A Promise at the Mosque Premises, an Omission in the Parliament House: Bimol Akoijam’s Silence on the Pangal ST Demand

by Safiur Rahaman Maibam 

(Once united under a common demand for Scheduled Tribe status, the Meitei and Pangal movements split after internal pushback. A year later, MP Bimol Akoijam’s silence in Parliament revives old doubts about political sincerity and representation)

On April 5, 2024, amid the intensifying Lok Sabha election campaign in Manipur, Congress candidate Dr. Angomcha Bimol Akoijam visited Hafiz Hatta Masjid during Friday prayers. The visit, seen as part of his election outreach campaign, drew attention for his efforts to engage with diverse communities in the state.

During a brief interaction with our journalist at the mosque premise, Dr. Bimol Akoijam was asked about his stance on the Pangal community’s longstanding demand for inclusion in the Scheduled Tribes (ST) list, a movement active since 2014. In response, he endorsed the demand and stated that he would “try to send the recommendation collectively with the support of the people.”

In the interview/interaction, later published by Ichel News Network on the same day Dr. Bimol Akoijam remarked:

 “I believe that demanding Scheduled Tribe status is essentially a demand for constitutional protection. The government must take the initiative and conduct proper assessments regarding this demand. There are groups that oppose this demand, but the process should proceed simultaneously with proper constitutional safeguards.

The Pangal community’s demand for ST status follows the same principle. Surveys should be conducted to analyse the situation. At present, it feels like only we are being side-lined, making us seem separate from others. That is why I support the Meitei demand for ST status. All other communities from the Northeast, except us, are already included in the ST category. We are losing out on certain benefits because of this exclusion. I will work to convince those who oppose this demand and advocate for it at the national level. The required recommendation will be sent collective with the support of the people.”

His remarks were widely appreciated by members of the Pangal community, who saw in him a leader advocating inclusively for Manipur’s diverse communities. The Pangals extended significant support during the elections, with Bimol Akoijam securing leading votes in nearly all Pangal-inhabited polling stations, except a few in Heingang Assembly Constituency of then Chief Minister N. Biren Singh.

After assuming office as MP, Dr. Akoijam gained recognition for voicing several key issues concerning Manipur in Parliament. However, questions of representation and consistency have resurfaced following his unstarred question (No. 4081) in the Lok Sabha on December 19, 2024, addressed to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs.

In that question, Dr. Akoijam asked about the inclusion of the Meitei community in the ST list in the states of Assam, Tripura, and Manipur.

Extracted Question:

4081. Dr. Angomcha Bimol Akoijam:  (a) Whether any steps have been taken by the Government to include the Meitei community in the States of Assam, Tripura, and Manipur in the Scheduled Tribes (ST) list;

(b) If so, the details thereof and if not, the reasons therefor; and

(c) The current status of any such proposal for considering the longstanding demand for the inclusion of the Meitei community in the ST list along with the action taken in this regard.

Government’s Reply (Minister of State for Tribal Affairs, Shri Durgadas Uikey):

The Government of India has laid down modalities (as of 15.6.1999, amended on 25.6.2002 and 14.9.2022) for inclusion, exclusion, and modification in Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes lists. Only proposals recommended and justified by the concerned State or UT administration and concurred with by the Registrar General of India and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes are considered. Proposal from the State or UT administration is a prerequisite for processing the case further. All actions on the proposals are taken as per these approved modalities.

This official exchange has triggered renewed debate in Manipur, why did Bimol Akoijam raise a question only about the Meitei community, excluding the Pangal community’s similar demand for ST status?

Is this a deliberate omission, or an oversight? Many now ask whether Dr. Bimol Akoijam, who presented himself as a voice for all of Manipur, has confined his parliamentary focus to one section of society. Did his pre-election endorsement of the Pangal demand amount to mere lip service to attract minority votes?

He has spoken about the Meitei community in Tripura and Assam, but not about his own constituency’s Pangal community in Manipur. Both the Pangal and Meitei communities have been living in Assam and Tripura with their distinct identities and rich traditions since they took shelter there during the Seven Years’ Devastation of Manipur. Yet, he has ignored the Pangal of Tripura and Assam as well.

What is equally striking is the silence from Pangal activists and civil society organizations. So far, no Pangal leader, activist, or the Meitei Pangal Scheduled Tribe Demand Committee has publicly raised or questioned Dr. Bimol Akoijam’s omission in Parliament.

As an elected representative of Manipur, Dr. Bimol Akoijam owes an explanation to clarify his stance and maintain transparency on why the Pangal community’s legitimate demand for ST recognition was omitted from his parliamentary intervention.

FROM SHARED DEMAND TO SEPARATE PATHS

The Pangal demand for ST status is rooted in history. Both Meiteis and Pangals trace their indigenous origins to Manipur’s pre-colonial society. Both suffered from the loss of land, social dislocation, and exclusion following Seven Years Devastation(Chahi Taret Khuntakpa) and British colonisation and later administrative restructuring. Yet, while other northeastern communities secured constitutional protection through ST classification, Meitei and Pangal were left out.

The current discourse, however, reflects an uncomfortable truth; the politics of identity has replaced the politics of solidarity. Only few remember that the demand for Scheduled Tribe recognition began collectively. In the early stages of the movement, Meitei and Pangal leaders jointly struggled for inclusion in the ST list, recognizing their shared indigenous roots and parallel experiences of socio-economic marginalization.

Among the earliest participants was Alhaj Md.Riyaz Ahmed Shah, a respected Pangal social worker, academician from Hatta, who actively engaged in the initial Meitei-led ST Demand Committee. However, as the movement grew increasingly Meitei-centric, Riyajuddin Choudhary and other Pangal activists were gradually side-lined.

Faced with this exclusion, Alhaj Md.Riyaz Ahmed Shah withdrew from the joint platform and founded the Meitei Pangal Scheduled Tribe Demand Committee (MPSTDC). Under his leadership, the committee began to independently mobilize Pangal for the same constitutional demand, holding awareness campaigns, submitting memorandum, and organizing consultations across the valley.

This moment marked a turning point: what once began as a shared aspiration evolved into two separate struggles ; one dominated by Meitei civil society groups, and another, quieter but persistent, led by the Pangal.

Both seek inclusion under the same constitutional process, yet the Meitei demand dominates headlines and political discourse while the Pangal cause remains marginal, discussed mainly in smaller community spaces.

The difference lies not in merit, but in visibility and power!