The Lokur Committee Report of 1965 and the ST demand of the Meitei Community

The Advisory Committee on the Revision of Lists for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes chaired by Shri BN Lokurpublished a report on 25th August, 1965. This is commonly known as the Lokur Committee Report. It reveals several observations why the demand for inclusion of Meitei community in the list of Scheduled Tribe  would not have been tenable then (at that point of time), and definitely not now.

(1) To understand the context of the Lokur Committee Report the relevant portions of the Resolution dated 1st June 1965 needs to be referred to :-

“The Government of India have had under consideration for some time the question of revising the lists of scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The present lists do not show a uniform pattern, and several anomalies have been brought to notice. It is, therefore, very necessary that the lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be revised in a rational and scientific manner.

2. Proposals for revision of the lists have been received from various States and Union Territories. Preliminary examination of these proposals have been completed and it has been found that there are several controversial issues which require to be settled. The Government of India has, therefore decided to set up an Advisory Committee on the Revision of lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with the following terms of reference:-

(1) To advise on the proposals received by Government for revision of the existing lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

(2) To advise whether, where a caste or a tribe is listed as a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to a particular is a State or a Union Territory, members of that caste or tribe residing –

 in other areas within the same State or Union territory; or

(ii) in other States or Union Territories should be recognised as belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be.”

(3) The Lokur Committee observed that – “The specification of tribes and tribal communities Scheduled Tribes present some problems. Even the social scientists have found it difficult to evolve a universally acceptable definition for a tribe. The difficulty in setting out formal criteria from defining a tribe arises from the fact that the tribes in India are, and have been for some decades, tribes in transition.”

(4) The Lokur Committee Report of 1965 made very important observations. These observations have direct relevance to the current demand of the Meitei community for inclusion in the list of ST (Scheduled Tribes). The relevant observations are quoted and discussed below:-

1.1 One of the observations, in para 12 of the report, reads as follows – “It will be observed that in 1931 and 1935, as well as in 1950 and 1956, it was acknowledged that every tribe need not be regarded as requiring special treatment; the list of 1931 was “primitive tribes” while the list of 1935 was “backward tribes” and primitiveness and backwardness were the tests applied in preparing the lists of 1950 and 1956. In revising the lists of Scheduled Tribes, we have looked for indications of primitive traits, distinctive culture, geographical isolation, shyness of contact with community at large and backwardness; we have considered that tribes whose members have by and large mixed up with general population are not eligible to be in the list of Scheduled Tribes.”

1.2. The above quote from the report explains why “primitive tribes” and “backward tribes” are in the list of ST. It also shows why tribes whose members have by and large mixed up with general population are not eligible to be in the list of ST and have been excluded. Meitei community has by and large mixed up with the general population and are not eligible to be in the list of ST which has four other criteria namely primitive traits, distinctive culture, geographical isolation, shyness of contact with community at large and backwardness. Meiteis, as Kshatriya, were considered advanced community and did not possess any of the above criteria of Lokur Committee.

2.1. Another important observation of the Lokur Committee report is in para 14 which states that, “It has been in evidence for some time that a lion’s share of the various benefits and concessions earmarked for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is appropriated by the numerically larger and politically well organised communities. The smaller and more backward communities have tended to get lost in the democratic processes, though most deserving of special aid. Though there is no escape from the larger and politically more conscious groups asserting themselves in the political field, it appears to us that, in matters of planning and development, distribution of benefits need to be focussed on the more backward and smaller groups on a selective basis.”

2.2. This report was published in 1965 i.e. 18 years after independence. It was observed even then in 1965 that a lion’s share of the various benefits and concessions earmarked for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is appropriated by the numerically larger and politically well organised communities. This observation indicated a trend where the numerically larger and politically well organised communities made faster developmental advancement at the expense of the depressed SC and ST communities by diversion of funds. Meiteis who were considered as advanced community by the Kalelkar Report in 1956 would have definitely made further advancements nine years later i.e. 1965 as they were and still are the dominant community controlling the government. Meiteis claim themselves to be Kshatriya, one of the four varnas of Hindu society associated with the warrior aristocracy.

3.1. The Lokur Committee went into the proposal for delisting/de-scheduling some communities as mentioned in para 16 and 17 of the report where certain tribes, already listed as ST, were reported to be relatively advanced and were proposed to be delisted from the Schedule. These ST included the Jaintia, Kachari, Khasi, Kuki, Mizo (Lusei) of Assam (when Meghalaya, Mizoram were part of Assam) and Kachari, Kuki and Naga of Nagaland state. The report stated that “some of the State Governments concerned, however, do not favour exclusion of these communities from the lists; strong representations have also been made by or on behalf of the affected communities for their retention. Some of the communities are in strategic border areas.”

3.2. This observation shows that even in 1965 the Lokur Committee had received proposal for delisting the Jaintia, Kachari, Khasi, Kuki, Mizo (Lusei) of Assam (when Meghalaya, Mizoram were part of Assam) and Kachari, Kuki and Naga of Nagaland, but decided against it on account of strong objections from the states and also took into account that some of the communities are in strategic border areas. This shows that the Meiteis who were considered as an advanced community by the Kalelkar Committee would not have been included even at that time, as  proposals for delisting some primitive and backward tribes in 1965, more backward then the Meiteis, were under consideration.

4.1. The Lokur Committee went on to emphasise that the list of Scheduled Tribes was prepared in 1950 by making additions to the list of backward tribes under the Government of India Act, 1935; in considering fresh proposal for inclusion in the list, it was noted that “care was necessary in drawing up the schedule in order to ensure that communities which have been assimilated in the general populace are not at this stage invested with an artificial distinctiveness as tribes, and that the communities which might be regarded as tribes by reason of the social organisation and general way of life but which were really not primitive should not now newly be treated as primitive.”

4.2. This is the most crucial observation relevant to the demand of ST status for Meitei community. It emphasised that “in considering fresh proposal for inclusion in the list, it was noted that “care was necessary in drawing up the schedule in order to ensure that communities which have been assimilated in the general populace are not at this stage invested with an artificial distinctiveness as tribes, and that the communities which might be regarded as tribes by reason of the social organisation and general way of life but which were really not primitive should not now newly be treated as primitive.” There cannot be a more precise reason why Meiteis who are “not primitive should not now newly be treated as primitive.”

5.1. Shri W. Ranbir Singh, Education Secretary attended a meeting with the Lokur Committee for Manipur. There is no record to show that he and the state government at that time mentioned anything about inclusion of Meitei in the list of ST. They, however, cannot be faulted for not raising the issue for inclusion of Meitei community in the list of ST when proposal for delisting the Jaintia, Kachari, Khasi, Kuki, Mizo (Lusei) of Assam (when Meghalaya, Mizoram were part of Assam) and Kachari, Kuki and Naga of Nagaland, who were more primitive and backward unlike the advanced Meitei community, was under consideration.

 (5) The Meitei organisations spearheading the demand for inclusion of Meitei community in the list of ST should re-assess their ST demand in a rational and scientific manner and consider abandoning their demand as it is based on emotions. Carrying on the campaign relentlessly regardless of the available facts indicating the unlikelihood of the demand fructifying is foolhardy and fraught with risk of creating discord with the tribal community of Manipur, who sees the Meitei ST demand as an attempt to usurp tribal lands in the hill areas. It was the Manipur High Court order dated 27.03.2023 which is alleged to have triggered the current ethnic conflict between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities. Demand which is not rational and scientific has the potential of triggering a conflict between the tribals and non-tribals thereby damaging the integrity of Manipur which the Meitei community cherish dearly.

Ngaranmi Shimray

New Delhi