Some comments on the discourse of ILP
- Part 1 -

Ningthoujam Ramesh Chandra *

Rally for Inner Line Permit (ILP) by women activists of IMA Market at BT Road, Imphal on 4th July 2012
Pix - Bunti Phurailatpam

"If Inner line permit (ILP) is not implemented in the state at the earliest, indigenous people of Manipur would be crushed down by the migrant population and the present MLAs [1] would not be able to hold the post of even a Pradhan[2] then", - Sapamcha Jadumani, president of local NGO called Federation of Regional Indigenous Society (FREINDS) has drawn public attention for the re-implementation of ILP system in Manipur during his recent public speaking in Imphal recently (Hueiyen News Service, 2012).

"Migrants Outnember Meeteis; ILP demand to gain momentum sets July 11, 2012, deadline… Alarmed over the tremendous increase in the population of non-Manipuris (Mayangs[3] ), Federation of Regional Indigenous Society (FREINDS) has threatened to take resort to various sorts of intense agitations……" (Hueiyen News Service, 2012).

"The migrant population in Thangmeiband, Uripok, Wangkhei, Thoubal, Moreh, Khundrakpam and other Assembly constituencies have the final say during election time, and the most saddening as well as embarrassing part is that Uripok, Nagamapal, Paona Bazaar and Thangal Bazaar are now completely ruled by non-Manipuris (Mayangs), Jadumani observed" (Hueiyen News Service, 2012).

Demand for re-implementation of Inner Lind Permit or in short ILP has been gradually gaining momentum. Valley based clubs, organisations, civil societies; NGOs, etc. are steadily taking part in the demand of ILP system re-implementation. Very recently, Indigenous Kuki People's Forum (IKPF) and Zeliangrong Students' Union Barak Valley (ZSUBV) have raised their concern for the imposition of ILP while, Kuki Inpi[4] has also joined the movement by submitting a memo to Prime Minister's office for the immediate implementation of ILP system in Manipur.

True, the slogans of All Manipur Student Union (AMSU) and All Manipur Students' Co-ordinating Committee (AMSCOC)[5] of late 70s, early 80s and mid 90s like 'Go Back Foreigners', 'Deport the foreigners', 'Inner Line Permit system is the only solution to preserve Manipuri's indigeneity and to check the influx of migrants…' was obviously for a good reason. However, how pragmatic is the demand when government of India (Ministry of Home affairs dept.) had out rightly responded that the state government has no jurisdiction to (re) implement Inner Line Permit system?

Besides, the official census data [6] (see table no. 1) would not be supporting the agitating groups, as we cannot infer any significant changes in decadal demographic status except, the decadal growth rate of 1951 and 1961, which was coincided with the abolition of 'Foreigners Permit' on 18th November 1950. Rather, the growth rate has been declining if we observe the recent development. However, the unenthusiastic response of the Home Minister should not handicap the ILP demand.

Table no. 1

Year	Population in Million India	Population in Million Manipur	Decennial Growth Rate in % India	Decennial Growth Rate in % Manipur
1931	278.98	0.45	11.00	16.04
1941	318.66	0.45	14.22	14.92
1951	361.09	0.58	13.31	12.80
1961	439.02	0.78	21.51	35.04
1971	548.16	1.07	24.80	37.53
1981	683.18	1.42	24.66	32.46
1991	846.30	1.84	23.85	29.29
2001	1027.02	2.29	21.35	24.86

Table1: - Decadal growth of population in India and Manipur (UCM 2005)

If we look at local NGO's reports or unofficial and invented calculation of illegal immigration in Manipur, the figures are quite horrifying. FREINDS' report reveals that there are around two hundred thousand Nepalese in Manipur. It further says that fifty percent of the total population of Jiribam subdivision of Imphal East district is comprised of Bangladeshi Muslim migrants.

And the presence of immigrants can be undeniably felt in and around Imphal city areas, Khudrakpam constituency, Moreh town, Kanglatombi areas, Mantripukhri, Telipati, etc. (Jadumani in Hueiyen News Service, 2012, also see table no. 2). Based on latest census report, FREINDS claims that immigrant has outnumbered the Meeteis [7] (excluding Scheduled caste) by 13, 103 heads (Hueiyen News Service, 2012).

