Memorandum Submitted to The Hon’ble
Chief Minister, Manipur - Part I
ILP Timeline
09 August 2015
JCILPS
Published: 09 August 2015
Hits: 312
Memorandum submitted by the Joint
Committee on Inner Line Permit System (JCILPS), Manipur on August 8, 2015 in
the wake of prolonged public unrest and inability of the Government of Manipur
to come to an understanding on the demands of the JCILPS and the public to
introduce the Inner Line Permit (ILP) System or a Similar Law to curb and
regulate the uncontrolled influx of migrants into the State of Manipur in order
to restore the demographic balance of the pluralistic society, respecting the
diversity and integrity of the nation state of India, and to ameliorate the
livelihood conditions, life support systems of the indigenous peoples, heal the
social wounds created by the unfortunate development of communal and linguistic
animosities in socio-economic and political interactions thereby becoming an
intense threat to national security, and peaceful development of democratic
processes amidst the tensions of globalization and rapid expansion of global
connectivity with its concomitant challenges to ethnic societies in the State of
Manipur.
The memorandum consists of three
parts and a conclusive remark.
Part I lays out the reasons for
submission of this memorandum on the need for introduction of the ILP System or
a Similar Law in Manipur.
Part II deals with the objective
historical narrative of the pre-merger polity, its policies on outsiders, its
laws of integration of outside incoming elements into the prevailing social
structure and its policies for regulation and control of migrant population
which can be considered in the preamble and background history in the framing
of an alternative law in lieu of the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873.
The arguments raised here could also be considered for designing a fresh
legislation to revive our permit system applied during the Maharajah’s
rule which was also approved by the Government of India in 1948, but
unfortunately abolished under controversial circumstances in 1950.
Part III of the memorandum shall
include the JCILPS’ justification of the compatibility with the
Constitution of India and International Law of the 5-point-demand, namely :
(i) on issues of permit or pass,
(ii) on cut-off base year of
non-indigenous persons,
(iii) on issues of non-alienation
of land to non-indigenous persons,
(iv) on issues of expansion and
smooth functioning of the labour department, and
(v) on detection and deportation of
non-indigenous persons.
Part I
1. The JCILPS, Manipur take this
opportunity to submit this memorandum to the Hon’ble
Chief Minister, Manipur in the wake of widespread public unrest on issues of
the threat to the identity, culture, traditional values and livelihood of the
indigenous peoples by the sheer pressure of outsider populations whose presence
and settlement in the State since the 1950s had transformed the demographic
landscape and destroyed the organic pluralistic worldview of the indigenous
societies of pre-colonial Manipur.
2. The movement for a well
streamlined regulatory policy by the State on this issue is a result of
prolonged public outcry due to the socio-economic burdens imposed by this
uncontrolled influx, thereby disturbing the harmony and peaceful co-existence
of the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural polity. Manipur had a historic legacy of
inter-societal integration and deep respect to outsiders and incomers since the
pre-colonial past (background history is being provided in the following
attached narratives). But tensions and public protests grew from the
indifferent, discriminatory and biased attitude and policies pursued by the
ruling governmental authorities, thereby undermining the self-respect and
civilizational equilibrium of the public of Manipur since the fifties.
3. The rising movement for control,
regulation and curbing of uncontrolled explosion of unnaturally induced
population growth in Manipur rose in intensity since the eighties. Synchronous
with the rising tide of simultaneous protests throughout Northeast India,
especially in Assam, Tripura, Sikkim etc. in various forms related to other
contexts, but the patterns and motives of the movements have similar contours
and character. Manipur students and the younger generation, discontented with
the lack of vision of their political elders absorbed in power struggle, rose
in huge democratic protests.The movement faced violent and brutal repression
from the government resulting to the death of two students Potsangbam Lukhoi
and Huidrom Loken in the 1980 students’movement. The R.K. Dorendra
Ministry of the Congress government met the movement leaders of AMSU (All
Manipur Students‟ Union) & AMSCOC (All Manipur Students Coordinating
Committee) and came into an Agreement on 22nd July 1980, and on 5th August 1980
(vide Annexures I). This agreement envisaged the start of the process of
government undertaking to identify the illegal migrants (understood as
Foreigners at that particular time) and take measures for their deportation
under due processes under the Constitution of India and the laws, scrutiny of
the Electoral Rolls since 1948, with special relation to later Census Reports
of 1951, the National Register of Citizens 1951, and the Village Directory
1951. The government also promised eviction of unlawful settlers in reserve
forest areas, khas lands and other reserve areas, and promised legislation to
prevent infiltration, to improve conditions of vigil at strategic check-posts
in Imphal-Dimapur road, Jiribam, Moreh, Tipaimukh, Imphal-Airport etc. Details
on the processes of government machineries, officials and their
responsibilities were explicitly laid out.
4. The failure of the government to
act on the memorandum of agreement, and sheer disappointment over the
unfulfilled promises, made the younger generation represented by AMSU to
organize a heavier protest with great cost to public peace. During President’s
Rule in 1994, His Excellency, the Governor of Manipur General V.K. Nayar,
P.V.S.M. Retd., allowed the Government of Manipur represented by Sri K.K.
Sethi, Chief Secretary and Sri H.V. Goswami, Advisor to the Governor, to sign a
Memorandum of Agreement with Sri Naorem Mohilal, President of AMSU, with noted
journalist Yambem Laba as witness on the 9th November 1994 at Raj Bhavan (The
Governor’s Office and Residence) with His Excellency being
present at the event (Annexure II). The acceptance of the agreement by His
Excellency the Governor of Manipur V.K. Nayar as representative of the
Government of India during President’s Rule in Manipur was the
reaffirmation and legitimization of the agreement of 1980.
This agreement was a landmark in
the historical progression of the movement of the aggrieved people of Manipur
on the issue of illegal immigrants and outsiders. The problem of illegal
immigrants and outsiders was understood and termed the Foreigner’s
problem as per agreement between the government under President’s
Rule, and the movement. Both parties were aware of the implications of the
issue under national laws like the Foreigner’s Act, 1946 and other relevant
laws. It accepted and endorsed the agreement of 1980 in the identification and
deportation of Foreigners under the provisions of the Constitution of India,
the Foreigner’s Act, 1946 and other relevant laws. It also provided extensive
modalities for deletion of names of foreign nationals from Electoral Rolls,
their identification and subsequent deportation under law.
The State Government on its part
agreed to implement all the issues raised by the AMSU and agreed upon by both
sides besides the main Foreigners issue as contained in the 1980 Agreement.
