By: Joyful Tonsing
1. That, the drafting Committee of State Legislators formed by the State Government to draft the 3 Bills namely, the Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015; the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment) Bill, 2015 and the Manipur Shops and Establishments Bill (2nd Amendment) Bill 2015, did not have any tribal legislator as its Member.
2. These Bills, when passed will be applicable to the whole State of Manipur including the tribal/hill areas but the Hill Areas Committee was never consulted before the introduction of the Bills nor after the introduction of the Bill. This is in clear violation of Order 4(2) of theManipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972 which states that,“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”. Also, the classification of the Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015 as a Money Bill is nothing but a sinister design to bypass the Hill Areas Committee. Just because a bill contains provisions for expenditure out of the Consolidated Fund of India it does not mean that it will be classified as a Money Bill.
3. There is a big apprehension among the tribal populace of the State that these Bills, though ostensibly aimed at checking the influx of outsiders into the State, is also against the tribal populace of the State. This apprehension is not unfounded as is evidenced by the following facts:-
(i) Clause 2 (b) of the Manipur Assembly in which it introduced three Bills, namely, the Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015 defines “Manipur People” as “Persons of Manipur whose names are in the National Register of Citizens, 1951, Census Report 1951 and Village Directory of 1951 and their descendants who have contributed collective social, cultural and economic life of Manipur”. This definition of Manipur People is very alarming and is meant to exclude a lot of people out of the definition of Manipur People. In 1951, the Census must have excluded a large proportion of the population, especially the tribal populace as the Govt. machinery wouldn’t be able to reach the far flung areas of the State which are not connected by any means of transportation. Also, the fact that one or one’s forefather’s have to be registered in three registers, (i) National Register of Citizens, 1951; (ii) Census Report 1951 and (iii) Village Directory of 1951 is problematic. Why is registration in one not enough is a big question.
(ii) If the intention of the Bill is to stem the tide of influx of outsiders into the State, what then is the logic behind the cut-off year of 1951? Why not 1971 or 1981? Manipur got its statehood in 1972. If this definition is applied then most of the people who are natives of Manipur at the time of its Statehood will not even be considered Manipur People. If the intended target is outsiders, when did the influx of outsiders in huge numbers start? Maybe in the 1980s or 1990s? Why then the cutoff year of 1951?
(iii) The Bill is also silent about the procedure to be adopted for determination of Manipur People. It defines Manipur People but is silent about the procedure to determine whether one is a Manipur People or not. It is not clear on whom the onus/burden of proving whether a person is a native of Manipur or not lies? Whether the onus of proof lies with the person or the Government? This is not clear. In the absence of clarity, it is fearful that the onus will lie on the person.
(iv) There is a fear psychosis among the tribal populace that this new definition of Manipur People will be applied selectively and whenever it suits the agenda of the valley people. That this definition will be on the tribal people to deny them basic facilities, services and amenities as a Manipur citizen cannot be ruled out. It is feared that in future, State Government jobs, State Government quota in engineering and medical, etc will be denied to the bonafide residents of the State, especially the tribal people as it is virtually impossible to prove that one is a “Manipur Person” according to the provisions of the Bill.
(v) The Bill creates a new Statutory Body, Directorate of Registration of Non-Manipur Persons and Tenants. But there is no provision for appeal against the decisions of the Director or the Directorate. So, if you are aggrieved with the decision of the Director or other employees, there is nobody to which you can appeal. Rather, Clause 10 provides that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any officer of the State Government for anything done in “good faith” under this Act. Here, the word “good faith” is very vague. How can you prove or disprove good faith? Thus, the Bill creates an all-powerful body against whom no appeal lies and whose decision is final.
(vi) The Bills introduced in the Assembly are intended against the tribals is clear from the introductory part of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment) Bill, 2015 which speaks about the geographical area of the valley vis-a-vis the hill areas, the difference in population and population density in the valley and hill areas and the pressure on land in the valley areas. It never even once mentions the influx of outsiders and the menace arising out of it.
