Meiteis of Manipur — Demand for Scheduled Tribe Status and Inner Line Permit System

This article traces the origin and path of the constitutional form of governance in a specific pocket of our country, the North-eastern region. Despite cultural, natural and historical richness of the geography, the region has been riddled with violence and unrest since 1947. The various separatists and insurgent movements in the region have seemingly posed a serious challenge to the very basis of constitutional governance. The subsequent implementation of AFSPA and the human right violations in the region have only added to the misery of the natives. The article analyses the demands and grievances of one of these movements sponsored by the Meitei community of Manipur and puts forth some suggestions for sustaining and promoting effective governance in these regions which are the hotbeds of conflicts. Several governmental publications, media articles, research papers, op-eds and sources across the Internet were taken into account while writing this article.

The Indian sub-continent has been a crucible of civilisations. Various civilisations have left their cultural mark on it. In this diversity arose an illustration of unity which is India. We the people shared a common faith that we could organise and govern ourselves on the basis of a single constitution. This was constitutionalism at work. It manifested in the establishment of a representative Constituent Assembly which drafted and adopted a single set of rules for the entire country. In this background, the India of today is not at all a rosy image of constitutional parity and governmental foresight. While the Indian polity grapples with the much-sensationalised issues of Ayodhya verdict, abrogation of Article 370, or slow growth rate of the Indian economy, there are parts of India which have not seen the daylight of advancement as of yet. There are major parts of the country such as Nicobar Islands, Jharkhand, and Western Ghats which have been largely and consistently ignored by the successive governments in lieu of focusing on the more urbanised regions and following a theory of ‘deliberate imbalance’ in the quest of an expedited growth. But evidently, the case of the North-eastern states takes the cherry on the top. Even after the demarcation of seven states to fulfil the ethnic goals of the localised communities and individuals, the Northeast keeps on gasping in unrest. Furthermore balkanisation is being demanded which will prompt the creation of littler and absolutely unviable states. The current and past state governments have neglected and failed to meet the fundamental needs of the individuals. There is a developing discontent over natural defilement, encroachment, and corruption.

The Government has evaluated the difficulties faced by the North Eastern Region (NER) through different investigations and reports put together by various Committees, Commissions, Task Forces and so on designated every now and then. A portion of these incorporate Shukla Commission Report; Usha Thorat Committee Report on Financial Sector Plan for North Eastern Region; Report of the Task Force on Connectivity and Promotion of Trade and Investment in NE States; Report on Poverty Eradication in NER; District Infrastructure Index for NER arranged by Ministry of DoNER; Human Development Report of NE States; Report of the Working Group on Improvement and Development of Transport Infrastructure in North East for the National Transport Development Policy Committee and so forth. Yet the recommendations and findings of these reports have remained largely unimplemented and incoherent. The local divergence between the north-east and other states has extended as has the difference between the rich and the poor in the north-east. Unmistakably, it has become extremely important to rethink the methodologies and arrangements pursued up until now.

Let us take a look at the inimitable case of Manipur. It has been nearly seven decades since Manipur turned into a part of India. However, the condition of headway and development in Manipur is as yet pitiable. The state has kept on staggering under chaotic circumstances. Their transportation lines, communications and telecom, and different offices and administrations are eons behind other Indian states. On top of this, the present circumstance in Manipur shows how harmony and peace has lost its way in the whole state. Manipur is a breeding ground of persistent conflicts between the hilly tribes of Nagas and Kukis, and the majority Meitei population of the plains. Their ethnic diversity, aspirational diversity, and aspirational conflict, have led to a barrage of conflicts amongst each other, eventually forcing the Government of India to impose Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in the region in 1980.

