Manipur, once called the “Jewel of India”,has sadly often been in the news more for bad reasons than good. The protest movements for and againstthe 3 bills - the Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015 (PMP Bill), the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment) Bill, 2015, and the Manipur Shops and Establishments (Second Amendment) Bill, 2015 - passed by the Manipur Legislative Assembly on 31 August 2015 has literally thrown the state into turmoil and increased hill-valley divide.
The PMP Bill points out that prior to the Merger Agreement on 15 September 1949, entry into Manipur was regulated by a permit system, however this was abolished on 18 November 1950. Since then there has been no restriction on entry of other Indian citizens to Manipur and the rise of the population, particularly of the non-indigenous, has dramatically changed the state’s demography. The bill also stated that it is feared that the people of Manipur will lose their identity and existence in the absence of a protective law similar to the earlier permit system to restrict the influx of outsiders.The Merger Agreement without a greater autonomy or a provision for protecting indigenous identity was a huge blunder. On the one hand, the report on the 7th June that the President of India has held back the PMP Bill for re-examination by legal and constitutional experts for a new legislation to protect and preserve the indigenous people of Manipur after looking into all aspects of the hill and valley people of Manipur and the return of the other two bills for examination for a reasonable conclusion have led to intensified agitation in the valley demanding implementation of ILPS.
On the other hand, there is no let down in the equally strongtribal protest movement spearheaded by the Joint Action Committee Against Anti-Tribal Bills (JAC) in the hills and the Delhi-based Manipur Tribals Forum in Delhi against the bills. The dead bodies of the 9 tribal martyrs who were killed during the protest immediately after the passing of the bills remain unburied with the JAC and tribal public sticking to their guns that the dead bodies will wait for an honourable burial until the cause they died for, that is, justice for tribals, has been achieved.
In an unprecedented incident, many peaceful tribal protestors who sought to meet with Manipur chief minister-led delegation of politicalparties from the state have been injured by Manipur Rifles and police personnel. The delegation was camping in New Delhi for pressurising the Central Government for President’s assent to the 3 bills.The situation has gone from bad to worse.
The concern regarding the influx of non-locals into Manipur causing demographic imbalance is indeed concerning as it poses a danger for the future of indigenous people of the state both in the valley and in the hills. This danger, especially in the absence of constitutional safeguards for the indigenous communities of the state, will only exacerbate with railway lines connecting the state with the rest of the country and the Act East Policy taking shape. Manipursociety, as many other societies around the globe, is caught in a dilemma between economic development and protection of identity or how the two are balanced.
For example, the introduction of Free Trade system between India and Myanmar in 1994 without any special provision for the local indigenous people have not benefitted the local tribal populace,but disadvantaged them as most of the trades involving huge investment and skills are beyond their reach and manual jobs which used to be a means of livelihood for many of them had gone. The steep rise in land price in Moreh townhave pushed many poor tribal dwellers in town further away or forced them to sell their properties and the lands in the surrounding areas are at constant risk of being lost to developmentor non-tribalat the cost of the local tribal community.
The already marginalized tribal people have been further marginalised and their future is bleaker than ever in the absence of 6th schedule provisions, which Manipur Government has consistently refused to implement despite Centre’s keenness for its implementation.
As regards tribal resistance to the 3 bills, it certainly has to do with certain genuine concernsthat are present in some of the clauses contained in the 3 bills that will potentially infringe upon their rights over their identity, land and resources. Tribal interests will be severely undermined once the bills are enacted to become law and enforced.
Whereas the State Government and valley people say the 3 bills are for protection of all indigenous communities of Manipur from the danger of unregulated influx of outsiders into the state, the tribalscontend that the bills are mainly targeted at the tribals.
Let us take a close look at the bills.The main reason for the tribals’ opposition to the bills is clause 2(b) of the PMP Bill which defines “Manipur People” as “Persons of Manipur whose names are in the National Register of Citizens, 1951, Census Report 1951 and Village Directory of 1951 and their descendants who have contributed collective social, cultural and economic life of Manipur.” This means anyone whose name were not recorded or wrongly recorded in one of the three registers does not meet the criteria to be “Manipur People” and will thus be automatically grouped under a category of people to be under a permit system that will restrict their movement, rights to land ownership and identity and their ability to claim benefits and privileges.
Without an explicit explanation, people are left to wonder why1951 is picked as the base year and inclusion of one’s name in all the threeregisters is made a requirementfor eligibility to be “Manipur People”.
