Killing of Mmigrant Workers in Manipur
- Failure of Govts' institutions and non-Govt organizations -
- Part 1 -

By Seram Rojesh *

"The ghost of the March 17 and 18 this year has come back to hunt the consciences of the people, with unidentified gunman shooting to death for migrant workers while inflicting seriously injuries on two other in Imphal East and West today" (Imphal June 24, The Sangai Express) brought ' so disturbing ' in the mind of every civilize people.

It reminds the killing of 15 workers on March 17 and 18 which noticed the 'insecurity of the workers' especially who came from other states of India (Northern India). We all know that people of Manipur are known for their good hospitality toward the outsiders in Manipur.

When some naughty boys try to snatch some ice or eatable goods from outsiders while distributing to the local shops for selling, if it is seen by elderly woman or man, it is quite sure that those naughty boys would be scolded or beaten and tell "karegi toubirino meene leijadadana peisa tanba lakchabaduda lam lapna (why you are doing like that, they are just coming here to earn from the far place, don't do". This is the hospitality we have. This is how the outsiders are being treated in Manipur.

But unfortunately, in that same place, in Manipur, 19 workers (unarmed) had been killed in Manipur. How it is possible in Manipur? What it indicates and why it is happening? How it has been changed from Hospitality to Hostility? Are those who committed 'this crime' only had the responsibility? What is the role of the society in this 'crime'?

Before Manipur being taken over, Manipur had a proper administrative system to deal with the 'alien and foreign subject' by the Foreigner Department, which was under the charge of an additional Member Manipur State Durbar. From 1932-1933, the office was headed by Surjit Sanjenbam Nadia Singh, BA up to 31 January 1944, and Muulavi Quazi Muhamadwaliullah, BA from 1st February 1944 to 12 June 1947.

Sjt. L Somorendro Singh, BA, Minister State Council held charged from the 13 June 1947 and had collected 4,20,669-15-9 against the budget estimated Rs. 300000 according to the Manipur Administrative Report .

In the Manipur Neutralization act, 1947 provision 2, under interpretation defines "alien or foreigner' means a person who is not a state subject 'state means 'Manipur subject" hence clearly identified the foreigners in Manipur. Foreigners including British Indian (Indian) are allowed to enter into Manipur and stayed by giving taxes within a specific time, and even being permitted, it could be cancelled by the Department.

In case of Nepali, PMSD Manipur standing order no 2 of 26.8.1946 (Kanglatombi) allows only one Nepali village at Kanglatombi for settlement. Out of 64 applicants 60 house were verbally allowed under Memo RR no. 36436 Dt. 12/11/46 Sd./- (illigible), Offg. Foreigner's Members (M.S.D. Dt. 12/11/46) and forwarded to Land Revenue office. Only eligible Nepalese were permitted and hence it was dually restricted the subject of Nepalese by the 'Foreigners Fepartment' of Manipur.

Manipur state council resolution, on 19 September 1949 endorsed the opinion that "the retention of the permit system issue permit". In the post Indian rule in Manipur, the Chief Commissioner, Hammat Singh, on 9, October 1950, in his inaugural speech says "people of other part of India can no longer be treated as 'foreigner' and discriminatory treatment against them is neither possible nor wise" and as an action he abolished the 'permit system' of foreigner department under the notification on 18th November 1950.

On, 2nd February 1951, S. Indramani Singh moved a resolution in the advisory council "to revive the passport system in Manipur" so that person from outside Manipur might be allowed to come in with an account and scrutiny". The powerless advisory council could not resolve against the will of the commissioner appointed by Delhi.

As a consequence, the growth of the population in Manipur became tremendously changed from the census 1961 onwards. Pre-Manipur in India, 1911, 1921, 1931, 1941, 1951, it(growth rate) was 21.71, 10.92, 16.04, 14.92 and 12.80. Post –Manipur in India, from 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, 2001 it changed more than double times as 35.05, 37.73, 32.46, 29.27 and , in every 10 years. Manipur became an economic destiny for many outsiders including other parts of India (workers and businessman), Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar etc.

Interestingly, Foreigners (Protected Area) order, 1958(FPAO-1958) was passed in New Delhi on 19th august 1958. Provision 3 of this order says "No foreigners shall inter into of remain in any protected area except under and accordance with permit issued by the Central Government or any officer authorized by the central government in this behalf".

Clause 3 of provision 1 exempted the subject of Bhutan, Sikkim and National of Nepal. FPAO-1958 allowed free entry of Nepalese into Manipur. That is why unaccounted Nepalese are coming freely in Manipur and settled in many places as contrary only village was allowed to settle in Kanglatombi in 1948.