It also constituted a Committee
composing of Civil Society representatives and scholars under the supervision
of the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur. The functions of the Committee
were explicitly laid out with meticulous care.
The Committee could not function
due to exigencies of political and other unfortunate developments in the
political history of modern Manipur.
5. The increasing problems of
artificial population growth were in public minds. Manipur, a small Asiatic
independent state patronized by the British government, integrated into India
in 1949, and by 1972, the Government of India upgraded it to a full-fledged
State, but the unattended issue of demographic imbalance was first noticed by
silent well meaning scholars who detected certain anomalies in the population
studies of Northeast India. When the Government of India read the unusual,
exponential growth of Northeast India’s populations and reflected
it in the Government of India’s white paper on population planning of India, scholars
of Manipur raised quite objections. The Government of India viewed the increase
in the population in Northeastern States of India ‘as the outcome of the
failure to implement family welfare programmes. To promote the population
policy, the Union Government had advocated in 1970s, bonus plan money based on
effective carrying out of population policy. To ascertain the positive result for
carrying out population policy in the State, the Central aid to State was to be
freezed at the population figure of 1971. For the extra population load over
this base figure, the concerned State had to manage from its own resources. The
Union Government was also planning forced sterilization programmes during the
emergency period of 1975-76 elsewhere on the pretext of the failure of the
family welfare programme, but it was not carried out in Manipur’
(UCM 2005).
Such were the mis-emphasized public
experience of the Union and State Government attitude towards unwanted
population growth and emergence of public protests during the tense eighties.
The population figures of the Manipur kingdom (later State and Part C State)
from 1891 to 1951 was reported to be simple doubling of the growth of
population as per their natural biological processes along with wise government
policies of native administration towards assimilation of migrants.
From a Census population estimate
of some 5 lakhs in the 1950s, the population of Manipur jumped upto around 28
lakhs in 2011, which was a massive 4.6 times increase in population, in 60
years, which was abnormal and scary in character, phenomenally awesome. Also a
look at the inter-censal growth rate of Manipur’s
population was persistently above the growth rate of Indian population.
This indicated tell-tale signs of
artificial increase of outsider populations in Manipur which was induced by
factors not critically addressed by the concerned governments. The following
statistics of the current position of outsider populations other than the
indigenous peoples of Manipur is also provided below. From a simple number of
migrant population of 2,719 in December 1948, it has shot up more than 400
times today, reaching the figure of more than ten lakhs odd in gross estimate
during the last 67 years (Table 3). Unfortunately the population figure for the
decade between the years 1951 to 1961 is not available due to Manipur’s
census jurisdictions being under Assam.
The United Committee Manipur, a
Civil Society organization produced a text – “Influx of Migrants in Manipur”
in 2005, which claimed that Manipur under Census figures of 2001 had three
distinct components of population – one of Schedule Tribes which comprise some
6,70,782 in number, while the valley population of original Meetei, and
Meetei-pangal etc. were of 9,18,826 numbers, while the third category the
outsiders (influx with offspring) constituted 7,04,488 in number, thereby
indicating that the migrants in Manipur is the second largest population group
in Manipur, more numerous than the total of the Schedule Tribe population of
the State.
These statistics implied vital
realities of the nature of severely contested issues of socio-economic
benefits. The estranged competition amidst culturally differentiated work
forces from local and outsider populations, and the absolutely incompatible
nature in the work ethic of these separate communities with vitally different
world views, food habits, and manners indicated substantially alienated
relationships in their mixed ecological and social networks. A strange tinge of
communally based prejudices and notions of we-self and the other constituted
the social universe of these plural communities, hostile to one another.
Manipur by virtue of unique social traditions of pluralism avoided violent
clashes like that of Assam and Tripura in the eighties. The environment in
Manipur as a result of exogenous increase of population warranted serious
public policies towards respect for diversity, pluralism and non-violent
democracy and at the same time institute safeguards to the interest of the
indigenous populations. We are aware of how the Northeast became a cauldron of
explosive social and political crises where jealousies, distrusts and violence
amongst populations occurred in the response to India’s
policies of development and democracy emphasizing the religious and linguistic
categorization of peoples in the region.
6. Many factors of social impacts
of excess non-homogenous population amidst original citizens, the impossibility
of assimilation of outsider populations with those of native ones, the stable
size of incomers who develop their socio-cultural and linguistic identities as
competing with identity formation processes of indigenous populations became an
intense feature of socio-economic strife. The competition in jobs, livelihood
means, in skilled demands on professions, in both organized and unorganized
sectors of the economy created pressure in social interactions etc. Demands of
urbanization, in house buildings, constructions, in proletarian labour supply,
and other manual jobs, created tremendous frictions. The slow, reluctant ethnic
populations with orthodoxies and habits of indolence, and the other side of
harsh life-bearing processes of outsider populations who could work on lower
wages, and their ability to be professionally competent to perform tasks better
than the autochthones created an environment of sheer competition in the
possession and control over resources, where the indigenes were found wanting.
It is such situations that were
foreseen by our immediate forefathers who saw the future state of our societies
that entry of outsiders would lead to greater exploitation of the Manipur
people. The first Chief Minister Maharajkumar Priyobarta of Independent Manipur
in 1947 decided against the abolition of the Permit System in Manipur and in
his order, wrote ‘the abolition of the System will certainly work to the
prejudice of the States interest as it will afford room for the people of Manipur
being exploited by the outsiders before Manipur can establish herself‟
(Manipur State Gazette 15 October 1947, Annexure III). Contentious pluralism of
post-colonial times that affect the quality of life of the indigenous peoples,
the contemporary development processes to enable aspirations for heightened
quality of life in terms of education, health care, access to profitable
employment, choice of alternative means to secure livelihood etc. are all
undermined by this complex tensions generated by demographic imbalance
artificially induced.
7. The 21st century period of
globalization and the Look East and Act East Policy of the Government of India
with a sublime thrust towards economic integration with the rest of East Asia
and South East Asia necessitated much more deeper and more serious
investigation into the processes of international connectivity on land, air and
the advent of trans-Asian railways and highways, improvement of trade
connections with these eastern neighbours shall involve huge movement of
peoples, goods, services and establishment of financial institutions, banks,
security paraphernalia and others. There shall be hotels, bungalows, trade
centres, and a host of other technologically oriented gadgets, roadways,
warehouses, dockyards, hospitals and smart cities in the hill areas would
become realities. Under these conditions futuristically envisaged, we must
improve the quality of skills necessitated by this global enterprise, and
enhance the adaptation to highly demanding aspects of knowledge, expertise and
it shall involve transformation of our societies into modern ones. We must
devise our own participation in the global processes, seek representation in
the highest decision making bodies in trade, commerce and other professions,
and our regulations and laws should complement the processes of globalization
and movement – ingress and egress of populations. Greater enhancement of the
commitment of our officials, deeper integrity, and bigger outlook will be
demanded. Migration is a must in such trans-global situations and our people
should be trained to adapt to these changes. Computerization of procedures and
processes shall be compulsory and strong domestic laws should regulate these
activities with proper emphasis on national security and prevention of
marginalization of indigenous communities by outsider populations.
