camp Office of the
-* 10:-
Commission was opened ac Aizawl to receive the objections and
suggestions from the public. About fifty representations were received
from the public. Copies of the same were circulated to the Associate
Members for their information by the Camp Office and for considering
the representations, the Commission held public sittings at Saiba,
Lunglei and Aizawl on 15th, 16th and 17th December, 1986 respectively.
Wide publicity was given to the Commission's public sittings and
the persons who submitted representations were individually informed
of the sittings. Apart from the persons who sent their representations,
a number of persons representing different political and other
groups made oral submissions to the Commission at the public sittings.
After the public sittings, the Commission had a final round
of meeting with the Associate Members on the 18th December,
1986 at Aizawl for consideration of the Commission's draft proposals,
the dissenting proposals of the Associate Members and the various
suggestions and objections made at the public sittings. The various
suggestions which were in accordance with the guidelines provided
in the State of Mizoram Act, that is to say, suggestions for reducing
the disparities in the size of the constituencies in terms of population
and suggestions made with a view to equalising the population
on grounds of physical features, boundaries of administrative units,
communication facilities, geographical compactness or public convenience,
were accepted and the suggestions which were put mainly
from the point of vi*w of political or individual interest were
not accepted. The Commission's Order containing the delimitation
of the lorty assemblv constituencies of Mizoram was published
in the Official Gazette on the 30th December, 1986.
During the Chief Ejection Commissioner's visit to Mizoram
in connection with the delimitation work, representatives of students
met him on 14.12.1986 at Aizawl and represented that all the forty
seats allotted to the State of Mizoram should be reserved for the
Scheduled Tribes. It was explained to them that whereas all the
thirty seats in the then Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory
of Mizoram were general, under the provisions of the State of Mizoram
Act, 1986, thirty-eight, out of the forty seats would be reserved
for the Scheduled Tribes. It was also explained to them that the
Commission had to act in accordance with the law and under the'
law as it stood then, only thirty-eight seals could be reserved for
the Scheduled Tribes. An assurance was also given to them that
their point of view would be communicated to the Government
of India in due course*
DELIMITATION OF ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCIES IN THE
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Unlike the State of Mizoram Act, 1986, which required
'the holding • of a General Election [aftei^ completion of the work
relating to delimitation of Assembly constituencies and revision
of rolls] in such manner as to enable the new Legislative Assembly
•of •• that State to • function as from the date of establishment of
the State, the State of Arunachal Pradesh Act, 19S6, like other
~: 11:-
-earlier enactments relating to formation _of new States^ provided
for a transitional arrangement by way of a provisional Legislative
Assembly consisting of the elected members of the then existing
Union Territory of Arunachai Pradesh up to 21.3.1990. Thus, the
Act allowed more than adequate time for completion of (the work
relating to the delimitation of the Assembly constituenck'j in the
State.
The State of Arunachai Pradesh Act provided thatkhe total
number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Xrunachal
Pradesh to be filled by persons, chosen by direct elec; on from
assembly constituencies shall be forty and that the Election Commission
shall distribute the seats to single-member territorial const tuer;cies.
The guidelines for delimiting the constituencies as provided in the
Act are th? same as those provided in the State of Mizoram Act.
The Act a.so required the Election Commission to associate with
itself as Associate Members the sitting members of the House of
the People representing the Parliamentary constituencies of the
State, namely, (1) Shri P.K. Thungon, M.P., (2) Shri Wangpha Lowang,
M.P. and sjch six of the members of the Arunachai Pradesh Legisia-
. • s
Tive Assembly as the Speaker thereof may nominate. The Speaker
oi the Arunachai Pradesh Legislative Assembly, vide his communication,
dated the 10th March, 1987, nominated the following six
members of the Assembiy:-
(i) Shri Todak Basar (Minister).
(iiV Shri T.L. Rajkumar (Speaker)
tin) Shri Tsering Tashi (Minister)
(tv) Shri Tadak Dulom (Minister)
(v) Shri Gyati Takka and
(vi) Kumari Komoii Masang.
The delimitation of the constituencies has to be on the basis of
the 1971-population figures and, accordingly, the data as to population
as ascertained at the 1971-Census was reformulated with reference
to the latest administrative units and other necessary statistical
data and maps for preparation of the working paper containing
delimitation of the forty Assembly constituencies were also collected.
