Acknowledging to the rebuttal of Dr RK Nimai’s article on ST status demand by the Meiteis with clarifications

THANK YOU for touching upon the points raised in the article by Ngaranmi Shimray published in The Sangai Express on 12th December 2023 in response to Dr RK Nimai’s (IAS Retd) article “Manipur Crisis-Why the ST status is the way forward for the Meiteis”. There are few points which have been skirted, ignored and are incorrect. All these are clarified hereunder for readers.

Also read | Meiteis’ exclusion from the ST list is by their own choice; Kalelkar Commission Report of 1956

Firstly,
It is reiterated that the demand for inclusion of the Meitei community in the list of ST has to be based on credible, transparent and scientific approach. There has to be a commission/research body to study the ethnography of the Meiteis to find out whether they were a tribe before India became a republic and if so, whether they possess tribal traits to qualify being classified as ST now as per the Lokur Committee criteria. The Meetei/Meitei Tribe Union (MTU) who are demanding ST status may be convinced that their demand is justified, but they have to give their evidences to an independent third party body like a commission/research body appointed by the state government to stake their claim. The justification and documents prepared by the MTU cannot serve as the latest socio-economic survey and the ethnographic study referred to by the ministry of tribal affairs in its letter dated 29.05.2013. There has to be a new official survey conducted on the socio-economic conditions of the Meiteis vis-a-vis other communities in Manipur to examine if the criteria laid down by the Lokur Committee are fully satisfied. It is in this context that the futility of “miss calls” strategy based on majoritarianism as a pressure tactic is found irrational as this aspect of popular demand will not be a criteria for consideration. If the Meiteis deserve to be classified as ST by first proving that they still possess tribal traits and satisfy all the criteria laid down by the Lokur Committee there would be no need for any campaign but a representation to the state government to recommend their case to the government of India. What is disconcerting is the danger of raising expectations of the Meitei masses based on emotional grounds and not scientific approach. This has been done a few days back by sending a memorandum by the Kangleipak Kamba Lup (KKL) to the PM, HM and submitting it to a member of National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) along with their ethnographic study report. There is no mention of a socio-economic survey. This is an incomplete proposal from a CSO and not the state government and therefore is a message for their constituent of Meitei masses that the pressure is on. In this present days and time decisions are made on hard facts and scientific data, and not on emotional feelings. Misleading and misguiding the Meitei masses will have its adverse consequences. Raising expectations of the Meitei people when rational thinking is clear that the Meitei community, if established as tribals then, may not be possessing tribal traits today and do not fulfil four out of five Lokur Committee criteria is akin to playing with fire especially when the already suppressed and subjugated tribals are worried about losing their lands in the “hill areas” and having witnessed adverse reaction from the Kuki-Zo tribes. The fear is that the tribes of Manipur, after witnessing irrational campaign straining peaceful relationship with the tribals, may strengthen their belief that the only route out of the persistent irrational attempts by the Meiteis to be ST and thereby grab tribal lands in the hill areas could push them towards asking for separation from the state of Manipur.

It was submitted earlier that a credible, transparent and scientific socio-economic survey will prove without a doubt about the advancement of the Meiteis in all spheres of life compared to the present STs that the entire endeavour for ST status for Meiteis may crumble in the face of hard facts.

Secondly,
The Times of India on 27th October 2023 stated that granting of ST status to six ethnic groups of Assam, namely the Tai Ahoms, Mottocks, Koch Rajbongshis, Sooteas, Morans and Tea Tribes as promised by the BJP during the 2014 and 2019 Lok Sabha elections and the 2016 Assam assembly polls is opposed by nine tribal communities (ST) of Assam. The newspaper further stated that all the six communities are currently categorised as Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The newspaper reported that “Political experts believe that though the six ethnic groups are justified in their demand for inclusion in the ST category, the government has been hesitant due to opposition from the existing nine tribal communities (ST groups) of Assam, namely the Misings, Bodos, Karbis, Kukis, Dimasas, Deoris, Tiwas, Sonowal Kacharis and Rabhas. These communities, classified as ST groups, fear that granting ST status to the six OBC communities will dilute the privileges they currently enjoy under Article 46 of the Constitution. Concerns arise that the academically and economically well-off OBC communities may disproportionately benefit from reservation advantages in education and employment if accorded ST status.” The Sentinel (Digital Desk) on 7th June 2023 pointed out that “the Coordination Committee of Tribal Organisation of Assam (CCTOA) secretary general Aditya Khakhlary made note of the fact that 1.6% of the overall population is made up of members of the Meena tribe, who were recognised as a ST group in 1954. However, since 1954, they have been receiving 30% to 35% of the ST-specific perks offered by UPSC. Meenas of Rajasthan and Tai Ahoms of Assam will compete on a national level if Tai Ahoms are awarded ST status, but the currently recognised STs will have no place to compete.” The situation in Manipur is similar to that of Assam and it will not be far-fetched to hazard a guess that the Meiteis who are academically and economically well-off OBC community, if awarded ST status, would be competing with the Meenas and the current STs will be edged out from the limited jobs under ST quota.

