Sadly nobody bothers to understand the prerequisits for ST tag

SK Singh *

The other day on February 10 during question hour in the Legislative Assembly, the CM gave a rather diplomatic reply, rather explanation on a question by K Meghachandra MLA (Wangkhem), on the status of inclusion of the Meiteis/Meeteis in the ST list. The CM philosophized on the imperative urgency for a ' NGAKLOU', as the CM prefers to emphasis a 'safeguard' of the Meiteis/Meeteis. Since there is no such an Act or Rule to ensure protection from the other communities as are there for the STs/SCs, the imperative urgency for such a specific measure goes without a question.

Echoing the concern as propounded by the people, particularly the, STDCM all these, almost eight years now is indeed thoughtful. The cm also while trying to justify the undue delay in taking a decision by the government, ECHOED the several views mostly varying, by other CSOs, section of people within the Meetei/Meitei communities.

Though the CM refrained from mentioning other communities, the hill brethren, in particular, the fact is there that the existing ST communities are not only unfavorable but even totally against such a move. This situation is further complicated by the ground reality that the largest community itself is at VARIANCE among themselves. This situation is a blessing in disguise for the CM in not proceeding ahead.

While finding or locating a viable approach to satisfy the groups among the major community, let alone seeking consensus from the existing ST communities, is a thorny journey. Various writers have put forward views where they variously try to assert that the ST tag for the largest community would not in any way disturb or diminish the existing rights and privileges of the existing ST communities, the message are not able 'to suit or appease or clear the doubts of these communities.

In particular, recently I happen to see a write up by Dr Thangjam Ranjit, in the PC paper of Saturday, February 13. Dr Ranjit very forcefully argued that the inclusion of the largest community into the SP list would not impinge on the existing rights and privileges enjoyed by the existing ST communities. Two or three issues raised by him may be gone into more detail.

According to him, after inclusion of the Meitei tribe in the ST list of the country, the state may have two separate reservation quotas under two different names/nomenclatures. He continues to imagine the Meetei ST( after enlisting only), could be known as plain ST or some such name whereas the present ST could be known as hill ST or some such names.

This practice is of course adopted in Assam state under art 16(4) which empowers reservation quotas within quota in a single state or UT. In Assam STs are categorized as plain tribes and hill tribes with corresponding reserved quota. These of course are matters of concern when a broad decision is taken for attaching the ST tag to the major community in our state.

Discussing about issues of plain tribe or hill tribe or even the rights of the existing ST being confiscated by the new ST,( of course after securing the tag) is premature. What is more relevant in the context of Manipur (where there is a movement for classification under ST), how a particular community or tribe is classified as ST or ST or OBC?

For ST in particular, there is a set of criteria six in numbers known as Panda Committee recommendation in 2014. In the midst of near total indifference or could it misinformation about prerequisites of claiming ST tag at least here in our state, we may attempt a passing reference to these 6 criteria which should govern if a tribe is eligible for ST.

It is not noise, or procession or sentiments or cries of being descendants of Brabhubhavana or otherwise that Meiteis could be considered (I repeat considered), eligible for the ST tag; only these 6 factors would be examined.

These are i) autonomous religious practices, ii)marital relationship with other tribes, iii) distinctive culture, iv)historical and geographical isolation, v)socio-economic and educational backwardness and vi)distinctive language. The immediate question that confronts us is how we claim if we have a unique culture or religious practices or we are socio-economically backward.

At the expense of repetition, the Meiteis can be examined if they qualify to be ST on the basis of these six set of factors; not any other, may be procession of 5 lakh strong participants, or vociferous noise or memoranda in their hundreds to the CM of Manipur for state government's recommendation.

We may pause for a moment. How does the CM recommend or not recommend; what could be the basis for either, what could be the contents of the Cabinet Memorandum for the State Cabinet to consider? The answer is only and only the above 6 criteria; nothing more or nothing less. How do these set of six issues examined? The answer again is the two basic documents: - i) ethnographic report and ii) socio-economic report of Manipur.

The most relevant question now is are these two documents available, prepared or being prepared or nothing is done so far in this respect.. My limited knowledge urges me to state that these basic reports are nowhere prepared; worst still, the GOM has not even set mind on this exercise let alone preparing them.