Issue Debates Archives
Does the Inner Line Permit System run counter to Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution? Discuss the issue, tracing its evolution and the need for it in modern times.Reading List:-
1.
http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/the-hills-are-alive-3/2.
http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/inner-line-permitwhy-manipur-is-on-the-boil-again/What are Issue Debates?
Issue Debates are centered around the idea that Forums such as ours should be more relevant to the Examination Process apart from the social connect that we already provide.
Everyday, Issue Debate will come up with questions on issues that are related to the Examination Process - The Mains Examination.
Issue Debates will cover hundreds of issues over a period of time, and will be highly focused on the upcoming Mains Examination.
Covering All Issue debates will ensure that candidates for the Mains examination would have covered a very significant part of their Current Affairs syllabus and would have covered most issues concerning the examination.
Peer Review: Members of the Forum Can review answers and add more angles to the Issue.
Frequency : Issue Debates will be vary between 1-3 in Number and will be posted Everyday
Who can benefit from Issue Debates?
Issue debates will focus on issues that are important for the Mains Examination. Hence candidates appearing for Mains 2015 and 2016 will both benefit from it. Issues are not merely temporal in nature, but span over a significant period of time.
Discussing various aspects of issues helps in gaining a wider perspective of the issue and would be helpful in forming opinions that could hugely benefit aspirants, in their journey towards Civil Services. For newcomers, it will also help in identifying the issues that need to be prepared for the Exam.
Note:-
Nature of Comments : Nature of comments on this thread are supposed to show depth of knowledge and intellect of the Candidates and should be strictly on - topics. Arguments should be logical and personal opinions or biases should be avoided.
Comments
— Art. 14 : Right to equality (Categorising Insiders vs Outsiders)
— Art. 15 : No Discrimination (But here discrimination on basis of place of birth)
(The above 2 may be skipped if you don't want to make things risky.)
But most importantly :
— Art. 19 (d) : to move freely throughout the territory of India.
— Art. 19 (e) : to reside and settle in any part of territory of India.
But usually in order to impose legality of the ILP system, the concept of reasonable restrictions and Schedule 6 is invoked.
#Inner Line Permit system :
—The ILP is a special pass or permit that is required to enter the Northeastern states of Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Mizoram.
— The system was introduced by the British to protect their commercial interests, particularly in oil and tea. After independence the system stuck on, and various states demanded its usage.
— The demand stems from the desire to protect the tribal peoples and their cultures from onslaughts by outsiders.
— Any outsider visiting states with ILP must obtain a permit from Home Ministry prior to entering.
— Currently the state of Manipur is witnessing turmoil, with the dominant Meiteis demanding its imposition and the other tribal groups such as Nagas, Kukis protesting against its imposition.
# Any demand for the imposition must keep in mind its positives and negatives :
* Why is ILP demanded :
— Locals feeling insecure amidst frequent intrusions by outsiders.
— These locals fear their historical dominant position might be eroded by the intrusion from outsiders.
— Insecurity regarding jobs, land holding, and political dominance.
— Some of the demands are certainly genuine in the wake of illegal migration from states of Bangladesh and Nepal.
— Overburdened administration.
* But the implementation of ILP creates many problems too :
— It hinders the advancement or development of the regions. North-east is India’s least developed region, and the historical imposition of ILP is a major reason.
— It runs contrary to government’s implementation of ‘Act East’ policy. Also BCIM corridor, which is soon going to be a reality requires NE states to be a unified zone.
— Large scale co-ordination and manpower required for the proper implementation of ILp.
— On the ground ILP entrenches ‘outsider phobia’ in the minds of locals.
# So what is the way forward?
— Certainly ILP as a concept is not in sync with the demands of 21st century where interconnectivity is the main prerequisite. India at present can ill-afford having one of its strategic reason cut-off from the rest of the world.
-- The success of Act East hinges on the development of NE region.
— Urgent efforts must be made to start a dialogue and consultations within various tribal groups so as to dissipate insecurities, which has been conspicuously missing so far.
— A more expansive framework for the Sixth Schedule must immediately be extended.
-- The perception of outsiders being invaders needs to be dispelled. Ultimately it all boils down to perceptions. Locals need to be made aware that integration with Indian mainland is only going to increase their economic prospects, and adequate protection would be made available with regard to tribal customs.
http://www.theshillongtimes.com/2013/12/20/ilp-confusion-worst-confounded/
Also captain ji.. you have mentioned fifth schedule in your first para. It should be sixth schedule and art. 371A, G, H.