Thereafter, the Commission prepared a working paper and the same
v/as sent to the Associate Members on the 21st August, 1987 with
the request that they should attend a meeting in the office of the
Commission on the 5th October, 1987 for discussion on the working
paper and for preparing the draft proposals of the Commission.
In the meantime, the Commission was informed about the denrund
for increasing the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly
of Arunachai Pradesh from forty to sixty. The Commission accordingly
decided to posx/one the consideration of the working paper pending
the decision oi the Government with respect to the said demand.
http://eci.gov.in/Eci_Publications/books/deli/ECI-Report-86-87.pdf
=====================
Enumerators Must Explain
Source: IMPHAL FREE PRESS
Posted: 2007-08-13
The bad blood over the delimitation issue resulting out of the dispute over the authenticity of the 2001 census report is, to say the least, too much ado about nothing. If there is something abnormal and reasonable doubts that there were flaws in it have arisen, the simplest remedy is to hold another headcount. Considering the kind of population figure that we are dealing with here, this should not be too much trouble. In the hot contest for political one-up-man-ship between the various communities in the state, the intent of a second census exercise, if at all, may be attributed to vested interests, as much as the manner in which the initial report is seen as artificially inflated to further certain other agenda. This can however be overcome if neutral agents and officials from a third state were to supervise. If the government as well as the census commission are willing, the expenses involved too should not be too much of a hurdle either. At this moment, it does seem this is exactly the case, with none other than the Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh himself assuring that pending a resolution to the controversy, there would be no delimitation of Assembly constituencies in the state.
To confirm that something is indeed wrong or otherwise in the present population figures, there are yet other existing and current enumerations, official and unofficial, to compare with. The electoral roll is one such. Now that photo identity cards are being issued to those in the electoral roll, there are much less chances of wilful and sinister duplications. There are also other records like those maintained by grassroots bodies such as the Anganwadis to refer to, although here too the pressures to inflate numbers is tangible, hence may not be accurate. In the hills, the number of households listed as liable for house tax should again be a guide to make an estimate of the population. If all these figures are reconcilable to an acceptable margin of differences, maybe the current census figure is not way off the mark, but if on the other hand, these figures are found to be too widely disparate to be tallied, then it must be agreed that something did go seriously wrong.
But the one question that for some reasons has not been addressed enough is, if there is such an extraordinary jump or slump in the population growth rates in different pockets of the state, should not those who were responsible for collecting and tabulating these numbers be asked to explain. If all the problems the state is faced with currently on the census issue is on account of either incompetence, or worse still lethargy, of these employees of the government, shouldn’t they be penalised? The census report is a very vital document, with profound implications on drawing up blueprints on the directions the nation’s economy and politics are to be steered, hence tampering with this for whatever the reason, cannot be treated as a trivial offence. Already a stormy Assembly session has been a direct consequence of this controversy; a joint delegation of political parties in the state has had to rush to New Delhi to point out to the relevant authorities why the 2001 census in the case of Manipur raises doubts of authenticity, expending precious money and time; more than all this, the issue has been the cause of more bad blood in the strained relations between the hills and valley. After all this, those who committed this mistake, or crime as the case may turn out to be, cannot be exonerated easily if there are no credible and acceptable explanations. We wonder why the government has not begun such a query.
Whatever is the final outcome, one thing is pertinent. If a delimitation of constituencies must go ahead on the basis of the 2001 census, since in all likelihood the boundaries between the reserved and open seats would be breached in three new constituencies, to ensure that nobody loses his democratic voting or contesting rights, these new constituencies must remain open seats. But before any such step is taken, why must anybody object to another census in the whole state, or at least in the areas where population growth rates have been abnormal.
http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=headline&newsid=1634&typeid=0
====================
Delimitation of Constituencies Issue
Advani assures support to Manipur all party team:
Imphal, Dec 10: Delegates of the state all political party forum currently in New Delhi to campaign for delinking Manipur from the delimitation process met with the Opposition leader of the Lok Sabha, LK Advani on Monday seeking his support for their demand seeking a halt to the delimitation process in the state.
