Dr. K. Hoshi, Phek Town
[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he efforts of the Survival Nagaland and NSF and its affiliates in spearheading the illegal migrants issue in Nagaland is laudable. What the State government has been failing on its part for year after years, these organizations have taken upon themselves to shoulder the responsibility. Yet in strict legal terms, such exercises, however genuine they might appear to be, have to be within the ambit of the law. They need prior sanction of the State government.Entry of outsiders into Nagaland (erstwhile Naga Hills district of Assam Province) is governed by two laws. Inner Line Permit (ILP) regulates the entry of genuine Indian citizens and Protected / Restricted Area Permit (PAP / RAP), in addition to regular visa, regulates the entry of foreigners. ILP operates under the provisions of Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation (BEFR), 1873 while PAP/RAP operates under the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
While the offenders of Foreigners Act are tried and disposed off by the provisions of Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964; BEFR, 1873 has no such statutory body in Nagaland till date. In Assam, following the Assam Accord in 1983, Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act (IMDT), 1983 was enacted by the Parliament for detection of illegal immigrants in Assam. However, it was struck down by the Supreme Court of India in 2005. The difference between the Foreigners Act, 1946 and IMDT was that; in the former, the burden of proving the citizenship or otherwise rested with the accused; while in the later, it rested on the accuser and the police.
Foreigners Act, 1946 is a Central government act and therefore the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Govt. of India is the custodian of this law. Strictly speaking, ILP is a State subject because it applies to Indian citizens (British subjects in pre-independent era) only. However, without going into the details of the two laws (in which I’m not an authority), my objective of writing this piece of opinion is to make humble suggestions for their effective implementations, especially ILP, in the State.
After India attained independence, the constitution of India provided certain safeguards to the tribal population. Non-domicile people from mainland India were required to obtain ILP from the district administration and that too, for a limited period. However, the scenario had changed in recent years. Genuine Indian citizens are given ILP in the form of work permit for a year or so, that could be extended. Earlier, issuing of ILP was very much restricted but now it has become a formality or ceremonial, mostly due to monetary consideration. Thousands or may be even lakhs of Indian citizens have entered Nagaland for various reasons. Illegal migrants from across the border makes double or triple of that. To say there are still restrictions seems paradoxical. Indian citizens that had settled in Nagaland prior to 1st December 1963 are recognized as indigenous inhabitants of Nagaland and enjoying certain safeguards like Nagas by blood.
Illegal Bangladeshi Migrants (IBM) is a misnomer because, irrespective of legal or illegal migration, a Bangladeshi is a foreigner by the definition of Foreigners Act, 1946. Their entry into Nagaland is supposed to be regulated by PAP under Foreigners Act, 1946. Foreigners Act defines foreigner as a person who is not a citizen of India. Foreigners are required to obtain PAP/RAP from the MHA. PAP is normally issued for 10 days only and has an option of 7 days extension. Foreigners cannot live in India, let alone run business, without being naturalized as Indian citizens. Conversely, if they have entered Nagaland as Indian citizens by obtaining ILP, as per law, they can’t be treated as foreigners. By giving them ILP, we only legitimize their citizenship as Indians.
The casual attitude of Naga people has encouraged people of dubious citizenship to enter Nagaland, the numbers of which have assumed alarming proportion. They have displaced local entrepreneurs and captured almost all trades and commerce in Dimapur and that too, under the patronage of some local protectors. Nagas accept them as our valuable tenants without bothering to ascertain their integrity and antecedents. Nagas are simpletons. A villager’s narrow concept of foreigner connotes the whites only. Generally, Nagas don’t consider people in neighboring countries as foreigners.
“According to the Foreigners (report to the police) Order, 1971, made under the Foreigners Act, 1946, every householder or other person shall report to the officer in charge (OC) of the nearest Police Station, the arrival or presence in his household or any other premises occupied by him or under his control of any foreigner, if he knows or has reasons to believe that he is a foreigner”. In other words, if you are harboring a foreigner (a Bangladeshi) without informing the police, you are violating this provision.
Nagaland should learn a lesson from Tripura and Assam where the indigenous people are outnumbered by illegal migrants. Vote bank politics has been largely responsible for such exponential growth of immigrant population in these States. They have been enumerated in India’s electoral roll. They are given ration cards, both of which proved their nationalities as Indians. The same is happening in Nagaland today. The anti-social activities perpetrated by these people with or without local support needs no introduction.
In Arunachal Pradesh, the Constitution (Eighty Third Amendment) Act, 1992, made provisions that, only the indigenous tribal people are allowed to participate in the democratic process. Sixteen points agreement did not give that safeguard to Nagas. On the contrary, out of sixty assembly constituencies, 1 Dimapur – I seat is a general seat in which any Indian citizen can contest. Out of about twelve lakh electorates in Nagaland, at least two to three lakhs will be non-Nagas. Article 371 (A) has failed the Nagas in this.
The problem of illegal migrants in Nagaland is no longer a temporary problem. It has become a chronic problem requiring long-term measures to tackle it. Periodical ILP check by NGOs cannot bring any lasting solution. The State government is the only authority to enforce the law. But it has no concrete mechanism to address the issue. NGOs can assist the government. But it has no legal authority to usurp government’s role; not even on the ground of government’s failure.
“On 9th August 2012, the Supreme Court, while delivering its verdict on public interest litigation (PIL) hailed that the Govt. of India is committed to deporting illegal Bangladeshi migrants, but only lawfully”. What is not done lawfully can be counter-productive. A mass movement like Assam movement may be the call one day but without intensive public awareness and education on the issue, the movement will be directionless and cannot take shape. With a porous border along its west, south and north borders; illegal migrants issue will remain a permanent problem in Nagaland. Permanent problem will need permanent solution. We should try to find appropriate regulating body on permanent basis which will device mechanisms to address the pass and present loopholes and meet the future challenges.
In my humble opinion, the need of the hour is to institute an ‘independent body’ by the State government. As stated earlier, ILP issue is a state subject. The Constitution (Eighty Third Amendment) Act, 1992 empowers the State governments to amend local laws in conformity with the new provisions in the Constitution. If there’s political will, there should not be any problem for the present opposition-less government to legislate a law for institutionalization of the entire ILP operation in the State. All stakeholders may be included in the independent body. Mass-based organizations should study the feasibility and press the state government for setting up of such independent body under the govt. of Nagaland.
