Manipur deserves appropriate "ILP" policy

Sira Kharay *

Sit-In and Rally to protest Killing of Student by Police firing and pro-ILPS on July 22 2015 :: Pix - Shankar Khangembam

The contention of the State Government that implementation of Inner Line Permit (ILP) system would run contrary to the provisions of the Constitution has two fundamental misconceptions. First, the demand for "ILP" is not a legal claim but more a political assertion for crucial historical and cultural reasons. Second, the newly emerging identity consciousness is not necessarily for enforcement of any right conferred by the Constitution of India, but more an indigenous awakening as traceable to Article VIII of the Treaty of Accession, 1949, signed between Bodh Chandra Singh, Maharajah of Manipur and V.P. Menon/Sri Prakash, Adviser to the Government of India, Governor of Assam, Shillong.

Again, the emotive argument that "ST" status is the only way to "ILP" system is both disastrous as well as legally unsound. The modus operandi of advancing such rhetorical argument unnecessarily polarizes the issue on ethnic lines. For the same reason, the apprehension that the demand for "ILP" is "a move to strengthen Meiteis' dominance" by making it easier for them to gain "ST" status is equally misplaced. Such polemicist confusion lies in misconceiving "ILP" as a right conferred upon the "STs" which in fact are two totally different things.

"ILP" is not a legal right simpliciter but more a policy regulation. "ILP" is a pre-constitutional executive promulgation, whereas the term "ST" is only a recent post-constitutional creation. "ILP" is an offshoot of the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, whereas "ST" is a fictional status which can only flow from Article 342 of the Constitution. Thus, "ILP" is not a legal incidence referable to "ST" status as misconceived. It is true that every "ST" is invariably a "tribe", however, every "tribe" is not necessarily an "ST" and every indigenous, ethnic, or tribal people need not be an "ST" for the purposes of demanding "ILP".

The Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 made under the Government of India Act, 1870 was originally promulgated to protect the "Crown's interest in the tea, oil and elephant trade". However, with the change in circumstances, it gradually evolved into a policy to protect the indigenous and tribal peoples from "incessant invasion into their independent domain". Col. Wedgewood during the British House of Commons debate on the Government of India Act of 1935, argued that the Indians "want to get them as cheap labour and if these people are to be saved from the hell of civilization, the only chance they have is British protection and British control and to be free from the insidious advances of the rich people in the Provinces to exploit them".

It may be recalled that the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 was adapted under the Government of India Act, 1935 and thereafter, under the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950. It was subsequently re-adapted under the North-Eastern Areas (Re-organisation) Act, 1971. New Delhi inherited the system with further promulgation of more stringent Protected Area Permit (PAP) system in relation to foreigners under the Foreigners (Protected Areas) Order, 1958, not so much for protecting the indigenous and tribal peoples, but primarily for security concerns to protect its expansionist interest.

The constitutional validity of the "ILP" system was for the first time challenged as ultra vires the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution in the matter of North East Plains People Traders and Youth Federation vs. Union of India. The Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court, however, rightly upheld the constitutional validity of the system. Arguably, the indigenous and tribal peoples' interest in "ILP" system has now been thus raised to the status of legal right by progressive judicial interpretation.

However, the insincerity of New Delhi is writ large when it bluntly rejected Manipur's first bid for "ILP" in the year 2012 observing that "there is no provision for the introduction of "ILP" in Manipur". It may be true that the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 presently has no provision for the State of Manipur, but that in itself does not take away the Central Government's power to make appropriate amendment or law in that regard. New Delhi has full legislative as well as executive competence to implement appropriate "ILP" system in respect of any State, District or area, especially in light of the special constitutional status conferred upon Northeast.

More importantly, Article VIII of the Treaty of Accession, 1949 binds the Government of India to protect and preserve the local laws, customs and conventions prevailing in the State of Manipur pertaining to the social, economic and religious life of the people. Assuming the validity of the Treaty for the purposes of this article, what is more fundamental for the State of Manipur is this crucial document and every constitutional or legal provision in relation to the State of Manipur must conform with this basic covenant for any violation thereof would confer on the State of Manipur the right to terminate the Treaty as per the terms of Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969.

The fate of indigenous Tripuri people being reduced to minority in their own homeland is not unknown to Northeast. Manipur's fear of losing indigenous culture and identity is not illegitimate. Manipur surely once had its own permit system and there is no reason why it cannot revive the same. The State Government must take a tough political stand instead of "crawling" when it was "asked to bend". Land and tourism being in the State List, the State Government itself is fully competent to frame its own appropriate "ILP" policy in case it still has its native sentiment.