By Naba Bhattacharjee
There is total unanimity that influx is a serious matter which ought to be checked. The disagreement is on the mode of checking the menace. And what are the “alternative arrangement(s)” to Inner Line Laws (ILL), talked about for over a decade, without any real action? Are they at par in antiquity of thought with the British Act? The historical perspective and present viability cannot be totally consigned to the dustbin of history. Any viable alternative or solution to the vexed issue shall have to emerge from understanding of all aspects before converging on a logical solution. In democracy flexibility and ability to appreciate divergent views is an important means to logical resolution of conflict situation. The Northeast is characterized by diversity of ethnicity, language, culture, religion, social organisation, economic pursuits, productive relations and participation in political process. In spite of modernisation the people still dearly cherish the essence of century’s old mutual ties and culture.National leaders including those from Assam made no attempt to involve the hill tribal leaders in the process of Constitution-making, particularly in the deliberations about the future administration of the tribal areas. It was indicative of the British times when “plans” were drawn for safeguarding the interests of the tribes, being totally disconnected from what they wanted. The seeds of most problems were sown by such condescending attitude.
The innate British policy of divide and rule was applied to this region. Anthropologist Verrier Elwin was of the opinion that inner line permit was introduced in areas where circumstances called for the protection of certain hill areas with minimum external control. The British policy was responsible for the indifferent attitude and resentment which left a number of tribal communities in the region alienated. This region had little or no contacts with the mainland India through out the annals of history. The Britishers were responsible for the integration of this region into India as the political frontier of the mainland, thereby severing its position as the cultural and ecological crossroads of South and Southeast Asia. Most among the series of British acts and regulations were followed by the independent Indian government.
During India’s independence movement, the British used inner line laws to drive deeper the traditional mistrust, and create a wedge between the plains and the hills. Meghalaya largely escaped this as Shillong became an administrative and education capital of undivided Assam which included parts of present Bangladesh. Historically, successive legal and administrative decisions taken between 1874 and 1935 gave the areas of the Northeast their distinct identity. The British administration initially treated the hill areas beyond need for administrative regulation. The areas beyond the Inner Line were supposed to be outside the active control of the colonial administration. The British had many reasons for adopting an exclusionary policy as they were not anxious to extend administration to the hill tribal areas.
Over time, with Partition and India’s Independence, inner line laws came into distinct focus according to different State specific issues and problems with similarity only in control of access. Such control in Nagaland was used by the government of India to suppress news of its near-genocide against the Naga people in the 1950s and 1960s; and during the height of the Mizo rebellion in the late 1960s. In Arunachal Pradesh(earlier NEFA), ILP was introduced due to the need to preserve the ecology and tribal identities masking the equally real purpose of it being India’s strategic backyard confronting China and Myanmar. Both were Union territories then. Meghalaya was free from any of the above issues and the indigenous communities were much advanced both culturally and educationally compared to other tribes of the region and the country. Those who came to India after partition were victims of circumstances that compelled extrication from their roots. The migration was not by design but to survive mass persecution. The magnanimity of the indigenous community of present Meghalaya has not been forgotten by them. Although majority of them have moved out they hold close to their heart the sense of gratitude and indebtedness. The turning point for Meghalaya came with the liberation movement in East Pakistan culminating in formation of Bangladesh. As mentioned in my article “Tackle influx….” – in this column; – the biggest scar in the psyche of Pakistan, which is relentlessly working to disintegrate our nation as revenge by dismembering NE from India; emphasises on those states with international border. It is no secret that India which engineered this mutilation resulted in slackening of the border with the then new friend – with whom relationship witnessed intermittent highs and lows depending on whether a “hawk” or “dove” ruled that country. The combination of a porous international border and much better economic condition and livelihood opportunities on the Indian side – unregulated exodus from Bangladesh was a natural corollary. In addition, many of those who crossed over and took asylum, preferred to stay back in absence of any official record of entry and exit. Meghalaya which has an extensive border with that country was also exposed to the onslaught, together with Assam, Tripura and West Bengal. The early seventies of last century which was an appropriate time to consider implementation of viable regulatory mechanisms, like inner line laws in Meghalaya were lost. Timing decides the fate and end result of an initiative.
From the foregoing and the Manipur experience it is clear that the solutions to the problems will not come from the Government of India. We have to seek panacea to our ills from within. The Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation Act of 1873 can be customized conforming to ground realities, taking views and suggestions of all stakeholders into confidence and implemented without vacillation. The basic principle is to root out the menace of surreptitious influx from neighbouring countries directly or via adjoining states. It is time for the present generation to exorcise the influence of British policy which still keeps us divided and move forward towards solution to all our problems with a blend of traditional wisdom, open mind and vision for the future to arrive at a consensus acceptable to all Indians. This can be achieved through true dialogue growing out of the desire to reach out, to expand one’s tolerance, to enrich oneself with divergent views and finally recognize ones limitations. Self-criticism is the foundation of a dialogue with effort to open up to others.