Pressurising the State Govt on ST issue questionable
|
Ngaranmi Shimray
The Manipur High Court has stated in Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 [Ref. : W.P.(C) No. 229 of 2023] that the offending para 17 (iii) is deleted. Hence the surviving and actionable point is only para 17 (ii) of the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 229 of 2023. This para reads as follows:-
“The first respondent is directed to submit the recommendation in reply to the letter dated 29.05.2013 of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India.”
The letter dated 29.05.2013 of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India states as follows:-
The State Government is requested to send “specific recommendation along with the latest socio-economic survey and ethnographic report.”
Note the word “latest”. This means only one thing - to send the latest report at that point of time which is May 2013. Since then ten years had lapsed, the latest report should now be with reference to the current point in time i.e. 2024. Further, note that there are two reports (1) the socio-economic survey and (2) ethnographic study to be sent to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India and both should be the LATEST reports.
The Scheduled Tribe Demand Committee of Manipur (STDCM) approach of pressurising the State Government to send specific recommendations for inclusion of Meitei Community in the list of Scheduled Tribe (ST) without carrying out socio-economic survey and an ethnographic study smacks of trickery to by-pass the order of the Manipur High Court.
Assertions have been made by STDCM and Meitei researchers that there are several historical records to show that the Meiteis were termed as a tribe. Amen ! But the context of the issue is of the PRESENT TIME and not the PAST. The Meiteis may have been a tribe in the PAST, but are they still a tribe TODAY ? That’s the first question. Further, are the Meiteis a BACKWARD community? That’s the second question.
To satisfy the Lokur Committee criteria an ethnographic study and socio-economic survey would be required to be carried out. The study and survey need to be conducted by an independent third party of repute and credibility whose reports should pass the test of impartiality and transparency. This is the most important requirement as the Meitei community is in majority and is the dominant community in Manipur. They control the State Government with 40 MLAs out of 60 and more than 65 percent Government employees. The Meiteis are therefore in a commanding position to influence researchers or institutions who are dependent on the State Government. Hence the importance of conducting the study and survey by an independent third party of repute and credibility is paramount.
The operative part of the Manipur High Court order in Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 [Ref. : W.P.(C) No. 229 of 2023] is very clear and there is no ambiguity in its interpretation. It does not matter how many times the demand was made by different organisations for inclusion of Meitei community in the list of ST and the number of communications exchanged between the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India and the State Government. The most important and relevant issue is the operative part of the Manipur High Court which mentions only the letter dated 29.05.2013 to be acted upon and responded by the State Government. The STDCM should be urging the State Government to proceed on the lines laid down in the Manipur High Court order.
In respect of the Article written by LB Singh, retired Captain of the Indian Navy titled “Holistic review of Article 371-C and the Presidential Order 1972” in The Sangai Express on 6th March 2024, it appears that some relevant facts have been missed out by the author.
For clarity and better understanding regarding the genesis of “Hill Areas” section 2 (f) of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act,1971 is reproduced below:-
“(f) "Hill Areas" means the Hill Areas determined by the President by any notification issued under sub-section (2) of section 52 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963) and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act;” It may be noted that under section 2 (f) of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971 a reference is made to section 52 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963) which implies that the concept and area of “Hill Areas” existed under the Act of 1963. The Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 has devoted an entire section i.e. section 52 granting “Special provision for the Hill Areas of Manipur.” The relevant part of section 52 relating to the provision for “Hill Areas” is reproduced below:-
“52. (2) The President may by notification determine the area which shall be regarded as the Hill Areas of Manipur and specify the constituencies situated in the Hill Areas.” Section 1 (2) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (Act No. 33 of 1960) provides that “2) It extends to the whole of the Union Territory of Manipur except the hill areas thereof.” Before this the Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956 under section 2 (d) defines hill areas as “”hill areas” mean such areas in the hill tracts of Union territory of Manipur as the Chief Commissioner may, by notification in the official gazette, declare to be hill areas”. Section 2 (h) of the Manipur Hill Areas (House Tax) Act, 1966 defines as follows:- “”hill areas” means such areas in the hill tracts of the Union Territory of Manipur as the Administrator may declare to be hill areas under the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960”
It may be seen that reference to “Hill Areas” have already been made under sub-section (2) of section 52 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963; under section 2 (f) of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971; under section 2 (d) the Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956; and under Section 2 (h) of the Manipur Hill Areas (House Tax) Act, 1966. The term “Hill Areas” and the areas notified under the Acts are not newly conceived for Article 371-C but they existed much before the Constitutional amendment.