Here we would like to mention a
serious record of a statement by no less a person than General S.K. Sinha,
P.V.S.M., former Vice-Chief of Staff of the Indian Army and Governor of Assam,
who wrote a letter to Sri K.R. Narayanan in 1998 when the latter was President
of India, implicating the seriousness of the crisis of demographic imbalance
and the explosion of uncontrolled population of Assam, he wrote to the
President and in the introduction, mentioned:
“The unabated influx of illegal
migrants from Bangladesh into Assam and the consequent perceptible change in
the demographic pattern of the State has been a matter of grave concern. It
threatens to reduce the Assamese people to a minority in their own State, as
happened in Tripura and Sikkim” (Annexure IV).
8. This grave concern on the matter
of influx was first discussed without much media attention in the office rooms
of government officials in the post-seventies who consulted informally with
scholar representatives of the people.
But it seems the scholar
representatives were silenced by the bureaucrats who were reluctant to accept
the reality or enormity of the problem and nothing worthwhile emerged from
these discussions. After the 1980 crisis, resulting to loss of lives of
students and government properties, certain civil society organizations like
the Poramlen Apunba in 1988 began to draw public attention on the matter. The
movement for regulation of unchecked influx of outsiders thus continued with
greater intensity in the later period of the 20th century and beginning of the
21st century when Manipur was reeling with socio-economic stress and when the
gap between the rich and the poor had widened in spite of increase in the quantum
of central grants to the State. A huge dislocation of proper lack of land use
policies in the wake of globalization, the advent of land speculation and
distortions in population equilibrium as the shrinking of agricultural land and
alienation of such lands of agricultural farmers to persons and institutions of
totally different agendas, had intensified the crisis of the times. Dislocation
of internal population movements as well as past legacies of unattended
humanitarian crises resultant from violence from outside the territories of
Manipur creating a chain of refugees settling in Manipur and such other human
tragedies also created a situation of flux and uncertainty in the normal
equilibrium of life. Porous nature of the borders, slipping in of outside
populations, entry into Electoral Rolls, correction in the next five years
review leading to anomalies and increases, subsequent acquirement of voting
rights and influencing of electoral politics have become the order of the day
thereby escalating the social tension of the times.
A Civil Society group called the
FREINDS attempted to draw the attention of the public on the deepening crisis
after the publication of the UCM text on the influx in 2005. They constituted
an ILP Demand Committee along with whom FREINDS took up the matter and started
a series of movements since 2006-07 to introduce the ILP System in Manipur
similar to the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 prevalent in the
neighbouring States of Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. The crisis of
the times emboldened the volunteers to take direct action to detect illegal
migrants to the State by surprise checking of Inter-state buses, hotels and
temporary staying places in various nooks and corners of the State. Many
outsiders without identity cards, especially from Bangladesh and Myanmar etc.
were detected and the volunteers of FREINDS handed them over to the local
police authorities and also brought the notice of the Union Home Ministry to
the matter. It must be mentioned that the government’s action
of deportation of the foreign nationals after detection by public of Manipur
were acknowledged by the Union Government, a sign of understanding and concern
by the central authorities to the issue. The concern on the matter of influx
behind the confines of government official rooms was changed later when public
representatives took up the matter in the legal regime of the Manipur
Legislative Assembly. The Assembly for the first time brought this matter into
the legal domain when the late Hon’ble MLA H. Bidur raised
this issue in the Assembly session of 1993. Hon’ble MLA
I. Hemochandra again introduced the second motion in 2006. Hon’ble
MLA N. Mangi Singh made the third attempt in 2011. All these matters however
could not be positively fructified. greater public intervention on this
critical issue, 32 (thirty two) Civil Society groups came together in the
public cause and formed the Joint Committee on Inner Line Permit System in
Manipur in 2012. Through the efforts of this collective group, members of the
Manipur Legislative Assembly lent support to the spirit of the public and
contributed to the passing of the Assembly resolution on the 13th July 2012 on
extension and adoption of Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 with
necessary changes in the point of details to the State of Manipur. The motion
in the Assembly was moved as a private member’s
resolution by the Hon’ble MLA of Oinam A/C, Dr. I. Ibohalbi and was passed
unanimously (Annexure V).
9. Again the Manipur Legislative
Assembly passed a second resolution to urge the Government of India to extend
the provision of the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation 1873 for extension of
Inner Line Regulation to the State of Manipur or to enact a suitable law under
clause (5) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India (Annexure VI).
We appreciate the motives of the
Government of Manipur on the second resolution along with the spirit expressed
by representatives of political parties since the matter is so serious as to
draw the attention of the people of Manipur across party lines, and it should
be a matter of concern for everyone in Manipur without representations for
religion, ethnicity, language and cultures since the real crisis of demographic
imbalance is a matter of the life and death for the people of Manipur.
10. Here on the background of the
second Assembly resolution of 2013, we would like to comment on a slight loss
or mistake by our government officials on the knowledge of the history of
pre-merger Manipur. When the Union Home Ministry enquired with the Government
of Manipur whether there was an ILP System of Manipur, the Manipur government
official replied that there was no ILP System in Manipur, but he mentioned the
prevalence of a former Permit System that was abolished by Chief Commissioner Himmat
Singh in November 1950. If he was prudent enough to consult scholars from the
public he could have taken advantage of the chinks in the powers assumed by the
Commissioner in 1950 that he was not a proper authority to abolish existing
laws of the pre-merger state as the Merger Agreement of 1949 as well as the
Administrative order for the powers of the Chief Commissioner on October 15,
1949 explicitly mentioned the continuation of the existing laws unless repealed
or amended by a duly constituted legislature or authority (full details in the
attached Annexure VII). Also it can be argued for re-introduction of the former
Permit System as protected by Article 372 of the Constitution of India as
adapted to contemporary conditions which can be a substitute for “the Similar
Law”
stipulated in the 2nd resolution of the Manipur Legislative
Assembly.
