We are not here to argue who is a Schedule Tribe, for there are people with far more knowledge who are tasked with such arduous responsibilities. We simply wish to underscore the plausible impact on the status quo if Schedule Tribe (ST) recognition is being granted to a dominant community of a state by negating the socio-economic and political rights of the state’s ethnic minority.
And yes, we are talking about Manipur, home to the Himalayan hill and valley, sharing an international boundary with Myanmar and state borders with Nagaland, Mizoram, and Assam. More importantly, we are talking about the claim of Meiteis.
Based on the Census of India 2011, Manipur has a population of 28,55,794. The native Meiteis/Meeteis, constitutionally known as Manipuri, has a population of 17,61,079, of which 15,22,132 are from Manipur, forming a dominant community. Among the 34 native STs of Manipur, Mao has 2,24,361 native speakers, constituting the largest tribal community of Manipur. Statistically, the largest ST community in the state, constitutes only 14.7% of the dominant community. Surprisingly, the Scheduled Tribe Demand Committee Manipur (STDCM) is a committee from the dominant community to mobilize the demand for the Meitei/Manipuri inclusion under the Scheduled Tribe list of the Constitution.
Hill-valley divide
The post-colonial Government of India, through its constitutional arrangement and its policy on affirmative action, categorised the underrepresented and historically disadvantaged communities into Scheduled Tribe(ST), Scheduled Caste(SC), and Other Backward Class (OBC) to uplift their status and put them at par with the rest of India.
In 1947, the Maharaja of Manipur enacted two separate major laws for the administration of Manipur Hill and Valley, namely- a) Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947 and b) Manipur State Hill (Administration) Regulation, 1947. The two enactments demarcated the hill and valley administration; this arrangement continued even after Manipur joined the Union of India.
When Manipur was still a Union Territory of India, the governing body in the hills was known as the Standing Committee (Section 52, Government of Union Territories Act, 1963). After Manipur obtained statehood, it became known as the Hill Areas Committee by virtue of Article 371C, Constitution of India and Hill Area Committee Order 1972. These committee(s) aim to safeguard the interest of the Scheduled Tribes (ST) of Manipur. The Hill Areas Committee functions as the contemporary Laxman Rekha in the Assembly for the Scheduled Tribes to provide a Constitutional safeguard against other communities in Manipur.
A decade-long discourse on the need for Schedule Tribe recognition from the dominant community in Manipur’s valley rings the idea of recognition of Meitei Schedule Tribe demand which will result in integrating Manipur’s hills & plain. The movement is being spearheaded by the Scheduled Tribe Demand Committee (ref. STDCM Memo to Shri Gurbachan Jagat). The idea suggested in the memorandum, encapsulated by the slogan chingmi tammi amatani, that of integrating the Hills and Plain is not a novel concept. It has been a recurring issue plagued by the motif of political mileage devoid of genuine sentimental motivation.
Keishamthong AC MLA Nishikant Singh Sapam, as a show of support for the STDCM’s political endeavour, openly stated that limiting the Meetei/Meitei populace to settle in only about 10 per cent of the total geographical area of Manipur is not fair. Yambem Laba, the committee’s chairman and former head of the Manipur Human Rights Commission, also said: “The ST status would go a long way toward protecting the Meiteis’ land, which is currently confined to 8% of Manipur’s geographical areas…”.
Many notable organisations and eminent persons have also shown support for the STDCM’s ideals, albeit in their capacity of arguing the cause as attached to the geographical land. This brings into question whether the idea of integrating the hills and plain spearheaded by the STDCM will come at the expense of exploiting the hill lands as the idea revolves around the discourse that the Meitei community is being confined only in the area of the valley.
