vote share secured by all the PDF con sti- Tenth Assembly Elections tuents (MPP, RJD, NCP, JD(U) and CPI(M)) in Manipur Asingle day poll for 60 assembly seats in Manipur was held on 28 January 2012. This 10th general election to the State Legislative Assembly witnessed a lower turnout compared to previous elections. At 80%, the voters

SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012 STATE ELECTIONS

vote share secured by all the PDF con sti-

Tenth Assembly Elections

tuents (MPP, RJD, NCP, JD(U) and CPI(M))

in Manipur

single day poll for 60 assembly seats in Manipur was held on 28 January 2012. This 10th general election to the State Legislative Assembly witnessed a lower turnout compared to previous elections. At 80%, the voters’ turnout was seven points lower than the previous assembly election. The turnout of women was higher than that of men, although both declined since 2007. The number of contestants also came down to 279, a decrease of 9% over the last assembly elections (Table 1A).

Table 1A: Summary Electoral Participation: Electorate, Turnout and Number of Candidates Compared to the Assembly Election (2007)

Assembly	Change from
Election 2012	2007 (%)
Total electorate	17,41,581	+2.0
Total turnout (%)	79.8	-6.9
Male turnout (%)	74.1	-11.7
Female turnout (%)	81.9	-4.9
Number of candidates	279	-9.4

For electorate and candidates the change is in %, with 2007 as the base. Change in turnout is computed in percentage points, compared to turnout in 2007. Sources: Figures available from the website of Election Commission of India, http://eci.nic.in; accessed on 10 March 2012; Data aggregated and recomputed by CSDS data unit.

The main contest at the start of the India Trinamool Congress (AITC) contested the elections for the ﬁ rst time and ﬁelded candidates on 47 seats. The other key players in the electoral fray were the Naga People’s Front (NPF), the Manipur State Congress Party (MSCP), National People’s Party (NPP), and the Lok Janshakti Party (LJP), apart from 22 independents.

In the end, it was a sweeping victory for the Congress, made possible largely due to a divided opposition. In a state where no party has ever managed to cross the majority mark in the 60-member assembly, the Congress led by two terms Chief Minister Okram Ibobi Singh created history by winning 42 seats and securing 42% of the votes, a gain of 12 seats and 8% votes, respectively, since 2007. Its main rival, the PDF, performed disastrously winning only one seat (the lone seat won by NCP). Although the PDF did not exist in 2007, but if we were to add up the ﬁve years ago, then the PDF came down by a huge 19 percentage points this time. The AITC, the new entrant on the election scene of Manipur, made an impressive debut winning seven seats and garnering a vote share of 17%. NPF which too contested in the state for the ﬁ rst time won four seats and secured nearly 8% of the votes. The MSCP won ﬁ ve seats (all gains), while the LJP won one seat. Independents failed to win a single seat and managed to secure only 3% of the votes (Table 1B).

If we look at the region-wise break-up, the Congress was the leading party everywhere. The party won 24 of the 33 seats in the rural parts of the Valley, four of the seven seats in the urban parts of the Valley, six of the 11 seats in the Hill area dominated by the Nagas, and 8 of the 9 seats in the Hill area dominated by Kukis. AITC, which ﬁnished second overall, gave its best performance in the rural parts of the Valley winning six seats. The NPF picked up four seats and secured 33% of the votes in the Hill area dominated by the Nagas, an area where it was

Table 1B: Summary Results: Seats Contested, Won and Votes Secured by Major Parties and Alliances, Compared to the Assembly Election (2007)

Seats	Seats Won	Gain/Loss	Vote Share	Vote % Per	Vote Swing
Contested		of Seats	(%)	Seat Contested	since 2007
		since 2007			(% Points)
Indian National Congress (INC)	60	42	+12	42.42	42.42	+8.12

election was between the incumbent	Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)	19	0	0	2.12	6.76	+1.27
Indian National Congress (INC/Congress)	People’s Democratic Front (PDF)	43	1	-12	11.55	16.52	-19.50
and the People’s Democratic Front (PDF),	Manipur People’s Party (MPP)	14	0	-5	4.01	17.57	-11.44

a ﬁve-party grand alliance consisting of the Manipur People’s Party (MPP), the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), J anata Dal (United) (JD(U)), Communist Party of India (Marxist) – CPI(M), and the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) which did not put up any candidates. The All

