 |
| ‘If the idea is to check influx from Bangladesh which is our greatest fear, then the ILP is the wrong instrument’ |
In 1979, Meghalaya witnessed ethnic cleansing marked by violence and hatred. It saw the displacement and exodus of several Bengali families. The next wave of ethnic cleansing was against the Nepalese. This insidious threat to the minorities continued until the early part of the nineties. The worst fear of this ethnic majority is that it would be demographically overwhelmed; it would lose out to the non-tribal in a fair competition; it would be de-cultured; it would lose its land and its women to the “other”. By the early nineties, a militant group — Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council (HNLC) — appeared on the scene and created terror for over a decade. Subsequently, this armed militia was defanged by a coercive state policy but the fears and insecurities of the ethnic majority continue to haunt them.
These fears seem to spurt when an election is in the offing. Early next year, elections to the three district councils are scheduled. The timing might coincide with the Lok Sabha polls. The Assembly polls were held this year. The Congress secured 29 of the 60 seats and Mukul Sangma became chief minister for the second time. Since then, he has not had a moment’s respite. The influx issue became the thorn in his flesh. The demand for the inner-line permit (ILP) to curb influx was articulated by a conglomerate of pressure groups of which the Khasi Students’ Union is one.
A beleaguered regional political force in the Opposition joined the cacophony of the pressure groups. Recently, they staged a political charade in the Assembly pounding away at the Speaker for not allowing them to take up the ILP issue on the first day of the Assembly session.
Earlier, talks between the government and pressure groups on a mechanism to check influx had failed. The pressure groups wanted ILP or nothing. The government was adamant to look at other more contemporary mechanisms. For two months, Meghalaya has witnessed a series of agitation programmes and targeted violence on non-tribals.
What is the ILP and why has it become a sacrosanct legal instrument despite its obvious failure to check the inflow of non-tribals/illegal immigrants and the outflow of resources from those states where it is in force? The ILP flows from the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation (BEFR) Act, 1873. The spirit in which this law was enacted by the British needs to be seen from their perspective then, not from our perspective today.
Alexander Mackenzie, a British chronicler, comments thus: “It had been found that there was pressing necessity of bringing under more stringent control the commercial relations of our own subjects with the frontier tribes living on the borders of our jurisdiction. In Luckimpore specially the operations of speculators in caoutchouc (untreated natural rubber) had led to serious complications not only interfering with the revenue derived by government from the India-rubber forests in the plains beyond the lines of our settle mehals, but threatening disturbances with the hill tribes beyond. The spread of tea gardens outside our fiscal limits had already involved the government in many difficult questions with the hillmen and the government came to the conclusion that it was necessary to take special powers and lay down special rules.”
This was how the inner line was drawn. Beyond this line no British subject of certain classes or foreign residents can pass without a licence. The pass or licence, where given, may be subject to such conditions as appear necessary. And rules are laid down regarding trade, the possession of land beyond the inner line and other matters which give the executive government effective control. This regulation also provides for the preservation of elephants and authorises government to lay down rules for their capture.
The most telling section of the BEFR is Section 5 (1) of Regulation 5 which says: “Any rubber, wax, ivory or other jungle-product (or any book, diary, manuscript, map, picture, photograph, film, curio or article of religious or scientific interest) found in the possession of any person convicted of any offence under this Regulation may be confiscated to government by an order to be passed at the time of conviction by the magistrate.”
It is my contention that the tribes have a perception of the British as benevolent masters. Those who nurture this belief must read Robert Reid’s communication with the Foreign Office then. The British turned the BEFR (1873) into a potent instrument of divide and rule after the freedom movement gained momentum. They suggested that the inner line was to protect the tribes from avaricious plainsmen. They are master strategists. By then the British had themselves acquired 700,000 hectares of lush forest land in the foothills for converting into tea gardens. They have actually secured their commercial interests very well in the region and it continued long after Independence in the form of British-owned tea companies.
An objective and pragmatic analysis of this Act would reveal the mind of the British colonial masters. They were simply exhibiting an enlightened self-interest to safeguard their sources of revenue from being exploited by private commercial interests from among their own subjects or the adventurous plains men (non-tribals) from beyond the region. Secondly, it is amply clear that the British found it difficult to prevent their own people from venturing into the hills as prospectors of rubber, amber and ivory (note the emphasis on how to regulate the capture of elephants so that only the government could do so) and also as tea garden planters/owners.
Since it was inevitable that these traders/business persons would clash with the “savage natives”, and it fell on the British government to protect their own people, they found it unviable to spare their forces to guard private commercial interests. How can anyone assume that the British actually considered this to be a protective mechanism for the frontier tribes? A reading and re-reading of British chronicles instead of simply reading the BEFR and giving it our own twisted interpretation might help demystify this act and even delegitimise the demand for its implementation.
A senior professor of Mizoram University, when asked whether the ILP has been a boon or bane, replied that it was neither. He says the state already has clear laws prohibiting sale or transfer of land to non-Mizos (not just non-tribals, but non-Mizos). In trade and commerce and employment, a Mizo gets first priority. So the opportunities for trade or employment for non-Mizos are non-existent. However, the professor said when it comes to major infrastructure projects, the Mizos do not yet have expertise, so firms from outside are invited to execute the projects and they are allowed to bring in labourers. There is no system of work permit in Mizoram.
In Nagaland, it has been a personal experience that no one checks ILPs at the railway stations or the airport. In fact, the largest number of stores in Dimapur and even Kohima are owned by non-tribals. If the idea is to check influx from Bangladesh which is our greatest fear, then the ILP is the wrong instrument. There are enough laws in Meghalaya, including those under the Sixth Schedule, to prevent non-tribals from buying land or conducting trade here. But the bulk of the trade here is through benami methods. Here it is the tribal themselves who are to blame. No law is strong enough to fight corrupt minds and methods.
(The writer can be contacted at patricia17@rediffmail.com)