It must also be added here that the
JCILPS representatives consisting of 11 members made a representation to the
Union Home Minister Mr. Sushil Kumar Shinde on 23 November 2012 at New Delhi
reflecting this situation as similar to that of Tripura and Sikkim. Also
informing the representative official that Manipur is not against Indian
citizens, but that only an authorized permit or pass would facilitate their presence,
but settlement and enrollment in local Electoral Rolls and participation in the
political processes would in future alter the structures of our life and polity
which will be disastrous for the local people – hence the urgency and
importance of the peoples movement. Sri Sushil Kumar Shinde is reported to have
observed that the Demand is genuine.
11. The Government of Manipur took
enormous trouble to call for inputs from the respective political parties of
Manipur in the wake of unceasing clamour of the people for the last three to
four years, and the political parties and citizens of the State provided
well-meaning advice and inputs into the matter. As many as 15 meetings of the
all political parties committee on ILPS, Manipur were convened, and many
well-meaning legal and constitutional experts provided suggestions and also
submitted model bill proposals to the scheme in the year 2014. Informal
meetings between representatives of the government and members of the JCILPS
however were not smooth and it seems distance mentalities developed within the
government and the JCILPS relationships. Ironically, the government without
consultation with JCILPS and negating all their proposals introduced the
Manipur Regulation of Visitors, Tenants and Migrant Workers Bill, 2015 in the
Manipur Legislative Assembly on 13/3/2015 and it was passed on the 16/3/2015
with five Hon’ble MLAs Sri Dr. I. Ibohalbi, Samuel Risom, Th.
Shyamkumar, Kh. Joykishan and K. Sarat voicing dissent and walking out of the
House and two other Members Y. Irabot and L. Ibomcha along with the above five
MLAs had suggested that the Bill be referred to a select committee. Thus
without unanimity the Bill was passed. Immediate protests arose from the
public, the copy of the Bill were put into flames by the Meira Paibee and the
students on the 15th March. Various demonstrations came up in nooks and corners
of the state. The JCILPS earlier had submitted a set of demands on the nature
of the Bill and further sent reminders on 24/2/2015 which include the five
points which was not at all reflected in the newly drafted Government Bill on
the Manipur Regulation of Visitors, Tenants and Migrant Workers Bill 2015. The
JCILPS in their reminder had objected to the proposed Bill as it did not
address or incorporate the 5 point demand.
The 11th session of the 10th
Manipur Legislative Assembly that met from the 25th June 2015 till the 10th of
July refused to accede to the demands of the JCILPS to withdraw the Manipur
Regulation of Visitors, Tenants and Migrant Workers Bill and to pass a new
Bill. Widespread protests continued from the public and police action resulted
to the death of a sixteen-year-old school student Sapam Robinhood of Ananda
Singh Higher Secondary Academy from direct rubber bullet injury on his face on
the 8th July, 2015. The Manipur Legislative Assembly adjourned its session
without any reference to the problem on the 10th of July, 2015, which was read
by the public as complete denial of the right of the people to be heard in
matters of public interest. Agitations intensified and with increasing police
atrocities and injuries and physical harm to many participants in the
democratic movement, the government was forced to convene a special session of
the Manipur Legislative Assembly on 15th July 2015. The said controversial Bill
– the Manipur Regulation of Visitors, Tenants and Migrant Workers Bill 2015 was
withdrawn.
12. This was a brief background to
the present state of peoples’ movement for regulation of unchecked, artificial
explosion of demographic imbalance and the resultant crisis on issues of
identities, culture, dignity, respect for diversity, pluralism and deepened
democracy which are fundamentally challenged by the lack of vision of
leadership. Absence of institutional mechanisms to undertake to regulate the
ingress of unwanted populations and address the critical alienation of native
lands to outsiders, the insufficient implementation of labour laws, and to
enact a fresh law to regulate and control the crisis of influx are all yet to
be addressed with all sincerity and trust between the stake holders – the
Government and the people.
..................................................
Memorandum Submitted to The Hon’ble
Chief Minister, Manipur - Part II
ILP Timeline
09 August 2015
JCILPS
Published: 09 August 2015
Hits: 418
PART II
Reasons for introduction of the ILP
System or a Similar Law under
Article 19 (5) of the Constitution
of India
1. The demand for the introduction
of the ILP or a Similar Law by the JCILPS need to be understood from the
serious issues arising out of the social, economic and cultural crisis
generated by the dynamics of artificial population pressure on ill-proportionate
land and resources and undermined by historical and political changes of the
times. A law to mitigate these ills should be in consonance with the
understanding of the causal factors of the past, the understanding of the
present realities and then to re-design measures to mitigate current ills in
order to assure a peaceful satisfactory future. The Government of the land
should also understand the basic causes of this current turmoil, examine the
problems faced and responded to by our past generations, link up the past
traditions with contemporary welfare measures and re-assure a link with
tradition in modern societal development, so that the people could recover
their self-esteem, and assuage grievances by restoring their dignity that had
been undermined by exogenous ideologies and hegemonic power. A look in the
state of our ancient monarchical polity and post Independence governance of the
erstwhile pre-merger State of Manipur, and their attitude towards outside
migrants and the policies towards incorporating them to the native society and
polity should be understood in order to re-design new laws which shall be
natural organic developments suited to local, particular historical contexts. A
brief overview of past history is narrated below.
2. Manipur was an ancient Asiatic
state, with a well organized monarchical rule, a literature and language
generated from the interactions of the indigenous populations, which recorded
the entry of outside migrants with meticulous care and scrutiny, and devised
policies with a view to produce a harmonious, organic, pluralistic social
order. The Government of the pre-colonial past kept extensive records of
migrants with their family pedigrees, place of origin and their propensity and
skills for appropriate professions, and assimilated them into the social
structure with marriage to local women. Those migrants who came from the
eastern directions, either through captivity in war, or through search for
livelihood were assimilated in Manipur society with marriages to local women
and were known as Nongpok Haram (Eastern comers). Yunnan - Chinese, Burmese,
Shans, Chins and other communities were integrated into Manipur society and
formed essential part of the indigenous population. Those who came from the
west notably Indian Brahmins, Muslims, Bodos, Bengalis and Assamese were also
known as Nongchup Haram (Western comers) and they too were assimilated with
local marriages, becoming an organic part of the Manipur society. Tribal
communities from the Highland Mountains were also absorbed into Manipur
society, given appropriate lineages or yumnaks, and valley maidens were also
married to hill chieftains and thus an indigenous social organism based on
kinship and blood relations were formed in pre-colonial times. The ancient
state maintained indigenous census records like Meihoubarol (Records of origins
of family hearths), Pudin (Mingling of ancestors), Sangai-Phammang (Records of
clans and lineages approved by royal authority), Yumdaba Puya (Records of
settlement of families) and other such texts that were almost revered and
preserved with meticulous care in the palatial archives. Appropriate
professions, and land for their families‟
settlement were allotted to these incomers. As the state became more recognized
and internationally respected in the comity of nations, royal princesses were
given in marriage to kings and princes in Burma, the upper Shan principalities
and other eastern kingdoms, and nearer polities like that of Ahoms, the Dimasas
and the Tripuris had blood relations marrying Manipuri princesses and they
played excellent roles in international and inter-community relations.