Thirdly,
The Hill Areas Committee (HAC) has been constituted under Article 371-C for the hill areas of Manipur and it’s ambit, functions and procedures including that of the Speaker of Assembly, state government and Governor have been laid down in the Presidential Order dated 20th June 1972. An entity to interface with the HAC from the state government is already in position in the department of tribal affairs and hills (TA&H). Hence it was suggested that the HAC may work “through” the department of TA&H to carry out its functions. The secretariat support of the department of TA&H would need to be strengthened adequately to enable it to assist the HAC to carry out all its functions properly and efficiently. A careful reading of the Presidential notification dated 20th June 1972 especially paragraph 1 to 6, which is reproduced below, will clarify the role and functions of HAC.

“4. Function of the Hill Areas Committee :-
(1) All Scheduled matters in so far as they relate to the Hill Areas shall be within the purview of the Hill Areas Committee.
(2) Every Bill, other than a Money Bill, affecting wholly or partly the Hill Areas and containing mainly provisions dealing with any of the Scheduled matters shall, after introduction in the Assembly, be referred to the Hill Areas Committee for consideration and report to the Assembly
Provided that if any question arises whether a Bill attracts the provisions of this sub-paragraph or not, the question shall be referred to the Governor and his decision thereon shall be final:
(3) The Hill Areas Committee shall have the right to consider and pass resolutions recommending to the Government of the State any legislation “or executive action affecting the Hill Areas with respect to any Scheduled matter, howsoever that the executive action relates to general questions of policy and the legislation or executive action is in conformity with the overall financial provisions for the Hill Areas made in the Annual Budget or contemplated in the Plans of the State.
(4) The Hill Areas Committee shall have the right to discuss the Annual Financial Statement in so far as it relates to the Hill Areas and to facilitate such discussion the said statement shall, as far as may be practicable, show separately the estimates of receipts and expenditure pertaining to the Hill Areas which are to be credited to, or is to be met from the Consolidated Fund of the State.
(5) In its functioning, the Hill Areas Committee shall endeavour to :-
(a) safeguard the interest of the people of the Hill Areas, particularly through accelerated development of these areas; and
(b) promote unity between the people of the Hill Areas and other areas of the State by aiming at an integrated and evenly based economic growth of those areas and augment the resources of the state as a whole.

5. Special provisions with regard to Bill affecting the Hill Areas – Any Bill referred to the Hill Areas Committee under sub-paragraph 2 of sub-para 4 may, if so recommended by the Hill Areas Committee, be passed by the Assembly with such variations as may be necessary in its application to the Hill Areas.
6. Development Plans- (1) Before the Five Year Plans and Annual Plans of the State are finalised by the Government of the State, proposals in this behalf, which shall show separately the Plan Schemes proposed to be taken up in the Hill Areas and the rest of the State, shall be placed before the Hill Areas Committee and the views of Committee shall be taken into account before the Plans are finalised.
   (2) The Government of the State shall forward to the Hill Areas Committee quarterly reports showing the progress of implementation of the Plan relating to the Hill Areas.”

These paragraphs are to be read with The Second Schedule which is reproduced below:-

“Scheduled Matters
(1) Development and economic planning within the Plan allocations of the Hill Areas.
(2) Constitution and power and functioning of District Councils in the Hill Areas.
(3) The allotment, occupation, or use, or the setting apart of land (other than any land which is reserved forest) for the purposes of agriculture or grazing or for residential or other non-agricultural purposes or for any other purpose likely to promote the interest of the inhabitants of any village or town situated within the Hill Areas :
Provided that nothing in this item shall apply to lands acquired for any public purpose or the acquisition of land, whether occupied or unoccupied, for any public purpose in accordance with any law for the time being in force authorising such acquisition.
(4) The management of any forest not being a reserved forest.
(5) The use of any canal or water course for purposes of agriculture.
(6) The regulation of the practice of Jhum or other forms of shifting cultivation.
(7) The establishment of Village Committees or Councils and their powers and other matter relating to village administration.
(8) Public health and sanitation.
(9) The appointment or succession of Chief or Head man.
10) The inheritance of property.
(11) Marriage and divorce.
(12) Social customs.
(13) Any other matter which the Assembly may by resolution declare to be a matter which shall come within the purview of the Hill Areas Committee.”

