Opinion: What Really Happened At All-Party Meeting On Manipur

After over 50 days of soporific inaction and radio silence, the Union government finally called for a meeting of all political parties in parliament for a discussion on Manipur.

Typically, all-party meetings last for about three hours and are held in one of the rooms of the parliament complex. Between 2004 and 2014, the UPA government called 17 all-party meetings on issues like the 2004 tsunami, Lokpal Bill, price rise, and the Land Acquisition Bill. From 2014 to 2021, the BJP government has called 28 all-party meetings. It looks good on the face of it, but there is a big catch. Half of the all-party meetings called in the UPA era were related to how parliament could function more smoothly. Close to 80 per cent of the meetings called by the current dispensation (who have an abysmal record of running parliament) have been, ironically, related to the smooth functioning of parliament. But what about intent and outcomes?

Here are some observations from a fly on the wall during the all-party meeting on Manipur.

Allies speak first, then opposition

At all-party meetings, it is customary that after the Union government presents its view, the member from the principal opposition party is called to speak. Then, other members, based on party strength in parliament, take the floor. This has been the precedent for decades but was not followed at the recently held meeting.

Inexplicably, the Lok Janshakti Party with six MPs from Bihar were invited by the Home Minister to speak first. The National People's Party with two MPs, and the Sikkim Krantikari Morcha with one MP, spoke second and third. As the largest opposition party, the Congress was deprived of its legitimate right to speak first. It was obvious that the government wanted to set the tone for the meeting by getting three of its allies to open the innings. Unprecedented.

Former three-time Manipur Chief Minister snubbed

If that wasn't bad enough, the Congress representative, Ibobi Singh, the former Chief Minister of Manipur who ran the state for 15 consecutive years, was interrupted seven minutes into his presentation. It was only after a member from another party insisted that he was granted additional time. Towards the end of the meeting, when he pleaded for a three-minute intervention, he was snubbed. Bipartisanship was the loser.

No timelines set on 'way forward'

The meeting began with slides on the geographical and historical background of Manipur. Someone had forgotten that this was a presentation not meant for young legislative interns, but for seasoned representatives from the largest political parties in the country.

The Union government then listed out a dozen points on the 'Way Forward'. Conspicuously missing were definite timelines. A statement of intent was listed without a single date for completion mentioned.

Enough photo-ops, time for action

A Chief Minister, an ally of the BJP from the north-east, praised the Union government's role in Manipur. (Imagine if somebody at the meeting has recorded this!). The ally went on to suggest that the Prime Minister and the Home Minister should meet religious leaders to restore trust. More photo-ops? In April, the Prime Minister posed for photographs with the church leadership in Sacred Heart Cathedral in Delhi. A couple of weeks later, the Home Minister posted a picture on Twitter with church bigwigs based in Kerala. In June, with 250+ churches now destroyed in Manipur (and 17 temples), the political leadership will crave more photo-ops. Surely, the religious leadership needs to be more discreet.

Why no all-party delegation yet?

At the meeting, the Union government confirmed that there have been 131 deaths in this period; the last death was recorded on 13 June. Two-and-a-half weeks and no death. If the situation is indeed on the mend, then why is the government still not allowing an all-party delegation to visit Manipur to boost the confidence and morale of the people? Waiting. 

(Derek O'Brien, MP, leads the Trinamool Congress in the Rajya Sabha)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author.