Since 1891, the colonial take-over
and introduction of British imperial administration brought in a new social
component of the Marwaris, Bengalis and Nepalis as social and military
instruments of the imperial and colonial order with new set of governance laws
in the matters of economy, in the ushering in practices of private property and
tutelage to colonial modernity. A form of contestation in the money economy
produced a contentious pluralism that increased the dynamics of difference and
notions of superiority and inferiority in the colonial structure. But the
governing authorities of the monarchy, in deference to their noble heritage and
civilization inherited from thousands of self-government, nursed notions of
civility and understanding and when they promulgated laws for governance, saw
to the intrinsic understanding of the true traditions of the state, the
hospitality to outsiders and understanding and respect for the other. By the
time of independence when the British Empire left this land in 1947, the state
gave itself three important acts which reflected the dignity, status and
civilized world view of the times. The Manipur State Constitution Act of 1947
gave the people of Manipur a constitutional monarchy and a self-government of
the people under universal adult franchise, respecting universal human rights
and innovating the modern developmental measures of the plural order,
acknowledging double representation of mixed communities in a single
constituency, and allowing business and education with a separate
non-territorial representation respectively in the Assembly. The elections held
under this constitution in 1948, the second in Asia to adopt a democratic
system of Government next to the Philippines who became a democracy in 1946.
The next enactment of Manipur State Hill Areas Regulation Act of 1947 gave
satisfaction to the traditional component of the ancient polity - the Hill
communities who had been divorced from a united Manipur administration through
the intervention of British, a chance to secure their space in governance,
respecting their autonomy and continuance of their customary laws, and thus the
free Manipur of 1947 could now re-secure the sense of people and nation, that
had been under colonial domination for fifty six years. This two acts, along
with the third one, the Manipur State Naturalization Act of 1947 made Manipur
one of the most advanced democratic systems of Government, and this third act
addressed the subject of incoming migrants to the state and as wont a
traditional civilization, made laws for the assimilation of outsiders to the
state, providing appropriate legal documents for their naturalization as
citizens of the State.
As regards treatment to migrant
populations left as legacies from the colonial manipulation of peoples and
territories, Manipur had a much more sophisticated and advanced institutional
system to deal with migrant populations. When the erstwhile districts of
colonial Assam as a part of Eastern Bengal had problems of conflicts in trade
and ethnic relations necessitated by the introduction of tea industry and
complications of community relations between the tribal communities and the
British subjects, namely the Indian populations. These transactions in the
colonial economy brought in constant clashes and quarrels in the procurement of
wax, cotton, rubber and other indigenous products from the tribal communities
that induced the officials of the British Government to design the Inner Line
Permit System that became an important regulatory order in 1873. It prevented
Indian populations to cross certain linear stipulations in the geography of the
tribal populated areas. This regulation became an important restrictive
instrument for ingress of Indian and other populations for newly formed Indian
states like Mizoram, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh.
For Manipur, a unique institutional
structure was the introduction of a permit or passport system for Indians and
other British subjects known as Foreigners, introduced in 1901. They were given
a pass to enter Manipur, and get trading or grazing licenses on payment of
fees. In 1931, long after the establishment of the Manipur State Durbar, a
Foreigner‟s Department was formally instituted to look into these
cases of ingress of migrants, and the income generated on taxes on them for
pursuing professions were helpful to the state exchequer. Sri Sanjenbam
Nodiachand was the efficient Foreigners Member of the State Durbar, who assiduously
took the responsibility of running this department, taking collection of (i)
Foreigner‟s Tax, (ii) Income Tax and (iii) Trading License fees
etc. After his retirement in 1944, he was succeeded by Md. Walli Ulla, a
Meetei-pangal member of the Durbar till 1947. Sri Sougaijam Somorendra held
charge of the Foreigners Department from the 13th June 1947, till the system
was abolished in 1950 by the Chief Commissioner Sri Himmat Singh.
What developed in the 50s were that
policies affecting the components of the population, the Valley people, the
Hill populations and the outsider populations comprising the multi-ethnic and
multi-cultural polity were suddenly swept away by the controversial merger of
the State into India in 1949. Here one must reiterate the circumstances and
realities of the events and analyze its impacts on the social and political
developments. When the Chief Commissioner, Himmat Singh addressed the Members
of the Advisory Council on its first session on 9th October 1950, he mentioned his
responsibilities to execute the policies and instructions of the Government of
India. He added “Manipur occupies a strategic place of great importance and
forms the northeastern gateway of India. In view of that importance, you should
constantly bear in mind the vital fact that Manipur is an integral part of the
Republic of India. All Manipuris, Meeteis and Tribesman alike, should therefore
think more and more in terms of their rights and obligations as Indian first,
and not merely as residents of the small state of Manipur. People of other
parts of India can no longer be treated as „Foreigners‟ and
discriminatory treatment against them is neither possible nor wise” (Gangmumei
Kamei, 2015 p. 92).
(Annexure VIII)
One month later on the 18th
November Sri Himmat Singh, as Chief Commissioner of Manipur issued the order
No. 8597-601 H.D.
“It is notified for general
information that with immediate effect the permit system for entry into and
exit from Manipur is abolished”
Himmat Singh
Chief Commissioner,Manipur.
(Annexure IX)
It must be remembered Sri Sagolsem
Indramani Singh, one of the members of the 14 member Advisory Council, raised
objections to the Chief Commissioner‟s order on the day of the
next meeting of the Advisory Council on the 2nd February 1951 “to revive the
passport system in Manipur so that persons from outside Manipur might be
allowed to come in with an account and scrutiny” (Dr. Kh. Ratan, UCM, 2005 p.
132).
Let us delve a little further on
the powers assumed by the Chief Commissioner to abolish an existing law,
prevalent in the State.
When we look into the terms of the
Merger Agreement signed by the Maharajah of Manipur on 21st September 1949, the
relevant clause was in Article VIII of the Agreement. In the latter part of the
Government of India‟s guarantees to the continuance of the permanent members
in the public services of Manipur, and promise to continue pensions and
salaries of the former officials of the erstwhile administration, there was an
important reference.