Janata Dal (United) (JD(U)) 5 0 0 0.31 3.60 +0.02

Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) 22 1 -4 7.23 20.22 -1.35

Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) 0 0 -3 0 -6.67

Communist Party of India (Marxist) – CPI(M) 2 0 0 0.02 0.67 -0.06

Communist Party of India (CPI) 24 0 -4 5.78 14.94 -0.01

Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) 2 1 +1 0.55 16.05 -0.95

All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) 47 7 +7 17.00 21.77 +17.00

Naga People’s Front (NPF) 12 4 +4 7.50 32.53 +7.50

Manipur State Congress Party (MSCP) 31 5 +5 8.39 17.08 +6.53

National People’s Party (NPP) 5 0 -3 1.24 15.70 -2.22

These Election Statistics on the State

Assembly Elections 2012 have been Others 14 0 0 0.11 --1.57

prepared by the Lokniti programme of Independents 22 0 -10 3.34 --16.17

the Centre for the Study of Developing

Total 279 0 -

60 100

Societies. The data unit of the CSDS

(1) “Others” in 2012 include Janata Dal (Secular), Shiv Sena and other parties. “Others” in 2007 included Revolutionary

processed both the aggregate and survey Socialist Party, Forward Bloc, Janata Dal (Secular) and other parties. data for all the states. Shreyas Sardesai

(2) PDF did not contest as an alliance in 2007, so the vote share secured by all its constituents last time has been added up in the 2007 column. While RJD was part of the PDF, it did not put up any candidates this time.

of Lokniti, CSDS, prepared the ﬁ nal

(3) AITC and NPF did not contest in 2007.

tables and the text.

Source: Detailed constituency level results downloaded from Election Commission of India website http://eciresults.ap.nic. in/; accessed on 9 March 2012; data aggregated and recomputed by CSDS data unit.

april 7, 2012 vol xlviI no 14

SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012 STATE ELECTIONS

expected to do well (Table 2A). If we analyse in terms of districts, then the Congress was ahead in all the nine districts of the state and performed best in Churachandpur district (Hills Kuki) winning all the six seats and securing a massive vote share of 51%. In Thoubal district (Valley Rural) too the party garnered a similar vote share and won eight of the 10 seats on offer (Table 2B). The Congress also did extremely well in the reserved scheduled tribe seats (winning 14 out of 19 seats), all of which fall in the Hill area (Table 2C).

An analysis of the CSDS post-poll survey of how different social categories voted reveals that Meiteis, the dominant community of Manipur and the community to which Chief Minister Okram Ibobi Singh belongs, mostly voted for the Congress (41%) followed by the Trinamool Congress (20%). The main ﬁght for the Naga votes was between the Congress, NPF and MSCP with the Congress cornering the largest share at 41%, followed by the NPF with 34%. Among Kukis, Congress got 38% of the vote followed by the NCP (a PDF constituent) with 28% and AITC with 25%. Congress also enjoyed a massive advantage over its rivals among urban voters, voters who have studied up to matriculation, and voters aged between 26 and 35 years (Table 3A, p 69).

The post-poll survey reveals that while most of the people voted for the Congress Party, the satisfaction levels with the Congress government were extremely low. While 44% of the respondents who were interviewed were satisﬁed with the incumbent government’s performance, 43% said they were dissatisﬁed (Table 4A, p 69). In fact on almost all issues of governance Ibobi Singh’s government was rated very poorly by voters. For instance, 79% of the respondents said the supply of electricity had deteriorated and 66% said the supply of drinking water had worsened. Only on the issue of development of Manipur was Ibobi Singh’s government rated positively (Table 4B, p 69).

What then explains the sweeping victory of the Congress in Manipur, despite such a poor rating for the government? When respondents were asked to compare the performances of Ibobi Singh-led Congress government’s ﬁrst and second terms, most respondents (32%) said the second term had been better. The assessment of the second term was best in the rural areas of the Valley at 42% (Table 4C, p 69).

