Fallacies of Mr. Thepfulhouvi

Mr Thepfulhouvi Solo, IFS (Retd), a respected gentleman whose stray thoughts have often been splashed in the local papers from time to time entertaining readers with facts, bold views and opinions, has gone completely off the mark this time round with his definition of who an Indigenous inhabitant to an area is (Facts and Hearsay on Rongmei Issue). Mr Solo, if he were have his way, would very well re-write the definition and even the history of Indigenous inhabitants of Nagaland. His contention that some Kacharis ... Mikirs (Karbis) are indigenous to Dimapur area and some Kukis settled in the Naga Hills “prior to World War I, are indigenous tribe to Nagaland”, if considered seriously, nullifies his whole argument that Rongmeis cannot be recognised as Indigenous Naga tribe of Nagaland. Be that as it may, Mr Solo should keep in mind that the Government is not run on definitions of the dictionary or lexicon, but by rules and criteria laid down as per provisions of the Constitution. One fails to understand how he, a retired bureaucrat, remained silent all those decades when he was in service and has chosen to speak out only now championing the cause of Kukis, Garos, Mikirs and Kacharis going as far as to call them indigenous tribes of Nagaland! He has also, for reasons known only to himself, went on to give a cut-off date to be considered as indigenous Naga, namely, World War II His irascibility does not end there and he goes on to confidently declare that “Rongmei is a Naga tribe and some must have settled in Naga Hills for quite some time ...” but are not indigenous to Nagaland. Thankfully, the Government does not function on cranky notions, or according to one’s whims and fancies, and if at all it was so, such practices have been put on superannuation for several centuries. For the sake of discussion, few historical points should be taken into consideration: 1. Rongmeis, formerly known as Kabuis till corrected by an Act of Parliament in 2012, were recognised as a Naga tribe and listed in the Scheduled Tribes Orders, 1950, of the Constitution of India, have been residing in certain parts is Nagaland since the days of the British in Naga Hills. 2. Unlike Kukis living in Nagaland who do not have ancestral land of their own and pay land tax/ lease rent/ royalty to the original land owners, namely, the Angamis in Medziphema area and to the Zeliangs in Peren district, Rongmeis have their own land holding regardless of size with proper documentation/ patta etc. Making them legal owners to the land they possess since their forefathers. 3. Some 1313 Rongmeis living in Nagaland fulfill the criteria laid down by the State Government in 1977, namely, the name of the head of family finds mention in the 1963 electoral Roll, and their descendants have a vested right to be treated as indigenous inhabitants of the State. 4. If Rongmeis were to be given only the status of indigenous inhabitants, their status would be equivalent to the other non-Nagas, eg. Nepalis. 5. Prior to formation of States people were already settled and the right to be recognised as a permanent or indigenous inhabitant of that state were given to the people already living in that area which had formed the State. And considering that Rongmeis were already recognised as a Naga Tribe by the Parliament and considering that both the Government of India and the Government of Nagaland have recognised Rongmei Nagas (descendants of those enrolled in 1963 electoral Roll) as indigenous inhabitants of Nagaland, the claim/ request to recognise these descendants as Indigenous Naga tribe of Nagaland, is legitimate. At this time when every Naga seems to be harping on the necessity for the Nagas to be united; to be emotionally integrated, it would not paint a picture of united cohesive Naga family to the outside world if we were to oppose tooth and nail about a political decision taken by the Government of Nagaland to recognise the indigenous Rongmei Naga community in Nagaland as indigenous Naga tribe of Nagaland. We must remember that the decision of the Government was a political decision based on legitimate right and traditional Naga practices such as according full identity, ownership rights to individuals and families whose parents, even though of non-Nagas, have been adopted and accepted as one’s own by clans and villages. Moreover, the Rongmei tribe recognition in question today in Nagaland has to do with only those whose ancestors have been living in Nagaland prior to Statehood and whose names have found mention in the 1963 electoral rolls, and not the entire Rongmei community living in other States of the region. A little bit of understanding, compassion and filial consideration as Naga family and humanity is called for here to resolve the issue without causing ill-will or ill-feeling from any one towards any quarter of the Naga family.

Temjen Ao Researcher, Hyderabad University