Tali M Sashi Jamir
Mangkolemba
The issue surrounding the classification of “Indigenous Inhabitant” in Nagaland has become a focal point of debate and scrutiny in recent years. The current interpretation of this term has caused confusion by merging the concepts of indigenous identity and permanent residency. This conflation has raised questions about who qualifies as a native Naga and the rights associated with this classification.
At the heart of the matter lies the criteria used to determine indigenous status. As per existing regulations, individuals who have resided in Nagaland prior to December 1, 1963, are automatically recognized as indigenous inhabitants. However, this cut-off date does not align with the historical and cultural realities of Nagaland’s diverse tribal communities, whose connections to the land precede the state’s formation by centuries.
International Context and UN Standards
Globally, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) provides a comprehensive framework for protecting the rights of indigenous communities. This declaration emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination, cultural preservation, and ownership of traditional lands and resources. It serves as a benchmark for ensuring that indigenous identities are respected and upheld worldwide based on their historical and cultural connections.
The Role of RIIN
In Nagaland, the efforts for establishment of the Register of Indigenous Inhabitants of Nagaland (RIIN) seeks to create a comprehensive database of genuine indigenous inhabitants. RIIN aims to differentiate indigenous Nagas from non-indigenous residents, addressing concerns such as illegal immigration and preserving the unique socio-cultural fabric of Naga tribes. Despite its objectives, the implementation of RIIN has encountered challenges, including logistical complexities and criticisms regarding exclusionary practices.
Challenges and Implications
The current interpretation of “Indigenous Inhabitant” in Nagaland poses practical challenges across administrative and legal domains. Misinterpretations have led to situations where individuals who do not meet traditional criteria of indigenous identity are classified as such, potentially undermining the representation and rights intended for indigenous communities.
The implications of this misclassification are evident across various sectors, particularly in public service appointments and electoral procedures. Instances have arisen where individuals not of Naga descent have been designated as indigenous under current definitions, thereby gaining access to positions intended for Naga natives. Similarly, loopholes in the Nagaland Municipal Act of 2023 (Section 42 (1) clause (d)) have enabled non-Naga candidates to participate in Urban Local Body elections by exploiting the ambiguous criteria of indigenous status.
Redefining Indigenous Inhabitant and Permanent Residency
Redefining indigenous inhabitant and permanent residency is crucial as not all citizens can be labelled as indigenous (natives). The term specifically denotes groups or communities with deep-rooted historical and cultural ties to a specific land, distinct from transient or settler populations. In Nagaland, where diverse indigenous Naga tribes have inhabited the region for centuries, the current definition of “Indigenous Inhabitant” based solely on residency before 1963 fails to capture the nuanced identities and ancestral connections of these tribes. Thus, there is a critical need to rectify and clarify the terms indigenous inhabitants and permanent residents within Nagaland’s legislative framework to accurately reflect the historical and cultural realities of Nagaland’s indigenous peoples. This redefinition will ensure that their rights, representation, and socio-cultural integrity are properly recognized and preserved within Nagaland’s legislative framework.
Moving Forward
To rectify these issues, Nagaland must undertake legislative reforms that provide clarity and precision in defining indigenous identity and permanent residency. Such reforms should align with international standards on indigenous rights, ensuring that indigenous status reflects genuine historical and cultural affiliations rather than arbitrary administrative criteria. This approach will promote fairness, transparency, and inclusivity within Nagaland’s diverse social landscape.