Manipur has been under this FPAO-1958 in the last decades. The foreign industrialist and tourist who can invest for the growth of Manipur economy are prohibited to enter into Manipur a place which was described by Japanese as "A flower on lofty height". As Manipur got 4, 20, 669-15-9 revenues, was a big money coming from foreigner office in 1947.

But, because of the FPAO-1958 application, it not only closed the economic opportunity in Manipur but also cut off Manipur from the rest of the world and allows foreign national like Nepalese a legitimate entry in Manipur freely. This is because of the application of the Indian Law which does not concern the demographic condition of a state like Manipur. It is against the interest of Manipur.

After 30 years of Manipur in India, problems of the outsiders was noticed in the mind of the Manipur people specially students community. The All Manipur students Union (AMSU) and All Manipur Students Co–ordination Committee (AMSCOC) lunched a powerful agitation as "Metop-Meeyancha tanthokadabani'(meetop means foreigner and Meeyancha means outsiders from India, go back)".

During the agitation, Class X examination was cancelled and two students were killed. An agreement was signed between the Government of Manipur and representative of AMSU and AMSCOC on 27th July 1980 and 5th august 1980.

In the agreement, provision 1 clause (a) says, "The question of foreigners should be defined by the constitution of India and the law".
Clause (b) "identification of foreigners should be based from the date of the enforcement of the constitution viz. 26 January 1951".
Provision (4) says "foreigners in Manipur with citizenship certificate from West Bengal, Tripura and other states should be send back to those states and their infiltration into Manipur should be prevented under special enacted legislation".
Provision (6) insists "identification and detection of foreigners should be done". All these agreement was never turned into action.

Again in 1994, AMSU started the agitation and on 9th November 1994, an agreement was signed between AMSU representing N. Muhilal and Government of Manipur. In the agreement it is said that "towards a finding solution to the problems of the illegal migrants who have settle in the state of Manipur'; 'the problems of illegal migrants would hereafter be termed as the foreigners problems".

In 1980 it was targeted to "identification and detection of the foreigners (not even a single word of Migrants was termed)" but in 1994 agreement "the problems of illegal migrants" was targeted. These two agreements do not include the migrants who are basically from other part of Indian, Nepal, and Bhutan etc. These two agreements do no address the issues of outsiders subject to Indian citizens since foreign nationals are defined under the provision of the constitution of India, the foreigner's act 1946 and other relevant laws.

Unfortunately Manipur Government never implemented the two agreements. The more unfortunately, the most powerful "pressure organization" who were representing Students Communities have been fragmented since AMSU was split into two - MSF (Manipur students Federation) after election conflict between one groups led by Romesh and another led by Mr. Ahanthem Montu. Another students organization DESAM emerged and than AKSU (All Kangleipak Students Union) was formed.

Even though, they have been working for the interest of the students, they have not been able to come as a powerful Mass Organization as it was like AMSU and could give pressure to the government. They are contesting in the college and University election representing the respective student's organization and emerges more enmity and fragmentation.

In 2007, 17 April, AMSU president declared in a function of "17th April, Realization Day "at 'Hao Ground' that they would start the campaigns to address the threat of the outsiders in Manipur but it has not been emerged as a popular movement still. Other popular civil society organizations, Apunba Lup concentrates on AFSPA, AMUCO and UCM on Pease and Integrity issues and respective community organization are concentrating on there concerned issues. Fragmentation of the student's organization is paying a heavy prize to the 'Manipur Politics'.

The Organization, like 'friends' has been trying to address the outsider's issues. But it couldn't give any impact on the Government, since there is no mass based in the ground. On the other hand, Manipur government is emerging as a powerful organization who always tries to follow the orders by Delhi.

The Chief Minister Ibobi Singh wanted to show that his is a very much loyal to the Delhi instructions to save the stability of his chair and hence peaceful democratic movements are not allowed in Manipur. Kangleipal was arrested by his opposition to the arming of villagers in Heirok and re-arrested under NSA (National Security Act).

Manipur Government does not give any space and it is brutally suppressed by the police forces including 'Manorama' issues and many others. In the Assembly Session he replied that "we are all Indians, so there is no question of addressing the 'Non Manipuri issues' because the constitution of India provides every citizens in this country to go everywhere and settle".

As a responsible Chief Minister, he does not consider "non Manipuri" issues as 'problems' and closed all the democratic ways. Inner Line Permit System is implementing in Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh. But Manipur Government doesn't want any kind of reconsideration in this regards. This invites many violent methods to approach the issues.

By simply protecting Manipur interest, you can't change the constitution. Manipur have only two MPs in Parliament. Constitution could be amended by the majority vote. Rest of India wants a uniformed law that is why there is an attempt to abolish article 370.

