NLSF opposes special privileges in ILP for post-1963 settlers, calls for 1963 as sole cut-off year

Raises concerns over weekly bazaars sustaining Illegal Bangladeshi Immigrants

The Nagaland Law Students’ Federation (NLSF) has urged the Nagaland Government to reconsider its decision on the categorization of the Inner Line Permit (ILP) into three categories, emphasizing the need to protect the interests of the indigenous population.

According to the NLSF, “the British Government introduction of Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation (BEFR), 1873 provided for Inner Line Pass mainly to protect their commercial interests, as well as to safeguard the culture and identity of indigenous tribes.” It further stated that “nowhere in the Regulation 5 of 1873 (BEFR 1873) the word permit was mentioned, but the word pass was only mentioned.”

“There is a complete difference between the word pass and permit,” it said.

While the Federation acknowledged the globalization of the world and noted that it would not insist on using the word “pass” instead of “permit,” it expressed strong opposition to the government’s decision to give special privileges to two categories of individuals – those who settled prior to 1963 and those between 1963 and 1979.

“For the record, if ILP as provided in the BEFR, 1873 is to be enforced strictly, then the question of the Statehood of Nagaland (1963) does not arise; however for proper coordination and development of the State, the year 1963 may be decided as the cut off year for enforcing ILP and NLSF fully appreciates the wisdom and decision of the Government of Nagaland in this regard,” it added.

The federation also questioned the logic behind the second cut-off year of 1979, arguing that Dimapur, although not declared a tribal area until 1979, was “an integral part of the State of Nagaland even before 1979.” The NLSF contended that “it is very much the responsibility of the State Government to safeguard and protect the People and the land of the State of Nagaland” without the need of any pressure groups pressurizing it for such noble duty.

The NLSF also raised concerns about the impact of immigration on the indigenous population, warning that “the indigenous citizen of the State of Nagaland being a tribal with less population compared to people from neighboring States/Country has the high chance of being overrun by the people from other neighboring States/Country.” The Federation pointed to the example of Tripura as a cautionary tale and cautioned that “any mainland Indian race will also love to take control over us (economically now) and replace us as the main citizen of the State of Nagaland.”

The federation stated that the onus lies in the wisdom and competency of the Government of Nagaland to safeguard and protect the interest, identity, culture, land and resources of the State by reconsidering the decision of the Cabinet on 11-09-2024 and thereby ensures ILP cut off year as only 1963.

The NLSF also impressed upon the Government of Nagaland that the issuance of ILPs “should not be done randomly,” stressing that certain criteria, such as tourism, business (with a capability to contribute to and uplift the state), and skilled construction workers, should be the only valid reasons for issuing ILPs, and that these should have strict time limits.

Additionally, the Federation urged the state to address the influx of illegal immigrants, especially in relation to the “weekly bazaars” held in Dimapur, Chumoukedima, Niuland, and other districts with easy access to these areas.

“It is true that this weekly bazaar is becoming more of a sustenance for the IBI’s [illegal Bangladeshi immigrants],” the Federation noted, warning that while some may defend these markets on economic grounds, failing to regulate them could lead to a “great catastrophe.” It emphasized that “the majority of weekly bazaars in Nagaland are controlled by IBI’s,” making it crucial for the state government to “look into the above-apprised matter with dedication and seriousness purely for the welfare of the State of Nagaland and its People.”

The Federation concluded by appealing to the Nagaland Government to address these concerns “with dedication and seriousness purely for the welfare of the State of Nagaland and its People.

MT