For the sake of propriety and honesty it would serve the STDCM better if their demand for ST status for Meitei community is made by asking the State Government to conduct a socio-economic survey and an ethnographic study as advised by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India in its letter dated 29.05.2013 and reiterated by the Manipur High Court. There is no need to dodge and postpone the issue of having the ethnographic study and socio-economic survey conducted. Postponing the inevitable requirement to carry out the study and survey will keep the pot of uncertainty simmering and create more tension between the Meitei community and the tribals. The study and survey should be carried out immediately and should become the basis for justification of inclusion of Meitei community in the list of ST. The STDCM and the independent researchers K Yugindro Singh, M Manihar Singh & Sh Janaki Sharma (written Article published in the Ukhrul Times on 5th March 2024 and the People’s Chronicle on 6th March 2024 titled “Inclusion of ethnic “Meetei/Meitei” community in the ST List of Manipur under Article 342(1) of Constitution of India) should desist from hoodwinking and playing with the emotions of innocent Meitei masses by claiming that several historical documents show that the Meitei community was a tribe with tribal traits as the CONTEXT for consideration NOW is not what the Meiteis were in the PAST, but what the latest ethnographic study and socio-economic survey reports will say they are TODAY. The ethnographic study and socio-economic survey reports will show the current ethnic and socio-economic status of the Meitei community to justify whether they deserve to be included in the list of ST. There is no need to delay the inevitable by prolonging the tense situation in Manipur between the Meitei community and the tribals over the demand for inclusion of Meitei community in the list of ST.
Procrastinating tactic will be harmful for the long term interest of the State. Why are the STDCM and State Government shying away from carrying out a latest ethnographic study and socio-economic survey ? Are they afraid that the truth will reveal that the Meiteis are NOT TRIBE NOW and are NOT BACKWARD ? The air of uncertainty should be cleared as soon as possible to facilitate the return of normalcy as far as the ST status demand by the Meitei community is concerned. The responsibility regarding this matter falls heavily on the shoulders of the STDCM and the State Government. They should have the courage to “BELL THE CAT”.
It was advised EARLIER and is advised TODAY to the STDCM to pressurise the State Government to carry out an ethnographic study and socio-economic survey immediately without any delay as ordered and advised by the Manipur High Court and allow truth to prevail.
Satyameva Jayate-‘Truth alone triumphs'.
“To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is not, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”
-Aristotle
The Manipur High Court has stated in Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 [Ref. : W.P.(C) No. 229 of 2023] that the offending para 17 (iii) is deleted. Hence the surviving and actionable point is only para 17 (ii) of the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 229 of 2023. This para reads as follows:-
“The first respondent is directed to submit the recommendation in reply to the letter dated 29.05.2013 of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India.”
The letter dated 29.05.2013 of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India states as follows:-
The State Government is requested to send “specific recommendation along with the latest socio-economic survey and ethnographic report.”
Note the word “latest”. This means only one thing - to send the latest report at that point of time which is May 2013. Since then ten years had lapsed, the latest report should now be with reference to the current point in time i.e. 2024. Further, note that there are two reports (1) the socio-economic survey and (2) ethnographic study to be sent to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India and both should be the LATEST reports.
The Scheduled Tribe Demand Committee of Manipur (STDCM) approach of pressurising the State Government to send specific recommendations for inclusion of Meitei Community in the list of Scheduled Tribe (ST) without carrying out socio-economic survey and an ethnographic study smacks of trickery to by-pass the order of the Manipur High Court.
Assertions have been made by STDCM and Meitei researchers that there are several historical records to show that the Meiteis were termed as a tribe. Amen ! But the context of the issue is of the PRESENT TIME and not the PAST. The Meiteis may have been a tribe in the PAST, but are they still a tribe TODAY ? That’s the first question. Further, are the Meiteis a BACKWARD community? That’s the second question.
To satisfy the Lokur Committee criteria an ethnographic study and socio-economic survey would be required to be carried out. The study and survey need to be conducted by an independent third party of repute and credibility whose reports should pass the test of impartiality and transparency. This is the most important requirement as the Meitei community is in majority and is the dominant community in Manipur. They control the State Government with 40 MLAs out of 60 and more than 65 percent Government employees. The Meiteis are therefore in a commanding position to influence researchers or institutions who are dependent on the State Government. Hence the importance of conducting the study and survey by an independent third party of repute and credibility is paramount.