In the hills, the mobilisation in the valley is viewed as a scheme to moderate the ardent political demands of the tribals and a covert move by the dominant population to grow into the State’s hill regions. Unsurprisingly, as reported on November 27, 2020, the Kangleipak Kanba Lup (KKL) submitted a memorandum to the Chief Minister of Manipur stating, “We are positive that the territorial boundary of Manipur will remain unchanged… however, we are sure that the Nagas of Manipur, as well as the Kukis, will be benefiting in terms of getting autonomous administrative setups under the 6th Schedule of the Constitution of India… It is here the Chief Minister needs to keep the interest of the Meiteis in mind before saying a final yes to the final deal… It is our demand that the Government of Manipur should immediately consider recommending the inclusion of the Meiteis as a Scheduled Tribe and place it before the Central Government…”
The pursuit of mobilisation along the lines of ethnic identity has proved to be a powerful tool in engaging the dominant community in its political discourse. This has largely strained Manipur’s political climate. Organisations like the All Tribal Students’ Union of Manipur, representing the tribal communities in the State have openly opposed Meiteis receiving the ST designation. A union leader remarked that this would “defeat the very purpose of protecting the tribal people through the reservation.”
Even in the valley, the discourse appears not to have been a consensus as many have opposed the demand for ST status. Rajkumar Meghen, a former leader of the extremist United National Liberation Front (UNLF) feels the status would undo the rich martial history of the community. There are also accounts of Meitei Brahmins rejecting the idea of ST recognition as reported by The Hindu in February 2022
Status Quo
Undoubtedly, the inclusion of the Meiteis/Meetei will have a bearing impact on the status quo of various Constitutional provisions, acts, and Orders of the parliament and the State that safeguard and protect indigenous tribal rights. A brief review of a few instances is provided below:
i. Article 371C of the Constitution of India:
The statement of Objects and Reasons of the XXVIIth Constitutional Amendment that introduced Article 371C states explicitly, ‘Hill Areas of Manipur are predominantly inhabited by members of Scheduled Tribes. To safeguard their interests… it is proposed… to continue this arrangement even after Manipur becomes a State. So, a specific provision is being made in the Constitution for the formation of such a Committee.’
This statement expresses explicitly that the present tribal needs protection from being assimilated without hampering their integration with the rest of India. In view of the current Manipur Political climate, if the dominant community is granted a Scheduled Tribe recognition, the Constitutional provision that safeguards the interest of the present scheduled tribes can be rendered void and null. The term ‘Scheduled Tribe’ in its statements of objects and reason would include a community against whom such safeguard is made.
ii. Manipur Hill Areas Committee Order 1972:
The Presidential Order or the Manipur Hill Areas Committee Order, 1972, results from Article 371C of the Constitution of India. This order, by virtue of Article 371C, empowered the tribal Legislative Assembly members(19/20 members) as a Committee to protect and safeguard the interest of the tribal (Hill) areas against any State legislation and executive action, specifically those introduced by the dominant community legislatures.
iii. Manipur Land Reforms and Land Revenue Act, 1960:
Section 158 of the MLR and LR Act provides special provisions regarding Scheduled Tribes. This provision safeguards the transfer of tribal land to non-tribals with the intended purpose of preserving the tribal customs and their land holdings system. This provision does not mitigate alienating the purchasing rights of indigenous communities other than the tribal communities; it only lays down a double procedure that will prevent the tribal from being alienated from their lands. It seeks the Deputy Commissioner’s permission and the District Council’s consent.
iv. Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956:
The parliamentary Act or the Manipur (Village Authorities in Hills Areas) Act, 1956, intended to safeguard and protect the tribal Chief institution; it also provides a scheme for the active participation of the tribal villager in the democratic election of the village authority (VA). The letter protects and preserves the present tribal culture, tradition, and customs. However, it brings to question whether the dominant community residing in the hills will have the right to be elected as village chief (VA) in the event that they are accorded the ST recognition.
v. The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971:
The parliamentary Act or the District Act of 1971 is an Act to establish District Councils in the Hill Areas of Manipur. The District Council modelled on the lesser framework of the 6th Schedule of the Constitution is a grassroots democratic government formed by tribal elected members from the Hills. These council seats are reserved for the tribal. Thus positing again the question of whether the dominant community residing in the hills will have the right to be elected as a member of the district council in the event that they are accorded the ST recognition. In addition, it also raises doubts about whether the 19 (ST) reserved Assembly Constituency seats and the Outer Manipur parliamentary seats remain reserved for the present scheduled tribes.
