It appears to be clearly a political game to not just gain power, but also make big money, and secure permanent political positions in the state. The March 2023 high court decision, unilaterally granting ST status to the majority Meiteis (presently stayed by the courts, deferred by the government after violence erupted) would have allowed them to purchase land in the hills, previously restricted for them.
Indigenous communities, Kuki-Zo and Nagas, have opposed selling their land to corporations for mining and other activities, as is their constitutional right. The legitimate and prevalent fear is that after obtaining ST status, the Meitei community, being wealthier and more stable, could then lease acquired land to corporations, which is against the interests of the environment, ecological stability and the land and cultural rights of Manipur’s indigenous peoples. There are concerns that the government might grant ST status to the Meitei to enable their influence in these resource-rich areas, benefitting both parties and corporate allies of the Biren Singh government and the union government. Presently under the Forest Conservation (amendment) Act 2023, passed by the Lok Sabha and awaiting deliberations in the Rajya Sabha, the union government has been granted unilateral (some argue, unchecked authority) to ciphon off prescious forest land. Similarly, uncontested 2015 and 2021 amendments to the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulations Act, (MMDRA) 1957 have taken away the unqualified rights of indigenous peoples over the surface lands they have lived on for generations
Extractive industries and their impact
Over recent decades, the pursuit of extractive industries has become increasingly evident in the state of Manipur, as several mining companies have engaged in survey work and exploration processes. This development has been facilitated by India’s Act East Policy and the relaxation of investment and environmental norms governing mining. The focus has been and is is primarily on mining Chromite and Limestone in the eastern section of the state, specifically in Ukhrul, Kamjong, Tengnoupal, and Chandel districts, which border Myanmar.
The Geological Survey of India (GSI) and the Department of Industries and Commerce (DIC), Government of Manipur, have intensified their survey efforts to locate minerals in the region. To promote and support extractive industries in the state, the Manipur government developed the Industrial and Investment Policy of Manipur in 2013, which was re-notified in 2017. The policy aims to create robust infrastructure facilities, provide incentives, and offer marketing support to industries. It also seeks to enhance the availability of raw materials, optimize the utilization of the state’s natural and human resources, and attract investments. In addition, the Manipur Minor Mineral Policy was formulated in 2018 to further address these objectives.
Mineral resources in Manipur
The Geological Survey of India (GSI), under the Ministry of Mines and Minerals, Government of India (GOI), has conducted comprehensive geological mapping of Manipur. This endeavour has led to the identification of several valuable minerals in the region, including limestone, chromite, nickel, copper, malachite, azurite, magnetite, and various platinum group elements (PGE).
According to GSI estimates, there are substantial limestone deposits in Manipur, amounting to around 20 million metric tonnes. These deposits are found in villages such as Hundung, Phungyar, and Mailiang in Ukhrul district, as well as in Toupokpi, Chakpikarong, Pallel, Nungphura, Nungpal, Sajik Tampak, and Haikot in Tengnoupal and Chandel Districts. The data suggests that potential Mineral resources are concentrated in areas with over an 80% Christian population. This section has been –not necessarily coincidentally—the targeted community in the present violence. The areas that have experienced the most intense targeted violence are hilly districts and the population concentration in these districts are predominantly Christian at around 80-85%.
Layered motives behind the violence
Manipur erupted into sectarian targeted violence on May 3. The divisions between local ethnic tribes and communities have been exacerbated by an insensitive, callous state. On a closer and deeper look at the deep pockets and economic interests eyeing land and hill control, it is clear that sinister games are being played behind the ongoing conflict in Manipur, that foster hatred and division but also go beyond.
Regarding chromite resources, the Indian Bureau of Mines’ 2013 report indicates that Manipur holds 6.66 million tonnes of chromite within the ophiolite belt. The distribution includes approximately 5.5 million tonnes in Ukhrul and Kamjong Districts and 1.1 million tonnes in Tengnoupal and Chandel districts. Notable chromite reserves are located in Phangrei, Lunghar, Singcha-Gamnon area of Ukhrul District, and Kwatha, Sibong, Khudengthabi, Minou-Mangkang, etc., in Tengnoupal and Chandel areas.
Mining leases and environmental unconcern
Between 2007 and 2012, the Indian Bureau of Mines and the Ministry of Mines granted mining leases to private companies in the ophiolite belt of Ukhrul and Chandel districts in Manipur. The MoUs signed between the Government of Manipur (GOM) and these companies involved significant land transfers and mining rights. In November 2017, during the Northeast Business Summit in Imphal, several MoUs were signed for mining activities, leading to intensified survey works and extraction efforts. Nine private companies signed MoUs with the GOM for chromite and limestone exploration and mining.
2012-2023
Prior to 2012, mining contracts in Manipur were awarded to various companies such as Anand Exports Ltd, Odisha (Jitendra Mohapatra and Mohammad Kutabuddin), Visa Steel Ltd, Odisha (owned by Vishambar Saran), and Balasore Alloys Ltd, Odisha, mainly in Ukhrul and Kamjong districts. Later, additional companies like Gulf Natural Resources Pvt Ltd, Rourkela Minerals Pvt. Ltd (owned by Sambhu Dayal Agarwal and Rabindra Bisvas Chandra), and Sarvesh Refractories Pvt. Ltd (owned by Ashok Agarwal) were also granted contracts for chromium mining in Manipur.
In November 2018, the Directorate of Trade, Commerce, and Industries (DTCI) of the GOM submitted a draft Cabinet Memo proposing a 47-acre area of the former Hundung Cement Factory to be leased to M/s. Ramung Enterprises Imphal, for establishing a 400 Tonnes Per Day (TPD) Cement Plant. A cabinet decision on February 18, 2019 authorized the setup of two cement plants, with capacities of 500 TPD and 400 TPD, respectively, through Public Private Partnership. Ramung Enterprises, Imphal, and Sukhdev Mining & Industries Private Limited, Madhya Pradesh, applied for operating the cement plant.
Facor Alloys Ltd from Andhra Pradesh had its prospecting license for chromite in Lunghar, Sihai Khullen, Nungbi, Ukhrul District renewed for two years from 6 April 2018 by DTCI, Manipur. They also applied for a mining lease for chromite in Lunghar on 14 December 2018, recommended by DTCI to the Ministry of Mines after scrutiny by the State Level Committee. DTCI signed mining agreements with M/s. Sarvesh Refractory Pvt. Ltd for mining at Lunghar village and with M/s. Rourkela Mineral Company Pvt. Ltd at Shingcha-Gamnom on 23 February 2019 to commence chromite mining operations. The mining agreements made by the Government with companies lack the free, prior, and informed consent of villagers.
The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (FCA, 1980) regulates the diversion of forests for non-forest activities, necessitating prior clearances from the Ministry of Environment and Forest – Climate Change (MoEFCC). The FCA, 1980 (before the 2023 amendments) , along with the Forest Rights (Recognition of Scheduled Tribe & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers on forest) Act, 2006 (FRA, 2006), operates through corresponding rules and guidelines. Under Section 2 of the FCA, 1980, specific guidelines state that the State Government cannot proceed without the Central Government’s approval in activities such as de-reservation of reserved forest land, non-forestry use of forest land, assigning forest land to any private entity not owned/managed/controlled by the state government, and clearing naturally grown trees in a forest land for reforestation purposes.
Conflicting legislation & Indian Constitution
There have been several areas of confrontation between acts that allow mining (mining acts) and court’s judgments with regard to ownership of mineral resources and implementation of environmentally-friendly ‘Green laws’. These contestations are the reasons why so many controversies have dogged this sector. Section 24A (2) of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulations Act, (MMDRA) 1957 states that it is Adivasi (the tribal) or indigenous peoples are the occupiers of surface of the land in the context of social, cultural, religious, economic, tradition and usufructs of tribal forested land.
On the other hand, constitution of India under Sl. No. 54 of the Central list in the VIIth Scheduled, circumscribes the states on legislation but will be bound by the Central legislation. Overall power of controlling and decision making for major minerals are vested with the Central govt. Rules 15 of the MMDR Act, 1957 that also gives power to the state Govt. to make rules in respect of minor minerals only.
The legal issues and conflicts relating to mining do not end there. The Supreme Court (SC) of India, in an order dated July 16, 2013 stated that, “Ownership of minerals should be vested with the owner of the land and not with state govt.” It is also worth mentioning the SC judgment on Samata Bauxite Mining case, 1997, clearly recognised the rights of the tribal on land stating non-transferable to non-tribal and so cannot be leased or handed over for mining.
In another relevant case, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) halted the Odisha Bauxite Mining project based on forest rights of the Scheduled Tribe & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers in the line of socio-cultural and religious perspective. Moreover, as per provision of V & VIth Scheduled of the Indian constitution, it is the Autonomous District Council (ADC) has the absolute right to decide in this regard.
But a union government that cares little for the environment and or the Constitution, has, first in 2015 and then in 2021 simply amended the law through its existing brute majority in Parliament.
First, amendments of MMDRA, 1957 have been made in 2015 known as MMDR Act 2015. This act was countered for empowering central govt over states. State Governments are entitled to only clerical paperwork making the states more dependent on central govt. Also there has been various criticisms on the introduction of the MMDR Amendment Bill 2021. The act faces stiff opposition from quarters because of allowing the government to overrule the FRA 2006 and provide a short cut system of mining license for mineral exploration and clearances.
This amendment provides rights to take up any mining activities immediately as soon as gas, oil and other ores are discovered. The Act of 2021 has utterly diluted the powers of Gram Sabhas to give consent or stop mining in its respective areas. Thus, all the amendment acts of 2015 and 2021 enhanced the controlling attorney of the Central Govt., more freedom given to mining companies and casted out the rights of the communities who literally owned resources.
Who benefits?
In Kwatha Village, Gulf Natural Resources Pvt Ltd (GNRPL) (Dina Chandra Singh and Abdallah Al Hady owns the company) based in Gurgaon signed a deed of agreement for chromite mining on October 5, 2016, where the village was conditioned to hand over the surface rights of about 15 sq. Km of land containing the chromite bearing Ophiolite belt to the private company, GNRPL, spanning from Namchumpha Lok in the South to Sadangching in the North and lying in the East and West of Kwatha village.
On February 23, 2019, Rourkela Minerals Company Pvt Ltd (ROMCO) (Sambhu Dayal Agarwal and Rabindra Bisvas Chandra owns the company) signed a 20-year mining lease agreement with the Government of Manipur for an 85.0-hectare area in Shingcha-Gamnom village, Ukhrul district. The mining project, costing approximately Rs 50 crore, had its approvals and lease granted by DTCI, Manipur, and the Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC).
Sarvesh Refractory Pvt Ltd (owned by Ashok Agarwal) has been contracted by GOM to mine Chromite from Lunghar and Sirohi Villages of Ukhrul District. The mining lease area is 132.781 hectares in Shirohi-Lunghar Village with a targeted production capacity of 10,531 tons per annum. The company is in the process of seeking environment clearance from the MOEFCC for mining.
The GOM has leased out the limestone quarry to M/S Super Ores and Mines Private Limited (owned by Sanjay Sharma and Suresh Sharma), based in Guwahati, for 20 years. The firm aims to extract at least 500 tons of limestone daily. Additionally, the Satyam Group of Industries has proposed to set up a cement factory at the site of the former Hundung Cement Factory. The DTCI of GOM granted an area of 47 acres to Ramung Enterprises, Imphal, for setting up a 400 TPD Cement Plant on November 18, 2018.
Mailiang Village, inhabited by the Tangkhul tribe in Kamjong district, Manipur, has been targeted for limestone mining and the establishment of a factory. The Satyam Company and the Government of Manipur have conducted testing and survey work to assess the limestone deposit for mining in the village. The survey works have intensified since 2012, and the DIC, Manipur, has already established a store and a workers’ camp with basic machinery for the mining project covering an area of approximately 50 square kilometers.
However, villagers lack essential information about the mining activity, such as the Detailed Project Report and Environment Impact Assessments. In the significant judgment of the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in Om Dutt Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (in O.A. No. 521 of 2014), May 7, 2015, projects of vast magnitude and impact should be appraised in terms of its environmental impact. Mining, including underground mining is a non-forestry activity, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (FCA, 1980) regulates the diversion of forests for non-forest activities, necessitating prior clearances from the Ministry of Environment and Forest – Climate Change (MoEFCC). The FCA, 1980, along with the Forest Rights (Recognition of Scheduled Tribe & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers on forest) Act, 2006 (FRA, 2006), operates through corresponding rules and guidelines. Under Section 2 of the FCA, 1980, specific guidelines state that the State Government cannot proceed without the Central Government’s approval in activities such as de-reservation of reserved forest land, non-forestry use of forest land, assigning forest land to any private entity not owned/managed/controlled by the state government, and clearing naturally grown trees in a forest land for reforestation purposes. The proposed amendments to FCA 2023 passed rather undemocratically in the Lok Sabha (pending discussions in the Rajya Sabha) bequeath powers to the union of India related to land within 100 kilometres of the international borders making Manipur and the rest of India’s north eastern states extremely vulnerable.