“The Government of India shall also
undertake to make suitable provisions for the employment of Manipuris in the
various branches of Public Services, and in every way encourage Manipuris to
join them. They also undertake to preserve various laws, customs and
conventions prevailing in the state pertaining to the social, economic and
religious life of the people”
(Annexure X).
Once again, if we look into the
Administrative Order of 15 October 1949, when the Government of India empowered
the Chief Commissioner in his functions as the Head of the State, the Part C
State, in the first order relating to appointment of Judges, Magistrates,
Police officials and others to run the new administration his powers were
explicitly mentioned. In the second, he was also given the powers to assure the
assimilation of erstwhile officials of the Manipur Maharajah within the new
administration.
Yet in the subsequent Article 5 of
the Administrative Order on Existing Laws to Continue – All laws in force in
Manipur or any part thereof immediately before the commencement of this order,
shall continue in force until repealed or amended by a competent legislature or
authority.
Provided that all powers
exercisable under the said laws by His Highness the Maharajah or the Government
of the State shall be exercisable by the Chief Commissioner.
The question therefore arises here
on the competence and powers of the Chief Commissioner to abolish an existing
law. The Government of India authorised the Chief Commissioner to exercise the
powers of the State Government in existence before the merger of the State, and
he also assumed the constitutional role of the Maharajah.
But the matter before us is a
matter of deep legal as well as moral and ethical import. The powers of the
State Government exercised by the erstwhile Council of Ministers of the
Maharajah had only 3 (three) years ago continued the permit system which was
also endorsed by the Chief Minister, Sri Maharajkumar Priyobarta Singh (already
cited, attached Annexure III), and the decision of the Council to retain the
permit system, after getting the endorsement of His Highness, had been
intimated to the Governor of Assam, who was at that time supervising the
affairs of the State of Manipur as per the imperial norms of governance at that
time.
The representative of the Governor
of Assam, the Advisor to His Excellency, Mr. G.E.D. Walker, Esqr. M.B.E.I.P.
wrote a letter to the Chief Minister, Manipur State, Imphal dated 17th January
1948 on the subject: Permit to enter into Manipur State.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to this
Office letter No. 120/47/C-1389 dated 18-11-47 and to inform you that the
Government of India have approved the proposed retention of the permit system
in Manipur State.
Your obedient servant
Sd/-
For advisor to H.E
The Governor of Assam
Copy to the Dominion Agent in
Manipur for information in continuation of this office letter No
120/47/C-1390-91 dated 18-11-1947.
(Annexure XI)
In this context the Government of
India gave permission for the retention of the permit system in Manipur.
However, the Chief Commissioner of Manipur had transgressed certain principles
of protocol and committed moral improprieties in cancelling the permit system
in Manipur.
If he was to assume the status of
the Maharajah, who was a constitutional monarch, he would be abiding by the
advice of the Council of Ministers. If he acted as the erstwhile State
Government, he should have known that their decisions, with approval of His
Highness were to be sent to the Governor of Assam for endorsement by the
authorities. In the takeover of the administration of Manipur, the Chief
Commissioner being authorized by the Government of India, should not have
countermanded the decisions of the State Government and Legislature that was
abolished by the Government of India without appropriate advice, for which the
newly constituted Advisory Council of 1950 was not given sufficient powers.
The Chief Commissioner Sri Himmat
Singh, therefore had acted indiscriminately in an authoritarian manner, for
which the people of Manipur have every right to question his decision to
abolish the permit system as “arbitrary” and without precedent.
3. Again, the very important third
Act - Manipur State Naturalization Act, 1947, had raised an important issue
about the naturalization of outsiders by allowing him or her to assert his
Manipuri Nationality by a declaration under this Act. The Act was neither
repealed nor amended by subsequent notifications or legislative actions in the
post merger periods. This concept of nationality status had not been recognized
by the Constitution of India as it recognizes only linguistic or religious
minorities. The values and civilizational status of Manipur nationality had not
been recognized by the Indian State.
4. The undermining of the dignity
of the people through the controversial merger in 1949 had serious
repercussions in the ontological dignity of the Manipur polity. When the States
Reorganization Committee (SRC) in the late 50s visited Imphal and took the
opinions of various political parties, the Committee later recommended that
Manipur should be merged into Assam with the status of a district! This,
however, was cancelled through the intervention of Pandit Nehru who ensured the
distinctive political entities of Manipur and Tripura. Prime Minister Nehru
said, “It would be a misfortune for the country to destroy the identity of
Manipur which possessed a rich culture and long history”. Nehru‟s
intervention rejected the recommendation of SRC to merge Manipur with Assam in
the proposed Union Territory Act of 1956. Manipur was converted from a Part C
State status to a Union Territory (Gangmumei Kamei, 2015, p. 98).
The Government of Manipur in
consultation with the people of Manipur may seriously consider the revival of
the permit system of the pre-merger Manipur. It can be modified and put in the
context of the present, protected by Article 372 of the Constitution of India,
and also removing such tags as foreigners, etc., terminologies which was used
in the past, and modernized to suit local conditions, aware of national and
international laws. The proposal is put forth for discussion as an easier route
to the fulfillment of the desire of the people, also reflected in the 2nd
Resolution of the Manipur Legislative Assembly passed in 2013.
Page
2 of 2
09 August 2015
JCILPS
Published: 09 August 2015
Hits: 550
PART III
Demand to Safeguard and Protect
Indigenous Peoples of Manipur
After deliberations on the contents
of Part I and Part II of the memorandum, the JCILPS hereby lay out the
five-point demand to the Government of Manipur for new legislation or
legislations to be enacted in order to safeguard and protect the indigenous
peoples of Manipur within the frame work of the Constitution of India and the
Government of India‟s international obligations.
The Constitution of India in
Article 19 protects certain fundamental freedoms. In the same article in clause
(1)(d) it specifically protects the rights of all citizens to move freely
throughout the territory of India. Also Article 19(1)(e) protects the right to
reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. However these are not
absolute rights. Article 19 (5) states:
Nothing in sub clauses (d) and (e)
of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as
it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said
sub-clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection
of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe
The Supreme Court of India has
declared that the term “reasonableness” has no fixed standard. In Jyoti Prasad
vs Union Territory of Delhi (1602 S.C, 1961 AIR) the apex court stated “It must
vary from age to age and be related to the adjustments necessary to solve
problems which communities face from time to time”. In our humble opinion,
there is nothing in law that forbids interpreting the term “the interest of the
general public” as the interest of the people of Manipur, who are affected by
the demographic crisis and demanding their safeguards and protection.