Chief Minister Ibobi Singh who was aiming for a hat-trick this time was the most preferred choice for chief minister among most Manipuris and was ahead of other CM hopefuls by a wide margin. 28% of the respondents said they want him to be Manipur’s next chief minister. His popularity was the highest among the Kukis and lowest among the Nagas (Table 4D, p 69).

The Congress also seems to have got the advantage of being the ruling party

Table 2A: Region-wise Analysis: Performance of Major Parties in the Assembly Election (2012)

Regions	Total	Congress	MPP	AITC	CPI	NCP	NPF	MSCP	Independents	Others
	Seats	Won	Vote (%)	Won	Vote (%)	Won	Vote (%)	Won	Vote (%)	Won	Vote (%)	Won	Vote (%)	Won	Vote (%)	Won	Vote (%)	Won	Vote (%)
Valley Rural	33	24	42.8	0	7.2	6	19.1	0	10.0	0	8.3	0	0.0	2	7.4	0	1.8	1	3.5
Valley Urban	7	4	37.6	0	0.2	1	18.2	0	0.0	1	16.2	0	0.0	1	16.1	0	8.8	0	3.0
Hills Naga	11	6	40.4	0	0.0	0	7.4	0	0.2	0	0.8	4	33.3	1	9.2	0	5.3	0	3.4
Hills Kuki	9	8	47.9	0	0.0	0	23.6	0	1.7	0	6.6	0	1.9	1	5.3	0	1.9	0	11.1
Total	60	42	42.4	0	4.0	7	17.0	0	5.8	1	7.2	4	7.5	5	8.4	0	3.3	1	4.4

(1) “Others” in this table and in Tables 2B and 2C include Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation), Shiv Sena, Lok Janshakti Party, Rashtriya Janata Dal and other smaller parties.

(2) Unlike other states, constituency-wise turnout figures for Manipur were not available and hence have not been provided in the table.

(3) Valley urban refers to all those assembly seats in the valley area where the urban population was 75% and above. Hills Naga refers to assembly seats in the hill area dominated by the Naga tribes. Rest of the assembly seats in the Hill areas have been classified as Hills Kuki. Source: As in Table 1B.

Table 2B: District-wise Analysis: Performance of Major Parties in the Assembly Election (2012)

Districts Total Congress MPP AITC CPI NCP NPF MSCP Independents Others Seats Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%)

ImphalEast 11 8 39.8 0 0.2 2 22.9 0 7.9 0 9.0 0 0.0 1 10.4 0 6.1 0 3.7

ImphalWest 13 7 36.0 0 3.8 3 24.8 0 7.9 1 14.3 0 0.0 1 7.1 0 1.4 1 4.8

Bishenpur 6 5 43.2 0 12.3 1 12.9 0 7.8 0 12.1 0 0.0 0 10.3 0 0.2 0 1.2

Thoubal 10 8 51.0 0 11.5 1 11.2 0 10.0 0 2.6 0 0.0 1 7.9 0 3.0 0 2.8

Chandel 2 1 40.2 0 0.0 0 7.6 0 1.1 0 0.0 1 30.5 0 0.3 0 10.7 0 9.5

Ukhrul 3 2 35.5 0 0.0 0 5.4 0 0.0 0 3.6 1 29.6 0 5.7 0 14.0 0 6.2

Senapati 6 3 41.0 0 0.0 0 16.0 0 0.0 0 2.8 2 30.6 1 3.7 0 0.1 0 5.8

Tamenglong 3 2 46.3 0 0.0 0 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 11.2 1 41.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Churachandpur 6 6 51.3 0 0.0 0 23.4 0 2.7 0 6.0 0 3.0 0 2.6 0 2.9 0 8.3

Total 60 42 42.4 0 4.0 7 17.0 0 5.8 1 7.2 4 7.5 5 8.4 0 3.3 1 4.4

Source: As in Table 1B. Table 2C: Category-wise Analysis: Performance of Major Parties by Reserved and General Constituencies in Assembly Elections (2012)

Category Total Congress MPP AITC CPI NCP NPF MSCP Independents Others Seats Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%)

Reserved (SC) 1 1 28.4 0 0.0 0 25.3 0 24.0 0 22.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Reserved (ST) 19 14 44.0 0 0.0 0 12.5 0 0.8 0 3.0 4 22.5 1 6.6 0 4.2 0 6.3