Among these, the plight and case of the Meiteis is the most challenging and thought-provoking one. The grievances of Meiteis begin from the forceful annexation of Manipur by the so-called federal state of India. While Calcutta, Bombay and Madras Universities were being established in 1857, Kingdom of Manipur was in the process of rebuilding itself from the ruins of “Seven Years Devastation (Chahi Taret Khuntakpa)” (The Burmese invasions of Assam), so it already was behind in time with the more urban centres of India. The British had defeated the princely state of Manipur in 1891, but Maharaja Bodhi Singh, in absence of any annexation by the British India, drafted a constitution and set up a constitutional monarchy. But between August and October 1947, a series of fierce lobbying, bureaucracy, strong-arming, and political threatening took place which eventually led to the forceful annexation. Indian Government although has since long maintained that it was a wilful merger. The second point of contention and a melting pot of many vehement and strong reactions comes from the voluntary transfer of resource-rich Kabaw valley to Myanmar by the then Prime Minister Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru in exchange of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. After the First Anglo-Burmese War (1824–1826), Burma ceded Manipur to the British but the exact border remained in dispute. The British claimed the entire Kabaw valley. However, in 1830, the British, with the assistance of a British diplomat Henry Burney, agreed that Kabaw valley was not part of historical Manipur, and redrew the border in favour of the Burmese. As a formal exchange of hands never took place, Nehru in his foreign policy to ensure peace and harmony in the Indian subcontinent and to seek allies in the neighbourhood because of growing unrest with the newly-created Pakistan, gifted away the valley to Myanmar. Meiteis believe that it was historically their native land which was given away. The final and the most crucial point of civil unrest among Meiteis is the Inner Line Permit System (ILPS). The ILPS set up in Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Mizoram requires a permit to buy property in an “excluded area”, generally that of a tribal majority. The Britishers introduced this system not in Manipur stating that it was a princely state and not a tribal one. This in turn, has triggered a domino effect of various ‘outsiders’ such as Nagas and other ethnic groups buying off properties in Manipur, while Manipuris cannot go and buy land in other states. This way, the individuals of Manipur, especially Meitei, are very clearly losing their ethnic character, culture and their conventional land because of persistent flood of individuals from other parts of India. Since the natural occupants in the slopes, the Nagas and the Kukis, are intrinsically ensured under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, it is the Meiteis who confront the brunt of the convergence of the alleged outsiders. The Iwobi Singh government in the year 2015 did try to get ILPS in place, but the massive Kuki agitation prevented it from doing so.

The discussion does not restrict itself to the topic of land rights alone. The requests for ILP additionally are enhanced by calls for conceding Scheduled Tribes (ST) status to the Meiteis, which would as a result transform Manipur into a totally tribal state. This is viewed as an assurance against “intruders” from outside. Such requests are rising all the more regularly in the upper east presently; even areas in other neighbouring states are requesting the status. Yet on account of Manipur, the allowing of ST status to Meiteis might have unprecedented results. An equality of status among the slope tribes and the plain inhabitants will have repercussions on the socio-political story of Manipur. In the region today, the amalgamation of a single community across borders of Nagaland, Manipur, and some parts of Mizoram is not just limited to Nagas today. A network brought together by cutting across regional limits additionally is by all accounts coming to fruition among the Kukis also. At this point, if the Meiteis are given ST status, these new demographic personality statements would for sure take new shapes, which are difficult to foresee. Also, given the trust deficiency between the Kukis and the Meiteis, any transition to allow ST status would bring its own fault-lines.

But a key point to consider here is that this demand for the ST tag did not get borne out of the impending ILP system. Discussions have taken place by large across years. The earliest instance of such a voice can be dated as back as in 1981, when the then Chief Minister of Manipur, Rishang Keishing raised this matter in the State Legislative Assembly. However, it waned gradually as the sect leaders misled the commoners by concocting a narrative that Meiteis would be known as a people of lower status if they became STs. In 2001 the then Governor of Manipur, Ved Prakash Marwah discussed the matter with some leaders. Later, people of Sanamahi faith raised the ST status demand from 2004 to 2007. Meiteis who had collectively given up the Sanamahi faith and adopted Hinduism in the 18th century had already switched back to Sanamahi and ever since the ST Demand committee was formed in 2012, their demand for ST status has been gaining momentum. Very recently, before the Lok Sabha elections of May 2019, the vociferous campaign for the ST status reached new heights when thousands of people took to the streets to demand the immediate inclusion. Promisingly, it was seen as a demand by the micro-population of the indigenous people for constitutional safeguards.

But this has met with a serious opposition from the tribal groups of the hilly terrains of Manipur — Nagas and Kukis. Their resent stems from the fact that Meiteis are no longer primitive or backward. Bestowing the ST status upon them would lead to them encroaching upon the land, opportunities and State provisions of the more deserving tribal population up the hills. These factions have also threatened with the demand of a separate state in case the Meiteis are proclaimed as a Scheduled Tribe. What largely stays absent from the argument is the fact that these tribal populations are under no means less privileged and more rightful themselves. Kukis themselves fled from Myanmar and came to India in 1890s. In Manipur, Nagas are concentrated in four major districts, namely Ukhrul, Chandel, Tamenglong, and Senapati. They have been demanding the state of Manipur to cede this four districts so that they could be declared as a part of a ‘Greater Nagalim’. It beats no common sense to realise that these geographically dispersed districts constitute a predominant part of the cultural identity of Manipur, and thus conceding them to the Nagas would result in an eventual loss of innate culture and tradition. This has been fiercely contested by Kukis and Meiteis alike. Thus, this tripartite struggle in Manipur has led to the formation of different separatist groups like Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) for Nagas, United National Liberation Front (UNLF) for Meiteis, and Kuki National Front (KNF) for Kukis. Interestingly, several tribal academics have realised that despite always being opposed to being identified as tribals and considering the tag as an affront to their religious superiority, Meiteis are now under serious economic pressure to compete for provisions from the state and are thus seeking the ST tag.

