In a fiery speech during the parliamentary budget discussions, Alfred Kan-ngam S. Arthur, the newly elected Member of Parliament from Outer Manipur, delivered a pointed critique of Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and the Union Budget 2024-25. Arthur’s speech highlighted his state’s economic and humanitarian crises, emphasizing its exclusion from meaningful financial aid and rehabilitation efforts.
Key Issues Raised by Alfred Arthur
1. Economic Distress and Neglect
Manipur, despite being an integral part of India, continues to grapple with significant economic challenges. MP Alfred Arthur’s critique of the Union Budget 2024-25 was rooted in the state’s economic struggles, with the region displaying the lowest per capita income among Indian states. Coupled with high inflation, these factors have exacerbated the already precarious living conditions of its population. Arthur pointedly criticized the budget for not addressing these concerns, calling it “anti-people” and arguing that the allocations favored states with stronger economic footholds.
The budget’s provisions, such as the ₹2 lakh crore allocation for job creation and skilling initiatives, may be well-intentioned but fail to account for the specific socio-economic dynamics of Manipur. For instance, the lack of industry and limited infrastructure in the state make it difficult for such national initiatives to translate into tangible benefits locally. Arthur urged the government to provide direct financial relief and dedicated economic packages aimed at revitalizing the state’s economy, particularly focusing on agriculture, small industries, and the service sector.
Furthermore, the state’s fragile connectivity to the rest of India—both physically and economically—has created a cycle of dependency. Without targeted investment in infrastructure, particularly roadways, railways, and digital networks, Manipur’s integration into the national economic framework remains a distant dream. This disparity has widened the economic gap between Manipur and other Indian states.
Arthur’s criticism also extended to the failure of the Union Budget to leverage Manipur’s unique strengths. The state’s natural beauty and cultural heritage present untapped opportunities in tourism, which could drive local employment and revenue generation. Yet, the absence of any dedicated allocation for promoting tourism in the Northeast exposes the lack of a nuanced approach in policy-making.
Overall, Arthur’s speech highlighted the broader issue of regional imbalance in India’s fiscal planning. By neglecting economically weaker states like Manipur, the budget reinforces existing inequalities instead of bridging them. Arthur’s demands underscore the necessity of formulating region-specific policies to uplift neglected states and achieve a truly inclusive economic vision.
2. Natural Disasters and Exclusion
Manipur has faced devastating natural disasters in recent years, including unprecedented hailstorms and floods, leaving widespread destruction in their wake. Yet, the Union Budget 2024-25 made no mention of these disasters in its financial relief measures. This glaring omission was a central point of critique in MP Alfred Arthur’s speech, where he accused the central government of marginalizing his state during its time of need.
The floods in Manipur caused extensive damage to homes, infrastructure, and agricultural lands, displacing thousands of people. Unlike other states such as Assam, Bihar, and Himachal Pradesh, which received specific disaster relief allocations, Manipur’s plight was overlooked. Arthur questioned this selective approach, emphasizing that natural disasters know no boundaries and the suffering of citizens in Manipur should not be treated as less important than that of citizens in other parts of India.
Manipur’s vulnerability to natural disasters is compounded by its underdeveloped disaster management infrastructure. The absence of funds for rebuilding and fortifying critical infrastructure, such as embankments and drainage systems, leaves the state ill-prepared for future calamities. Moreover, the lack of central support undermines the state’s ability to provide immediate relief to affected communities, exacerbating the suffering of displaced families.
Arthur also highlighted the indirect economic impact of these disasters. Floods and hailstorms have devastated the region’s agriculture, which serves as the primary livelihood for many in the state. Without compensation or rehabilitation measures, farmers are left struggling to recover, leading to food insecurity and increased poverty levels. The lack of targeted disaster relief in the Union Budget not only hinders recovery efforts but also signals a disregard for the socio-economic challenges that natural disasters create in smaller states like Manipur.
To address these issues, Arthur called for the establishment of a Northeast-specific disaster relief fund. Such a fund, he argued, could ensure that states like Manipur receive timely assistance tailored to their unique geographical and climatic conditions. Additionally, he advocated for investment in long-term resilience-building measures, such as flood-resistant infrastructure and early warning systems.
In conclusion, the exclusion of Manipur from the Union Budget’s disaster relief provisions represents a missed opportunity to demonstrate solidarity with a state in crisis. Arthur’s critique serves as a reminder that equitable disaster response policies are crucial for fostering national unity and resilience.
3. Humanitarian Crisis and Rehabilitation
The ethnic violence that erupted in Manipur in May 2023 created a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented scale, displacing over 60,000 people. In his critique of the Union Budget 2024-25, Alfred Arthur highlighted the absence of a dedicated rehabilitation package for these internally displaced persons (IDPs), calling it a betrayal of the government’s constitutional duty to protect all citizens.
