On delisting some Kuki-Zomi tribes

Context of Ethnic Conflict

• The representation follows an eight-month-long ethnic conflict between valley-based Meitei people and hills-based Kuki-Zo (ST) people.
• The conflict arose from a Manipur High Court order directing the State government to recommend Meiteis' inclusion in the ST list.
• Meiteis have argued for ST status because of their inability to own land in the forested hill districts, where only STs can own land.

Representation's Claim

• The representation challenges the inclusion of three specific entries in the ST list of Manipur.
• These include "Any Mizo(Lushai) Tribes," "Zou," and "Any Kuki Tribes".
• Arguments
  • These tribes are not indigenous to Manipur
  • There had been no mention of these tribes residing in Manipur in pre-Independence Censuses.
• The claims suggest that the inclusion has facilitated illegal immigration and deprived Meiteis of land ownership in hill districts.

Validity of Representation Claims

1. Historical Inclusion

• The argument that these tribes were not present in Manipur during the first Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) list in 1950 is debunked, as these entries were part of the initial list.
• There is no empirical evidence to show that these tribes' presence in the ST list has aided any form of organised illegal immigration into Manipur.

2. Backward Classes Commission Recommendations

• The First Backward Classes Commission recommended specifying individual tribe names in the ST list instead of umbrella tribes.
• Therefore, in 1956, individual tribe names were included, except for "Any Mizo (Lushai) Tribe," retained from the previous list.

3. Splintering Tendency among Kuki Tribes

• The Lokur Commission in 1965 observed a "splintering tendency" among Kuki tribes, leading to sub-groups establishing distinct identities.
  • The Lokur Commission opted to categorise tribes as broader groups with sub-tribes, encompassing synonyms.
• The need to address minority groups resulted in the addition of "Any Kuki Tribes" to the ST list in 2002-2003.
• The 2002-2003 addition of "Any Kuki Tribes" led to confusion, prompting the Bhuria Commission to recommend specifying tribe names.

Implications

• The representation has potential implications for exacerbating existing divisions between communities in Manipur.
• The government's consideration of delisting certain tribes raises questions about the criteria for defining STs and the ongoing ethnic conflict.