IMPHAL September 5: The All Tribal Chiefs`™ Forum convened a consultative meeting of several tribal organisations at the Tribal Research Institute on the present opposition to the three bills for not consulting the Hill Areas Committee.
The tribal leaders participating in the meeting deliberated exhaustively on the three bills passed recently in the special session of the assembly and concluded that the implementation of these bills after they become Acts will affect the tribal and the tribals`™ land ownership.
This was communicated at a press meet after the consultative meeting by former MP BD Behring.
The press meet was also participated by ATCF advisor (retd IRS) Tongmang Haokip, Zeliangrong Union president and ATCF advisor Amu Kamei; ATCF president Tongthang Kipgen ATCF vice president Vaoyang Shimray.
The consultation was also participated by representatives of United Naga Council, Kuki Inpi Manipur, All Tribal Students Union Manipur, All Naga Students Association Manipur, Zoumi Council, Manipur Tribal Union, COPTAM and Zeliangrong Union.
According to Behring contentious areas of `The Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015`™ are in the reductive definition of the `Manipur People`™ with the base year 1951.
He explained, `In 1951, there was only a single deputy commisionner located in Imphal.`
`Most of the government institutions were operational only from Imphal till 1965. Even the district headquarters in the hills were not link with motorable roads and the remote villages of the hill districts were ignorant of such procedures of registrations in those times.`
`There was no house to house counting exercise carried out by census enumerators nor was it possible for the physical remoteness of the villages in those times.`
The district authorities had never insisted on mandatory village directory before the introduction of the Hill House Tax in 1966 under the Manipur Hill Areas (House Tax) Act, he said.
He also pointed out the contradictions to Article 5 of the Constitution of India where definition of Indian citizenship is clearly defined.
`Hence this is an unconstitutional Bill which has the potential to reduce bonafide citizens to `Non-Manipuri` status he said.
He further said that despite the applicability of this Bill to the whole of Manipur, Hill Areas Committee was not consulted.
As for the `The Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment) Bill, 2015, `if the State government has good intentions and commitments towards protection of tribal rights, it could have clearly stated in the bill that that it will not be applicable in the Hill Areas/ five Hill districts of the State,` he observed.
The government instead of making a law to enforce Article 46 of the Indian Constitution has been trying to extend the MLRLR Act in the Hill Areas comprising 20089 sq kms, he alleged.
The original text of the MLRLR Act section 1(2) it is extended to the whole of Manipur except the Hill Areas, he continued.
However in 1989 without the consent of the Hill Area Committee, the Government of Manipur introduced a bill to remove `Except the Hill Areas` in order to enable the Act to apply in the Hill Areas as well on the pretext of a Money Bill, he continued.
The then Governor had refused giving his assent to the modification by exercising his authority under Article 371(2) of the Indian Constitution and consequently the bill was withdrawn in 1990, he narrated.
Yet despite these safeguards the Government of Manipur has misused section 1(2) and 1(3) of MLRLR Act 1960 and its rules to illegally extend the same to the Hill Areas, he claimed.
As a result, Moreh despite being a Hill Area under Chandel district is now mostly owned by non tribals, he said citing an instance of impingement on tribal land ownership rights.
Given such history of such shadowy extension of MLRLR Act, the present amendment which says that State government after obtaining prior approval of the `State cabinet`™ can approve transfer of land to non- local will automatically apply to the Hill Areas too, remarked B D Behring.
The government could have mentioned clearly that separate provisions for the Hill Areas will be made, he added.
On the third bill namely `The Manipur Shops and Establishments (Second Amendment) Bill 2015, he said, `It will equally apply to the Hill Areas wherever there are Establishments and Shops, but unfortunately this was not referred to the Hill Areas Committee too`™
The Government of Manipur have not consulted the Tribal leaders, Tribal societies and Tribal student unions on such crucial matters besides ignoring the Hill Area Committee, he alleged in justifying the opposition of the three bills.
The drafting committee was not inclusive of any tribals and neither was the Hill Area Committee consulted nor was it discussed in the Assembly hence it is an anti-tribal and anti-Constitution bill, he remarked.
Meanwhile, a Joint sitting of the Hmar lnpui (HI), Kuki Inpi Manipur. -(KIM), United Naga Council (ONC) and Zomi Council (ZC) was held today in Imphal regarding the recent situation al Churachandpur.
A joint statement of the organisations said the meeting unanimously resolved to out-right!y reject the three Bills passed and August 31 proceedings of the Manipur Legislative Assembly.
The organsations also condemned in the strongest term, the incident in Churachandpur wherein eight lives were lost and scores injured.
The statement also said that the organisations endorsed and appreciated the decision ofthe JAC, Churachandpur for withdrawing their earlier decision of asking for ex-gratia and government jobs to the next of kin of the deceased and decided to firmly uphold the unity process ofthe Manipur tribals and agreed to fight together for securing a Common political future causes and issues with full conviction and to have a joint silting again at the earliest.
Read more / Original news source: http://kanglaonline.com/2015/09/tribal-organisation-consultative-meet-points-out-contentious-areas-in-bills/