The ethnic conflict has left entire communities uprooted, with IDPs struggling to access basic necessities such as food, shelter, and healthcare. The central government’s failure to include a financial package for their rehabilitation in the Union Budget has deepened the sense of alienation among the affected communities. Arthur argued that without targeted interventions, these individuals face long-term marginalization, perpetuating cycles of poverty and social unrest.
Arthur’s speech also addressed the broader implications of the crisis. Beyond the immediate humanitarian needs, the violence has severely disrupted Manipur’s social fabric. The lack of proactive measures to foster reconciliation and rebuild trust among communities is a glaring oversight in the government’s approach. Arthur called for comprehensive rehabilitation policies that include not only financial aid but also programs aimed at promoting social cohesion and addressing the root causes of the conflict.
The MP also criticized the central leadership for its apparent apathy toward the state’s plight. He pointed out that no senior Union minister had visited Manipur since the violence began, describing this inaction as a symbolic failure to acknowledge the gravity of the crisis. For many in Manipur, this perceived indifference has compounded feelings of neglect and exclusion from the national narrative.
Arthur emphasized the urgency of addressing the humanitarian crisis through a multi-pronged approach. This includes immediate financial aid for rebuilding homes and livelihoods, as well as long-term investments in education and employment opportunities for displaced families. He also urged the central government to involve local stakeholders in designing and implementing rehabilitation programs, ensuring that they are sensitive to the region’s cultural and ethnic complexities.
A Broader Call for Attention to the Northeast: Insights from Alfred Arthur’s Speech
In his critique of the Union Budget 2024-25, Alfred Kan-ngam S. Arthur, the MP from Manipur, delivered a passionate appeal for greater attention to the Northeast region’s socio-economic and political challenges. His speech highlighted a persistent pattern of neglect that has relegated the Northeast to the margins of national policy-making.
Arthur argued that the region’s unique geographical, cultural, and economic circumstances necessitate tailored approaches that go beyond generic national initiatives. While India has made strides in various sectors, the Northeast continues to lag in critical areas such as infrastructure, healthcare, and education. He pointed out that the Union Budget lacked targeted allocations for industries that could tap into the Northeast’s untapped potential, such as eco-tourism, agro-based industries, and handicrafts. These sectors, if nurtured, could create sustainable livelihoods and reduce economic dependency.
One of Arthur’s central critiques was the government’s failure to address ongoing humanitarian crises and natural disasters in the region. By excluding Manipur and other Northeastern states from disaster relief packages, the Union Budget perpetuated a perception of second-class citizenship among residents. He called for the creation of Northeast-specific funds and development frameworks, arguing that these could bridge gaps in national policy implementation and foster inclusive growth.
The MP also emphasized the strategic importance of the Northeast, which shares borders with multiple countries. Enhanced investment in connectivity and cross-border trade could transform the region into a thriving economic corridor, contributing to India’s overall growth. However, the continued absence of robust investments in highways, railways, and digital infrastructure undermines the region’s potential.
Arthur’s speech resonated with the need to shift from token gestures to meaningful policy reforms for the Northeast. His appeal for justice was not just for Manipur but for an entire region that has long felt sidelined. Addressing these concerns requires moving beyond rhetoric to action, ensuring that the Northeast’s rich resources and talent are harnessed for the country’s development.
Challenges to Effective Utilization of The Budget: Focusing on Manipur
1. Perceived Marginalization in Allocation Utilization
Despite the overall increase in budgetary allocations for the northeastern region, smaller states like Manipur often feel marginalized. In the 2023-24 Union Budget, the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region (MDoNER) received ₹5,892 crores, a significant rise from ₹2,800 crores in the previous year. However, the distribution of these funds has been disproportionately skewed towards larger northeastern states like Assam and Arunachal Pradesh, which host large-scale projects such as hydroelectric power and highways. For instance, Assam received ₹8,141 crores under various central schemes in 2023, while states like Manipur received less than half this amount. This imbalance perpetuates a perception of favoritism, leaving smaller states underfunded for critical infrastructure. Manipur’s unique challenges, including its vulnerability to floods, insurgency, and ethnic conflicts, require tailored allocations. However, broad-based schemes like the 10% Gross Budgetary Support for the Northeast fail to account for the differentiated needs of each state. Without a more granular allocation strategy, smaller states feel that their specific concerns are overlooked.
2. Inadequate Response to Specific Needs
The lack of targeted provisions for pressing issues in Manipur has further fueled discontent. Manipur has been grappling with a humanitarian crisis following ethnic violence in 2023, which displaced over 60,000 people. Despite this, the Union Budget 2024-25 failed to allocate any specific disaster relief funds for the state, sparking criticism from MPs like Alfred Arthur. In contrast, Assam received substantial flood relief allocations under the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF).
This omission underscores the absence of region-specific budgeting that addresses emerging crises. The Northeast has suffered economic losses of over ₹9,000 crores annually due to climate disasters, but funding mechanisms often fail to prioritize smaller states’ needs. A more responsive budget could allocate specific funds for rehabilitation and sustainable disaster preparedness.