Clearly, some major revamp in thinking policies is required, as the methodologies adopted so far have fallen flat on their faces in providing a holistic solution. Further drawing of lines within the state may not be a wholesome and long-term solution to the lack of trust and harmony amongst these co-existing communities. The State should try to reach the interior pockets of the state and fulfil aspirations of the people at the grassroot level. This may as well be achieved not by creating smaller states based on ethnic branding, but smaller districts and development blocks. Human rights should be not be violated at any cost, as seen in the harrowing case of Thangjam Manorama who was allegedly raped and murdered by Assam Rifles soldiers under AFSPA in Manipur in 2004. The failure to assign culpability in this case had led to widespread and extended protests in Manipur and Delhi. Government should invest more resources in job creation, wage hikes, infrastructural development, and weeding out corruption from the government so that the benefits of administration may reach the people. Government should encourage more open conversations and dialogues on the issues of the north-east, and also should be willing to discuss the demands of all the insurgent groups alike, unconditionally. The assigned committees and panels should be given more quasi-judicial authority like tribunals to be able to implement policy directives in a timely fashion. The functioning of tertiary-level institutions like panchayats, autonomous districts/village councils should be proactively strengthened by Central and State governments. Along with this, the natives of the region should also accept the plurality of the land, and learn to exist with mutual understanding and peace, since land alone is the not the answer to their security.

There is a proclivity at the Central level to view the North-east as a liability. But it must not be forgotten that the region once flourished and was prosperous until external factors began to choke them. The insurgency, from the different analyses, seems more of a frustrated outburst than a sinister organisation of crime and hatred. The potential of hydroelectricity generation, oil and gas resources, forest wealth and NTFPs, in addition to the strategic location acting as a handy bridge with the rest of the Southeast Asia are some of the unparalleled features of North-eastern region that should be carefully and judiciously handled by the Government of India.

Bibliography

1. Madhab, J., North-East : Crisis of Identity, Security and Underdevelopment, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. 34, №6 (Feb. 6–12, 1999), pp. 320–322.

2. Singh, B., Crisis in Manipur, MLAs urge BJP government for a reshuffle, The Economic Times, 15 June 2019, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/crisis-in-manipur-mlas-urge-bjp-government-for-a-reshuffle/articleshow/69799868.cms?from=mdr

3. Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Development of North-East Region, Socio-Economic Challenges in NER, 2 Aug 2017, https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=169427

4. Harvey, G. E. (1925), History of Burma: From the Earliest Times to 10 March 1824, London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd.

5. Ambagudia, Jagannath. 2019. “Scheduled Tribes, Reserved Constituencies and Political Reservation in India.” Journal of Social Inclusion Studies 5 (1): 44–58.

6. Ministry of Development of North-East Region, http://mdoner.gov.in/sites/default/files/silo4_content/entry%20restrictions%20in%20NER/Bengal%20Eastern%20Frontier%20Regulation,%201873.pdf

7. Chandra, Uday. 2016. “Adivasis in Contemporary India: Engagements with the State, Non-State Actors, and the Capitalist Economy.” In Routledge Handbook of Contemporary India, edited by Kunt A. Jacobsen. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

8. Manipur Online, Shall We Demand Inclusion Of The Meiteis In The Schedule Of Tribes Of India First For ILP System?, 26 August 2014, http://manipuronline.com/edop/opinions-commentary/shall-we-demand-inclusion-of-the-meiteis-in-the-schedule-of-tribes-of-india-first-for-ilp-system/2014/08/26

9. Singh, V., Manipur Crisis — Wait, Is Manipur Even in India?, https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2017/01/manipur-crisis-wait-manipur-even-india/

10. Deshpande, Ashwini. (2011). The Grammar of Caste : Economic Discrimination in Contemporary India. Oxford University Press: New Delhi.

11. Krishnan, P.S. (2018). Social Exclusion and Justice in India. Routledge: New York.

12. Rana, Mulchand S. (2008). Reservations in India: Myths and Realities. Concept Publishing Company: New Delhi.

13. Ambagudia, Jagannath. 2011. “Scheduled Tribes and the Politics of Inclusion in India.” Asian Social Work and Policy Review 5 (1): 33–43.

14. Chaudhary, Kshitij. 2015. “The Effect of Political Decentralisation and Affirmative Action on Multidimensional Poverty Index: Evidence from Indian States.” Journal of Social and Economic Development 17 (1). Springer India: 27–49.

15. Sarkar, Sandip, Sunil Mishra, Harishwar Dayal, and Dev Nathan. 2006. “Development and Deprivation of Scheduled Tribes.” Economic and Political Weekly 41 (46): 4824–27.