Had the Rongmei recognition been a trivial matter, I would not have forced myself into a kind of paper duel with a senior citizen who is no other than Rev. L. Suohie whom I know. Also, due to unexpected and timely intervention from matured quarter, I reduced the ingredients. Nonetheless, the Rongmei recognition issue has immense legal and social ramifications concerning the future of the indigenous Nagas of Nagaland. And had it been not so, the matter would not have taken a toll on Naga Hoho and on the relationship between the Nagas of Nagaland and the Nagas from Manipur. The crux of the issue is no other than mere population integration of the Nagas within the territory of Nagaland only, whereby Rongmeis, having no ancestral land in Nagaland are being treated at par with those 14 Naga tribes who are the bona fide land owners of Nagaland. The recognition of Rongmei became the legal catalyst by which the floodgate was opened for the influx to follow. The issue is sensitive and paramount and therefore any passing remark by anyone without legal bases on the matter is needed to be challenged under any circumstances even risking the probable sentimental hurt.
Though not named, the instant reaction of the respected Rev. is the obvious rejoinder to me. And had I been at fault, I deserve to swallow any amount of pills how bitter it may be and vice versa. Yet, I am confident when I talk on the issue in question, I do it on the basis of the records I have. Nevertheless, the respected Rev. has the liberty to support the case of the Rongmeis to the hilt as he likes, had it not been for legal implication. And universally speaking, bully cannot outsmart legal composures. Rather, had it been not contested, such comment can be quoted for legal reference in future. The NTC has given the befitting clarifications for those who have wrong notions.
Yet, what prompted me to poise questions to you earlier was specifically on your assertion that Rongmei tribe was ‘recognized as an indigenous tribe of Nagaland by Govt. of Nagaland in 1977’ as per your miniature item published by Nagaland Post on 12.10.2016 only. As you have placed your opinion and knowledge about this controversial issue in the public domain, I also have the liberty to ask you through media to substantiate your claim. And I too will stick to my question as to what right any person irrespective of social status one wields to distort, mislead and confuse the Nagas of Nagaland in particular.
The variation between indigenous tribe and indigenous inhabitant was well explained by one K. Angami, Kohima and published just below the item of Rev. Suohie in Nagaland Post on 16.10.2016 should suffice without much ado as of now. Thanks to the gentleman.
Whereas, Rev. Suohie’s assertion that ‘The people irrespective of clans, tribes and races living together within a boundary as permanent settlers are to be treated as equal citizens’ cannot be valid. No. As India does not belong to every nation on earth, so also Nagaland does not belong to everybody. Not to speak of land expanses and area of oceans with big and small islands in it have its absolute proprietors but including the air space above is under the control of respective owners. Therefore, it is absolutely natural and constitutional that Nagaland belongs to its legitimate owners and not otherwise.
There are categories of people in Nagaland. These categories are the indigenous Nagas of Nagaland (the land owners of Nagaland), then comes those who had no ancestral land but have settled prior to the creation of Nagaland Statehood as Kukis, Kacharis and Garos who do enjoy indigenous inhabitant status but not tribal status.
The Constitution of India provides privileges to its citizens to settle anywhere within the Union of India. Accordingly, we have huge presence of people from all communities from mainland India and from North East living in Nagaland. Nevertheless, the first PM of India, Jawaharlal Nehru graciously incorporated protective laws in the Constitution in the best interest of the Nagas of Nagaland. Besides, we have ILP to regulate the entry of even bona fide Indians into Nagaland. Out of 60 Assembly seats, 59 are reserved except Dimapur 1 Constituency which is the only open seat. Thus, the existing laws do not provide for the Govt. of Nagaland to treat all permanent settlers in Nagaland as equals in matters of political, economic and social privileges as opined by Rev. Suohie.
Striving to protect my fundamental rights, my birth rights and also confronting and exposing those who are infringing on those rights is my legal privilege and my action cannot be construed as ‘tribalism’ nor ‘racism’. Magnanimity at the cost of the future of posterity is foolishness.
