Prof. Nani Bath says the 1873 BEFR was introduced to safeguard British commercial and sovereign interests, while Prof. Priyoranjan Singh calls for a fact-based reassessment of ILP demands in the Northeast.
DIMAPUR — The Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation (BEFR), 1873, popularly known as the Inner Line Regulation, was extended to Naga-inhabited areas of present-day Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh primarily to safeguard British commercial and sovereign interests, Prof Nani Bath of Rajiv Gandhi University, Arunachal Pradesh, said on Friday.
Bath was speaking at a two-day national seminar on the BEFR organised by the Naga Students’ Federation (NSF) at Town Hall, Dimapur. He was addressing a session on “Enforcement of the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 in Arunachal Pradesh”.
He said the expansion of tea gardens and rubber plantations brought British traders into conflict with tribal communities, leading to law and order problems in present-day Nagaland and the Tirap, Changlang and Longding districts of Arunachal Pradesh, then known as the Rampang and Borduria-Namsang Control Area.
The British, he said, sought to prevent traders from entering into agreements with tribal communities without government approval. This led to the creation of an “Inner Line”, beyond which a person’s life and liberty would be at his own risk.
Tracing Arunachal Pradesh’s constitutional history, Bath said the region was never a district of Assam but was administered directly by the Centre through the Governor of Assam as Agent to the President.
He said the BEFR remains strictly implemented in Arunachal Pradesh, particularly Section 7, which prohibits non-natives from having an interest in land and its produce. The state framed rules for implementing the BEFR only in March 2026, he noted.
Bath said the electronic Inner Line Permit (e-ILP) system and local sponsor mechanism were functioning effectively. Under the sponsor system, an Arunachal Pradesh State Transport Services sponsor assumes responsibility for visitors.
However, he flagged benami properties, mega projects and the rights of children born to tribal women married to non-locals as major challenges.
Benami properties, he said, allow outsiders to circumvent Section 7, with shops and properties registered in the names of tribal residents but financed and operated by outsiders.
He also cited the proposed 11,200 MW Siang Upper Multipurpose Project, which could bring one to three lakh outside workers into a state with a population of around 13 lakh. Under the 2026 rules, a non-tribal project manager can sponsor up to 200 persons at a time, he said.
On children of tribal women married to non-locals, Bath called for measures to regulate their rights to ensure protection of tribal land under Section 7.
He said the BEFR was a statutory safeguard, unlike constitutional provisions such as Articles 371A in Nagaland, 371G in Mizoram and 371H in Arunachal Pradesh. He described the former two as stronger protections arising from political agreements.
Warning against dilution of the BEFR, Bath called for greater unity among the eight North Eastern states in resisting policies such as the Uniform Civil Code.
Concluding his address, Bath cited the Angami saying, “Urra Uvie”—our land is our heritage, to none shall it be surrendered.
ILP must be assessed on facts, not emotion: Prof Singh
Prof Ch. Priyoranjan Singh of Manipur University said the North East should reassess demands for the Inner Line Permit (ILP) on facts rather than emotion, arguing that the region had reached a social and political equilibrium after decades of unrest.
Speaking on “Enforcement of the BEFR, 1873 in the state of Manipur”, Singh said Manipur had a pass system at Moreh and Jiribam even before colonial rule and introduced a Foreigners Pass in 1901. Manipur, he said, was a British protectorate and not part of British India, while the pass system was abolished in 1950.
Its abolition triggered protests and later fuelled the anti-foreigner movement launched by the All Manipur Students’ Union in 1980. Renewed demands for ILP followed subsequent land protection movements. The Centre extended ILP to Manipur in 2019 following the Citizenship Amendment Act.
Singh identified migration, population imbalance, threats to identity, land alienation, unemployment and influx from Myanmar and Bangladesh as key drivers of the ILP demand.
Citing population data, he said the Meitei share declined from 60% in 1901 to 44% in 2011, while the tribal population rose from 35% to 41%, Muslims from 4% to 8%, and outsiders from 1% to 7%.
He said Manipur’s digitised ILP system includes district monitoring committees, police verification and sponsor liability. Sponsors can face fines of INR 50,000 to INR 1 lakh and criminal liability if permit holders overstay or commit offences.
More than two lakh permits were issued in 2022, with 85% being temporary 30-day permits. Most entrants were from Assam, Bihar, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh.
Singh stressed that regulation alone was insufficient and called for greater economic competitiveness. He said Manipur had begun replacing outside skilled workers, including masons, painters and carpenters, with local youth.
“ILP is only one instrument,” Singh said, urging the region to move beyond dependence on ILP, Scheduled Tribe status and special funding and focus on economic self-reliance.