(vii) The MLR&LR Amendment Bill virtually made it impossible for the so-called “non-Manipur People” by providing that allotment of land to non-Manipur persons, firms, institutions or other similar entities will be made only after obtaining approval of the State Cabinet. As mentioned earlier, the definition of Manipur People is very problematic and meant to exclude bonafide, tribal residents of the State to deny them services, amenities and facilities meant for the people of the State. However, neither in the MLR&LR Amendment Bill, 2015 nor in the MLR&LR Act, 1960 are the expressions “Manipur People” nor “non-Manipur People” are defined. The assumption is that the definition of “Manipur People” in the Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015 has been used in this Bill. The apprehension and fear, as mentioned earlier is that like in this case, the definition of “Manipur People” in the Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015 will be used in all future legislations as well as in existing Acts of the State.
(viii) The MLR&LR Act has already been extended to the hill areas like in Churachandpur town and its adjoining villages. So, the statement that the MLR&LR(7th Amendment) Bill, 2015 is not applicable to the hill areas is completely baseless and cannot be farther from the truth. It is pertinent to mention here that the extent clause and definition of “hill areas” in the MLR&LR Act, 1960 is totally erroneous and gives unbridled powers on the State Government to extend the MLR&LR Act to the hill areas by simply issuing a Gazette Notification to that effect. This is a deliberate ploy to grab the tribal lands and therefore, this historic blunder be corrected by amending the extent clause and definition of “hills areas” in the original Act. Also, the State Government should immediately withdraw the MLR< Act from the hill areas where it has been extended over the years. The State Government has been extending MLR&LR act to the hill areas by issuing a Gazette Notification so that they can claim that these areas are not hill areas as MLR&LR Act is in force in these areas. This is a sinister design to grab the tribal land and take away the hill areas and claim it as valley areas.
(ix) A clarification was made that the Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015 is not applicable to the tribal people as the term “native people” used in Section 8(a) of the Bill includes all sections/tribes living in Manipur. This statement is completely misleading as the term “native people of Manipur” has not been defined in the Bill. In the absence of definition of “native people” in the Bill itself and without any express provision in the Act/Bill that it will not be applicable to any member of the tribes of Manipur, the Section is liable to be misused and abused. Mere assumptions, statements or press clarifications will not stand the test of law and cannot never be a substitute for express provisions in the law itself.
1. That, the drafting Committee of State Legislators formed by the State Government to draft the 3 Bills namely, the Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015; the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment) Bill, 2015 and the Manipur Shops and Establishments Bill (2nd Amendment) Bill 2015, did not have any tribal legislator as its Member.
2. These Bills, when passed will be applicable to the whole State of Manipur including the tribal/hill areas but the Hill Areas Committee was never consulted before the introduction of the Bills nor after the introduction of the Bill. This is in clear violation of Order 4(2) of theManipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972 which states that,“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”. Also, the classification of the Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015 as a Money Bill is nothing but a sinister design to bypass the Hill Areas Committee. Just because a bill contains provisions for expenditure out of the Consolidated Fund of India it does not mean that it will be classified as a Money Bill.
3. There is a big apprehension among the tribal populace of the State that these Bills, though ostensibly aimed at checking the influx of outsiders into the State, is also against the tribal populace of the State. This apprehension is not unfounded as is evidenced by the following facts:-
(i) Clause 2 (b) of the Manipur Assembly in which it introduced three Bills, namely, the Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015 defines “Manipur People” as “Persons of Manipur whose names are in the National Register of Citizens, 1951, Census Report 1951 and Village Directory of 1951 and their descendants who have contributed collective social, cultural and economic life of Manipur”. This definition of Manipur People is very alarming and is meant to exclude a lot of people out of the definition of Manipur People. In 1951, the Census must have excluded a large proportion of the population, especially the tribal populace as the Govt. machinery wouldn’t be able to reach the far flung areas of the State which are not connected by any means of transportation. Also, the fact that one or one’s forefather’s have to be registered in three registers, (i) National Register of Citizens, 1951; (ii) Census Report 1951 and (iii) Village Directory of 1951 is problematic. Why is registration in one not enough is a big question.
(ii) If the intention of the Bill is to stem the tide of influx of outsiders into the State, what then is the logic behind the cut-off year of 1951? Why not 1971 or 1981? Manipur got its statehood in 1972. If this definition is applied then most of the people who are natives of Manipur at the time of its Statehood will not even be considered Manipur People. If the intended target is outsiders, when did the influx of outsiders in huge numbers start? Maybe in the 1980s or 1990s? Why then the cutoff year of 1951?
