Some thoughts on RIIN and perspectives from an indigenous Kuki

The recent order of the Government of Nagaland to conduct the Register of Indigenous Inhabitants of Nagaland (RIIN)/ Indigenous Inhabitants Certificate(IIC) only on the 4 Indigenous tribes (Kuki, Kachari, Garo,and Mikir) is perplexing. The Government first broached the issue of RIIN in its notification on 29th June 2019. The stated purpose was to make a master list of all the Indigenous Inhabitants of Nagaland. Its objective was also to prevent the issuance of fake Indigenous Inhabitants certificates. Subsequently, after consultations with Civil Societies and stakeholders, a 3-member Commission, later known as the Banuo Commission, was formed to examine, recommend, and advise on all issues relating to RIIN including how the exercise is to be carried out.

However, the government's recent declaration to conduct RIIN only on four Indigenous tribes goes against its original intentions. It has also remained silent on the Banuo Commission's report. So the question is, why is the government conducting RIIN only on these four tribes? Does the government need a master list of only four tribes, and if yes, what purpose will it serve? Whatever might be the compulsions, it was expected that at least the government would follow the Banuo Commission report. For example, while the 1963 electoral roll was the basis, the Banuo Commission report gave powers to the village councils to play an important part in enumerating the village population (Nagaland Page April 21, 2021). On one occasion, even Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio has said that the implementation of RIIN depends on Village Councils who have the authority to issue Indigenous Inhabitants Certificates. However, the present notification is silent on that. Now, since a Commission has been established, wouldn't it be logical to carry out the implementation based on the findings of the said Commission?
Moreover, even if the government carries out its plan, including all the other Naga tribes, there has to be a certain sensitivity to local history and context. If the 1963 electoral roll is strictly followed as the referred document, how many villages in Nagaland will have all eligible voters of the time in that list? It is unlikely for the very simple reason that those periods were the most disturbed period of the Naga movement, and many might be hiding in the jungles. The late 1950s and early 1960s were also periods of Village Groupings in Nagaland and that would surely affect the registration of people in the electoral rolls. In fact, the local Federal Army had asked many villagers not to enroll. Add to that the enormous numbers of unrecognized villages at that time that might not have been enrolled. In Eastern Nagaland, since many of the villages were 'unadministered' areas for a long time before Statehood, there are high chances for the new administration to be unaware of the existence of even some villages. Be that as it may, since there is a need for a point of reference, the 1963 electoral roll can be acceptable, with a rider. If the government considers the above-mentioned factors and is sympathetic to these concerns, it might be helpful in not missing out on genuine people. Let the village-wise 1961 Census be also provided by the government so that even those who missed out on the 1963 electoral roll might still have a chance. Infact, even the government's order on 28th April 1977 had two more options to determine Indigenous Inhabitants of Nagaland, and the founding fathers of our state were sensitive to the varied challenges. Yet another factor is that, in 1963, the voter eligibility age was 21 and not 18 which should also be taken into consideration.

Over the years, Nagaland has been apprehensive about an influx of people from outside the state. While one section is seen to be dominating the business spaces, the others are believed to be acquiring land in the towns and obtaining Indigenous certificates illegally. This indeed poses difficulties for the Indigenous Inhabitants for which the Nagaland Government would have rightly called for RIIN. However, the idea of RIIN has had its detractors. Different CSOs have raised concerns and even NSCN-IM has opposed it saying that Nagas have the right to settle anywhere in Naga territory. In a recent Press Release, the apex bodies of Kacharis, Kukis, Garos, and Mikirs (Karbis) have also questioned the government over RIIN. Though they support RIIN, their bone of contention is the singling out of the four tribes alone and questions over whether the Banuo Commission report will be followed. Even if the government goes ahead with RIIN for only four tribes, it might face legal hurdles as it infringes Article 14 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees Equality before the law and no discrimination based on sex, caste, race, religion, place of birth, etc.

