Meira Paibis: Manipur’s ‘torch-bearing’ Women Activists

In the midst of the current unrest in the state, the Home Minister visited Manipur and spoke with a number of civil society organisations, including the Meira Paibis.

The significance of the Meira Paibis in Manipur’s civil society, as well as its social function and significant initiatives, are examined in this article.

Who are the Manipur’s Meira Paibis?

The Meitei women known as the Meira Paibis, often referred to as the Imas or Mothers of Manipur, are a dominant moral force in Manipur’s civil society.

They are well-known for their activism and are from various social groups in the Imphal valley.

They lack a tight hierarchy and overt political inclinations, and they are loosely organised under the direction of groups of senior women.

Role in Society of Meira Paibis

Originating in 1977, the Meira Paibis began as a grassroots movement primarily focused on combating alcoholism and drug abuse.

Over time, their scope expanded to address human rights violations and work towards the development of society at large.

They serve as the conscience keepers of Manipuri society and have a permanent and palpable presence in civil society.

Major Actions Undertaken

Support for Irom Sharmila: The Meira Paibi women actively supported Irom Sharmila during her 16-year hunger strike against the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which grants immunity to armed forces in “disturbed” areas.

Advocacy for Inner Line Permit (ILP) System: In 2015, the Meira Paibis played a significant role in demanding the introduction of the ILP system, aiming to protect local interests, culture, and commercial opportunities.

Bandh Protests: The Meira Paibis organized bandhs and shutdown calls in markets to protest against perceived injustices, such as the broken promise of a marriage by an elected representative.

Recent Actions: During the current crisis, the Meira Paibis reportedly influenced the release of 12 KYKL cadres (an extremist group) who were apprehended by the armed forces, highlighting the influence of women activists in confronting security personnel.

Conclusion

The Meira Paibis of Manipur play a crucial role in the state’s civil society.

Their activism spans a range of social and political issues, and they have consistently fought for justice, human rights, and the betterment of society.

Despite the recent controversy surrounding their alleged interference in security operations, their contribution as a powerful force for social change should be acknowledged and appreciated.

Why are US tech firms sceptical about Digital Trade with India?

Technology collaboration became a hot topic of conversation during the PM’s official visit to the US.

Although the visit was successful, US IT companies are worried about regulatory barriers that could hinder digital trade with India.

Currently, the India-US Technology Trade Situation

Foreign Trade: The US overtook China as India’s top trading partner in FY2023, with bilateral trade reaching $128.55 billion. Digital or technological services, however, have not been particularly important in this industry.

Despite the potential for growth in the US digital services export sector and the developing online services market in India, the US and India have a $27 billion trade deficit in digital services.

Concerns of US Tech Firms

Imbalance and Misalignment: US tech companies have raised concerns about the “significant imbalance” and “misalignment” in the US-India economic relationship. They argue that India’s policies favor domestic players, creating a tilted playing field.

Discriminatory Regulations: US tech firms criticize India’s regulations, such as geospatial data sharing guidelines, for providing preferential treatment to Indian companies. They also express discontent over India’s departure from democratic norms, leading to challenges for US companies operating in India.

Policy Barriers Raised by US Tech Firms

Equalisation Levy: US tech firms object to India’s expanded version of the equalisation levy, which imposes taxes on digital services. They argue that it leads to double taxation, complicates the tax framework, and raises questions of constitutional validity and compliance with international obligations.

Information Technology Rules: US tech firms are concerned about India’s Information Technology Rules, which impose compliance burdens and tight deadlines for content takedown, appointment of local compliance officers, and the establishment of Grievance Appellate Committees.

Data Protection Law: Ambiguities surrounding cross-border data flows, compliance timelines, and data localization in India’s draft Digital Personal Data Protection Bill raise concerns among US tech firms. They argue that data localization requirements increase operating costs and can be seen as discriminatory.

Other Policy Barriers to Digital Trade

Digital Competition Act: The proposed adoption of a Digital Competition Act, including estimated taxes for big tech companies, has raised concerns about anti-competitive practices and potential targeting of US tech firms.

Competition Commission Fines: The fines imposed by the Competition Commission of India on Google for anti-competitive practices have been seen by US tech firms as part of India’s protectionist industrial policy.

Way Forward 

To promote digital trade between India and the United States and overcome policy barriers, the following steps can be taken:

Transparent and Consistent Policies: Ensure transparency, consistency, and clear guidelines in policy formulation, implementation, and enforcement to create a level playing field.

