The issue over the three bills the Manipur Assembly passed on August 31, is far from settled, especially in the wake of unprecedented and violent opposition to them, particular in Churachandpur district. The opposition is largely on account of a belief that the three bills are part of a tacit strategy for the non-tribal resident in the Imphal valley, the Meiteis, to grab hill lands which are deemed as tribal exclusive. As to how far this apprehension is based on reality or an honest interpretation of the three bills, is hotly contested. The three bills together were meant to do what the Inner Line Permit System, in vogue in Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, does `“ that is, to put a check on influx of migrant populations into the state so as to assuage fears that local indigenous peoples were slowly but surely pushed to the margins. This concern, it does unfortunately seem now was confined to the valley districts, which are open to every Indian citizen to settle, unlike the hills which as scheduled tribe areas are already protected from outsiders acquiring landed properties. Looking back a little beyond the agitations, first the agitations for the introduction of the ILPS or an equivalent system in the valley district and then the agitation in Churachandpur district to oppose the bills, it must be acknowledged that the Manipur government did resist the very idea of a restrictive law on migrants for a long time, explaining it would go against the spirit of the Constitution. However, under mounting pressures, the Manipur government in what it probably believed was a halfway house, introduced a watered down version of the ILPS named the Manipur Visitors, Tenants and Migrant Workers Bill, 2015. But even as the bill was awaiting the assent of the state Governor Syed Ahmed, street agitators in the valley denounced the bill saying it will not be able to do what the ILPS does. Chief minister, Okram Ibobi had to finally in a special session of the Assembly, convened on July 15, moved a withdrawal motion of the bill.
Still under pressure, and a volatile situation after the death of a school boy Sapam Robinhood who was hit by a police tear gas shell during a street procession, the Ibobi government in what was then described as an ingenuous strategy to ensure at least a major portion of the demand for the introduction of an equivalent of the Inner Line Permit system could pass the legislative process, including the Governor`™s vigil, spilt the substance of the demand and spread it over three bills: the Protection of Manipur People Bill 2015; the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment) Bill 2015; and the Manipur Shops and Establishment (Second Amendment) Bill 2015, and passed them unanimously during a special Assembly session. The idea was, if the first and controversial bill ran into hurdles, the remaining two should not be held up with it. Of the three bills, only one was original and the remaining two were amendments of existing laws. It is the original one, the Protection of Manipur People Bill 2015, which even the government was probably aware, could run into legal and constitutional trouble. It first of all concedes to the demand from the streets of taking 1951 as the cut off year for deciding who is indigenous to Manipur. The question was, how can somebody who has settled in the state for 65 years, whose children were born in the state, who have voted in elections therefore were responsible for electing successive democratic governments, many of whom have also probably held important positions in the government, etc., suddenly be called outsiders. Then again this was a financial bill, for upholding this responsibility would have necessitated the formation of a directorate to resister, enumerate and monitor migrants, the overheads for which would have to be reflected in the state`™s annual budget. The assent of the Governor for this would have therefore become mandatory even for its introduction in the Assembly. Fortunately for the government, the Governor allowed the bill to be introduced and passed, but is now withholding his assent for it together with the other two. There has even been a Public Interest Litigation, PIL, filed by an individual seeking the content of the 1951 census figure of citizens with respect to Manipur, and the government has still not responded to the PIL.
The popular anticipation was the latter two bills, Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment) Bill 2015; and the Manipur Shops and Establishment (Second Amendment) Bill 2015, would not face any legal hurdle for they are existing laws, and were also valley specific. The amendments to them were meant to merely make transfer of landed properties in the valley districts to non-domiciles, not altogether impossible but difficult. Legally and constitutionally, there would have been nothing to object to them even by the Governor, therefore probably would have become law easily if not for the trouble that erupted from in Churachandpur, which led to the tragic deaths of nine young people. The fact that even tribal MLAs did not object to these bills should also be seen from this vantage. It would be presumptuous to believe they were eager to sell off tribal rights, and more reasonable to believe they saw no infringement on tribal rights in these bills. The bills were not referred to the Hill Area Committee, but probably this was because nobody saw it as hill related. They were discussed in the cabinet, and in all-party meetings. Newspaper readers will remember it was only NPF legislators who shunned these meetings saying they would not support or object to the movement for ILPS. It was only when the Churachandpur trouble broke out that they jumped to the opportunity to push their own agenda, which is well within their right. Sometimes, when things get complicated, it is advisable to return to the basics of the genesis of the problem. Unlike in the pre-literate mediaeval ages when the court chronicles were the only historical records, in today`™s literate society, on a daily and even hourly basis, newsy events of all kinds are recorded as they unfold by numerous media organisations. Referring back to these records to reflect on the sequence of events that led to the present crisis may be what is necessary now to bring about a resolution to the current ugly entangle.