Since four tribes are singled out, it would be imperative to discuss more about them. The Kacharis, Kukis, Garos, and Mikirs (Karbis) have a very long history in the land much before even Naga Hills was created and it needs no elaboration here. Over the years, their population has also been decreasing due to various factors. As for the Kacharis, Garos,and Karbis, their land in the erstwhile Dimapur district has been shrinking, and the Kuki population has also gone down from 20195 in the 2001 Census to 18768in the 2011 Census. It's even ironic that Dimasa Kacharis will have to prove their indigeneity in Dimapur! Today, if the issue of illegal immigration and demographic changes are the reason why this enumeration is taking place for these tribes alone, it is anill-advised plan as the people in question are not even a threat. In fact, their survival in Nagaland is more of a threat. It therefore defies logic that the government would feel so much in a rush to undergo such administrative exercises which might not benefit Nagaland significantly while remaining blind to the 'elephants' in the room. There is an Indigenous Naga tribe in Nagaland whose population has gone up from 36012 in the 1991 Census to 71871 in the 2001 Census, a 99.58% jump. What about RIIN for such tribes?

Today, the concept of an 'Imagined Naga Community' might have changed but tribes like Kukis have been an important component of the Naga movement since its genesis. As a reminder, Lengjang Kuki was not only a signatory of the Simon Commission memorandum in 1929, but he was also the longest serving Head Dobashi in Kohima between 1930 to 1944 – a period very crucial in the development of the Naga movement later. Moreover, right from Kuki's participation in the talks with Sir Hydar Akbari's to Seikhohen Kuki going among the first Naga delegates to meet Jawaharlal Nehru for the Naga cause, to Jangkhusei Kuki being a member of the Drafting Committee of the Naga People's Convention, Kukis have not contributed anything less for our shared future. The very fact that many Kukis will be in the jungles in Naga Army camps during this 1963 electoral roll will also have to be taken into consideration. Today, pushing Kukis out in the so-called '14 Naga tribes' might be convenient due to changing political winds but at least the descendants of those who labored for the Naga cause should be treated with some fairness.

Since there is an increasing 'marginalisation' of Nagaland Kuki inspite of their rich contribution to the Naga movement, allow me to also remind people of some important historical facts. After Naga Hills was formed in 1866, John Butler, the Political Agent of Naga Hills carried out a survey of Kuki villages in 1872 and he recorded 21 villages. Kukis had close relationships with the Zeliangs and Angamis since pre-Naga Hills days. At the turn of the century, as Christianity spread, the relationships got further cemented as Angamis reached out to the Kukis and Zeliangs with the gospel. Therefore, social mobilization amongst these tribes was natural and the only 'other' here was the British. When the Naga movement started, everyone within Naga Hills was part of the 'Imagined Naga Community' which explains the tremendous roles that tribes like Kukis played. When the Naga National Council (NNC) was formed, it had sub-tribal councils under it. The Nzemi and Kuki Tribal Council was formed under the Naga National Council and was under the Kohima Central Council. The Nzeme-Kuki Tribal Council inaugurated its headquarters at Berema (Peren)in 1947. The Kukis and Zeliangs also had the Zeliang-Kuki Bench Court at Berema which oversaw the administration of the Zeliang-Kuki area. Once the Naga People's Convention (NPC) started making parleys and discussions toward signing an agreement with the Government of India, it asked the Kukis and Zeliangs to be represented as the Zeliang-Kuki Tribal Council. Though it didn't materialize, once statehood was achieved, Zeliangs and Kukis were given 1 seat each in the Interim Body. Today, Kukis are left out in some of the tribal groupings and it is often a lack of appreciation of our shared history. Since RIIN has been imposed on Kukis separately, before an attempt is made on other Naga tribes, I wanted to highlight how the same problems that Kukis will face will be similar to those that other Naga tribes will also experience once RIIN is done on them.

Lastly, as Nagaland prepares to roll out RIIN, there are lessons to be learned from the failed National Register of Citizens (NRC) experience in Assam. The most important is the government's intention and sincerity! Moreover, if one has to learn from Karbi Anglong District in Assam, the real dangers are never the tribals, be it from Nagaland or Manipur or anywhere else. Ask any Karbi and he will tell you who the dangers are. If the government does go ahead, may it be sensitive to people's history; let the exercise empower people rather than disrupt them, and may it be carried out with a humane touch rather than making it harrowing experience.

Dr David Hanneng
Assistant Professor
Gushkara College,
Burdwan University.
West Bengal 

Courtesy: NAGALAND POST | 05 Oct 2024

https://nagalandpost.com/index.php/2024/10/05/some-thoughts-on-riin-and-perspectives-from-an-indigenous-kuki/

Share: