Some thoughts on ILP issue in Manipur
- Part 1 -

Deben Sharma *

Police conducting operation for individuals illegally staying Manipur at Khuyathong , Nagamapal and Babupara on 31 August 2012
Pix - Bunti Phurailatpam

The demand for Inner Line Permit (ILP) for Manipur seems to be raising dust. Questions skeptics would like to raise at the back of mind may often be uncomfortable but could also help in long run. Some such silly questions may include;

1. What is ILP?

2. Whose is the 'inner' and what is 'inner' in today's context or our world?

3. Is it something to be demanded or to be an administrative protective measures (in different forms) to safeguard local interests of indigenous people?

4. Why is ILP becoming people's political issue, apparently?

5. What is that we want out of ILP? What are issues we want to address by invoking ILP?

6. Is that something our elected government still can do given the legislative power to our State without envoking ILP (which Central Govt has problem)

7. What roles and responsibilities do aware citizens of the State (civil society organization still do without envoking ILP)?

8. What are indirect but very effective ways of addressing the migrant population issues? What strategies are possible?

What is ILP all about?

Simple understanding of it makes 2 things clear as everyone knows. ILP is an administrative measure of a Central authority to restrict outsiders into underdeveloped tribal regions and territories to protect and preserve their culture and resources, and to control unregulated exploitation of their natural resources. This is from the colonial external others who had much advance technologies to protect their own interests and extract resources from under developed tribal and indigenous areas. There is also sense of sympathy towards the underdeveloped others in the ILP regulation. The 'inner' in this sense is the indigenous tribal people and for whom ILP came into being without any demand by the people. The 'inner' is defined only within a powerful State.

The demand for ILP, as it has not been repealed, is legal but does it make sense especially when the Union Home considers it against their interests. The Union Govt not complying with the state legislative decisions may establish these facts;

* Central Govt does not consider Manipur state as weak and underdeveloped 'inner' areas that need special protection.

* The issues, therefore, does not warrant ILP

The laws and ILP

Logically, the essence of ILP and demands for it ends there. But alternately the question that springs out next is what is that the Central Govt consider strong about Manipur/valley people compared to those communities still protected by ILP? But whether or not Manipur deserves ILP the Central Govt must also recognize the fact that the civil society organizations do have some issues with the population situation in the State and are seeking a constitutional remedy in a state which is seriously affected by insugency.

Do the Central Govt see only Red in all the local issues of the 'others'?

Does the Central Govt consider ILP as also another covert demand of the insurgent groups or unworthy of their attention – in continuation of their dominant cultural chauvinist attitudes? In both the cases the Central Govt owes qualified response to the issues rather than outright rejection. They must consider how may the fear and apprehensions of indigenous community of Manipur be addressed and justice done in the spirits of the Rights of indigenous people to which India is a signatory? The issue will not disappear by simply rejecting it. Rejection may only fuel political discontentment and the chronic insurgency. Is this what the Central Govt wants to happen in Manipur? Or does it want to solve it without military use in the internal situation?

What is the issue about? Population or Economy

In this respect, one may like consider 'migration as economic event' than political or cultural. However, when the economy that attracts outsiders is not address timely may take political and cutlural forms in a democratic society. This is what is already happening in Manipur and what has already happened in Bhutan, and elsewhere.

That migrants Nepali populations; less of them legal and more of them illegal, overdominated the indigenous population of Bhutan came into light only in 1990 when the Royal Govt of Bhutan conducted its first systematic population census. By which time, Nepali unrests had begun demanding greater cutlural and political rights in that country. This triggered an unprecedented violent conflict between Nepali people and the state in that year itself. The Royal army of Bhutan armed itself overnight and attacked over the civilian movements causing huge displacements of the Nepali population. Nearly, 2 lakh population displaced people took refuge in the Nepal border and they are still languishing in those camps without any help from international communities. Bhutan was, albeit violently, able to do it because it is a recognized state and member of UN.

India may declare all Indians are indigenous but some may be more indigenous!

Within India and within the region, Kokrajhar already bursted out in violence but the problem is how do Bodo seek a solution within the Constitution they have accepted to address their political rights. What constitutional answers do the Union Govt of India has? Heads are reeling but the impact of violence on both sides; badly and equally? Do the state wants to things to happen everywhere in India and do the indigenous people also wait for such violent events and remain idle without addressing the local economy that pulls the migrants inside the indigenous areas.

Its also established fact that cross-border migration from Bangladesh is 'economic migration' and so also 'the outsiders' in the state (interstate and cross border) which have already assumed political and cultural proportion intimidating the indigneous population in the state also.

The disproportionate rise in 'outsiders' populations do create a deep sense of insecurity, fear and apprehensions in the minds of the majority Indigenous community in the valley and also elsewhere under the constitutional provisions for its citizens. The slow and gradual marginalization of majority community in the bureaucracy and administration of the state under SC and ST reservation policy may also add in internal discontentment. The Central Govt cannot evade responsibilities of finding out solution within the constitution. The issue must be heard if the Central Govt means good governance and has care for the people in the state.

Rejection of ILP demand though is creating greater unrests among us we may also ask ourselves some critical questions for hard rethinking on the issues. The questions are for both the state Govt and also ourselves (civil society organizations).

How do we the want the Centre to see our problems?

Have we been able to clearly articulate our problems and raise the right questions! Why do we, the majority community, feel the need for ILP? Do the majority community considers themselves weak and marginalized enough like the way tribal communities used to be in the colonial period, today? What are the strengths and opportunities do the majority community still hold compared to the empowered educated minority communities holding power positions today? Alternately, what are our weaknesses and threats we percieved as distinct cultural identity community without being unduely unjust to and over dominating over the rights to self-identification and determination of the minority communities – which had been caused of present day socio-political conflicts in the state?

Do we have the political leaderships in the state?

Why is it that our own elected Govt is unable articulate the problems of the people and take constitutionally correct steps to control over inflow of interstate and cross-border migrants while being at the international boundary? What economic policies in terms of human resource development for local economy has our state government been pursuing over the last few decades, to keep a balance of populaton, if at all there is any? The fact remains otherwise.

What priorities of our State Govt?

Over the last few decades both the state and people have been grappling with 'counter-insurgency activities' and the issues of 'territorial integrity' and 'MLR & LR Act 1956'. And what has been occupying the minds of our legislatures over the last decade has also been besides some of the multi-crore prjects, oil explorations, 'the Loktak (Protection Act 2006, 'ADC Amendment Act 2008' and 'the Municality Community Participation Act 2010'. All of these Acts also caused tremendous violent unrests both in the hills and Loktak areas but separately, so. Valley people are either indiferent or against the issues in the hills and vice-versa.

Do we confuse and clarify issues?

Looking at ILP issues fron another angle one may also benefit being skeptic about the situation. Are there other reasons; push factors or unwritten policy and plans that drive the migrants into the state despite the targeted killings, intimidations and quit notices against them? There has been quit notice served to them recently by a combined forces of banned armed groups in the valley even as civil society raised the issue of ILP. These events often help seeing the insurgent groups and civil society as one hand in globe. This brings up fundamental questions that may partly answer the Central Govt's rejection of the demand.

How do civil society movements present themselves as civilian law abiding people agitating to address issues that affect life and future survival under the constitutional provisions in democartic processes? Does the ILP movement need to present themselves as clear civil society groups seeking consitutional remedies to the local demgraphic issues?

To be continued ...