Some comments on the discourse of ILP
- Part 2 -

Ningthoujam Ramesh Chandra *

Torch Rally at Kwakeithel demanding implementation of Inner Line Permit (ILP) on 12 July 2012
Pix - Bunti Phurailatpam

It must be remembered that the erstwhile sovereign kingdom of Manipur tackled the issue of migrant successfully without any racial biases. The society was also able to integrate the people coming to Manipur. For instances, Muslims who were war captives were offered Meitei women and assigned appropriate Meitei surname. Similar is the case of Brahmins who were migrated from the west - 'nongchup haram' (western gate). So there was no problem of migrants in Manipur Kingdom.

Of course, there might certainly be some reason why Manipuri people tend to see 'Mayangs' as the prime threat to the demographic structure of Manipur. Baruah's 'Nationalizing space' [1] and India's developmental paradigm [2] (that attracts or facilitates immigrant) would help us to demystify Manipuri Vs. Mayang in ILP demand. Nationalisations of frontier space either through militarisation or state-facilitate or state sponsored settlement (Geiger, 2008) are one of the ultimate goals for any colonising entity.

Obviously, India's militarisation or developmental projects in Northeastern region in general and Manipur in particular apparently exhibits some covert meanings. Abolition of ILP system in 1951 as well as non-ratification of ILO 169 by India also manifests some hidden implications. Territory of Manipur that acquires a vital geostrategic location that lies on the trade routes of South-Asia, Southeast Asia and Central-Asia, is indeed becoming an inevitable business for India.

Further, the Chinese invasion of early 60s has already exposed India's vulnerabilities in the north-eastern region. It was the Naga independentist [3] rebellion that begun to make officials of the post-colonial Indian state anxious. Beginning with the China war, the managers of the Indian state began to see the external and internal 'enemies' in this frontier region coming together and constituting a looming threat to national security (Baruah, 2007). In such circumstances, India might not be ready to grant another protective discriminatory or autonomy (ILP) to Manipur.

Who will be an illegal immigrant if the agitating entities are demanding to identify foreigners dated from 26th January 1950?

As per section 2(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act of 1955 defines an "illegal immigrant" are those people who enter into Indian Territory: -
(a) Without a valid passport or other travel documents and such other document or authority as may be prescribed by or under any law in that behalf; or
(b) With a valid passport or other travel documents and such other document or authority as may be prescribed by or under any law in that behalf but remains therein beyond the permitted period of time.

Section 3 of the Citizenship Act of 1955 (acquisition of citizenship) says that,
(i) A person born in India on or after 26th January 1950, but before 1st July 1987, is a citizen of India by birth irrespective of the nationality of his/her parents.
(ii) A person born in India on or after 1st July 1987, but before 3rd December 2004, is considered a citizen of India by birth if either of his/her parents is a citizen of India at the time of his/her birth.
(iii) A person born in India on or after 3rd December, 2004, is considered citizen of India by birth if both the parents are citizens of India or one of the parents is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant at the time of his/her birth.

Section 5 (4) further says that, any minor child can be registered as a citizen of India, if the Central Government is satisfied that there are "special circumstances" justifying such registration. These above mention provisions of the Citizenship act of 1955 together with the fact that most immigrants who entered into Indian Territory have not followed the legal process to become Indian citizens complicate the issue of identifying the illegal immigrants.

Conclusion:

Recent economic transformation and the process of class differentiation in India's northeast region in general and Manipur in particular have provided a significant economic opportunities to new immigrants from neighboring countries as well as from mainland region. Government of India aspires to regulate migration policy since long time. But, it seems not successful particularly in northeast region; and hence illegal cross- border migration has been a concern.

By its very nature, illegal migration to northeast region is extremely difficult to measure; and it is far more complex in view of the ethnic ties that the migrants share with the native population (Singh, 2009). More communal ethnic conflict is bound to happen if the govt. does not take up tactful measures.

However, taking up measures or to scapegoat upon migrants that migration could cause havoc to place of destination does not mean that migration should be discourage [4] ; but the manager of the state or the agitating groups should make a serious effort in the discourse of ILP or formulate a workable migration policy before any untoward could happen.

Political consensus on the issue of migration has been overdue. Tension between the natives and immigrants or amongst the natives are becoming recent phenomena that have been occurred in India's northeast region due to unabated cross-border migration, which has severe demographic, social and political implication.

To campaign against immigration on the other hand tends to divide people on communal lines that may even create tension between natives. However, raising voice to re-implement ILP in Manipur has nothing wrong for any indigenous Manipuris nevertheless, one should be very careful or find different method if the infiltration of migrants has to be checked.

References:

1. See Baruah, S. (2007). Nationalizing Space: Cosmetic Federalism and the Political of Development in Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, Pp. 33-58
2. Ibid, also see Geiger, D. (2008). Frontier Encounter: Indigenous Communities and Settlers in Asia and Latin America. (D. Geiger, Ed.) Copenhagen: IWGIA.
3. See Baruah, S. (2007). Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
4. See Valeriano, B. (2009). When Does Migration Lead to Interstate Conflict? International Studies Association and Western Political Science (pp. 1-22). Chicago: University of Illinois .

• 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 .