The raging controversy concerning the recognition of Rongmeis as one of the indigenous Naga Tribes of Nagaland seems to have an undercurrent sinister ramification. No one would deny that the Rongmeis are tribal people and simply acknowledging them as Nagas is a statement of the obvious and ought not to be a source of conflict. After all Rongmei is already a recognized Naga tribe under Scheduled Tribes order 1950. However, the important qualification that needs to be registered here is whether they ‘indigenously’ belong to the present State of Nagaland to warrant them the title “Nagas of Nagaland”. What must be kept in perspective is that each Tribe of Nagaland has a clear historical identity. The historical migratory progression of our ancestors, the establishment of traditional villages with definitive village boundaries jealously guarded through the ages, the affinity of a common dialect, customs and practices within a given community all adding up to the ultimate definition of a Tribe. Accordingly, every piece of land in Nagaland has a Tribal owner that has been passed down from generation to generation. This is the defining characteristic of each Tribe in Nagaland. The fact that the State Government does not own any land is the reinforcing factor. The enumerated E-Roll of 1963 is just another cut off boundary of administrative convenience for the purpose of protecting the rights of any settlers of the State from that period onwards. It however cannot in any way alter the ancestral history of land ownership on the basis of which the political boundary of the present State of Nagaland was carved out.
This brings us to the question of original place of settlement. Rongmeis may be a part of Zeliangrong as explained by the Home Commissioner. ‘When the State Government subsequently listed out the names of recognized Naga Tribes of Nagaland only Zeliang tribe was included’ perhaps because there was no significant historical presence of Rongmais in Nagaland. This was not a case of casual oversight but that of a deliberate act based on actual ground reality. The Memorandum of Home Department: Appointment ‘B’ Branch; No. APT-2/6/67/APB Dated Kohima the 25th Feb.1972 throws up a relevant scenario. It says (Quote) “It has been brought to the notice of the Government that certain Naga candidates such as Tangkhul, Mao and Zeliangraong etc. whose homes are from places outside the present jurisdiction of the State of Nagaland. A doubt has therefore arisen as to whether these categories of candidates can be treated as indigenous inhabitants of Nagaland and come under the purview of above mentioned 80% reservation. After proper examination, it has been decided by the Government that the provision for the reservation of 80% of all appointments or posts under the Government of Nagaland applies only to the Naga Tribes who are within the present jurisdiction of the State of Nagaland. This provision does not apply to the Nagas such as Tangkhul, Mao, Zeliangrong living outside the present jurisdiction of the State” (Unquote). The interesting thing to note here is that this Memorandum was signed by no other than Mr. L. Lungalang, Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland who belonged to the Zeliang tribe. Not only as a senior most responsible Officer of the Government but also a senior leader of his tribe, it is not possible that such an error of omission of the Rongmei would have been missed out. He was well aware that Zeliangrong had their roots in Manipur and Assam but not in Nagaland. Only Zeliangs minus Rongmeis had that legitimate claim of history in Nagaland. Therefore the question of rectifying the historical injustice does not seem to be justified. The surprising aspect is that the present Government has neither shown any respect for the existing Government order nor bothered to first officially nullify the same before issuing the present Notification. The Government now has two contradictory orders in hand. Which is to be followed?
Coming to the Rongmai having recognized villages under Peren District and other establishment in Kohima and Dimapur Districts: They may be residents of a particular place but the real historical ownership of land lies elsewhere. The sentiment expressed by the apex body of the Zaliangs “that these recognized villages were established with the clear knowledge that any settlers were agreed to abide by the custom and traditions of the parental land owners” provides us with a definitive status of the settlers sans history of their own comparable to any other Naga Tribes. The later time migratory status of the settlers cannot be equated with that of the original ancestral owners of the land. Thus it would stand to reason to conclude that Rongmais may be Nagas but they do not share the same indigenous historical legitimacy like the rest of the other Tribes of Nagaland within Nagaland. It causes distortion and imbalances the historical scale of justice to refer to Rongmeis as an indigenous Nagas Tribe of Nagaland. Home Department’s Notification No.HOME/SCTA-6/2007 (PTI) dated Kohima, the 4th Aug’2012 therefore needs a more elaborate clarity or better still, withdraw the same altogether. Recognizing the Rongmeis as one of the Naga tribe as a general reference is harmless exercise. However the scenario changes drastically the moment we qualify them as ‘Nagas of Nagaland’ as the above notification seems to imply for all practical purpose and intent. If the Rongmeis have been considered as “one of the indigenous tribes of neighbouring Manipur and Assam States”, that’s probably because they have their indigenous history in those States but not in Nagaland. Under the circumstances, Manipur and Assam will be least concerned with their presence since Rongmeis are the absolute minority and does not upset their social structure in any critical manner. The situation is entirely different in the case of Nagaland. There is no rational equation for Nagaland to blindly follow their example for the simple reason that we are predominantly a tribal State where an issue such as this touches the raw nerves and upsets the traditional equilibrium.
Therefore, acknowledging Rongmeis as a Naga Tribe should be acceptable, but beyond this point their status should necessarily be classified with the rest of the other inhabitants who have been in Nagaland on or before the enumeration of the electoral roll of 1963 in terms of rights and benefit entitlement of reservation for employment and education until such time all contiguous Nagas territories are integrated under the same political and administrative roof.
As Christians there is nothing wrong in nurturing a sentiment of brotherhood and goodwill being shared. However, we are living in a real world with a clear universal line drawn defining ownership and identity of belonging. The harsh reality is that it is the first and foremost obligatory duty of the State Government to protect the traditional rights of its’ legitimate inhabitants living within the political boundary of Nagaland State. The moment this awkward floodgate is opened up, Nagas of Nagaland will be submerged in the deluge of so many other Naga tribes, who have their indigenous history with the corollary rights and privileges being enjoyed elsewhere but want the same rights and privileges within Nagaland as equals because of a small presence without a historical base to bank upon. The fact that a Committee had been set up by the Government to review the claims of the Rongmei with a politically intended conclusion, will find a similar end result even in the pending cases of Maos and Tangkhuls. Such recognition forebodes an impending storm, may be even a tsunami. I certainly do not envy the plight of the Committee. In as far as they are concerned they are mere Government servants rarely given an option but to accomplish the political wish list directly or indirectly implied and toe the line. At the end of the day, the political class will only point their finger at the recommendation of the Committee when the final action draws flak. It is the responsibility of the policy makers to maintain a sensitive balanced in a matter such as this and have the courage and wisdom to resist the pressure of walking on egg shells even if it impedes someone else’s expansionist political ambitions. If not, the domino effect put into motion will have a devastating consequence. Even the blind can see this.
Khekiye K. Sema IAS (Rtd)
Forest Colony, Kohima
_________________________________________
Readers may please note that the contents of the articles, letters and opinions published do not reflect the outlook of this paper nor of the Editor in any form.