General 40 27 41.9 0 6.1 7 19.1 0 7.9 1 9.0 0 0.0 4 9.5 0 2.9 1 3.5

Total 60 42 42.4 0 4.0 7 17.0 0 5.8 1 7.2 4 7.5 5 8.4 0 3.3 1 4.4

Source: As in Table 1B.

april 7, 2012 vol xlviI no 14

SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012 STATE ELECTIONS

Table 3A: Social Basis of Voting: Survey-Based Estimates of Vote for Major Parties by Gender, Age, Table 4C: Citizens’ Assessment of Okram Ibobi Education, Locality, and Ethnic Community/Tribe in Assembly Elections (2012)Singh’s First and Second Terms

Congress MPP AITC CPI NCP NPF MSCP Others N Comparing Ibobi Singh’s two terms All

Age groups First term better 13

Up to 25 years 34 5 18 3 7 11 13 10 186 Second term better 32

26-35 years 48 5 18 5 6 3 6 9 283 Both equally good 10

36-45 years 42 5 17 6 6 9 8 6 254 Both equally bad 18

46-55 years 45 4 14 9 9 3 8 9 173

(1) All figures are in per cent and rounded off; rest of the 56 years and above 41 1 17 7 9 12 8 6 213 respondents had no opinion.

(2) Question asked in the survey: If you compare the first

Gender

term of the Okram Ibobi Singh-led Congress government

Men 42 5 16 5 8 9 8 7 552

in Manipur between 2002 and 2007, with the second term Women 42 3 18 7 7 7 9 8 556 of the Okram Ibobi Singh-led Congress government

between 2007 and 2012, in your opinion which one of two governments has been better?

Level of education

Non-literate 35 3 17 7 6 12 10 10 153

Sources: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried

Upto primary 37 3 22 5 16 5 3 10 111

out by CSDS. Data set weighted by actual vote share of Up to matric 47 3 15 8 7 6 7 7 356 major parties.

College and above 43 6 17 4 6 8 10 7 484

Table 4D: Citizens’ Choice for Chief Minister

Locality

Chief Minister Choices All Meiteis Kukis Nagas Others

Rural 41 5 16 6 8 9 9 8 761

Okram Ibobi Singh 28 25 46 9 46

Urban 46 2 19 6 7 5 8 6 347 Y Erabot Singh 6 7 3 2 5

Ethnic community/tribe Meiteis 41 8 20 7 7 0 11 8 582 M Nara Singh 3 2 10 0 3

Kukitribes 38 0 25 2 28 5 0 2 139 Ojoy Singh 3 4 3 0 1

Naga tribes 41 0 6 1 2 34 13 3 196 Radhabinod Koijam 2 1 6 0 2

Others (including Muslims) 53 0 13 12 2 4 3 14 190

(1) All figures except ‘N’ are in % and rounded off.

(2) Educational categories are defined as follows. Non-Literate: A person who can neither read nor write in any language. Up to Primary: It includes the persons who received formal schooling; either completed the whole primary cycle (I-V) or completed one or other grades of it. Up to Matric: It includes persons ranging from those who received schooling beyond the primary cycle to those who actually completed the 10th standard. College and above: It includes persons who went to college but could not receive a degree and those who completed five years of education in college and those who received education beyond graduation either in general education or in specialised streams/courses.

(3) Since the analysis uses data-file weighted by actual vote shares, it holds on the assumption that any discrepancy between the reported vote in the post-poll survey and the actual vote share is evenly distributed across all the social groups.

(4) “Others” in this table (column) include, other smaller parties and Independents. Source: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS. Total sample size was 1,200; In the survey the respondents were asked to indicate who they voted for by using a ballot paper that carried the list of candidates, their party names and symbols as on the EVM in their constituency. Figures reported here are for respondents who said they voted. The investigators checked if these respondents carried a mark on their finger. Those without a finger mark have been excluded from this analysis. The raw survey figures were weighted by actual vote share obtained by major parties in the final results.

