GS Paper II

News Excerpt:

Maheshwar Thounaojam, National Secretary of the Republican Party of India (Athawale) in Manipur, argued for including Meiteis in the Scheduled Tribe (ST) list by seeking the exclusion of certain Kuki and Zomi tribes.

Timeline of events:

• Manipur High Court directed the State government to recommend the Meiteis’ inclusion in the ST list to the Centre.
• The key reason for which Meiteis have demanded the ST status has been their inability to own land in the forested hill districts, where only STs can own land. 
• The ethnic conflict between the valley-based Meitei people and the hills-based Kuki-Zo (ST) people began in 2023, triggered by the order of the Manipur HC.
• The Centre has asked the Manipur Government to examine a representation seeking the delisting of certain Kuki and Zomi tribes from the ST list of Manipur.
• The Chief Minister of Manipur announced that a special committee might be formed to look into it.
• The National Secretary of the Republican Party of India (Athawale) in Manipur sent the representation.

Key points of the representation:

• It argued for including Meiteis in the ST list by seeking the exclusion of certain Kuki and Zomi tribes.
• It raised objections against the inclusion of three specific entries in the ST list of Manipur - 
• Any Mizo (Lushai) Tribes
• Zou Tribes and
• Any Kuki Tribes
• The principal argument for excluding the above three entries has been that they are not “indigenous” to the land of Manipur.
• The representation claimed that there had been no mention of these particular tribes residing in the land of Manipur in pre-Independence Censuses.
• It also said that the ambiguity of “Any Mizo (Lushai) Tribes” and “Any Kuki Tribes” in the ST list has allegedly aided illegal immigrants from Myanmar and Bangladesh in obtaining benefits meant for STs in India.

Significance of the representation:

• This is the first time members of the Meitei community have tried to argue for their inclusion on the ST list by arguing that certain Kuki and Zomi tribes did not deserve to be on it.
• This move could also have implications on the criteria used to define groups as STs, which have remained unchanged since the Lokur Commission introduced them in 1965.

Critical analysis of the representation:

• The argument that these communities were not residing in the land of Manipur at the time the first Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) list was published in 1950 does not hold ground.
• This order had listed three tribes for Manipur — “Any Kuki Tribe”, “Any Lushai Tribe”, and “Any Naga Tribe” under which respective sub-tribes were to be subsumed.
• There is no empirical evidence, as of yet, to show that the presence of these tribes' names in the ST list has aided any form of organised illegal immigration into Manipur.
• Representation’s claim that neither of these entries was specifically recommended by the First Backward Classes Commission also does not hold ground.
• The First Backward Classes Commission had recommended that for tribes of Assam and the hills of Manipur, individual tribe names be added to the ST list instead of umbrella tribes.
• Subsequently, when the ST list for Manipur was revised in 1956, it included 29 entries with individual tribe names —“Any Mizo (Lushai) Tribe” — was retained. This list also included the tribe “Zou”.
• To reconcile the argument of whether whole tribe names or specific tribe names should be on the list, the Lokur Commission had, however, chosen to classify tribes as a larger group with sub-tribes, including synonyms.