Manipur’s inner battle lines

Since the passing of The Manipur Regulation of Visitors, Tenants and Migrant Workers (MRVT&MW) Bill, 2015 on March 16, Manipur valley districts have been virtually placed under a deceptive calm. Chief Minister O Ibobi Singh introduced the bill on the floor of the Manipur Legislative Assembly on March 13. Just a day before the bill was passed, the writing on the wall was clear. The Joint Committee on Inner Line Permit System (JCILPS) totally rejected the bill after a marathon deliberation. The committee, which had been spearheading the demand for implementation of the Inner Line Permit System (ILPS) in the state, accused the Ibobi regime of attempting to protect migrants and immigrants or visitors rather than the interests of the indigenous communities.

JCILPS convenor Ibotombi Khuman alleged that the bill was focused on safety measures for outsiders visiting the state. Moreover, rather than empowering authorities to deport transgressing outsiders, the bill focused on punishing indigenous landowners who failed to follow the regulations.

A prominent woman leader of the JCILPS, Lourembam Ongbi Nganbi alleged that the bill was drafted only to please the Government of India and was not in favour of the people of the state. Other committee members too echoed her opinion.

JCILPS has vowed that it will not cow down to either pressure from the Government or its silence. It reiterated its resolve to curb the unabated inflow of outsiders and to oppose the state government’s move. The sustained campaign saw Manipur valley crippled by strikes and shutdowns. The Manipur government was pushed to the brink after a protesting student, Sapam Robinhood, died on July 8 after he was reportedly hit by a teargas shell during a rally in Imphal. The government was finally forced to withdraw the bill on July 13.

It then hurriedly constituted a panel to draft a new bill, promising to incorporate, more or less, all the demands put forth by JCILPS. Although the panel embarked on a series of consultations, it is unclear whether any headway has been made as the JCILPS publicly stated that it had not been formally invited for deliberations. The drafting panel later stated its intention to incorporate all the five demands of the JCILPS in an attempt to end a stalemate that has crippled normal life in the valley districts of Manipur.

The five key demands of JCILPS are: issuing passes to migrant workers arriving from outside the state at various entry points; making 1951 the cut-off base-year for implementation of the Bill; denying land ownership rights to migrants who entered Manipur after 1951; strengthening the labour department for the registration and regulation of inter-state migrant labourers; and detection and deportation of illegal migrants.

Although observers welcomed the government’s willingness to incorporate the essential components of the JCILPS’s demands, they see it as too late and too little. The government’s intention is also viewed with suspicion by certain quarters. This trust deficit was triggered primarily by the manner in which the government had disregarded the wisdom of those spearheading the movement to protect the rights of indigenous communities. By insisting on drafting a bill that was within the ambit of the Indian Constitution, the government was seen to be anxious not to displease New Delhi.

What is apparent now is that the drafting committee has so far not made a commitment to accept the five demands of the JCILPS. The government’s ambiguous and non-transparent moves are only serving to worsen the feelings of distrust and prolong the agitation in the valley districts of Manipur.

While JCILPS has placed its terms in the public realm by organising a convention on July 23, the government appears to have lost its way as it labours under a self-imposed restriction and the legal framework. Along the way, the finer details of separating the legal component from the political core have been blurred, rendering the current dispensation virtually helpless.

While one can see the potential difficulties inherent in contravening the Constitution of India, very few have dared to seek and unravel the political component of the demands made so far. All the efforts up till now have been governed purely by the expediency of legal framework. What the government failed to see is that all legal enactments around the world have been triggered by the need to consider the political core of any movement or situation.

And it is this core that the ruling dispensation failed to consider.

Dhiren A Sadokpam is Editor of Imphal-based English daily 'Hueiyen Lanapo'

COMMENT NOW