Table 4A: Level of Satisfaction with the		Table 4B: Citizen's Assessment of the Work Done
Incumbent Government (2012)		by Government during Its Tenure for Various
Satisfaction with the		Public Goods and Services
Congress government (2007-12) Satisfied with performance	44	Assessment of Work Done by the Congress Government (2007-12)	Improved Remained Same	Deteriorated
Dissatisfied with performance	43	Development of Manipur	56	17	23
No opinion	13	Supply of electricity	8	11	79

(1) All figures are in % and rounded off; Respondents who said “Don’t know” or gave other choices have been excluded; Responses above are to an open-ended question.

(2) Question asked in the survey – After this election, who would you prefer as the next chief minister of Manipur? (No names were offered to those being interviewed; all responses were spontaneous and were post-coded). Sources: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS. Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties.

Table 4E: Citizens’ Opinion on Regional and National Parties and the Party Ruling at the Centre

Statements	Agree	Disagree
Regional parties are better than
national parties for solving
the problems of Manipur	52	23
It is good to have the same party
ruling in Manipur as the one
that rules at the Centre in Delhi	75	13

(1) All figures are in % and rounded off; rest of the respondents had no opinion.

(2) Question asked in the survey: Now I will read out few statements. Please tell me whether you agree or disagree

(1) All figures are in % and rounded off.

(2) Question asked in 2012 – What is your assessment of the work done by the Congress government in Manipur during the last five years? Would you say that you are satisfied or dissatisfied with it? (Probe further whether “fully” or “somewhat” satisfied or dissatisfied).Categories of ‘Fully satisfied’ and “Somewhat satisfied” have been merged together as “Satisfied”; categories of “Fully dissatisfied” and “Somewhat dissatisfied” have been merged together as “Dissatisfied”. Sources: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS. Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties.

at the centre. 75% of the respondents agreed with the statement that “It is good to have the same party ruling in Manipur as the one ruling at the Centre in Delhi”. In fact this is much higher compared to those who agreed with the statement that “Regional parties are better than national parties for solving Manipur’s problems” (Table 4E).

Drinking water supply	14	18	66
Condition of roads	38	15	44
Peace among
common people	13	24	55
Human rights	14	26	49

(1) All figures are in % and rounded off; rows do not add up to 100 as those who said “Don’t know” have not been reported here.

(2) Question asked in the survey – Now I will ask you about the assessment of the work done by the government in the state in the last five years. Do you think the condition of the following has improved, deteriorated or remained same? Sources: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS. Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties.

Another factor that may have worked in the Congress’ favour in Manipur is that nearly half the voters who were interviewed during the survey had not heard of the PDF alliance. Moreover, among those who had heard of the

Economic & Political Weekly

april 7, 2012 vol xlviI no 14

with each one of them? (Probe further whether “fully” or “somewhat” agree or disagree). (a) Regional parties are better than national parties for solving the problems of Manipur. (b) It is good to have the same party ruling in Manipur as the one that rules at the centre in Delhi. Categories of “Fully agree” and “Somewhat agree” have been merged together as “Agree”; categories of “Fully disagree” and “Somewhat disagree” have been merged together as “Disagree”. Sources: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS. Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties.

alliance, very few thought that the PDF would stay intact after elections (Table 4F, p 70).

The CSDS survey also reveals that in Manipur people seem to have voted more for individual candidates and not so much for the parties to which they belong. When asked what mattered more to them while voting, party or

SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012 STATE ELECTIONS

Table 4F: Awareness of PDF Alliance against Congress

Those who…
Had heard of PDF	51
Think PDF will stay intact after the elections
(among those who had heard)	12

(1) All figures are in % and rounded off; rest had not heard or felt that the PDF constituents will go their separate ways or had no opinion.

(2) Question asked in the survey: Have you heard of the People’s Democratic Front, the alliance between five opposition parties in Manipur? (If heard) Do you think the People’s Democratic Front will stay intact after this election or will they go their separate ways? Sources: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS. Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties.

Table 4G: Party vs Candidate as Voters’ Main Consideration

People’s Voting Preference

Party 24

Candidate 69

(1) All figures are in % and rounded off; rest had no opinion.

(2) Question asked in the survey: People have different considerations while deciding whom to vote for. What mattered to you more while deciding whom to vote for in the recent election – party or candidate? Sources: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS. Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties.

