MANY INTERESTING academic salvos have been fired to and fro on the context of why the Meitei community may not have been included in the list of SC/ST under Orders of 1950/1951/1956. While discussing this matter it is crucial that the context is not lost in the details. I thank the researchers for listing out the issues clearly to which I am responding to each of the points made.
Related : Meiteis’ exclusion from the ST list is by their own choice; Kalelkar Commission Report of 1956
Point 1 need not be commented as I find it argumentative and out of context.
Point 2 relates to the effects of demand of the Meitei community to be included in the list of Scheduled Tribes (ST) which will have far reaching implications for the STs and tribes of Manipur. The STs of Manipur will be adversely affected by the demand of the Meitei community for inclusion in the list of ST and therefore has a high stake in ensuring that their point of view is heard. This fact that the STs of Manipur is an affected party is vindicated by the Order of the Manipur High Court in a M.C. (WA) No. 88 of 2023 allowing impleadment of five appellants from various Tribal Civil Society Unions/Associations/Student Unions associated with the rights of the Tribal Community in the State of Manipur in the WP(C) No. 229 of 2023 in Manipur High Court.
We are now available on WhatsApp. Join us!
Point 3 and 6 was to state that there are some Scheduled Castes (SC) who have been included in the 1950 list of SC of Assam applicable to Manipur. In the list of 1950 five SC communities of Assam appearing in Sl. no. 4, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are found common with the SC communities for Manipur in 1956 SC order. Only two new SC communities of Meitei origin were added for Manipur in the 1956 list. These two points may be read along with clarification in Point 5 below.
Related | Ngaranmi Shimray’s reasons for exclusion of Meitei in the ST list are misleading and incorrect
Point 4 asserted by the researchers only reinforce what I had mentioned in my article that only a member of Hindu or Sikh religion shall be deemed to be a member of Scheduled Caste. The corollary is that if a person’s religion is not Hindu or Sikh he cannot be deemed to be a ST. This is so as the Varna lays down the caste system under Hinduism. This corollary is reinforced by the fact that an attempt was made in 2014 by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India to change the criteria for defining Scheduled Tribes. Among several recommendations made by the internal committee in the Ministry of Tribal Affairs to keep up with changing tribal societies, one recommendation was to not discount a community’s plea for inclusion in the ST list solely based on the fact that they were followers of Hinduism. This in effect means that the desire of a Hindu community to be included in the list of ST should not be rejected on the grounds that they are followers of Hinduism. Had this attempt to modify the criteria succeeded, the desire of Meitei community who are followers of Hinduism for inclusion in the list of ST should not be turned down solely based on the fact that they were followers of Hinduism. This attempt to modify the criteria after almost eight years of consideration did not fructify and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India decided in 2022 to put the proposal on hold with no plans to tinker with the decades-old criteria. If being a Hindu does not prevent a community to be ST, such attempt to modify the criteria that was being explored for eight years would not have been necessitated.
Point 5 is a corollary derived from paragraph 3 of 1950 Order for SC which
About The Author