Health & environmental impact
The pre-feasibility study report (PFR) prepared by the mining company wrongly claimed that the mining lease area at Lunghar is devoid of forest and agricultural land, despite it being one of Manipur’s most forested regions[1]. The area is ecologically sensitive, with rare species like the “Siroy Lily” found nearby. Similarly, the EIA falsely stated the absence of forest and community land. Manipur is among the ecologically sensitive regions in India as per the reports of international union of conservation of nature. Significantly two
The Indigenous communities are heavily depend on this land for their survival and livelihoods. The PFR also overlooked the settlement and livelihood dependence of the Tangkhul and Kuki tribes, recognized as tribals by the Government, raising concerns about disregarding the impacts of mining on them. Additionally, the mining plan should have sought consent from the Hill Area Committee (HAC) under Article 371 C of the Indian Constitution, but this process was neglected in hill areas, leading to land grabbing issues.
Mining plans in Manipur lack proper environment and forest clearances by companies, M/s Rourkela Minerals Company Pvt Ltd. from Odisha, M/s Sarvesh Refractory Pvt Ltd., M/s Gulf Natural Resources Private Limited including the project in Singcha, were reportedly approved without receiving such clearances. RAMCO’s pre-feasibility study for chromite mining in Singcha – Gamnon allegedly erroneously stated the absence of forest areas. Extensive mining operations in various regions like Kwatha, Singcha – Gamnon, Mailiang, Hundung, Phangrei, and Lunghar have the potential to seriously impact villagers’ livelihoods while benefiting mining companies.
Health impacts, especially related to Chromium mining, have, too, not been adequately addressed (Chronic inhalation of Cr (VI) compounds raises the likelihood of lung, nasal, and sinus cancer. Contact with Cr (VI) compounds can cause severe dermatitis and painless skin ulcers. Additionally, chromium compounds can act as both sensitizers and irritants[2]).
Adivasi, Indigenous peoples protest
The abandoned Chromium mining plan in Phangrei faced local protests On September 27, 2020, the villagers of Shingcha, Kamjong district, convened an Emergency Assembly and decided to oppose the proposed chromium mining plan in their village. Similarly, on October 3, 2020, the Rilram Area Maring Organisation (RAMO), Tengnoupal district, unanimously resolved to disallow any No Objection Certificate (NOC) or activities related to mass chromite mining.
Furthermore, on October 8, 2020, the village chiefs of Molnoi, along with representatives of students’ and women’s organizations in Tengnoupal district, resolved to oppose any mining in Manipur without acknowledging the people’s rights over their land, resources, and consent. Adding to this, on November 27, 2020, the Tangkhul Naga Long (TNL) expressed serious concern and called for an end to mining in Ukhrul and Kamjong districts on health, social, and environmental concerns. As Jejo Themson writes, “In yet another development, the Tangkhul Naga Long (TNL) on 27th November, 2020 expressed its grave concern and called to desist mining in Ukhrul and Kamjong districts…. and concerned villagers in Manipur especially in the hill districts against the proposed chromium and limestone mining. The main reason behind is either due to fraudulent clearance undermining the rights of the resource owners or due to complete absence of such mandatory clearance. The concerned villagers neither have detail knowledge about mining plan nor were consulted, confirming that no consent ever sought from the indigenous community so far.”
“This is the prime factor why the villagers of Shingcha, Kamjong district, in its Emergency Assembly held on September 27, 2020, resolved to stand against the proposed chromium mining plan at Shingcha village. Further, the Rilram Area Maring Organisation (RAMO), Tengnoupal district on October 3, 2020 unanimously resolved to prohibit any forms of No Objection Certificate (NOC) or agencies or departments related to mass mining of chromite. There is clearly another environment-related sinister angle to this conflict that will have a huge impact on the ecologically fragile hill lands of Manipur.
Assessing impacts from Chromium mining in India, especially in Sukinda, Odisha, where the largest operations exist, would be beneficial in understanding potential impacts in Manipur. Sukinda’s chromite mines have caused severe pollution and contamination, with toxic hexavalent chromium posing cancer risks[3]. Companies involved in contamination in Sukinda, like Balasore Alloys Ltd., have signed MoUs for chromite mining in Manipur.
India’s fast deregulation of policies on land, forest rights, environment clearances, and mining, along with privatization of the mining sector, reflects the government’s neoliberal approach in extractive industries. The 2015 Mining and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill granted more privileges to mining companies, including an automatic extension of mining leases to 50 years without provision for community consultation.
