DIMAPUR: The Nagaland Tribes Council (NTC) has reiterated its demand that December 1, 1963 be made the cut-off year for Register of Indigenous Inhabitants of Nagaland (RIIN) exercise in the entire state.
Accusing the state government of continuing to turn a deaf ear to this vital issue and “seemingly been contemplating to do things against the will of its own people”, the NTC stated in a press release that the government floated the idea of RIIN amid public yearning for assessing illegal migration and streamlining the inner line permit (ILP), but it has scope for some to “conveniently go scot-free”.
It said the RIIN Commission findings have mentioned “the Notification No. AR-8/8/76 dated Kohima, the 28th April 1978 to maintain 1-12-1963 as the cut-off year for the purpose of indigenous inhabitant of Nagaland” but confused the people by interpreting the notification in a complicated manner.
“Cut-off year under BEFR Act 1873 can only screen out a person - other than the natives - settled in the state of Nagaland post creation of state. BEFR Act/ILP and RIIN are synonymous and cannot be separated from one another,” it said while lamenting that the commission, however, didn’t recommend this important document in the “Recommendation column” of its report.
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=1]The NTC also stated that the 16-Point Agreement has empowered the state to “enforce the BEFR Act 1873/Inner Line Permit (ILP) within the entire territorial jurisdiction of Nagaland” with no exception to the then Dimapur Sub-Division.
Maintaining that non-Naga tribes namely Kachari, Garo, Kuki and Mikhir (Now Karbis) who settled in the state on or before 1-12-1963 were granted both Indigenous Tribe and Indigenous Inhabitant status; Gorkhas, Marwaries, Muslims and Punjabis settled prior to 1-12-1963 were issued Indigenous Inhabitant certificates, it termed the government’s statement -- “even though there were only around 100 families, if we ignore them, we will be doing them injustice” – as “exaggerated and irrelevant”.
The council said that the state government’s notification dated 21/11/1979 on “Tribal Belt or Compact Area”, bifurcating the plain sector of the then Dimapur Sub-Division and demarcated the boundary, made the issue complicated as the whole state is a tribal area. “It is just a notification of boundary demarcation and nothing is mentioned about identification of indigenous inhabitant,” it added.
Objecting to the government’s alleged proposal to make Indigenous Inhabitant status eligible for those who settled in the Dimapur sub-division prior to November 21 1979, it said there can’t be two cut-off years.
It also expressed the need for thoroughly evaluating the RIIN Commission’s recommendation that “Electoral Roll from 1963 -2019 with a personal declaration of not having been enrolled in any other state” be considered as ‘proof of permanent residence’. Expressing concern over the government’s moves, it said “there cannot be a free license for settlement so as to make it a floodgate”.
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=1]It, therefore, demanded the government maintain the cut-off date as December 1, 1963 and revoke the notice regarding proof of permanent residence as well as the notification on “Tribal Belt or Compact Area”.
Reacting to some political leaders’ statement that Article 371A is a hindrance to the development activities in the state, the NTC said it will be better to find out workable modalities for remedial measures instead of blaming the Constitutional status of provision, adding that villages and individuals are “ready to part their land” provided the government negotiates like in the past.
However, it said the government can’t take away land or earmark any area in the name of development works without a blue print project report, which “amounts to deprivation of the land ownership and violation of the delegated power of Article 371A” and the right to property enshrined in the Constitution of India.
“Barring Dimapur district, which is cadastral area, the entire land in Nagaland is non-cadastral. However, be it cadastral or non-cadastral land, there always is an owner and it belongs to the people. There is every possibility and chance of negotiation with the concerned Village authority or private individual for any developmental works,” it stated.