Over a year after its submission to the government, the report of the Commission on Register of Indigenous Inhabitants of Nagaland (RIIN) was tabled on the floor of the 13th Nagaland Legislative Assembly on the last day of the two-day 8th Session.
The Commission on Register of Indigenous Inhabitants of Nagaland with Banuo Z. Jamir as chairperson had submitted its report to the State government (containing the report of the commission along with annexures Vol. I and Vol. II) in 2019 after holding consultations with various stakeholders, civil society organizations, NGOs, political groups, individuals etc.
Besides Banuo Z. Jamir as chairperson, the commission also includes Home commissioner Abhijit Sinha as member secretary and the following members: secretary justice and law, Khanrila Koza T; retired commissioner Nagaland, M. Patton; C. Shingwang and K. Inaka Assumi, to examine, study, recommend and advise the government on the issue.
After the state government issued a notification in December 2019 to implement Inner Line Permit (ILP) under BEFR 1853 throughout Dimapur district, RIIN was formed in order to identify indigenous inhabitants and non-indigenous inhabitants.
The state government notification placed the cut-off date and year for identification of indigenous inhabitants as 21/11/1979.
However, Joint Committee on Prevention of Illegal Immigrants (JCPI) under the aegis and NTC had vehemently objected and insisted that the cut-off date and year should be December 1,1963 when Nagaland became the 16th State under the Union of India. JCPI has been demanding that the report be made public and tabled in the state assembly since 2020 but this was not done under various reasons.
Highlights of the RIIN report: During the interactive sessions, RIIN commission recorded views expressed over the terminology ‘indigenous inhabitant’ as being inappropriate.
The report stated that the usage of the two words together was a deviation from the international/global concept of ‘indigenous people’, who area ‘indigenous’ by birth/origin and not by virtue of inhabiting a particular place and that , unless it is re-phrased, the rights and interests of the natives would be encroached upon by others.
The report said some groups, namely the Naga Hoho (NH) and the representatives of the NPF party, was of the view that RIIN would hamper/obstruct the process of the ongoing talks on the Naga settlement and that the exercise would further divide the Nagas.
Similarly, it said that the Naga Students’ Federation (NSF) voiced their apprehension that the timing of conducting Register of Indigenous Inhabitants of Nagaland exercise was inopportune. The commission said that opinions were also expressed, as noted from the media report. Although the commission did not interact with any group representing tribes from other neighbouring states residing in Nagaland, the report stated that indirect mention was made of them by NH, NSF and Naga Mothers’ Association (NMA).
NH had expressed concern that if 1963 was made the cut-off date, Nagas from other states, residing in Nagaland would be deprived.
The concern of NSF was also for similar reasons, for which both groups felt that RIIN exercise should be kept at abeyance, in view of the likely political settlement.According to the report, NMA made specific suggestion that “space must be created to work out modalities to protect indigenous Nagas, post 1963”. The Commission report said that it was also confirmed from NMA that the usage of ‘ indigenous Nagas’ refers to those from outside Nagaland.
The Commission said that a representation was also submitted by the South Nagas’ Union of Nagaland state, stating that RIIN should have no cut-off for Nagas, that Nagas are indigenous in Naga areas and that Nagas from other states should not be equated with non-Nagas (non-tribals).
Following the aftermath of public reactions to the notification on RIIN, the government again held consultative meetings with various tribal hohos, civil society, NGOs including the non-tribal communities.
The commission also held separate meetings with representatives of each community. On the definition of ‘indigenous inhabitant’, the commission noted that none of the groups had a fixed or definite opinion.
Many were of the view that it was the prerogative of the state government to define it since the concept of ‘indigenous inhabitant’ does not feature anywhere else in the country and was therefore unique to Nagaland. Their opinion as regards to RIIN was that, it is an exercise “to identify and extradite illegal immigrants staying in Nagaland.”
Summation on eligibility to be an inhabitant of Nagaland: The report stated that the Commission was however firm on the stand that December 1, 1963, being the date Nagaland became a State, “it is only reasonable that this date be considered as the cut-off date for deciding the eligibility of a person to be an inhabitant of Nagaland, whether the person is an indigenous/a tribal non-indigenous to Nagaland/a non-tribal.”
The commission said that in all the interactions with the tribal groups, it was the unanimous view that an indigenous person must belong to a tribe by birth/ancestry/by blood lineage and that this cannot be confined to any time-line.
In regards, to the non-tribal groups, they held that view that there should be no cut-off date and that eligibility to be considered a permanent resident should on the basis on voter’s list, with the right to possess land and property and business.
Eligibility to be considered an indigenous inhabitant of Nagaland: As per the report, any person belonging to one of the tribes notified vide The Constitution (Nagaland) Scheduled Tribes order 1970, ‘resident in the State’, read with Home department letter dated July 6 2009. In this regard, it recommended that the five tribes appearing in the order of 1970 be identified as ‘non-Naga tribes’ (Kachari, Kuki, Garo and Mikir) and ‘Naga tribes’ (the 14 Naga tribes).
Some of the criteria as mentioned in the report include– that the person must have his/her roots in a village that is listed in the delimitation order of the Election Commission of India vide notification dates December 2, 1963 order of 1963 in respect of Kohima, Dimapur, Peren, Phek, Wokha, Mokokchung and Zunheboto districts and the 1961 Census in respect of Tuensang, Mon, Kiphire and Longleng districts– this being the last Census that was conducted before the Statehood.
Any persons residing in his/her native village or in any village other than the native village or in any town in Nagaland or elsewhere, provided he/she has not acquired citizenship of another country.
A person who has been excommunicated from his/her native village or has permanently transferred his/her citizenship from his/her native village to a new village. The process of authentication shall not amount to restoration of his/her citizenship.
Eligibility to be a permanent resident of Nagaland: According to the report, a Permanent Resident would mean, a person or his/her parents/grand-parents who had settled in Nagaland prior to 01/12/1963. A ‘Permanent Resident’ would also mean that the person intends to reside permanently in Nagaland and has remained in the State continuously since his/her initial settlement. The person should have any one of the following evidence to prove his/her settlement in Nagaland at the time of statehood: His/her name or the name of his/her parents/grand-parents is entered in the Electoral Roll, published on 05/12/1963 (in respect of residents of Kohima, Dimapur, Peren, Phek, Mokokchung, Wokha and Zunheboto) or His/her name or the name of his/her/parents/grand-parents is entered in the 1954 Voters’ List of Dimapur Town Committee (in respect of residents of Dimapur Town in lieu of the 1963 ER, wherever applicable) or His/her name or the name of his/her parents/grand-parents in notified in the Government Notification NO. GAB-8/2/9/93 DATED 22/10/1974.
Pre-1963 land patta, with up-to-date land revenue payment slips. Pre-1963 Trade License, alongwith the most recent order of renewal issued by the Municipal Council/Town Council. Pre-1963 service record/pension document (in respect of a resident who was in government service at the time of statehood).
The commission noted that many of the non-tribal residents, especially the families of the old settlers, were apprehensive of the future, post RIIN. In this regard, the report said that there can be no hesitation in acknowledging that although they may not be indigenous to Nagaland, many of them who had arrived with the British had contributed immensely in the establishments of the townships in Nagaland. Since they are an integral and important part of the state– within the constraints of the land laws of the State and other laws relating to restrictions of mobility within the state, the Commission recommended that there should be no change in the privileges that they had been enjoying.