Bendangchuba
DIMAPUR, SEP 13 (NPN): The Inner Line Regulation Commission (ILRC) of the Naga Students’ Federation (NSF) has rebutted senior Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan’s contention that the Inner Line Permit (ILP) is constitutionally objectionable, asserting that it is merely a regulatory formality and does not constitute a barrier to genuine citizens entering Nagaland.
In an exclusive interview with Nagaland Post, ILRC convener NSN Lotha said the position followed the two-day National Seminar on the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation (BEFR), 1873, held recently at Town Hall, Dimapur, which brought together constitutional lawyers, academicians, government officials and representatives from other ILP-protected states.
Lotha maintained that the fundamental right to freedom of movement was not absolute and that Nagaland’s special constitutional and historical circumstances justified regulated entry into the State.
He said the participation of eminent lawyers and academicians from across the country was the most significant outcome of the seminar, noting that the BEFR, despite being a longstanding subject of discussion by the NSF, had not received such wider attention in the past.
“Now, we have changed it in a way that we don’t want a kind of piecemeal attention,” Lotha said, adding that the NSF now wanted a “holistic approach” through an independent autonomous Inner Line Regulation Commission constituted by an Act of the Assembly.
According to Lotha, the present system has resulted in authority being dispersed among different departments and agencies, creating complications in command and control.
The proposed commission, he said, would bring enforcement and administration of the ILP regime under a single mechanism.
He stressed that the proposed commission would not necessarily acquire powers beyond those provided under the BEFR, 1873, but would centralise authority and streamline implementation.
“There’s going to be nothing different. But since the authority is being disseminated in a very haphazard way, we want that haphazard or that complications of command and control to be actually centralised under one command,” he said.
He added that the objective was also to make the ILP system more convenient for people required to obtain it, rather than create unnecessary inconvenience.
On Bhushan’s contrary view at the seminar, where he questioned the constitutional basis of ILP and argued that protection of Naga culture did not necessarily require restrictions on the entry of outsiders, Lotha said the NSF had deliberately invited differing legal perspectives.
He pointed out that three Supreme Court lawyers were associated with the seminar– one as a resource person and two as observers– to ensure that the issue was examined from different perspectives.
Lotha said NSF was aware of Bhushan’s position and noted that the senior advocate had described ILP as unconstitutional in his written resource paper.
“We are very happy about that because we also look forward to both the merits and critics and the support that people are giving it,” he said, adding that the NSF would consider Bhushan’s arguments as highlighting the demerits of the ILP system.
Responding to Bhushan’s argument that ILP restrictions could conflict with the fundamental right to freedom of movement under Article 19 of the Constitution, Lotha invoked French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau and said freedom came with limitations, arguing that constitutional rights were accompanied by reasonable restrictions.
He said other legal experts who participated in post-seminar discussions had pointed out that Articles 19 and 29 also came with conditions, and argued that Bhushan had highlighted the rights without sufficiently addressing the accompanying restrictions.
Lotha maintained that Nagaland’s “special circumstances” and its creation as a State warranted restrictions, and asserted that the ILP regime did not amount to an infringement of fundamental rights.
‘Simple pass to enter’: Defending the ILP requirement for people entering Nagaland for employment, tourism or business, Lotha said the terminology “Inner Line Permit” should be understood as a regulatory mechanism rather than a barrier to entry. He likened ILP to a boarding pass required for entering a flight, saying it was a simple procedure intended to regulate entry.
“It is just a simple pass to enter, it is not a permission to enter,” he said, stressing that genuine citizens of the country should not view the ILP negatively.
He also linked regulated entry to security concerns, arguing that the system could help prevent individuals with criminal or anti-social intentions from gaining unchecked access to the State.
On economic control and political concerns, he differed with the argument that the presence of outsiders itself should not be considered a threat and that the greater concern should be outsiders acquiring political and economic power.
While agreeing with the concern over outsiders controlling political power, he argued that such influence could occur indirectly through economic control.
“If outsiders control the economy of the State, they will be the one who will control the politicians politically because they will be the one who will be financing them during elections,” he said.
Lotha claimed that although non-Nagas could not become MLAs or ministers in the State, they could potentially become indirect political actors through economic influence.
He also rejected concerns that stricter ILP enforcement could isolate the State or adversely affect economic activity, citing Mizoram as an example and arguing that despite stringent ILP enforcement, the State had maintained relative economic stability.
He said strict ILP enforcement and economic development were not necessarily contradictory.
Benami businesses: On “benami businesses”, Lotha said ILP alone could not address the problem and called for separate legislation to regulate business ownership.
He criticised the Nagaland Legislative Assembly for what he described as inadequate legislative action, claiming that there should already have been legislation to address benami ownership.
Asked whether Dimapur, as the State’s gateway and a major commercial centre, should have a separate ILP approach, Lotha said he did not agree that Dimapur should be treated differently from the rest of Nagaland.
He, however, acknowledged the need for a convenient mechanism for people who had been permanently residing in the State, particularly those who had settled in Dimapur over a long period. He said such categories of residents should be appropriately recognised so that their continued stay and access to the State were not unnecessarily disrupted. Lotha maintained that the issue should not be viewed only from the perspective of Dimapur but across Nagaland, with different categories of people being given appropriate consideration under a convenient ILP system.
ILP not sole instrument: Asked about the biggest threat to Naga identity, Lotha identified outside influence, changing lifestyles, fashion and traditions associated with modernisation as significant concerns.
He noted that erosion of Naga identity was partly attributable to Nagas themselves and their adoption of changing lifestyles.
He stressed that ILP should not be the sole instrument for protecting Naga identity, asserting that several other factors needed to be addressed as well.
Lotha reiterated that the proposed autonomous commission would now be the principal focus of the ILRC-NSF’s ILP campaign, with the federation set to pursue its constitution through legislation.