Table no. 2

Component	Population	Population in Percentage
Denizens with offspring	704,488	30.71
Native Tribal Population (Kuki & Naga ethnic communities)	670,782	29.24
Native Meitei and other ethnic communities	918,626	40.05
Total	2,293,896	100.00

Table 2: - Estimated population composition of Manipur for the year 2001 (UCM 2005)

Indeed, it is really disturbing to learn this alarming development in Manipur's demographical status and this is something awkward. I believe that the demand for ILP system in Manipur should be considered as an inevitable mechanism to check the heavy influx of migrants into Manipur irrespective of state or central government's jurisdiction [8]. However, my only concern in ILP campaign is that the world should not mistake or perceived Meeteis [9] as a Mayang - (ethno) – phobic community.

Under what circumstances any third party can perceive Meetei as Mayang-phobic?

Well, it is equally disturbing to observe the discourses of ILP agitation, be it the campaign of early 80s by AMSU and AMSCOC or the ongoing campaign initiated by FREINDS. Mayang in historical purview are those people who were the inhabitants of Cachar districts of Assam.

The erstwhile Meetei kingdom during the reign of Kiyamba came into contact with the Mayang(s) in 1504 C.E (Kabui, 1991). However, Mayang had nothing to do with the people from Cachar for most of the contemporary Manipuris, though it was a known terminology for the Cacharis during sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth or nineteenth centuries.

Some local Manipuri scholars try to interpret Mayang as those populations who are non-native, non-Manipuri or to any individual who is a foreigner to native Manipur. I cannot fully agree with this explanation because none of the contemporary Manipuris would say a Chinese or a Thais or a Burmese - Mayang. Mayang, for most of the modern Manipuris indisputably, are those people who have sharp features (broader eyes, sharper nose), brown skin colour etc. 'or' apparently the mainland Indians.

Also by summarising the report of United Committee Manipur, 2005 as well as observing the recent daily news reports on ILP demand issue that has been initiated by FREINDS, one can observe that the ILP agitation is tending to give negative signals – the Mayang-phobic and Meetei-centric agitation. If the agitation is all about checking heavy influx migrants to Manipuri, then we must not forget to account of those Burmese Chin-Kuki migrants who can easily intrude into Manipur that shares common ethnic ties with some tribal communities of Manipur.

To be continued ...

References:

1. MLA-Members of Legislative Assembly.
2. Pradhan is the village level constitutional elected chief in India's three tiers Panchayati Raj system.
3. The erstwhile kingdom of Manipur particularly during the reign of king Kiyamba (1467 CE – 1508 CE) termed 'Mayang(s)' to those inhabitants of Cachar (the present day southeastern district of Assam). See also Kabui, G. (1991). History of Manipur (Vol. 1). New Delhi: National Publishing House, pp. 197-198.
4. Kuki Inpi is the 'Apex Organ' of Kuki people, which is the socio political body that represents all the tribes of erstwhile Kuki. For detail see - http://www.gangte.com/KukiInpi/1about.htm
5. AMSCOC merged with AMSU after 1980s agitation.
6. Census of 2001. Census data of 2011 has not officially come up yet.
7. Meetei are the major ethnic community that generally settles in four valley districts of Manipur.
8. See TSE Editorial
9. I intentionally mention only Meeteis instead of all the ethnic communities of Manipur because the agitation for (re)-implementation of ILP is mainly confine within the four valley districts of Manipur.

Bibliography

• Baruah, S. (2007). Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
• Geiger, D. (2008). Frontier Encounter: Indigenous Communities and Settlers in Asia and Latin America. (D. Geiger, Ed.) Copenhagen: IWGIA.
• Hueiyen News Service. (2012, July 1). ILP Demand: FREINDS forecast end of Natives, 'Non Manipuri rule Uripok, Nagamapal, Paona, and Thangal Bazaar area'. Hueiyen Laanpao , p. XX.
  - (2012, June27). Migrants Outnumber Meeteis; ILP demand to gain momentum set July 11 deadline. Hueiyen Laanpao, p. XX.
• Kabui, G. (1991). History of Manipur (Vol. 1). New Delhi: National Publishing House.
• Singh, M. A. (2009). A Study on Illegal Immigration into North-East India: The Case of Nagaland. New Delhi: Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis.
• United Committee Manipur. (2005). Influx of Migrants into Manipur: A Threat to the Indigenous Ethnic People. Imphal: UCM Imphal.
• Valeriano, B. (2009). When Does Migration Lead to Interstate Conflict? International Studies Association and Western Political Science (pp. 1-22). Chicago: University of Illinois .

---

* Ningthoujam Ramesh Chandra contributes regularly to e-pao.net
The writer is a PhD Scholar at International and Intercultural Studies, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain and can be contacted at rameshningthoujam(at)gmail(dot)com
This article was posted on July 21 2012

---