The 2020 draft Environment Impact Assessment exempts mining activities from assessments before mining, while the Mining Notification 2020 incentivizes mining companies, disregarding traditional laws, tribal safeguards, and existing environmental measures. This pursuit of mining, leading to land, forest, and water body destruction, not only impoverishes communities but also contributes to climate change through deforestation, a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, further undermining sustainable development goals.
Relying on chromite, limestone, and other mining for Manipur’s economic uplift is not a viable solution.
The negative impact of mining operations worldwide, especially in mineral-rich states like Odisha, Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand, highlights the failure to benefit local communities. Experiences with companies like Vedanta show wealth consolidation among the rich while leaving affected communities impoverished and in conflict. Ownership of minerals should be vested with the owner of the land and not with state govt.”
It is also worth mentioning the SC judgment on Samata Bauxite Mining case, 1997, clearly recognized the rights of the tribal on land stating non-transferable to non-tribal and so cannot be leased or handed over for mining.
In the case of state of Kerela vs Jenins 2013 7SCR 863 where it was decided that the resources embedded in earth vests in owner of the land and state can not claim on it. As per the judgment of the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in Om Dutt Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., projects of vast magnitude and impact should be appraised in terms of its environmental impact. Mining, including underground mining is a non-forestry activity. In the case of Common Cause vs Union of India (Writ Petition N.o 114 of 2014), a decision by Justice S.A Bobde held that it is the duty of the mining company to re green the land with the resources that have been extracted out of it after the lease ends. On April 18, 2013, another significant Supreme Court ruling in the case of Orissa Mining Corporation Limited vs Ministry of Environment and Forest (Writ Petition Number 180 of 2011), declared that forest clearance for the mining project, previously revoked by the Environment Ministry in 2010, could only be granted with the consent of the Gram Sabhas, the local village councils. This judgment upheld the decade-long movement, drawing global attention, as Vedanta Ltd, an affiliate of billionaire Anil Agarwal’s Vedanta Resources Plc (FY 2017 revenue: $11.5 billion), was involved. The anti-mining protest was further bolstered by the popularity of the 2009 film Avatar, which depicted a ruthless mining corporation seeking to extract a valuable mineral from a moon inhabited by humanoid beings.
It has been well established worldwide that, mining companies often neglect community rights, leading to land grabbing, resource depletion, and exploitation of cheap labour, deepening poverty, and inequality among Indigenous peoples.
Manipur’s political economy will ultimately weaken with the plunder of land and resources, as the limited benefits from mining primarily benefit powerful elites, disproportionately compared to the loss for Manipur. Mining operations will exacerbate conflicts and human rights issues in the region.
Recognising the self-determined rights of Indigenous peoples to sustainably manage their land and resources is crucial, as corporate bodies tend to conceal profits and evade contributing to local economies. According to Article 26 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They possess the right to the lands, territories, and resources that they have historically owned, inhabited, or utilized. They are entitled to ownership, utilisation, development, and governance of these resources
The government’s plan to extract mineral resources in Manipur through collaboration with corporations lacks proper impact assessment and disregards the free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous peoples.
Before targeting Indigenous peoples’ land and resources for mining, oil exploration, or dam building, thorough assessments should be conducted with rightful community involvement to understand the wider and long-term implications.
The government should halt all mining plans until these processes align with the rights and development wishes of the Indigenous peoples of Manipur.
[1] An article, Mining and fraudulent clearances in Manipur Jajo Themson; http://epao.net/epSubPageExtractor.asp?src=news_section.opinions.Mining_and_fraudulent_clearances_in_Manipur_By_Jajo_Themson
[2] A paper by Alok Prasad Dad and Shikha Singh, Occupational health assessment of chromite toxicity among Indian miners, on the website of the National Library of Medicine (of the National Center for Biotechnology Information) details this deleterious impact.
[3] Ibid; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21808494/
(The story has been authored by an intern with the organization, Nabeel Masood)
Related:
Behind the violence, grabbing Hill lands for palm oil manufacture: Manipur
Manipur Violence: Supreme Court warns union and state government to take action, or they will
One in Manipur, another in Kashmir: Veterans slam two faces of Indian Army
Manipur is Burning but who cares?
Manipur women stage protest at Jantar Mantar to end violence in state
The Invisible Split: A report documenting reports of “ethnic cleansing” in Manipur, 2023
120 Churches destroyed, Christians insecure: Manipur
No Compensation Enough for Traumatised Kukis Fleeing Manipur