Just for clarity, can we look at ILP as a formal version of the Sons of the Soil theory. The demand for ILP is stemming from economic, social and cultural protection to the native population against non native migrants, similar to protection of Maharashtrians against northern migrants.
The only difference I can think of is seeing of a true son of the Soil as only a Marathi manus against all natives of Maharashtra.
As far as protection of tribal interests is considered its covered by the Constitution, PESA and similar provisions. So that isn't a big concern in ILP.
Also ILP rewards a 'shared sovereignty' (or as mentioned above 'quasi Visa'). This is against the single sovereignty mentioned in the Constitution. So demand for ILP is not as consistent with the constitutional provisions as it seems.
Some clarity would be great
I agree. Sixth Schedule only provides reasonable restriction to protect the interests of tribals in a particular area not for an entire state.
This law was instated by the British as East Bengal Frontier Regulation (EBFR) with the intention of protecting the tea plantation from the hill migrants.
As of present the ILP has lost its context because:-
1. It conflicts the article 19 which gives the citizen freedom to move and reside in any part of the country
2. There is already provision of fifth and sixth schedule to provide protection to specific tribal or schedule pockets as deemed fit by the president. Cordoning off entire state is thus redundant proposition.
3. It cuts the contact of the state with other part and prevents development. E.g Meghalaya which does not have ILP host great infrastructure and has developed into education hub with world class management and technical institutions attracting people through out the nation. On contrary Mizoram and Nagaland which share borders with Meghalaya has no such feather in its cap.
4. ILP is antithetical to India Look East policy. India has broken ice with Bangladesh in getting direct road access from Kolkata to Tripura. It is working hard to develop BCIM corridor to integrate North East to rest of the world and boost economic prospects. In between that ILP will only create islands of isolation.
What India needs today is solid internal security mechanism, integrated market and collectivized effort of the people so as to emerge as a strong economic force in the future.
For this ILP has to be revised
"That such laws/regulations have not been abrogated despite their arbitrariness and unconstitutional character shows a lack of interest among the rulers of this country in the affairs of the North Eastern states." Nasty remarks by the author. Reflects poorly on the system prevailing in the country.
It is now enforced in Nagaland,Mizoram and Arunachal which are prefominantly tribal states. This act is also demanded by the people of Manipur due to the following reasons:
* Economic issue- the bussiness at Imphal is controlled by outsiders and the local people work as helpers.
* Political issue- it has changed the political landscape in some parts of Manipur especially Jiribam and Imphal.Many illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and Nepalis settle in these areas.
* Demographic issue- the population of outsiders is more than the tribal population.
The recently passed 3 bills in Manipur Legislative Assembly aim
* to regulate the settlement of the outsiders
* to allow the existing bussiness,trade and commerce except the ownership of land by outsiders.but in certain cases,it is allowed.
* to protect the distinct culture,tradition and customs of the indigenous people both at hills and valley.
It does not violate article 19 because it does not restrict any Indian citizens from entering Manipur .It only requires the possesion of the Identity card of the individual.Article 29 provides the right to protect the distinct culture,language and tradition.
Way forward is the balance of the two fundamental rights under articles 19& 29.
Any inconsistant clause should be amended.
North East India is a very complex region inhabited by hundreds of tribal communities many of whom are facing extinction.e.g. Maram tribe of Manipur. The ambitious Act East policy is centred around the development of this region which also calls for protection of the indigenous culture and tradition.
Art 19- Freedom of movement can be restricted on the grounds of protection of interest of ST or the interest of general public. so ILP is not in conflict with this Art.
Art 29 Any section of citizens shall have right to conserve their language, script or culture of its own. So no direct relation of this article with ILP.
Art 371-C Special provisions related to hill areas of Manipur. So again not related with ILP.
Also ILP as a system goes against the broad principle of freedom of movement, but if its looked in its entirety.. then reasonable restrictions allowed under Art. 19(5) allows such a permit system. In fact as I stated my answer, this provision of reasonable restriction is cited whenever ILP debate comes up.
Art 14 permits reasonable classification of persons subjected to the law, but the classification should not be arbitrary. ILP classification can be considered arbitrary as Art 15 prohibits classification on the grounds of place of birth.
Any law experts please comment.