These provisions under Scheduled Matters clearly states the role and functions of HAC on matters relating to the legislation, budget matters, development plan, district councils, land use, management of forests, village committee, village chiefs, social customs etc. and any other matter which the Assembly may assign to the HAC. Paragraph 4(3) of the Order provides that the HAC shall have the right to consider and pass resolutions recommending to the Government of the State any legislation or executive action affecting the Hill Areas with respect to any Scheduled matter. This has to be read with sub-para (2) under Scheduled Matters. For discharging it’s functions under sub-para (3) to (7) legislations are required and can be recommended to the state government by a resolution. To discharge all its role and functions properly and effectively by the HAC, the department of TA&H will need more officers and staff in the Manipur secretariat. A benevolent government looking for solution will facilitate the smooth functioning of the HAC, but a government unwilling to make the HAC function properly will always find some objections to raise. The state government is controlled by the dominant Meitei community who are opposed to the proper functioning of the HAC. Whether it is the weakness of the legislatures elected from the hill areas to the state Assembly or the impediments and non-cooperative attitude of the state government, the fact remains that there is a sense of helplessness and frustration prevailing amongst the tribal people of Manipur that the entire objective of the state government is Meitei-centric and there is hardly any magnanimous thoughts for the welfare of the tribes and hill areas of Manipur. Only when the Meiteis step into the shoes of the tribal people of Manipur, they will feel the pain, neglect and frustration of being a second class citizen. Such feelings are not limited to Manipur but is felt by tribes who are dominated by the dominant society in their respective state. In Manipur it is the dominant Meitei community with roughly 60% of the state’s population, while in Tripura it is the dominant Bengali community with roughly two-third the population of the state under whom the tribes of respective states are being subjugated.

Fourthly,
It has been made clear by some elected leaders from the valley that the main objective for demanding ST status by the Meitei community is the desire to possess tribal lands in the hill areas. The logic is that when the Meiteis become ST they will be able to buy tribal lands from the “hill areas” of Manipur. The fear of losing land to the more prosperous Meitei community is making some tribals oppose the ST status demand and may eventually drive the tribals of Manipur to demand for separation from the state to protect their lands in the hill areas. This point on the desire of the Meitei community to grab the lands in the hill areas has been ignored in the rebuttal. It is very clear to the tribes of Manipur that the objective of the Meitei community to be ST is driven by their hunger to possess lands in the hill areas. It is not jobs as the Meiteis have proven their competitiveness by securing all-India jobs under the OBC category. They are already SC and OBC and their desire to become ST makes no sense except for the fact that they are driven by the desire to possess tribal land in the hill areas of Manipur.

Let there be an open civilised discussion and debate on the matter conducted by a third party under cordial conditions in a location where all parties feel safe to congregate. Let there be a transparent and credible socio-economic survey and an ethnographic study of the Meitei community vis-a-vis other communities of Manipur by an independent third party appointed by the state government. No one is objecting to the demand of Meitei community to become ST. What is being stressed and red flag raised here and in other discourses is to base the demand under a scientific approach. But from what is transpiring and from the current strategy adopted by the Meitei ST demand groups, it appears that majoritarianism is the strategy and this has the danger of misguiding the Meitei masses besides creating deep discord in the society that could result in pushing the tribes away from Manipur state. It may be noted that the opposition by current STs of Manipur to the ST status demand of the Meitei community has not reached the level of opposition as witnessed in Assam. Already this issue is alleged to be partly responsible for sparking the ethnic conflict between the Meiteis and the Kuki-Zo people. Any unreasonable approach adopted by the Meitei community to pressurise the state government to send the Meitei ST proposal with recommendation to the Government of India without basing it on a scientific approach, but basing it on emotional feelings of the MTU and its documents, could escalate the conflict to another dimensions of tribals Vs non-tribals and widen the fissures further for fragmentation of the state. As responsible citizens all writers are trying to disseminate information to the masses on both sides to ensure that they are guided by good sense and to prevent escalation of the conflict. Ultimately, when the dust settles down it will be the poor masses on both sides who will suffer the most.

Ngaranmi Shimray is an activist and political observer based in New Delhi. Views are personal. [email protected].

This is not a Ukhrul Times publication. UT is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse its content. Any reports or views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of Ukhrul Times.