To put into perspective, the benchmark stipulated in the PMP Bill is much tougher than in Assam where similar demand has been made for many years. In Assam the National Register of Citizens (NRC), which is supposedly a register containing details of all Indian citizens, is being updated for finding a permanent solution to the vexed “foreigners’ issue and the process is being expedited by the BJP-led new government in Assam who won the recent assembly election largely on the issue of illegal migrants. Unlike for Manipur, in Assam to apply for inclusion in the NCR, one’s name or one’s ancestor’s name has to be in the 1951 NRC or in any voter list up to the midnight of 24 March 1971, the cut-off date agreed upon in the Assam Accord, which was the culmination of the 6 year-long Assam movement against illegal Bangladeshi migrants.
Further, if the applicant’s name is not found on any of these lists, they can produce any of the other 12 documents dated up to 24 March 1971 like tenancy/land record, birth certificate, high school certificates, citizenship certificate, permanent residential certificate, passport, court records or refugee registration certificate. The reason for picking 1971 as the cut-off year has to do with the Bangladesh Liberation War that began on 25 March 1971 when large numbers of Bangladeshi refugees entered Assam and have not returned till now and illegal migration since then continues to date.
Interestingly, 1951 is the first census year in free India and Manipur attained statehood only in 1972. Many local residents of Manipur especially the tribal people in the hills would have their names missed out from the said registers due tovarious reasons like illiteracy, bureaucratic errors, lack of information, communication or poor administrative and recording systems at the time. The tribal people are even apprehensive of bureaucratic manipulation of official documents or records.
Moreover, there would have been many cases of misspelt names or nicknames instead of actual names recorded in the registers. Due to these and other reasons many genuine Manipur people or their descendants would simply be ineligible to claim “Manipur People” status.It would be most unfair and unjust if a genuine Manipur person is excluded from the club of “Manipur People” and considered as “outsiders” in their own homeland just because they are unable to provide a document to meet set criteria. It is doubtful the tribal legislators who support the bills would be spared either.
Frankly speaking, the criteria to claim “Manipur People” status is at best, unrealistic, and at worst, discriminatory, keeping aside its legality or constitutionality.
The Statement of Object and Reasons in the bill referred to “Manipur” as “one of the small hill States in the North-Eastern region of India”. In spite of the fact that Manipur is comprised of hills and a valley, the use of the term “small hill” in reference to the state smacks of dishonesty and deception to affect uniform land laws for the whole state of Manipur, without any exception to hill or tribal area, and also to legitimise the demand for Scheduled Tribe (ST) status for Meiteis, which the tribalsbelieve is a sinister conspiracy to deprive the tribals of their rights over their land and identity and privileges.
During a meeting organised by the all-powerful All Tribal Students’ Union Manipur in August 2015 whereby tribal legislators were called for a deliberation on the 3 bills, all the tribal MLAs in attendance defended the bills and the way it was passed in the Assembly. Some of the senior tribal legislators, like Phungjathang and TN Haokip, who spoke on the occasionasserted without any substantial evidence that the bills in no way will affect the tribal interests and that the bills were not referred to Hill Area Committee (HAC) as they were money bills.This explanationis not different from what the State government and supporters of the 3 bills have been saying.
The wrath of the tribal people on the tribal legislators had nothing to do with the procedural lapse but their failure to act in the interests of their electorate and oppose the bills regardless of whether they would have been able to prevent the bills from getting passed in the Assembly where they are outnumbered by representatives from the valley by at least 20 (out of 60).
The futile explanation provided by the State Government and supporters of the bills that the bills would not affect the hill or tribal area sharply contradicts clause 1(2) of the introduction to the PMP Bill which states “It shall extend to the whole of the State of Manipur”. Further, Statement of Objects and Reasons spelt out in the bill indicates Manipur (State of Manipur) as covering both the hills and valley of the State. Hence, clearly the bill covers the whole of the State of Manipur without any exception to tribal orhill area.
Proponents of the bills downplayingtribal concerns by quoting clause 8(a) of the bill which states “The provision of this Act shall not apply to – the native people of the State of Manipur” have only added insult to injury as the bill nowhere defines the term “the native people of the State of Manipur”. This possibly means the definition of the term “Manipur People” will apply to the “native people of the State of Manipur”, which, as already discussed, will exclude many tribal people.