DEFINITIONS
i) “Indigenous Peoples of Manipur”
means those peoples with historical and special inalienable relationship with
the land, resources and territory of Manipur with distinct cultures and
traditions experiencing historically rooted continued subjugation, domination
and threats to their survival, livelihood and identity.
a) Refer to Definition of
Indigenous Peoples by Jose R. Martinez Cobo, Special Rapporteur of the UN
Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, in
his Study on the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations. (UN document
no.: E/CN.4/Sub.2/1983/21/Addl.4 of 14 July 1983) as contained in The Concept
of Indigenous Peoples: Background paper prepared by the Secretariat of the
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in 2004. (Annexure no. XII)
b) Refer to Article 1 (1) (b) of
the Convention concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and
Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries, ILO
Convention 107 of 1957 (Annexure XIII), India has acceded to this convention on
29 September 1958.
c) Refer to Article 1, (a), (b) and
(c) of the Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent
Countries, ILO Convention 169 of 1989 (Annexure XIV), India has not yet acceded
to this convention. Nevertheless the Working Group on the Universal Periodic
Review on India, has recommended the Government of India to ratify the
convention, see recommendations no. 138.5 and 138.26 contained in UN document
no. A/HRC/21/10 of 9 July 2012. (Annexure XIV A)
d) Refer to official exchange
between the Government of India and Prof. James Anaya, UN Special Rapporteur on
the Fundamental Rights and Freedom of Indigenous Peoples, in connection with
the understanding and application of the concept of Indigenous Peoples in the
context of Manipur, India, Para no. 215 and 216 of UN document
A/HRC/15/37/Addl. 1 (Annexure XV)
e) Refer to Article 8 and other
relevant articles of UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
adopted by UN General Assembly in 2007. (Annexure XVI)
ii) “Non-Indigenous Domicile” means
the non-indigenous person in Manipur from outside Manipur and who have settled
in Manipur before 1st January 1951 as a legacy of colonial rule, linguistically
and ethnically different, entitled to limited rights.
iii) “Outsider/Non-Manipur Person”
means those non-indigenous persons and Foreigners who enter Manipur after 1st
January 1951.
iv) “Sponsor” means those
indigenous persons and “non-indigenous domiciles” of Manipur, who can provide
financial support, legal guarantees of the identity of those “Outsider/non-Manipur
persons” entering the State of Manipur.
v) “Permit or Pass” means the
Permit or Pass issued by the Government of Manipur within its constitutional
power conferred by the Article 19(5) of the Constitution of India exercising
reasonable restrictions on the free movement, residence and permanent
settlement to the non-indigenous persons within the territorial jurisdiction of
the State of Manipur. It is a document also used as an Identity Card with
reference to License/ILP/Permit/Pass for a purpose of identification of non-
indigenous person willing to enter into Manipur.
vi) “State” means the State
Government of Manipur.
vii) “Cut-off Base Year” means the
year 1951, the cut-off year fixed in the Memorandum of Understanding signed
between the Government of Manipur and the All Manipur Students‟
Union (AMSU) and All Manipur Students Coordinating Committee (AMSCOC) in 1980;
and that was again reaffirmed in the Agreement signed between All Manipur
Students‟ Union (AMSU) and the Government of Manipur during the
President‟s Rule in 1994.
DEMAND NO 1: Permit or pass for
non-indigenous persons entering into, exiting from and staying in Manipur
1) Registration of Non-Indigenous
Persons:
A) Directorate of registration of
non-indigenous/outsiders/non-Manipur person shall be established by the
Government of Manipur, under the Home Department.
B) For the purpose of this act, a
registration cell for registration of the outsiders/non-indigenous/non-Manipur
person under the Directorate of Registration shall be established at all the
entry points of Manipur and at such places as may be specifically notified from
time to time to issue permit or pass by the Government of Manipur.
C) The State Government of Manipur
shall designate as many officers not below Grade II officers of Manipur Civil
Services in rank as the registering authorities.
D) The Registration officers shall,
if they are satisfied that the outsiders / non-indigenous / non-Manipur persons
are genuine and bonafide, issue a permit or pass after a formal application in
such form or manner as may be prescribed to the effect that the outsiders have
registered themselves with the registering authority first before they are
issued the permit or pass for entering the State of Manipur, subject to
availability of a sponsor who is a bonafide indigenous or non-indigenous
domicile of Manipur.
Explanation 1: For the purpose of
this Section, non-production of his/her smart card, valid voters ID, Passport
from their hometown, city or district or state issued by the competent authority
which can prove oneself as the bonafide status, the person will not be granted
to hold a permit or pass.
Explanation 2: For the purpose of
this section, for the workers / labourers, non-production of his/her identity
card (smart card) issued under section 10 (3) of Unorganized Workers Social
Security Act, 2008, which can prove oneself as the bonafide worker, the person
will not be granted to hold an ILP/permit/pass.
E) The registering officers shall
enter the particulars of non-indigenous person entering Manipur with their
particulars of permit or pass details and their validity etc. as per forms and
manner prescribed by the Government of Manipur and made available of the
details in an accessible public domain, such as official web site etc.
F) The registration may be allowed
for 15 days at a time, extendable to another 15 days with exceptional case of
30 days, depending upon their purpose for entering and staying in the State of
Manipur.
2) At the commencement of this Act,
no outsiders who are already settling in the State of Manipur but not earlier
than 31st December 1950, shall stay in the State of Manipur unless they
themselves get registered in the office of the Director of Registration and
availed of a permit under the rules as such applied to the first time entry of
outsiders/non-indigenous/non-Manipur person.
3) A permit or pass holder shall
not be entitled to enjoy the voting right of any elections conducted under the
norms of the Election Commission of India in the State of Manipur. His enrolment
in the electoral roll shall be considered null and void retrospectively and
prospectively.
4) Persons and Institutions to be
Exempted:
a) Those of Manipur Diasporas of
indigenous descent settling anywhere can come in or visit to Manipur with their
proper identification card without applying for the permit or pass.
b) Those persons from outside the
State of Manipur, who are employed in connection with affairs of State and
Union Government of India, the students of any educational institutions of the
State, or such other persons as may be determined by the State Government from
time to time may be exempted from applying for the permit or pass.
c) The “Non Indigenous Domicile” of
Manipur who are non-indigenous persons of Manipur but settling in the State of
Manipur on or before 31st December 1950 are also exempted from applying for the
permit or pass.
d) Neighbouring communities of
Manipur affected by conflict, war, humanitarian crisis and natural disaster
etc., who have sought refuge in the territory of Manipur after 1 January 1951
shall be exempted with limited rights and entitlements to be decided by the
Government of Manipur.
