Diluting the issue of Inner Line Permit System

Bonomali A *

Meira Paibi Protest at Heirangoithong demanding implementation of ILPS on July 28 2014 :: Pix - Deepak Oinam

There have been many articles bringing out the nuances of ILPS and it is good sign that people are this time unanimous in their demand. It is a welcome sign and gives us a lot of hope. But, there has been few, first critical of the issue and second with too much of factual errors which are diluting the issue, spirit alone is not good enough. At this juncture, what we need is the unity and a right path of approach, our deeds should not be detrimental to the main cause. It may appear like a rejoinder to many articles written recently, but my attempt is to put some of the facts straight.

There are many foreigners (from Nepal, Myanmar and Bangladesh) and people from other states are in our voters' lists. It is so easy to get one's name in the voters' lists in Manipur. There are also many people who are in voter's lists in two different places. I do not know how it is so easily done in Manipur. It is also so easy for a foreigner to occupy some land here. I wish if we can deport all these people. While we tackle the issue of ILP, these extra-ILP issues also needs attention.

With this backdrop, let me discuss some more issues relating to ILP. Regarding Myanmar illegal immigrants, it may not be correct to contend that they were displaced from Manipur in 60's and 70's, there are documents that there were move (written by those in the lead) to settle Myanmar people in Langol in the early 70's. According to experts (we have many), Myanmar is in the distribution zone of Chin Kuki group of people, and there is a large population of this group still there. Considering the conditions in Myanmar (no better than Bangladesh), it is natural that these people attempt illegal immigration.

Let me open this article with what is written in the constitution regarding the movement and residence by the people in the country. The matter regarding the movement and residence is in the article 19 of the constitution. It is the right to freedom for the people. The text of the article 19 with relation to freedom of residence says that all citizens shall have the right to settle in any part of the country, it is the fundamental right for the citizens envisaged in the Art. 19(1)(e) of the constitution.

However, in the clause (5) of the article 19 (it does not have sub clause (a) or (b) or others), it has been provided that reasonable restrictions may be imposed in the interests of the "general public" or for the protection of interests of "scheduled tribe". So, practically, there are two provisos, one on the "interests of general public" and the other on the "interests of scheduled tribes" (but here, no provision for indigenous people).

For the first proviso, the general public is a wide term and if seen in the national context, and the general populace of the country may not welcome the idea that there are restrictions of their oversized population to greener pastures like Manipur. To me, the people of larger states may not be that sympathetic to our plight. So, let me take up the second part of the proviso. It is beyond doubt that the constitutional safeguards for the schedule tribes is going to continue for some time, so, this route seems to be more practical and reasonable.

It is a welcome step that the raised the issue has been at least mentioned in the Parliament. The thrush of the purported averment is that Manipur being nearly 90 % schedule tribe area, the ILPS can be enforced here. Good to have raised the issue in the Parliament. We all are aware of the Article 19 (1) and 19 (5), it can be pleaded that ILPS be enforced here from that angle. The spirit is good, but we can examine the merit of the averments, what about the Meitei area, which is not schedule tribe land? The centre may agree it to be extended to the hill areas, where it may not have any problem under Art.19 of the constitution. I am sure that this is not the demand of the present movement.

There has been articles advocating that Meitei also need to be included in the Schedule Tribes Lists. A schedule tribe is a tribe which is enlisted in either under the Schedule V or VI of the constitution. The Meiteis, by genetic stock or by history or by socio-economic standards are tribals and they are indigenous people, let us not get carried away the religion, it is a religion which came just a few hundred years back (of course Christianity came a bit later).

Already, people have started realising the fact that the caste system of under Hinduism is working against the interests of the Meiteis and slowly getting disenchanted with the religion. It is time that this fact is also noted by the policy makers of India. There are also meiteis who had never been a Hindu. I do not think the averments of one of our leader ascribing Hinduism as a reason against meiteis being recognised as a schedule tribe is tenable. There are tribes who are Hindus. Can meiteis survive simply without any protection under the present situation?

Other matters of this issue were raised in my article a few days back. The state government has also awakened to the importance of this issue and formed an all party committee. I feel that the social, constitutional and legal experts also should have been invited so that a fool proof document is built up so that we may have a do or die approach on this issue. The conflict with the fundamental rights need to be addressed, so that the matter is not easily scuttled.

A new legislation may have multiple fallouts. If this option is difficult, we may have Plan B, the Schedule Tribe route, by reclaiming the scheduled tribe status, it won't be difficult to amend the schedule for this purpose if we all here in Manipur are willing. The other option available is special status under Art. 370 as in J&K which can be Plan C, but the present government at the centre will be strongly against Art. 370. To me, Plan B is the most tangible one.

Any separate legislation by the state may run contra to the constitution and the committee has to take this fact in to account. Let these issues be the homework for the committee. The unrelated issues like Manipur was having a theoretical independence (which is totally wrong), there is trust deficit, the new land use policy etc. need to be discounted to check it negative value to our common cause.

Though, it is hailed as the regulation for protection of Tribal Culture by the contemporary advocates of ILP in North Eastern States, there are arguments that it is not an Act, but to me it has all the components of an Act so we may not need any new legislation. The central government in a few occasions in the past, tried to scrap the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 (Inner Line Permit) from the North Eastern states, in recent past too. So, to change the mind of the centre is not going to be easy.

It is going to be tough for the All Party Committee, so the committee should get the basics right. In the meantime, we have to ourselves check the dilution of the issue because our stakes are very high here.