Eight more young lives have been lost, this time in Manipur’s southern district of Churachandpur in the most recent explosion of violence since the agitation for and against the implementation of the Inner Line Permit System (ILPS) in the state began in earnest two months ago. Characteristic of the state’s complex and deep divides on ethnic lines, the street violence in Imphal and Churachandpur were for exactly opposite causes.
In Imphal the demand was for the ILPS as a shield against what many fear is an imminent demographic overturn in the face of continued influx of migrants, while in Churachandpur the protests were against the implementation of ILPS, saying it is anti-tribal. Earlier on Monday, three bills, one original and two amendments of existing laws were passed by the Manipur Assembly and this is what led to the explosion of public ire in Churachandpur.
Irate mobs have since burned down homes of their representatives for allegedly not protecting their interest in the Assembly, and these include the residence of senior Cabinet minister and veteran politician Phungzathang Tonsing. On the part of the government, it was an ingenuous strategy, splitting up the substance of the ILPS demand and spreading it over three different bills so as to ensure their easier passage in the legislative process, especially the governor’s vigil.
The three bills are: the Protection of Manipur People Bill 2015; the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment) Bill 2015; and the Manipur Shops and Establishment (Second Amendment) Bill 2015. All three were passed unanimously by the Monday special Assembly session. The idea was, if the first and controversial bill, which adopts the base year of 1951 to define domicile, ran into hurdles, the remaining two would not be held up with it.
All three await the governor’s assent.
Part of the answer to the objection of the hills to the bills is that the migrant issue is alive only in the valley districts, which are open to all Indians to settle in unlike the hill districts that are reserved for tribals. The other reason is an abject lack of communication between the badly fragmented civil society bodies and the government. In its haste, the government did not refer the new bills to the Hill Areas Committee, a body exclusively of the hill MLAs, without whose consent no bills pertaining to the hill districts can be passed by the Assembly, before they were tabled in the Assembly, and this is one of the sore points with those opposing the bills now. The government probably thought since the bills were not directly related to the hills, it could cut short this step. The HAC has since reviewed the documents in a meeting on Tuesday but no objections were raised.
What has also become glaring in the course of the agitation is that the dominant community of the state, the Meitis in the valley, are often given to arrogantly presuming foreknowledge of what other fraternal communities want or aspire for. The flames of anger in Churachandpur are now proving how wrong that presumption has been. It must equally be said that the hills have also never tried to understand that the valley, now more than ever, needs room to be itself. At this moment it feels besieged and pushed against the wall. The four valley districts where they live form only 10 per cent of the state’s geographical area but is home to over 60 per cent of the state’s population. The Meitis are confined to the valley and by law cannot move to the hills, but the hill population is free to move to the valley.
Not only in terms of a shrinking living space, the Meitis also now feel they have been unduly disadvantaged by the reservation policy. Predominantly Hindus, they are left in the general category in the reservation scheme of the government. As a reaction, there is a growing demand among a section to be clubbed tribal. Many of them are also moving away from Hinduism. Of the three bills passed by the Assembly, the two that sought amendments to existing laws were very valley specific so it ought not to have been any cause for worry for the hills. But in the bill on amending the MLR and LR Act, there is a clause which says more areas of the state still not under the law can be brought under it and this could have sent wrong signals.
Although the MLR and LR Act 1960, is applicable only in the valley districts, it has nothing to do with the valley’s wishes or aspirations. It is just a modern, civic, land tenure system, incidentally introduced in the state by an Act of Parliament, for in 1960 Manipur was a Union Territory. It has worked well for the valley except that in its current state, it has allowed for their own land alienation, and this is what is sought to be corrected in the current amendment bill.
The administrative mechanism evolved in Manipur by the British, after they brought the kingdom under them in 1891, is almost a replication of their administrative model in Assam where they had revenue provinces administered directly by modern land revenue laws, and the non-revenue hills simply left “unadministered”. According to the Government of India Act 1919, these hills beyond the “Inner Line” were marked off as “Backward Tracts” and left largely unadministered but under the governor’s direct rule and not the provincial government’s.
According to the GOI Act 1935, the “Backward Tracts” were categorised into “Excluded Areas” and “Partially Excluded Areas”. The “Excluded Areas” were not given any representation in the provincial government, which had been given much more democratic powers by then, with the condescending explanation that these hills were still not ready for democratic governance. The “Partially-Excluded Areas” were, however, given some representations in the provincial government, but by nomination of the governor and not by election.
In Manipur, the British did not draw an “Inner Line” separating the hills from the valley, but there is a great deal of replication of the regulation’s provisions. The provincial government ruled the valley districts, but the hills were kept under the president of the Manipur State Durbar (PMSD), a British officer who played the role of governor in the then princely state.
The “Inner Line” is still in vogue in Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh and its extension is now sought in Manipur and Meghalaya. It originated in 1873, with the promulgation of the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation 1873. Its original intent was to protect British revenue interests in its territory of Assam, acquired in 1826, but in modern times, ironically, it has come to be a line that protects the territories and people it once “excluded”.
The writer is editor of Imphal Free Press. He has written extensively on Northeast issues.
