By Moa Jamir
The recent developments in Nagaland concerning the highly sensitive issue of immigration, especially in light of the ongoing political turmoil in Bangladesh, require meticulous and proactive management by both the State Government and law enforcement agencies.
The perennial issue of "illegal migrants" resurfaces periodically in the State, often exacerbated by a mix of external factors, internal political and economic dynamics, and perceived deficiencies in the implementation of the Inner Line Permit (ILP) regime. The Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation (BEFR) of 1873, which has been in force in the Naga Hills (now Nagaland) since its inception, mandates that any non-indigenous individual must obtain an Inner Line Permit (ILP) to enter the State for a specific period, as determined by the State Government. The BEFR 1873 is officially described as a mechanism to “protect and safeguard the identity and existence of the indigenous people of Nagaland.”
The implementation of ILP in Dimapur and adjoining districts, however, has been particularly contentious. On December 9, 2019, the State Government extended the ILP to cover the entire District of then-undivided Dimapur. However, recent concerns have been raised by the Naga Students’ Federation (NSF), which, in a representation to Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio in July, alleged that the State Government had issued a “suspension order” on June 2, 2023.
Contending that Dimapur is a "melting pot overrun by individuals with questionable identities," posing a significant threat not only to Nagaland but also to the broader North East region, the NSF called for the revocation of the June 2023 order and the reimplementation of the ILP regime in Dimapur district, inclusive of Chümoukedima and Niuland, trifurcated in December 2021. Additionally, the reported data collection of “non-locals” in Dimapur by a students’ union has triggered responses from various quarters, including a political party that has proposed a ‘Survival Nagaland Movement 2.’
This development echoes the tragic events of March 2015, when a prolonged campaign on immigration issues culminated in an unfortunate outcome. Although the alleged action that precipitated that incident might not have been directly linked, it was enough to trigger the tense situation through association.
A review of news items and social media posts leading up to that incident reveals similar narratives and rhetoric concerning "illegal immigration" and the measures advocated by non-state entities, with ‘survival’ often a catchword. On Google trends, issues related with immigration show perceptible traction since August. In such a charged environment, even minor incidents can escalate rapidly and have dramatic consequences.
In response, law enforcement agencies have sought to reassure the public by establishing security and monitoring mechanisms at all entry and exit points of the state. However, it is imperative that these measures are implemented comprehensively to prevent any gaps that could be exploited by other entities.
While the concerns raised by non-state actors are valid and demand immediate attention, it is essential for all stakeholders, including the general public, to approach the issue of immigration with a nuanced and rational perspective. To ensure a measured and effective resolution to these complex challenges, it is crucial to avoid impulsive emotional reactions and vigilantism, while law enforcement agencies must proactively and diligently fulfill their responsibilities. Crucially, the responses must extend beyond security measures.
For any feedback, drop a line to jamir.moa@gmail.com
