Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sethi’s article claims that the Inner Line Permit (ILP) system is unfair to long-time Non-Naga residents in Dimapur. However, his argument overlooks important facts about Nagaland’s history, identity, and constitutional rights.
Nagaland belongs to the Nagas – the power to decide lies with them.
Dimapur is a part of Nagaland. And Nagaland is a special state in India. When Nagaland became part of India, it was done through special agreements, called accords, which clearly said that Nagas will have full control over their land, culture, and laws. Article 371(A) of the Indian Constitution protects these rights. It clearly says that only the Nagaland Legislative Assembly can decide on matters like land ownership and local laws. So applying ILP in Dimapur is fully legal and within the rights of the Naga people.
ilp is not discrimination – it is protection
The ILP system was introduced in 1873 by the British to protect tribal communities. After independence, India kept this system in tribal areas like Nagaland to preserve their identity. Extending ILP to Dimapur is not about targeting anyone; it ensures the whole state is equally protected.
long-term stay does not mean ownership
Living in a place for a long time doesn’t mean you get ownership or special rights. Just like a tenant can’t claim a house after 50 years, Non-Nagas who settled before 1963 can’t claim land or government benefits meant for indigenous Nagas. Contributions to the town are acknowledged, but they do not override the legal rights of the tribal people.
Mr. Sethi also argues that the children and grandchildren of pre-1963 settlers should get equal rights. But tribal rights are not passed down to outsiders just by birth or long residence.
The question of rights for pre-1963 settlers is a sensitive and legally complex matter. While the Constitution empowers Nagaland’s legislature and tribal bodies to govern land and local laws, any recognition or adjustment of rights must come through that legal pathway — not through unilateral demands or central imposition. Asking for automatic inclusion is like rewriting the Constitution, which is not acceptable.
Rights of Nagas must be respected
Nagaland belongs to the Naga people. The Constitution protects their land, identity, and customs. These rights cannot be challenged by outsiders, no matter how long they’ve lived here. ILP is not about removing Non-Nagas; it is about protecting the future of the indigenous population. Anyone living in Nagaland must respect its laws and the people’s rights. The Naga-Indo Political Issue is clear proof of Nagaland’s unique identity and journey. Anyone who speaks about Nagaland must first understand its background. One should not misuse freedom of speech to question the protections given to the Naga people. Instead, flip through our customary laws, our true history, and the story of all Naga-inhabited areas. These are not just emotional issues—they are legal and cultural truths.
We understand that identity can be layered, especially for those whose families have lived in Dimapur for generations. But cultural belonging and legal status are not the same. The protections under Article 371A are not automatically extended by long residence — they are rooted in tribal identity and the historical agreements that gave birth to Nagaland.
Living in Nagaland comes with the responsibility to respect its distinct identity and legal protections. While participation in society is welcome, such participation must align with the constitutional and traditional frameworks that govern this land.
You cannot enjoy the benefits while refusing the responsibilities. If there is to be any clarity or change in policy regarding pre-1963 residents, it must come from within the framework of Nagaland’s traditional and legal systems, not from external political pressure. The Hohos (tribal councils), the Legislative Assembly, and the people of Nagaland must decide, not outsiders or central leaders using humanitarian language to bypass local authority.
Concern Without Context Leads to Confusion
No one is denying anyone’s humanity. But constitutional rights, especially under Article 371(A), are not about emotions—they are about law, history, and survival.
Nagaland is not just a piece of land – Its distinct constitutional status is rooted in its political history, including the 16-Point Agreement and decades of negotiation. Article 371A safeguards these realities by placing control of land, resources, and customs with the Naga people — ensuring that their way of life is preserved amid broader national changes.
If someone chooses to live here, they must do so with full respect for the laws and spirit of this land—not by demanding exceptions or comparing it with general Indian rules. We appreciate concern. But concern without context leads to confusion. And confusion around identity, land, and rights in Nagaland is something we simply cannot afford.
Longtili C. Sangtam
Medical Ward, Kiphire
Thursday, June 26, 2025