The all party delegation briefed the BJP leader on various aspects of the controversial issue of delimitation in the state, and made it clear that carrying forward delimitation in Manipur on the basis of the ‘bogus’ 2001 census report would result in undesirable consequences, according to a statement of the NCP general secretary K Sharatkumar on behalf of the all political parties delegation.
The BJP leader has assured the delegation that he would suggest to the Central government to convene an all political parties meet to consider the delegation’s demands, particularly for delinking the states of Manipur, Nagaland, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh, which all have outstanding issues pertaining to the 2001 census report, from the current process of delimitation.
The all party delegation, led by Manipur chief minister O Ibobi Singh, was due to meet the BJP president Rajnath Singh, Congress president Sonia Gandhi and the Prime Minister later on Monday, according to the statement.
The all party delegation has also expressed concern over the failure of MPCC president Gaikhangam to attend the meeting convened by the Delimitation Commission today along with associate members from Manipur, to discuss the delimitation work in the state, particularly the proposals contained in the draft working papers prepared by the commission.
Sharatkumar’s statement noted that Gaikhangam’s absence from the meeting was despite the earlier resolution adopted by the All Political Parties Forum to the effect that all associate members of the delimitation committee from Manipur should compulsorily attend Monday’s meeting.
An explanation would be sought for Gaikhangam’s absence from the meeting, the statement added.
Source: The Imphal Free Press
========================
PM in favour of re-census, delimitation freeze: O Ibobi
The Imphal Free Press
IMPHAL, Aug 9: Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh has responded favourably to the plea of the all political delegation from Manipur for conducting a fresh census and freezing the delimitation process in the state, chief minister Ibobi Singh said.
Speaking to mediapersons this afternoon at a specially convened press conference, chief minister O Ibobi Singh said during the meeting with the state delegation yesterday, the Prime Minister has assured that due consideration would be given to the stance of the political parties of Manipur on the problems that have come up with regard to the delimitation process, and all measures would be taken to ensure that these problems are settled peacefully.
The CM returned to Imphal this afternoon with other members of the all political party delegation which had called on the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and other Central leaders in New Delhi on the delimitation issue.
Briefing the media on the outcome of the trip, the chief minister said a memorandum signed by 18 representatives of various political parties, had been submitted to the Prime Minister, and also to UPA chief Sonia Gandhi and the head of the delimitation commission, Kuldip Singh highlighting the errors in the 2001 census, and raising the demand to hold a fresh census for the state, to impose a moratorium on delimitation exercises, and maintaining status quo of the existing Assembly constituencies until the fresh census figure is published.
He said the Prime Minister, who acknowledged that errors with the 2001 census figures had also been reported from other states, assured that every effort would be made to avoid the problems that would be created if the delimitation process goes ahead on the basis of faulty census figures.
During their meeting with her, the UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi counselled the political delegation to coordinate with the Union home minister to settle the issue so that problems do not arise in the future.
Reiterating the stance of the state’s political parties, the CM stressed that accuracy of the 2001 census figures was seriously in doubt, because of the abnormally high and abnormally low population growths reported in some areas of the state.
He maintained they are not opposing the delimitation process because of the fear that valley areas may lose some assembly segments to the hill districts. Their point is that delimitation should be done only after the abnormal growths in hill and valley areas are verified, he said.
This is why they have sought cancellation of the census 2001 and sought for a recensus, he said.
He noted that similar problems were reported in the Nagaland, where Dimapur recorded abnormally high population growth, while Mokokchung saw abnormally low growth.
There are similar problems in Assam because of inflow of migrants from Bangladesh in the Barak Valley. There are also problems in Arunachal Pradesh, he said.
He said census enumerators appear not to have done their work properly, and asserted that when recensus is carried out, it has to be done transparently.
MPP president Dr L Chandramani, RJD president W Nipamacha, MPCC president Gaikhangam, BJP president H Borbabu, prof. Mohendro of the CPI(M), ex-MLA Dr M Nara, ex-MLA, Y Mani, MLA Surchandra, and ex-Speaker S Dhananjoy also attended the press meet.
http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=headline&newsid=38875&typeid=4
==================
Much More...........................
No comments:
Post a Comment