The recognition of the dominant community as a Scheduled Tribe has the potential to bring changes in the status quo in matters related to the above provisions. One might also raise the question: Whose rights will it impact if the demand for Scheduled Tribe recognition is granted? Whose tribal rights do the existing constitutional provision, Act, Order, etc protect? And for what reasons and purposes?
The recent memorandum of STDCM to NCST (National Commission for Scheduled Tribes) on 22nd December 2022 emphasises the lack of constitutional protection for the Meitei/Meetei. Ironically, the Meiteilon constitutionally called the Manipuri language is accorded the VIII Schedule protection of the Constitution. Moreover, the community constituting more than half of the State population has a strength of 40 legislatures out of the 60 total legislatures in the Assembly. The legislature is an essential organ of the State that is empowered to execute any legislation or any protection mechanism within the framework of the Constitution. Any matters relating to land protection, preserving the Meitei indigenous custom of marriage, divorce, succession/inheritance, and others are within the framework of Schedule VII ( State List & Concurrent List) of the Constitution that can be easily legislated and passed by the 40 legislature from the Valley without needing the support of a total absolute vote from the hills. If matters/legislation relating only to the Valley are introduced at the Assembly, referring such matters/legislation to the Hill Areas Committee is not a sine qua non (essential condition) for the Assembly.
In addition, the discourse that rings the idea of integration and preventing the community from being confined to the valley may perhaps align with the interests of a select group of (capitalist) elites in the Valley whose interest is to expand their influence and establishment in the Hill Areas. Pursuing the ST recognition would, therefore, be the best modus operandi in changing the current status quo, considering the embargo limited by the tribal land protection provision in the MLR & LR Act, 1960. The ST recognition would automatically bypass this embargo as the word ‘tribal’ also includes the dominant community. The plausible equation would eventually lead to the elites flexing their influence and establishment possibility vitiating the interest of the landless, economically and politically weak tribal individual.
It is an unarguable fact that not all people have the economic means to own individual private land. Such is the case with the indigenous tribe not owning private property(land) in the Hills. For instance, as per an RTI provided by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Churachandpur, on 29th August 2022- there are 22, 758 registered land owners in the Churachandpur sub-division against the total 1 74, 138 population. The data suggest that about 1.5 lakh population of the sub-division are landless. If tribal ancestral lands with their unique land-holding system in the hills are to be converted to individual land for the valley native as well, priority must be given to an individual from the same community who shares a historical, emotional, and cultural attachment to the lands, while preventing the risk of alienation from their land. Though Article 19 (1) (e) of the Constitution allows one to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; it is undeniable and, one knows for a fact that with the implementation of the Inner Line Permit(ILP) system in Manipur, the article is only limited.
The implementation of the Inner Line Permit system to control illegal migrants in the State appears to have been not helpful, as the fear narrative of the dominant community becoming a minority in the State persists. The solutions might not necessarily lie in securing the status of a Scheduled Tribe as an influx of immigrants is not NIL in the neighbouring tribal State(s). It will primarily depend on the calibre of the state legislative member and its parliamentarian in introducing legislation that will meet the contemporary needs of the state.
EASTMOJO PREMIUM
Help sustain honest journalism.
On and on, scheduled tribe recognition is postulated as a sine quo non for land and indigenous protection. From a vantage point, a scheduled tribe’s land and indigeneity are constitutionally protected to some extent. This is not because such a community is vocal in exercising its constitutional freedom of speech and expression, but rather because such a community is an underrepresented member of society and is socio-economically weak.
The discourse mentioned earlier that emphasises the inability to own land in the hills also fails to consider the number of Meitei Leikai (locality) already in existence in the hill areas and the land-holding system of the indigenous tribal. If the discourses are taken at face value, the existing Leikai (s) in the hills would be an illegal settlement, as the discourses impliedly state Meetei/Meitei are not allowed to settle in 90% of Manipur’s geographical area.
If a provision made to safeguard the present scheduled tribes are being made ineffective with an additional Scheduled Tribe recognition, whose rights is it anyway that the provision safeguards against?
Also read | Manipur: Urban, rural local body polls to be held in March-April