The operative part of the Manipur High Court order in Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 [Ref. : W.P.(C) No. 229 of 2023] is very clear and there is no ambiguity in its interpretation. It does not matter how many times the demand was made by different organisations for inclusion of Meitei community in the list of ST and the number of communications exchanged between the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India and the State Government. The most important and relevant issue is the operative part of the Manipur High Court which mentions only the letter dated 29.05.2013 to be acted upon and responded by the State Government. The STDCM should be urging the State Government to proceed on the lines laid down in the Manipur High Court order.
In respect of the Article written by LB Singh, retired Captain of the Indian Navy titled “Holistic review of Article 371-C and the Presidential Order 1972” in The Sangai Express on 6th March 2024, it appears that some relevant facts have been missed out by the author.
For clarity and better understanding regarding the genesis of “Hill Areas” section 2 (f) of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act,1971 is reproduced below:-
“(f) "Hill Areas" means the Hill Areas determined by the President by any notification issued under sub-section (2) of section 52 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963) and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act;” It may be noted that under section 2 (f) of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971 a reference is made to section 52 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963) which implies that the concept and area of “Hill Areas” existed under the Act of 1963. The Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 has devoted an entire section i.e. section 52 granting “Special provision for the Hill Areas of Manipur.” The relevant part of section 52 relating to the provision for “Hill Areas” is reproduced below:-
“52. (2) The President may by notification determine the area which shall be regarded as the Hill Areas of Manipur and specify the constituencies situated in the Hill Areas.” Section 1 (2) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (Act No. 33 of 1960) provides that “2) It extends to the whole of the Union Territory of Manipur except the hill areas thereof.” Before this the Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956 under section 2 (d) defines hill areas as “”hill areas” mean such areas in the hill tracts of Union territory of Manipur as the Chief Commissioner may, by notification in the official gazette, declare to be hill areas”. Section 2 (h) of the Manipur Hill Areas (House Tax) Act, 1966 defines as follows:- “”hill areas” means such areas in the hill tracts of the Union Territory of Manipur as the Administrator may declare to be hill areas under the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960”
It may be seen that reference to “Hill Areas” have already been made under sub-section (2) of section 52 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963; under section 2 (f) of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971; under section 2 (d) the Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956; and under Section 2 (h) of the Manipur Hill Areas (House Tax) Act, 1966. The term “Hill Areas” and the areas notified under the Acts are not newly conceived for Article 371-C but they existed much before the Constitutional amendment.
For the sake of propriety and honesty it would serve the STDCM better if their demand for ST status for Meitei community is made by asking the State Government to conduct a socio-economic survey and an ethnographic study as advised by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India in its letter dated 29.05.2013 and reiterated by the Manipur High Court. There is no need to dodge and postpone the issue of having the ethnographic study and socio-economic survey conducted. Postponing the inevitable requirement to carry out the study and survey will keep the pot of uncertainty simmering and create more tension between the Meitei community and the tribals. The study and survey should be carried out immediately and should become the basis for justification of inclusion of Meitei community in the list of ST. The STDCM and the independent researchers K Yugindro Singh, M Manihar Singh & Sh Janaki Sharma (written Article published in the Ukhrul Times on 5th March 2024 and the People’s Chronicle on 6th March 2024 titled “Inclusion of ethnic “Meetei/Meitei” community in the ST List of Manipur under Article 342(1) of Constitution of India) should desist from hoodwinking and playing with the emotions of innocent Meitei masses by claiming that several historical documents show that the Meitei community was a tribe with tribal traits as the CONTEXT for consideration NOW is not what the Meiteis were in the PAST, but what the latest ethnographic study and socio-economic survey reports will say they are TODAY. The ethnographic study and socio-economic survey reports will show the current ethnic and socio-economic status of the Meitei community to justify whether they deserve to be included in the list of ST. There is no need to delay the inevitable by prolonging the tense situation in Manipur between the Meitei community and the tribals over the demand for inclusion of Meitei community in the list of ST.
Procrastinating tactic will be harmful for the long term interest of the State. Why are the STDCM and State Government shying away from carrying out a latest ethnographic study and socio-economic survey ? Are they afraid that the truth will reveal that the Meiteis are NOT TRIBE NOW and are NOT BACKWARD ? The air of uncertainty should be cleared as soon as possible to facilitate the return of normalcy as far as the ST status demand by the Meitei community is concerned. The responsibility regarding this matter falls heavily on the shoulders of the STDCM and the State Government. They should have the courage to “BELL THE CAT”.
It was advised EARLIER and is advised TODAY to the STDCM to pressurise the State Government to carry out an ethnographic study and socio-economic survey immediately without any delay as ordered and advised by the Manipur High Court and allow truth to prevail.
Satyameva Jayate-‘Truth alone triumphs'.
“To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is not, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”
-Aristotle