Why Manipuris are demanding ILP

By Lakpachui Siro

The Joint Committee on Inner Line Permit System in Manipur which often claims to represent the voice of the tive 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 gas, 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 constitutiol 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 margilised, using various state machiries 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 Sepati district. With a huge ga 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 ucceptable form of margilisation and suppression of the tive 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 constitutiol 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 educatiol 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. IANS

(The writer is a research scholar at tiol University of Educatiol Planning and Administration, New Delhi. The views expressed are persol. He may be contacted at lakpachui.siro@gmail.com)