Table 4H: Citizens’ Opinion on Issue of Manipur’s Territorial Integrity

Opinion on Manipur’s Territorial Integrity	All	Valley	Hills Naga	Hills Kuki
Manipur should remain the way it is	70	96	2	31
Naga-dominated areas should be merged with Nagaland	11	1	51	6
Naga-dominated areas should be given greater autonomy within Manipur	12	1	42	24

(1) All figures are in % and rounded off; rest of the respondents had no opinion.

(2) Question asked in the survey: Now I am going to read out few statements. Please tell me which of these you agree with most. (a) Manipur should remain the way it is, without any division. (b) Naga-dominated areas within Manipur should be merged with Nagaland.

(c) Naga-dominated areas within Manipur should be given greater autonomy within Manipur. Sources: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS. Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties.

candidate, over two-thirds of the people said they went by the candidate and only one-fourth said party (Table 4G).

On the crucial issue of Manipur’s territorial integrity, a huge 70% of all respondents said that Manipur should remain undivided and stay the way it is, and only 11% were of the opinion that Naga-dominated areas should be merged with Nagaland. However if we break it down in terms of regions, then the opinion in the Naga-dominated Hills on the issue was very different with 93% of

Table 4I: Citizens’ Opinion on the Controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA)

Opinion on AFSPA

Irom Sharmila’s indefinite fast for repeal
of AFSPA is justified (those who ‘Agree’)	82
AFSPA should not continue
(those who say ‘Yes’)	64
AFSPA has not solved the problem
of insurgency (those who say ‘Yes’)	53

All figures are in % and rounded off; these are answers to three separate questions; rest of the respondents felt otherwise or had no opinion on each of these.

(2) Questions asked in the survey: (1) Have you heard of Irom Sharmila’s indefinite fast demanding repeal of AFSPA ( If yes) Would you say it is justified or unjustified? (2) Do you think that Armed Forces Special Powers Act has helped in solving the problem of insurgency in Manipur? (3) Are you in favour of the continuation of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act in Manipur or not? Sources: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS. Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties.

respondents there either opting for merger or for giving greater autonomy for Naga areas within Manipur (Table 4H)

While there is no regional unanimity on the question of Manipur’s territorial integrity, there seems to be a broader consensus on the issue of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which has been used almost uninterruptedly in the state since 1980. Nearly two-thirds of voters are of the opinion that it should not continue and this sentiment was found to be consistent across regions. Moreover, over three-fourths are of the opinion that Irom Sharmila’s 11-year long fast against AFSPA is justiﬁed (Table 4I).

Survey Methodology

The ﬁndings presented here are based on a post-poll survey conducted by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), Delhi, in Manipur. A total of 1,200 persons, randomly selected from the latest electoral rolls, were interviewed in the second and third week of February 2012 (after polling but before counting of votes) in 80 locations in 20 constituencies spread across the state. The Assembly Constituencies and four polling booths within each sampled constituency were selected using the Systematic Random Sampling technique. The respondents were sampled randomly (oversampling to allow for non-completion) from the updated electoral rolls of the selected polling booths. Of the 2,560 sampled respondents, 1,200 could be interviewed within the stipulated time.

The social proﬁle of the respondents interviewed largely matched the demographic proﬁle of the state (Table 5). The interviews were conducted by specially trained ﬁ eld investigators. The respondents were interviewed in the face-to-face interview situation using a structured interview schedule in Meitei, English and the local lingua franca. Respondents were mostly interviewed at their home, preferably alone. The voting question was asked using a dummy ballot paper and dummy ballot box.

Table 5: Sample Profile

Census 2001 Survey 2012

Women	49.4	50.1
Urban	26.6	30.8
Muslim	8.8	3.1
ST	34.0	30.8

All figures are in %.

The ﬁeldwork of the survey in Manipur was coordinated by Senjam Mangi Singh (Manipur University). The survey was designed and analysed by a team of researchers at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi which included Banasmita Bora, Dhananjai Kumar Singh, Himanshu Bhattacharya, Jyoti Mishra, K A Q A Hilal, Kanchan Malhotra, Kinjal Sampat, Rupali Warke, Shreyas Sardesai, Sohini Mookherjee, Vibha Attri, and Yogendra Yadav. Sanjay Kumar of the CSDS directed the survey.