In Mumbai "Shiv Sena" led by Bal Thakery launched the campaign of "Son of the Soil". Recently Raj Thakery and his party members openly attacked the migrant workers who came from the Northern India in Mumbai and urged to change the constitution of India. Mumbai is the centre of the Indian economy and business.

In the 2001 census, total population is 96752247, out of 57,894,839 are Marathi speaking people, Hindi - 6168941, Gujarati - 2016381, Tamils - 427447, Nepalise - 39751, Manipuri - 748, (census of India, language, 2001). Marathi belongs to 59.8% in Maharastra. There are 35 administrative districts in Maharastra. Even the population of Amravati district (26, 06,837) of Maharastra is more than the population of Manipur.

Assamese speaking people are reduced to only 48% in Assam. Tripuri is 28% in Tripura. Manipuris including Hills and Valley in Manipur remains only 69.3%. Now in Manipur every 3 people, 1 is outsiders. Total no of outsiders (704488) in Manipur are more than the total no of indigenous Hilly people (tribal) (670782), (Source; Influx of Migrants into Manipur).

If this kind of "abnormal influx" including Migrants workers continues for another 20/30, can we imagine what will be the future of Manipur as, like Tripura, or much better than?

Let's observes, is there any possibility to produce a people like Bal Thakerey or Raj Thakarey of Mumbai in Manipur? If Mumbai was under the disturbed area under Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958, nobody can say that they would not be pickup and disappeared after they had been arrested. But in a situation like Manipur anything is possible. You can be arrested at any time and disappeared.

Who can say where is Bijoykumar of Thangmeiband who was a leader of AMSU. He was very much concerned about the influx of migrants and outsiders in Manipur. He disappeared after one day he was taken away by the Army from his Thangmeiband residence. It is always difficult to raise the outsider's issues because Manipur Market is under their control.

Manipur economic power is in the hands of outsiders who came from other parts of India especially from Northern India. They are highly protected by the politician and security forces.

The culture of gun has been an instrument to do politics in Manipur in the last more than 4 decades. People have been ruled by the gun of Indian army under AFSPA practically. Recently, the gun culture has been legitimized by arming the civilian in Heirok that "you have to protect your own life; we will provide guns for that."

The corruptions are cleared by the language of gun. Even the students and teachers in the examination hall are being shot for their misconduct in exam to bring 'a quality education' in Manipur. In the D.C. office, it takes so many days even to get an OBC certificate but contrary the certificate will be given within half an hour by paying 300 Rs. A non violent peaceful agitation by social activist Irom Sharmila is still in the Police custody without any effect.

If someone raises this issue in Manipur, there is a possibility that the people involved will be charged under anti-national and anti-India. In the case of student initiation, it will be little better; unfortunately the students are also fragmented into different inclination of their interest. Manipur government is determined to be loyal only to the centre and hostility towards public.

Chief Minister O Ibobi Singh closed all the peaceful ways to address the issue in the name of "national state". Indian Constitution does not protect the security of the small community or state like Manipur since every Indian are allowed to settle to everywhere and Manipur does not include in the category of "tribal protection".

The provision of the Indian Constitution have the advantage for the bigger states and economically advance people (businessmen) of U.P, Gujarat, Punjab, Tamil Nadu , West Bengal, Bihar( their population is in terms of crore). But it is a threat for the small states who have few population, non tribal majority like Manipur, Tripura even Assam. If the permit system was not abolish against the wish of the Manipuri people, under the permit system, it could have checked and scrutinized, than there would not have that much of unaccounted outsiders in Manipur.

Then people who are very much concerned about the "disturbing disorder" due to the presence of unwanted outsiders (their perspective) in the soil of Manipur have taken the culture which has been using as and instrument i.e. "culture of Gun" to convey their 'politics' in Manipur.

The method they used is not accepted by any civilized society including the Manipur society. But the issues they are trying to address are very much important for the future generation. It is the product of all the failure of the Institutions of the Government and the non-government organizations to address the issues of 'outsiders' in Manipur.

We are also having the responsibility of this unwanted development. Many people have condemned this killing but there is a lack of "collective determination" to address the "disturbing disorder" of the "presence of outsider" in Manipur that could change the culture, society, demography, polity economy, future generation and security of Manipur.

One of the sociologist, Huysmans analyses in his work on security he says, "if a society moves from an economic approach of migration to a security approach, the relation between indigenous people and migrants and its regulation change (among others, instead of being a labour force, migrants become enemies of a society)( Huysmans, 1995, 1997)

Related Articles on Killing of Migrant Workers:

• Readers' E-mail on killing of Migrant workers
• Timeline :: Mass Killing of Migrant Workers
• Killing of migrant labourers - RS Jassal
• Understanding the politics of Killing - Nahakpam Shanta
• What is your philosophy of the 'killings'? - Bishwajit Okram