What's Common Between Manipur And Bangladesh? Unrest Triggered by Judicial Missteps

There's one thing common to the crises in Bangladesh and India's Manipur — the extraordinarily dangerous triggers coming from the judiciary.

Bangladesh is in turmoil. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has left the country after the country witnessed days of upheaval and violence.

The situation in nearby Manipur is now relatively calmer, but for much of last year, Manipur, too, was in the throes of ethnic violence.

Both Manipur and Bangladesh were enjoying periods of relative stability until one day pronouncements by the courts in Imphal and Dhaka triggered a chain of gruesome events.

At the heart of Bangladesh’s crisis lies the quota system introduced by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, father of Sheikh Hasina.

Given below is a brief timeline of events leading to the High Court order that set off the trouble in Bangladesh:

Bangladesh

2018: A government circular was issued, abolishing quotas in government jobs.

Quotas before abolition: 56 per cent of government jobs were reserved.

• 30 per cent for children and grandchildren of 'mukti joddhas' (freedom fighters)

Allegations during the quota period

• Misuse of quotas: Allegations abound that quotas were being misused and jobs were being sold to undeserving candidates.

5 June 2024: The High Court struck down the 2018 government circular that abolished quotas.

After The Ruling

Students from various universities launched protests against the High Court order. Soon, other forces joined in the protests.

On 5 August, the protests led to Prime Minister Hasina leaving the country. An interim or caretaker administration was not sworn in at the time of this writing.

For anyone aware of the sensitivity around the issue, the Bangladesh High Court order was a shocking and needless incursion into an issue that primarily should have been left to the executive. 

The main contention that Bangladeshi students had with the freedom fighter quota was that it had been going on for too long. Two generations had already benefited from it, and giving it to a third would mean compromising the future of deserving students.

Hasina, too, was aware of students’ concern and anger towards the quotas, which is why she abolished them in 2018.

Remarkably, even after one month of its order and continuing nationwide protests, the Bangladesh High Court had not published the judgement for civil society to understand the reasoning behind it.

Though the Bangladesh Supreme Court reversed the High Court order in July 2024, the damage had been done.

Manipur, India

More than 600 kilometres away in Manipur, India, a similar lack of due diligence severely disrupted the state's peace.

On 27 March 2023, the Manipur High Court pronounced a decision asking the state to consider fulfilling a long-standing demand to give Scheduled Tribe status to the Metei community in the state.

The order said that the state of Manipur “shall consider the case of the petitioners for inclusion of the Meetei/Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe list, expeditiously, preferably within a period four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

In response to this order and alarmed by the four-week deadlines, Kuki groups organised demonstrations and protests, which quickly spiralled to a violent conflict between the Kuki and Meitei communities. 

More than a year later, violence continues, requiring constant interventions by the armed forces to maintain order.

When the matter went to the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) remarked that a High Court does not have the power to direct the state about the inclusion of any tribe in the ST list.

Article 342 of the Indian Constitution clearly states that a notification for the inclusion of ST can be amended only by a law of Parliament.

Recalling the State of Maharashtra versus Milind case, CJI Chandrachud Singh said that neither a judicial body nor even the state government can modify, amend, or alter the ST list.

Despite the CJI’s comments, the Manipur High Court did not correct itself. Later in February 2024, the apex court ordered to delete the contentious provision asking the state government to give ST status to Meiteis.

Here, too, we see how a judicial order triggered massive unrest in a region where peace had been achieved after great efforts.

It is true that the judiciary is to adjudicate only on the basis of law and not pay heed to popular sentiments. At the same time, sensitive cases require not only carefully worded judgements but also astuteness regarding the timing of their pronouncements.

A tool like reserving judgement is always an option. In a world defined by internet-driven tribalistic polarity, it should be used more readily.