Holistic Register of Indigenous Inhabitants of Nagaland

Z Lohe

The Commission on Register of Indigenous Inhabitants of Nagaland (RIIN) was constituted vide Notification No.CON-3PAP/65/10 dated 27.7.2019 by the Government of Nagaland. The commission had 3 regular members headed by Banuo Z. Jamir along with three ex-officio members from State bureaucracy. Accordingly, the commission began its intensive consultations with all tribal bodies of Nagas of Nagaland, non-Naga indigenous tribal bodies, non-Naga indigenous inhabitants of Nagaland, civil organisations including all those whoever did matter from September, 2019. Thus, the Commission made a very comprehensive and meticulous consultations with all concerned after which it made its recommendations to State Government on time. For the reasons better known to state govt., the commission’s recommendations were kept in cold storage for not less than 4 years. Meanwhile, the state govt. has finally decided to implement the recommendations of the Commission on RIIN.

Not at all surprising that opposition to the decision of the state govt. from NSCN(IM), Global Naga Forum and an individual from Manipur through local media appeared. To those few opponents, what are the legitimate rights of the bona fide inhabitants of Nagaland are considered to be detrimental to Naga unity. The Nagas in Manipur definitely need a common platform under the aegis of United Naga Council (UNC) for obvious reasons under the dominance of the Meiteis. The Nagas of Nagaland appreciated the formation of UNC in May, 2011. On the contrary, look at the volte-face of the NSCN(IM) and its cohorts in opposing the formation of a similar apex public platform of the Naga public in Nagaland. The govt. of Nagaland too falls in line with the NSCN(IM) in this respect. An individual like Ngaranmi Shimray distorted the historical facts which needs clarification. Shimray stated much against RIIN to the extent of a repetition of how 16-Points Memorandum of 1960 was implemented without taking along the Nagas from other states. Whether this writer is ignorant of the history of the refusal of the Nagas in neighbour state at that time to join the new creation of Nagaland state? Whether the forces opposing RIIN are aware of the nil reciprocity of the Nagas in Manipur in particular to the 5 successive resolutions on Naga integration adopted by Nagaland Legislative Assembly in 1964, 1970, 1994, 2003 and 2015 respectively?

Now, the purpose of the creation of the state of Nagaland was to give the bona fide inhabitants of Nagaland to enjoy their fundamental freedom and their constitutional rights in respect of their land, custom, tradition, culture and their religion in their own land without undue interference. The indigenous citizens of Nagaland had no such sense of suffocation till the Naga national movement was decimated to factions which virtually placed every system in shambles and which has immense impact on Nagaland. To speak the least, the indigenous inhabitants are being made the secondary citizens in their land and the worst will follow suit. Therefore, RIIN is imperative and which is defensive and never offensive.

There are two parties- one is for and the other is against. The commission’s recommendations are documented in which all the tribal hohos, the NGOs, the non-Naga tribal bodies and the non-Naga indigenous citizens gave their support to RIIN implementation in their consultations. Despite the objections raised from few quarters, the state govt. has reiterated its contemplation to go ahead with the implementation.

When the RIIN is implemented, it has to be wholesome. The govt. has to execute it without fear and without double mind. The RIIN when implemented, it is hoped to clean the existing mess pertaining to citizenship and its related issues. When so, the mechanism by which the registration is to be done has to be solid and unambiguous. Therefore, there has to be only one cut-off year, and that is December 1, 1963. There is unanimity on this single cut-off year amongst the consulted civil bodies in the court of the commission as for the base year is concerned.

However, the Cabinet decision to have two bases for cut-off year including November 21, 1979 beside December 1, 1963 is too ambiguous. The state govt. cannot afford to become neutral by adopting a middle path to please both the parties of for and against. Such a posture of neutrality out of timidity will be too great a sacrifice of the future of the posterity. 

As the state govt. has decided to have November 21, 1979 as the second cut off year, let me quote the observation of the Commission on RIIN on this Land Revenue Department Notification No.LR/2-118/76 dated 21.11.1979- the Commission (on RIIN) makes the assumption that this was necessitated, due to ineffective adherence to standing instructions regarding restriction in matters of allotment of land under Dimapur Mauza. This deduced from the observation recorded in the first para of the Land Revenue Department Memorandum No.LR/1673 dated 22/04/1976 – states that “cases of settlement and transfer of land from tribals ton non-tribals have increased considerably, particularly under Dimapur sub-division. It is apprehended that liberal settlement and transfer of land from tribals to non-tribals will seriously jeopardise the interests of the tribal people and it will go against the existing laws, regulations and instructions issued from time to time.” Thus, the Tribal Belt notification was particularly for protection of tribal lands for the indigenous tribal people. To my finding, Notification NO.LR/2-118/76 dated 21.11.1979 was the subsequent order of No.LR/1673 dated 22.04.1976 relating to tribal lands.

In the light of above, to use November 21, 1979 will only dilute the efficacy of the cut-off year of December 1, 1963. If one mechanism is allowed to weaken the other mechanism in the process of registration, the end result will be just futile as in such case RIIN will be a mere paper tiger.  No nation, how strong or how weak it may be, can afford to become complacent about who is and who is not her citizen. Nagaland too should not go further by soft paddling with the citizenship being in haywire. How can a state remain in its slumber for all these decades without knowing who is or who is not her bona fide citizen. This exercise is constitutional and legitimate no matter how it is to the consternation of the few exploiters.

The CNTC, Ao Senden, JCPI, JD(U) and EX-PAN have explicitly supported December 1, 1963 as the sole cut-off year and objected to two bases for cut-off year. All those local bodies who met the commission submitted their opinions particularly on the issue of cut-off year in written as compiled in the report. The state govt. has to give credence to all the viable recommendations contained in the report.