Meitei ST (Scheduled Tribe) is the only key to ILP in Manipur. Why?

Ningombam Bupenda Meitei *

sit in protest by meira paibees demanding implementation of Inner Line Permit System on August 12 2014 :: Pix - Shankar Khangembam

Before starting my arguments, I would like to place the two premises which are: (a) the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and (b) the speech given by the former Chief Justice of India Y.K. Sabharwal as the premise 1 and 2 respectively. The premises 1 and 2 are given below.

1) "Scheduled Tribes are indigenous peoples of India..."

Reference (R1) : The Supreme Court of India's judgement on 5 January 2011 while dismissing the Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 10367 of 2010) (Kailas & Others .. Appellant (s) -versus- State of Maharashtra) unequivocally asserted that Scheduled Tribes are indigenous peoples of India...

2) "In Indian Constitution, there is no definition of Scheduled Tribes, but criteria exist to enumerate the list of Scheduled Tribes. But, criteria are not definition and vice versa."

The above premise (2) is constructed by me out of reading the following contents given below and the reference to the contents is given after the contents below.

"There is a continuing debate in India about the appropriateness of the use of the phrase “indigenous peoples”...how far back in history should one go to determine the identity of “indigenous peoples”?...attention has been drawn to the serious national sovereignty issues involved revolving around question of "self-determination" and ownership of lands...Schedules V and VI of the Constitution of India specifically make provision for safeguarding the interests of the tribal people in India located in what is called tribal areas... the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is yet to be adopted despite 11 years of “negotiations” by the Working Group of the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC)...The Working Group was, as we know, set up in 1995 and its term extended by the Commission into the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples (2005-2015)...The Constitution of India, it may be noted, does not define the term “Scheduled Tribes”. Instead, Article 366(25) refers to Scheduled Tribes as those communities who are scheduled in accordance with Article 342 of the Constitution. According to Article 342 of the Constitution, the Scheduled Tribes are the tribes or tribal communities or; part of or groups within these tribes and tribal communities that have been declared as such by the President of India through a public notification..."

Reference (R2): Speech by Y.K. Sabharwal, Chief Justice of India in International Law Association – 72nd Conference (2006) - "Plenary Session: Rights of Indigenous Peoples", dt. 04-08.06.2006, Toronto.

The premises 1 and 2 are again given below as,
P (premise) 1: Scheduled Tribes are indigenous peoples of India.
P2: In Indian Constitution, there is no definition of Scheduled Tribes, but criteria exist to enumerate the list of Scheduled Tribes. But, criteria are not definition and vice versa.

The arguments are given below.
(Please note 'the Constitution' here after means 'the Constitution of India' only)

Argument 1: If STs (Scheduled Tribes) are IPI (Indigenous people of India), then, as ST can not be defined because it is not defined in the Constitution of India, therefore, IPI too can also not be defined as IPI's precursor (which is ST) is not defined, but to be IPI, the claimant to IPI must be ST, because STs are IPI (as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India's judgement) and IPI is drawn from ST and not from 'not-ST', and STs are only legally recognized in the Constitution while the term IPI is not legally available in the Constitution.

Argument 2: Conversely to 'STs are IPI', since IPI is not ST because the judgement says that 'STs are IPI' and not 'the vice versa', and IPI is nothing in the Constitution, because IPI per se does not exist in the Constitution, therefore, IPI per se in toto is meaningless in the Constitution.

Argument 3: ST is recognized legally in the Constitution, because ST per se does exist in the Constitution, therefore ST per se in toto is meaningful in the Constitution.

Argument 4: The Constitution of India discusses everything which exists meaningfully in it.

Argument 5: The Constitution of India does not discuss anything which does not exist meaningfully in it.

The following conclusions are drawn from the arguments discussed, based on the said premises.

Conclusion 1: Since STs are IPI, and not necessarily IPI are ST, therefore, STs are IPI.

Conclusion 2: The Constitution of India shall discuss any matter which exists meaningfully in it which includes STs but not IPI per se.

Conclusion 3: Any claimant to IPI must be ST because the claimant if not ST can not be IPI.

Final Conclusion : The claimant 'Meiteis' which is not listed in ST category in the Constitution, by arguments above, is not IPI, because STs are IPI and Meiteis are not ST.

Hence, to qualify Meiteis as IPI, Meiteis have to be listed in ST category. Therefore, at present as of the 12th of August, 2014 in the Constitution, Meiteis' demand for ST is a valid and only constitutionally acceptable legal demand to claim officially that Meiteis are IPI.

The need of the hour is to demand Meiteis for ST category because the listing of Meiteis in ST is the only key to unlock the present mystery of Inner Line Permit which discusses fundamentally on safeguarding not 'not - indigenous' but 'indigenous' people only. Having said this, the listing of Meitei as ST can never guarantee the implementation of ILP ( meaning 'the extension of Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulations 1873' only and not otherwise ) in Manipur, but there is also no guarantee in the Constitution which says that Meitei without being listed in ST category shall be allowed to witness the extension of Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulations 1873 in Manipur, but again, without Meitei being listed primarily in ST category, Meitei can not be officially and legally declared as 'indigenous people of India', and hence, Meitei can not be called as 'indigenous people of Manipur' even in Manipur, as Manipur is an integral part of Union of India, and Union of India and not any otherwise including the United Nations and Government of Manipur, can only officially declare and notify IPI, therefore, the only necessity to initiate any discussion on ILP ( 'ILP' strictly means - nothing except 'the implementation of the extension of Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulations 1873) becomes constitutionally meaningful and legally viable only when Meiteis are listed in ST category in the Constitution of India, hence, without Meiteis being listed in ST, ILP in Manipur is constitutionally impossible as of now.

Thus, Meitei ST is not one of the keys, but the only and only golden key to the future of better and constitutionally safeguarded Manipur of India.