The Joint Committee on Inner Line Permit System in Manipur which often
claims to represent the voice of the native people of the northeastern
state is a misrepresentation of the factual situation in the state.
This
committee only represents the Manipuris or Meiteis who live in the
capital city Imphal. They are the inhabitants of the valley areas of
four Manipur districts which make up less than 10 percent of the total
territory of the state. The remainder areas are domiciled by the tribals
under the broad family of Nagas, Zomis, Kukis and Hmars.
Other
Manipuris do not own land in five hill districts which constitute more
than 90 percent of the state's territory as this is protected under
special constitutional provision for the tribals in the state. Now the
question arises: Why is only a one-sided view of Manipur known to the
outside world?
The main reason is the deficit in democratic
representation in the state assembly. Voices of other communities are
continuously suppressed and marginalised, using various state
machinaries as Manipuris or Meiteis from the valley have much higher
representation in the state assembly.
This act of suppression is
well crafted with a close nexus of politicians, and leaders of various
Manipuri/Meitei civil societies like AMUCO, UMC, AMSU, and Manipuri
underground outfits.
Take the case of Senapati district. With a
huge Naga and Kuki population of 4.79 lakh (2011 census), it has only
six legislators while Manipuris' district of Imphal East with a
population of 4.52 lakh (2011 census) has 11 legislators. It is a big
insult to Indian democracy and the Constitution that within a same state
a district with lesser population has almost double the number of
members of legislative assembly than the one which has higher
population.
The question of Manipuri underground outfits linking
to the movement can be best manifested by the 2008 killing of seven
Hindi-speaking people in Imphal valley, or banning of Hindi movies etc.
All these actions are connected to the three bills passed by the Manipur
assembly on August 31 - Protection of Manipur People Bill, the Manipur
Land Revenue and Land Reforms Bill (Seventh Amendment), and the Manipur
Shops and Establishments (Second Amendment) Bill.
It was the
Manipuri civil societies that drafted the bills, which were accepted in
toto by the state government and passed in the assembly.
It
mocks inhabitants of more than 90 percent of the state's territory when
the inner line permit demand committee talks of protecting the interests
of the "indigenous people" of the State. What the Manipuris accounting
for around 50 percent of the state's population (as per decadal census
data) are doing is an unacceptable form of marginalisation and
suppression of the native settlers of the hill districts. This has gone
on since the day hill areas were put under the valley administration
forcefully and without their consent after the Imphal Valley was
colonised by the British Empire in 1891.
In more than a month of
protests in Imphal Valley, no live bullets were fired on the Manipuri
protesters, only rubber bullets or teargas were used. When the hills
took to protests and rallies, on the first day itself live bullets were
fired at the tribal protester.
This is not the first such case.
For instance, on May 6, 2010, at Mao Gate, two students died; on August
30, 2014, in Ukhrul two protesters were killed; and now in
Churachandpur, nine died, succumbing to bullet injuries.
The
central government must stop appeasing the Manipuris at the expense of
the hill people for lasting peace in the region and to bring justice to
all the people who are still suffering from the legacy of British
colonial administrative design.
The state government has no
regard for constitutional provisions for the hill people in the state.
For instance, the Third Amendment of Manipur (Hill Areas) Autonomous
Council Act, 2008, was passed, bypassing the Hill Areas Committee (HAC),
comprising all legislators from the hill areas.
The committee
was set up under the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee)
Order, 1972, and Article 371C of the Constitution to protect tribal
interests. Its concurrence is mandatory for all legislations affecting
tribal areas. Similarly, the current bills were passed without any
official communication to the Hill Areas Committee.
The people
in the valley districts often say that there is a huge pressure on land,
and, therefore, certain mechanism is required to address the issue.
Yet, they continue to keep all the important educational institutions,
government offices, hospitals and government institutions and various
other government infrastructure within the four valley districts.
The
state has, therefore, reached a situation whereby peaceful separation
between hill districts and valley districts through the Centre's
intervention is the last option.
(The writer is a research
scholar at National University of Educational Planning and
Administration, New Delhi. The views expressed are personal. He may be
contacted at [email protected])