(iii) The Bill is also silent about the procedure to be adopted for determination of Manipur People. It defines Manipur People but is silent about the procedure to determine whether one is a Manipur People or not. It is not clear on whom the onus/burden of proving whether a person is a native of Manipur or not lies? Whether the onus of proof lies with the person or the Government? This is not clear. In the absence of clarity, it is fearful that the onus will lie on the person.
(iv) There is a fear psychosis among the tribal populace that this new definition of Manipur People will be applied selectively and whenever it suits the agenda of the valley people. That this definition will be on the tribal people to deny them basic facilities, services and amenities as a Manipur citizen cannot be ruled out. It is feared that in future, State Government jobs, State Government quota in engineering and medical, etc will be denied to the bonafide residents of the State, especially the tribal people as it is virtually impossible to prove that one is a “Manipur Person” according to the provisions of the Bill.
(v) The Bill creates a new Statutory Body, Directorate of Registration of Non-Manipur Persons and Tenants. But there is no provision for appeal against the decisions of the Director or the Directorate. So, if you are aggrieved with the decision of the Director or other employees, there is nobody to which you can appeal. Rather, Clause 10 provides that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any officer of the State Government for anything done in “good faith” under this Act. Here, the word “good faith” is very vague. How can you prove or disprove good faith? Thus, the Bill creates an all-powerful body against whom no appeal lies and whose decision is final.
(vi) The Bills introduced in the Assembly are intended against the tribals is clear from the introductory part of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment) Bill, 2015 which speaks about the geographical area of the valley vis-a-vis the hill areas, the difference in population and population density in the valley and hill areas and the pressure on land in the valley areas. It never even once mentions the influx of outsiders and the menace arising out of it.
(vii) The MLR&LR Amendment Bill virtually made it impossible for the so-called “non-Manipur People” by providing that allotment of land to non-Manipur persons, firms, institutions or other similar entities will be made only after obtaining approval of the State Cabinet. As mentioned earlier, the definition of Manipur People is very problematic and meant to exclude bonafide, tribal residents of the State to deny them services, amenities and facilities meant for the people of the State. However, neither in the MLR&LR Amendment Bill, 2015 nor in the MLR&LR Act, 1960 are the expressions “Manipur People” nor “non-Manipur People” are defined. The assumption is that the definition of “Manipur People” in the Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015 has been used in this Bill. The apprehension and fear, as mentioned earlier is that like in this case, the definition of “Manipur People” in the Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015 will be used in all future legislations as well as in existing Acts of the State.
(viii) The MLR&LR Act has already been extended to the hill areas like in Churachandpur town and its adjoining villages. So, the statement that the MLR&LR(7th Amendment) Bill, 2015 is not applicable to the hill areas is completely baseless and cannot be farther from the truth. It is pertinent to mention here that the extent clause and definition of “hill areas” in the MLR&LR Act, 1960 is totally erroneous and gives unbridled powers on the State Government to extend the MLR&LR Act to the hill areas by simply issuing a Gazette Notification to that effect. This is a deliberate ploy to grab the tribal lands and therefore, this historic blunder be corrected by amending the extent clause and definition of “hills areas” in the original Act. Also, the State Government should immediately withdraw the MLR< Act from the hill areas where it has been extended over the years. The State Government has been extending MLR&LR act to the hill areas by issuing a Gazette Notification so that they can claim that these areas are not hill areas as MLR&LR Act is in force in these areas. This is a sinister design to grab the tribal land and take away the hill areas and claim it as valley areas.
(ix) A clarification was made that the Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015 is not applicable to the tribal people as the term “native people” used in Section 8(a) of the Bill includes all sections/tribes living in Manipur. This statement is completely misleading as the term “native people of Manipur” has not been defined in the Bill. In the absence of definition of “native people” in the Bill itself and without any express provision in the Act/Bill that it will not be applicable to any member of the tribes of Manipur, the Section is liable to be misused and abused. Mere assumptions, statements or press clarifications will not stand the test of law and cannot never be a substitute for express provisions in the law itself.