5) Renewal
(1) For the purpose of this Act,
the Government of Manipur may establish an office of renewal of the permit or
pass in the District Head Quarters and at all entry points of Manipur under the
supervision and authority of the Directorate of Registration and assisted by
such Renewal Officers.
(2) For the purpose of this
Section, if the concerned Renewal Officer is satisfied of such application for
the renewal of the permit or pass for further extension of time of the permit
holders, the Renewal Officers may extend time for the permit or pass with
proper fees fixed by the State Government from time to time. The reasons are to
be recorded in the Renewal Register to be maintained by the Renewal Officer and
also made available of the details in an accessible public domain, such as an
official web site etc.
(3) The renewal of permit or pass
shall be done after the expiry of the validity period. All non-indigenous
persons seeking renewal are required mandatorily to exit from Manipur and
re-apply for the permit. All applications of permit or pass renewal should be
made after a gap of at least one month.
DEMAND No.2: Cut-off Base Year
(i) The cut-off base year for
identifying non-indigenous/outsiders/non-Manipur persons will be 1st January
1951 as it was agreed upon between the Government of Manipur and AMSU and
AMSCOC through an Memorandum of Understanding on 22nd July 1980 and again on 5th
of August 1980. The same cut-off base year was further reconfirmed in yet
another agreement between AMSU and Government of Manipur in the presence of His
Excellency General V.K. Nayar P.V.S.M. the Governor of Manipur on 9th November
1994.
(ii) On 18th November 1950, the
then Chief Commissioner of Manipur, Himmat Singh abolished the former Permit
System to allow non-indigenous persons to enter Manipur. It laid the foundation
for present day demographic imbalances and marginalization of indigenous
peoples. The population of Manipur has increased 4.6 times from 1951 to 2011
and the migrant population in Manipur has increased more than 400 times since
1948.
(iii) The event of giving ourselves
a self-fulfilling democratic constitution in the year 1948 after the departure
of the British is a historic time line for defining our collective peoplehood
and recovery of our national identity. The demand for a cut-off base year of
1951 does not contradict India‟s aspiration and expression of defining indigeniety at
the time of her independence in 1947.
DEMAND NO 3: Protection of
Indigenous Peoples’ Land
A) Enforce restrictions on transfer
of land of indigenous peoples of Manipur and „Non-Indigenous domicile‟
of Manipur to non-indigenous persons. A new provision should be inserted in
section 158 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, which
should read “No transfer of land by a person who is a member of the Schedule
Tribes and Indigenous peoples of Manipur and „Non-Indigenous Domicile‟
to a person who is not a member of Indigenous Peoples of Manipur or „Non
indigenous domicile‟ of Manipur. No land transfer should be made without the
consent of members of the indigenous peoples and further, without the previous
permission in writing of the Government of Manipur”.
B) For the restriction of land
acquisition of indigenous peoples, ensure recognition of the Free, Prior and
Informed Consent of indigenous peoples in appropriate laws related to land
acquisition.
C) Formulate a Land Use Policy for
Manipur that ensures the protection of indigenous peoples‟
rights over their land and resources.
D) Shorten duration of legal lease
system in land in order to protect the land rights of indigenous peoples of
Manipur. To this effect, the Government of Manipur with consultation of Civil
Society should frame appropriate rules.
DEMAND NO 4: Labour
A) All workers/labourers having
valid identity card (smart card) issued under section 10 (3) of Unorganized
Workers Social Security Act, 2008, from outside the State of Manipur entering Manipur
for work should get themselves registered with the Labour Department of the
Government of Manipur.
B) The Department of Labour shall
issue permit to all workers who are registered with the department. A separate
policy should be framed to register all organized and unorganized workers.
C) Section 2(6) of the Manipur
Shops and Establishments Act, 1972 may be amended by the Manipur Legislative
Assembly. Under Section 2(6) of the Act, insert the word „employee‟
meaning a person “having valid identity card (smart card) issued under section
10 (3) of Unorganized Workers Social Security Act, 2008”.
DEMAND NO 5: Detection and
Deportation
A) The Government of Manipur should
commence the process of identification, detection and registration of
non-indigenous people in Manipur based on the cut off year of 1951, as also
agreed in the MOU signed earlier between the Government of Manipur and the All
Manipur Students Union and All Manipur Students Co-Coordinating Committee on
22nd July 1980, reaffirmed by that of 9th November 1994 and also based on the
principle established under the definition of indigenous peoples of Manipur.
B) To facilitate
identification/detection of non-indigenous persons and subsequent registration
under provision of subsequent Acts and Rules, a Committee shall be constituted
by the Government of Manipur in consultation with the Civil Society. Civil
Society should be incorporated within the Committee.
C) All non-indigenous persons
identified based on cut off year will be registered and if any foreign
nationals are detected, they shall be deported under the Foreigners Act, 1946,
with subsequent modifications and developments.
The updated and modernized system
of ILP practiced by the Government of Mizoram is attached as Annexure XVII for
reference if any, if any comparative legislative modalities are desired, in
view of efficacious practices prevalent in neighboring States, especially
Mizoram
CONCLUSION
With all these issues raised in
this memorandum, the Government of Manipur is requested to kindly act swiftly
and judiciously and enact a historic legislation or legislations to curve the
uncontrolled explosion of outsider populations in order to safeguard and
protect the indigenous peoples of Manipur. From a layman‟s
point of view, if the unchecked migrant population of less than 3000 in 1948
could reach ten odd lakhs today in 2015, in the next 70 years the population of
non-indigenous persons would reach a whooping 40 crore! (At the gross
calculation of 400-times increase of current populations). We the present
generation is responsible for the fate of the future generation.
The JCILPS also would like to press
the Government of Manipur to honour the sacrifices of young students like
Potshangbam Lukhoi, Huidrom Loken and Sapam Robinhood as well as thousands of
men, women and youths who have suffered to make our people aware of the
enormity of the crisis. We would like the Government and the Civil Society to
do everything in their capacity to respect them, remember them with fitting
memorials.
We also request the Government to
bring an early solution to the issues raised by the JCILPS on behalf of the
People of Manipur, so as to bring justice and restore dignity to our land and
people. Thereby, we can face the future together in amity and co-operation.
Dated/Imphal
(Khomdram Ratan)
Convenor-in-charge
(BK. Moirangcha)
Co-convenor
(Kshetrimayum Somorendro)
Co-convenor
(P. Arjun Tenheiba)
Co-convenor
(Md. Kheiruddin Shah Moijingmayum)
Co-convenor
(Haopu Kom)
Co-convenor
