On delisting some Kuki-Zomi tribes

On delisting some Kuki-Zomi tribes

Subject: Geography

Section: Human geography

Context:

• The Manipur Government has been asked by the Centre to examine a representation seeking the delisting of certain Kuki and Zomi tribes from the Scheduled Tribes (ST) list of Manipur.

What led to the representation?

• The representation to de-schedule certain Kuki and Zomi tribes in Manipur is a response to the ongoing ethnic conflict between the valley-based Meitei people and the hills-based Kuki-Zo (ST) people.
• The Meiteis, who seek ST status to own land in forested hill districts where only STs can own land, argue against the inclusion of certain Kuki and Zomi tribes on the list.
• This marks the first instance of the Meitei community challenging the ST status of other tribes, potentially influencing the criteria for defining STs set in 1965.

What does the representation say?

• The representation by Mr Thounaojam (National Secretary of the Republican Party of India (Athawale) in Manipur) challenges the inclusion of three specific entries in Manipur’s Scheduled Tribe (ST) list: “Any Mizo(Lushai) Tribes,” “Zou,” and “Any Kuki Tribes.”
• The main argument is that these tribes are not “indigenous” to Manipur, as there is no mention of them in pre-Independence Censuses.
• The representation asserts that the ambiguity of the entries has facilitated illegal immigrants from Myanmar and Bangladesh in wrongfully obtaining benefits meant for STs in India.

Do these claims hold true?

• The claim that certain tribes were not residing in Manipur at the time of the first Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) list in 1950 is refuted.
• The list included entries such as “Any Kuki Tribe,” “Any Lushai Tribe,” and “Any Naga Tribe.” While there is no empirical evidence supporting the notion that the presence of these tribe names in the list has facilitated organized illegal immigration, the 1955 First Backward Classes Commission recommended adding individual tribe names to the ST list for Assam and the hills of Manipur, suggesting a need for updated information.
• In 1956, the ST list for Manipur was revised, including 29 entries with individual tribe names, except for “Any Mizo (Lushai) Tribe,” which was retained, along with the tribe “Zou.”
• The representation questions the lack of specific recommendations for these entries by the First Backward Classes Commission.
• The “splintering tendency” among Kuki tribes, noted by the Lokur Commission in 1965, led to the addition of “Any Kuki Tribes” to the ST list in 2002-2003, addressing the identity concerns of a minority. However, the Bhuria Commission in 2002-2004 observed confusion and recommended mentioning specific tribe names in the ST list to prevent inter-tribe differences.
• The Lokur Commission chose to classify tribes as larger groups with sub-tribes, including synonyms, to address this argument.

Important commissions:

1. First Backward Class Commission: It was set up by a Presidential Order under Article 340 of the Constitution of India on Jan 29th, 1953, under the Chairmanship of Shri Kaka Kalelkar (popularly known as Kaka Kalelkar Commission). It submitted its report on March 30th, 1955.
2. The criteria set out by the Lokur Committee (1965) for defining a community as a tribe are: 
   • indications of primitive traits,
   • distinctive culture,
   • geographical isolation,
   • shyness of contact with the community at large,
3. Bhuria Commission 2002-04: In 1995, the Bhuria Committee, constituted to recommend provisions for the extension of panchayat raj to Scheduled Areas, recommended including these villages, but this is yet to be done. The President of India notifies India’s Scheduled Areas.
4. Xaxa Committee (2013): The Committee was mandated to examine the socio-economic, educational and health status of tribal communities and recommend appropriate interventional measures to improve the same. It submitted the report in May 2014.

Source: TH