Review and Refinement of Regulations: Periodically review regulations, such as the equalisation levy, Information Technology Rules, and data protection laws, to address concerns and strike a balance.

Mutual Recognition Agreements: Explore the possibility of mutual recognition agreements that facilitate the acceptance of each other’s certification standards and regulatory frameworks, reducing duplicative compliance requirements.

Data Sharing Frameworks: Develop comprehensive and secure frameworks for cross-border data sharing that protect privacy and enable data flows for digital trade, benefiting both economies

India needs a Uniform Civil Code: PM

PM Modi declared that India needs a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) as soon as he arrived back from the US because the dual system of “separate laws for separate communities” was preventing the nation from functioning.

The amount of speculation among left-liberal organisations in India has increased as a result of this.

Key quotes from the PM

Abolishing the Dual System: The PM emphasised the necessity of a single legal system and emphasised the impracticality of having separate laws for various communities.

Recognising Political Manipulation: He asked the Muslim community to be watchful of political parties that take advantage of their concerns for their own benefit.

He emphasised the fact that the Constitution already promotes the idea of citizens having equal rights.

Opposition’s Exploitation: He criticized political opponents for using Muslims, particularly Pasmanda Muslims, to further their own interests at the expense of the community’s well-being.

What is Uniform Civil Code (UCC)?

The UCC aims to establish a single personal civil law for the entire country, applicable to all religious communities in matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, etc.

The idea of a UCC has a long history in India and has been a topic of debate and discussion.

This article explores the basis for a UCC, its timeline, the conflict with the right to freedom of religion, minority opinions, challenges to implementation, and the way forward.

Basis for UCC: Article 44

Article 44 of the Directive Principles envisions the state’s endeavor to secure a UCC for all citizens throughout the country.

While DPSP of the Constitution are not enforceable by courts, they provide fundamental principles for governance.

Personal Laws and UCC: A Timeline

Colonial Period: Personal laws were first framed for Hindu and Muslim citizens during the British Raj.

1940: The idea of a UCC was proposed by the National Planning Commission, examining women’s status and recommending reforms for gender equality.

1947: UCC was considered as a fundamental right during the framing of the Constitution by Minoo Masani, Hansa Mehta, Amrit Kaur, and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

1948: The Constitution Assembly debated Article 44, which emphasizes the implementation of uniform civil laws as a state duty under Part IV.

1950: Reformist bills were passed, granting Hindu women the right to divorce and inherit property and outlawing bigamy and child marriages.

1951: Ambedkar resigned when his draft of the Hindu Code Bill was stalled in Parliament.

1985: Shah Bano case highlighted the need for a UCC and the rights of divorced Muslim women.

1995: Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India reiterated the urgency of a UCC for national integration and removing contradictions.

2000: The Supreme Court, in Lily Thomas v. Union of India, stated it could not direct the government to introduce a UCC.

2015: The apex court refused to mandate a decision on implementing a UCC.

2016: The Triple Talaq debate gained attention, leading to the ruling of its unconstitutionality in 2017.

UCC vs. Right to Freedom of Religion

Article 25: Guarantees an individual’s fundamental right to religion.

Article 26(b): Upholds the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.

Article 29: Protects the right to conserve distinctive culture.

Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on freedom of religion for public order, health, morality, and other provisions related to fundamental rights.

Minority Opinion in the Constituent Assembly

Some members sought to exempt Muslim Personal Law from state regulation, arguing against interference in personal laws based on secularism.

Concerns were raised about uniformity in a diverse country like India and the potential for opposition from different communities.

Gender justice was not a significant focus during these debates.

Enacting and Enforcing UCC

Fundamental rights are enforceable in courts, while Directive Principles have varying degrees of enforceability.

The wording of Article 44 suggests a lesser duty on the state compared to other Directive Principles.

Fundamental rights are considered more important than Directive Principles, and a balance between both is crucial.

Need for UCC

Multiple personal laws: Different religions and denominations follow distinct property and matrimonial laws, hindering national unity.

Absence of exclusive jurisdiction: Such thing in the Union List implies that the framers did not intend to have a UCC.

Customary laws are discriminatory: These laws also vary among different communities and regions.

Why is UCC Necessary?

Harmonizing equality: UCC would provide equal status to all citizens, promote gender parity, and align with the aspirations of a liberal and young population.

Promote fraternity: Implementation of UCC would support national integration.