Although the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 restricts purchase of land in the hills by non-Scheduled Tribe by making an exception to the hill area, it has already adversely affected tribal land ownership rights due to its applicability in some parts of hill districts.The Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment) Bill, 2015 which apparently aims to do away with restrictions on purchase of land in the hill districts by non-Scheduled Tribeand also provides for regulating purchase or allotment of land to “Non-Manipur persons” is seen by the tribals as unacceptable because of the use of the term “Non-Manipur persons”.
The term “Non-Manipur persons”, although not defined in the bill,appears to have the same meaning as Non-Manipur people as opposed to “Manipur People”, the term used in the PMP Bill. If this is the case, the tribal people who do not meet the criteria for “Manipur People” will be further marginalised and disadvantaged in relation to land ownership due to the new legislation.
The failure of the HAC, which is sanctioned under Article 371-C of the Indian constitution to provide constitutional safeguards for hill areas of Manipur, to protect tribal interests in the Assembly, non-extension of 6th schedule, continuing systemic discriminationsmeted out to the tribal in various forms and the demand for Scheduled Tribe status for Meiteishave compounded the concern of the tribal, necessitating a search for a permanent solution to tribalissue. The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act 1971 or the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council (Third Amendment) Act 2008, which according to the tribal people is a mere deceit, is far from meeting the aspiration of the tribal people.
According to a press release by JAC on the 7th June “there are three other prominent demands by the ‘dominant’ valley community in the pipeline which are perceived as the 4th, 5th and 6th anti-tribal ‘bills’ that have the potential to be more detrimental to the rights of the tribal people namely, the Manipur Population Commission, the Manipur Land Reforms Commission and the demand for inclusion of Meiteis in the Scheduled Tribe list.” The said press release regarding announcement of a further agitationbeginning 9 June was made following a joint meeting of JAC with the Outer Manipur Tribals’ Forum (OMTF), a tribal apex body of the Hmar Inpui, Mizo People Convention, ThadouInpi, United Naga Council and Zomi Council. This means if situation demands the tribal people are ready to go beyond the three bills in their fight for justice.
To close the gap between the valley and hill people and to heal the wound, it has becomemost imperative that the Government of Manipur extends 6th scheduleto hill area covered by the six Autonomous District Councilsin hill districts without any further delay. Or else, tribal resentment against the State Governmentwill only exacerbate and the tribals’ demand for a separate administration will gain momentum in the days to come.
The valley people want to be constitutionally protected through ILPS, so do thetribals through at least the 6th schedule provisions, if not a separate administration. The genuine and most legitimate tribal concern need to be earnestly appreciated and addressed.
Should the dominant community, the Meiteis, be included in the list of scheduled tribes, 6th schedule would not be enough to protect tribal interests, for the Meiteis would have the same rights as the hill tribal people by virtue of being a scheduled tribe and hence be able gain access over tribal land and deprive them of their rights and privileges. In such a scenario the already disadvantaged tribal people who are indigenous to the hills of Manipur will feel they are left with no option but compelled to demand a separate administration - a Union Territory or a State – or to merge with Nagaland or Mizoram of their choice depending on their respective connections unless there is an alternative arrangement within Manipur.
The presenting issue in relation to the 3 billsshouldserve as an opportunity for the State Government and all the stake holders, including the tribal/hilland valley people, to sit down together and work out what isin the best interests of the state and its peopleon the basis of mutual respect and understanding. It is hoped that the bills which are due forre-examinationby experts will be amended or reintroduced taking into account the interest of the tribals.
If the tussle over the bills lingers on the situation could get out of control,puttingthe state at risk of communal clash. Both the State and the Central Government need to act timely and diffuse the highly volatile situation before it is too late. In the meantimethe Central Government must start considering imposition of President’s Rule in Manipur as a precautionary or preventive measure.
And for the return of peace and normalcy and for a lasting solution to the hill-valley divide and for protection of indigenous people of Manipur, the only way forward seems to be a protective permit system in the valley, based on a timeandcriteriainclusive of all people of Manipur, and 6th schedule in the hill area for the tribal people. I believe every person in Manipur has the right to a fair go and I believe this proposal is reasonable or acceptable to all indigenous communities of the state.
The writer, a native of Manipur who finished Master of Social Work degree from an Australian university, is an Australia-based social worker working with the mainstream Australians and the indigenous Australians in different areas of social work since 2010. He can be reached at jalunhaokip@gmail.com.