3. Implementation and Fund Utilization Issues
Despite increased budget allocations, systemic inefficiencies often hinder fund utilization. In the 2022-23 fiscal year, northeastern states utilized only 70% of the funds allocated under central schemes, compared to a national average of 85%. Delays in project approvals, lack of skilled manpower, and challenging terrain contribute to these inefficiencies.
For example, the North-East Special Infrastructure Development Scheme (NESIDS) allocated ₹2,491 crores in 2023-24 for critical infrastructure, but reports indicate that project completion rates remain below 50% in many states, including Manipur. Additionally, bureaucratic hurdles often lead to lapses in fund disbursement, exacerbating delays in much-needed development.
Addressing these issues requires structural reforms, including streamlined project approvals and improved coordination between central and state governments. Capacity-building initiatives for local agencies are also essential to ensure funds are utilized effectively to create tangible outcomes.
4. Limited Representation in Policy Prioritization
Manipur’s grievances also stem from limited representation in national policy decisions. While northeastern states collectively send 25 MPs to the Lok Sabha, their concerns are often diluted in national priorities. MP Alfred Arthur’s criticism of the Union Budget reflects this sentiment, emphasizing the absence of region-specific measures for smaller states like Manipur.
Policy frameworks like the “Act East” policy and PM-DevINE have aimed to integrate the Northeast into India’s development trajectory, but implementation remains uneven. For example, the 2024 Budget announced ₹7,500 crores for road connectivity in the Northeast, yet Manipur received no mention in the list of priority projects. This lack of visibility in national planning fuels the perception that the state’s unique challenges are ignored.
5. Neglect of Emerging Opportunities
The Northeast’s untapped economic potential, particularly in eco-tourism, cultural industries, and cross-border trade, remains underfunded. Manipur, with its proximity to Myanmar, could serve as a key trade hub under the Act East policy. However, limited budgetary focus on developing cross-border trade infrastructure has stunted progress. For instance, in the 2024 Budget, while significant funds were allocated to boost exports, there was no mention of enhancing trade corridors in the Northeast.
Similarly, sectors like tourism received only marginal increases in funding despite the region’s rich natural and cultural heritage. Manipur’s Loktak Lake, a UNESCO potential site, requires sustained investment for eco-tourism but continues to face neglect in national budgetary planning.
Political Implications
The speech by Manipur MP Alfred Kan-ngam S. Arthur criticizing the Union Budget 2024-25 has significant political implications, particularly for the Northeast. It highlights a growing rift between the central government and states in the region, as the lack of targeted budget allocations reinforces perceptions of neglect. Arthur’s pointed critique, emphasizing issues like disaster relief exclusion and inadequate rehabilitation for displaced persons, has struck a chord among Northeastern communities, potentially mobilizing regional demands for equity.
The speech also puts the ruling BJP under scrutiny, especially given its claims of inclusive development under the “Act East” policy. By spotlighting Manipur’s challenges, Arthur has drawn national attention to the Northeast’s grievances, which could influence the political narrative in upcoming elections. For opposition parties, his speech provides an opportunity to challenge the BJP on its commitment to regional equity and inclusive governance
Broader Criticism of the Union Budget
The budget has sparked broader debates about its inclusivity. While the ruling BJP has praised it for promoting “holistic development,” critics argue that the Northeast’s unique challenges require targeted interventions beyond general policies. The absence of a specific allocation for Manipur raises questions about whether the government fully grasps the socio-economic dynamics of the region.
The Union Budget 2024-25 has faced significant criticism following MP Alfred Kan-ngam S. Arthur’s speech, which underscored the neglect of Manipur and broader Northeastern concerns. Critics argue that the budget fails to address the stark inequalities between India’s economically weaker states and more developed regions. Arthur highlighted Manipur’s exclusion from disaster relief packages, despite facing severe floods and ethnic violence that displaced over 60,000 people. This omission has been viewed as emblematic of the government’s indifference to the Northeast’s struggles.
Beyond Manipur, there is widespread dissatisfaction over the lack of region-specific allocations for the Northeast. Critics note the absence of substantial investment in infrastructure, healthcare, and education—sectors crucial to bridging the developmental divide. While the budget emphasized skilling and job creation nationwide, its generic approach neglects the Northeast’s unique challenges, such as poor connectivity and limited industrialization.
Political analysts have also flagged concerns over regional imbalances in disaster response funding. States like Assam received significant allocations for flood relief, while Manipur was overlooked. This selective approach has sparked calls for reforms to ensure equitable distribution of resources.
Arthur’s speech has become a rallying point for addressing systemic neglect, urging the government to integrate the Northeast’s concerns into national policy-making
Conclusion
Arthur’s speech serves as a stark reminder of the disconnect between the Northeast and central governance. His powerful address not only sheds light on Manipur’s immediate challenges but also calls for systemic reforms in how the region is prioritized in national policies. For Manipur, justice lies in recognizing its needs and responding with urgency and sensitivity. Whether this speech will galvanize concrete action remains to be seen.
Contributed by Dev Karan Sindwani(intern)