The Nagaland Legislative Assembly on September 4 held an extensive discussion on the urgent issue of safeguarding indigenous communities and addressing concerns over identity, land and opportunities in the face of growing migration pressures. The deliberation, raised as a “Matter of Urgent Public Importance” by NPF MLA Kuzholuzo Nienu, revolved around constitutional and customary safeguards including Article 371A, the Inner Line Permit (ILP), the Registration of Indigenous Inhabitants of Nagaland (RIIN), anomalies in reservation policies, gaps in enforcement and the need for collective responsibility in ensuring that constitutional and customary safeguards translate into real protection for future generations.
In his concluding remarks over Discussion on Matter of Urgent Public Importance pertaining to “Safeguarding the Indigenous Communities”, Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio said that he was encouraged by the concern expressed by all members over the rights, safety, protection and preservation of the rich cultural traditions and indigenous status of the Nagas. He informed that Nienu had earlier submitted to him a letter from the Northeast Indigenous People Association, which was subsequently referred to the Speaker for the House’s deliberation.
Tracing historical safeguards, Rio recalled that when the British first entered the Naga Hills in 1832, the Nagas resisted for over six decades, unlike much of the Indian subcontinent where kingdoms were swiftly subdued. He said although the British administered the Naga Hills after a peace treaty in 1879, they refrained from interfering in village-level institutions, acknowledging Nagas as unique and rich in their culture and traditions. To safeguard this, the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation (BEFR) Act of 1873 was enacted, which mandated Inner Line Permit (ILP) for outsiders, prohibited land ownership by non-locals, and restricted removal of ancestral artifacts.
Rio said this protective system continued after statehood, as reflected in the 16-Point Agreement and was reinforced under Article 371(A) of the Constitution. Article 371(A), he reminded, safeguards Naga religious and social practices, customary laws and procedures, administration of justice according to customary laws, and ownership and transfer of land and resources.
The Chief Minister also said that the British and later the Indian Constitution provided strong protections for Nagas, which was why Nagaland still retained the ILP regime. However, he said that present-day confusion over indigenous rights was partly because the government, civil societies, village leaders, and responsible individuals had not fully carried out their duties.
Download Nagaland Tribune app on Google Play
Highlighting concerns raised during the discussion and listening to suggestions from Dr Tseilhoutuo Rhutso regarding redefining backward and forward areas, tribes and reservation in jobs and higher education, he pointed to earlier committees—including the Banuo Committee (2005), Kevichüsa Committee (2008 and 2010), and Temjen Toy Committee—that had examined anomalies in reservations, and said a Cabinet Sub-committee headed by Deputy CM Y. Patton had also recommended a comprehensive review, though the 2021 Census was not conducted.
He informed that the next Census exercise would begin in 2026–2027 and urged collective effort involving government agencies, teachers, civil societies, tribal bodies, and churches to ensure accurate enumeration.
Addressing concerns raised by the Konyak Union and other tribal organisations, Rio acknowledged grievances over the roster system and assured that such matters would be studied in depth to find fair solutions. A commission had also been set up to examine reservation issues comprehensively, he said referring to the demand of several tribal hohos.
Rio warned against confusing indigenous inhabitants with permanent residents or migrants, citing examples of Tripura and Assam where indigenous people became minorities due to unchecked migration. He reiterated that in Nagaland, only village councils and local authorities could certify indigenous status, not the state government. He also reminded that 59 out of 60 Assembly seats were reserved for indigenous Nagas, with one seat kept open for all Indian citizens.
On RIIN, the Chief Minister clarified that village councils, GBs, women representatives, church leaders, and teachers were empowered to certify applicants. For non-Naga tribes such as Kuki, Kachari, Garo, and Mikir (Karbis), the cut-off year was 1963, while for Nepali-Gorkhas it was December 31, 1940. False certification, he warned, would invite criminal action against village authorities. Those refusing enumeration risked disqualification from government benefits and appointments, he explained.
Rio further explained the difference between indigenous, permanent residents, and temporary residents. He said those who came before statehood in 1963 could obtain permanent residency if they had genuine property records. Migrants arriving later could only be classified as temporary residents under ILP. Contractors, house owners, and village councils were instructed to register non-Naga workers, shopkeepers, and tenants, with 33% of registration fees returned to village councils for record maintenance. He clarified that ILP was not required for transit passengers or government servants with valid identity cards, while border residents from Assam and Karbi Anglong coming for education, healthcare, or work could avail short-term registrations.
He also welcomed suggestions like the Angami Public Organisation’s call for an app-based registration system, saying such innovations could serve as models for all districts.
On economic self-reliance, Rio stressed that Nagas must skill themselves and take over small businesses, otherwise migrants would continue filling that vacuum. He said simply chasing them away would create a vacuum and urged the youth to embrace entrepreneurship with state support schemes in health insurance and micro-finance, where entrepreneurs contributed only 10% equity while government and banks covered the rest.
He also highlighted tourism and agriculture as growth sectors, announcing that a Coffee Festival would be held during the upcoming Hornbill Festival, following recognition of Nagaland as a coffee-growing destination.
Rio urged members, officers, and citizens to shed a culture of constant complaint and instead work collectively to protect indigenous pride, culture, and livelihood. He maintained that Nagas had historically been protected under both British rule and the Indian Constitution, and that if united, nothing could threaten their status as indigenous people.
MLAs highlight concerns over ILP, RIIN, reservation policies, and migration pressures
Initiating the discussion, NPF MLA Kuzholuzo Nienu said protecting indigenous communities had become pressing due to migration and confusion over legal safeguards. He recalled that when Nagaland attained statehood, protective mechanisms like Article 371 (A) and the Inner Line Permit (ILP) were guaranteed, but stressed that enforcement had been weak.
Referring to the Registration of Indigenous Inhabitants of Nagaland (RIIN) exercise, he said the process must be streamlined to prevent misuse, while also respecting the rights of recognised non-Naga communities who had settled before 1963. He urged the House to come out with a clear resolution to safeguard future generations.
Advisor Jacob Zhimomi said the matter required urgent deliberation because it involved the very identity of Nagas. He underlined that the concept of “indigenous inhabitant” must not be diluted or confused with permanent residency. While acknowledging challenges in implementation, he cautioned against politicising the issue.
Zhimomi called for strengthening village authorities to ensure genuine certification and urged collective responsibility from legislators, civil society and citizens alike.
Supporting the motion, MLA Dr Neisatuo Mero noted that the influx of outsiders had created demographic and economic pressures. He pointed out that unless indigenous Nagas took up entrepreneurship and skilled professions, they would continue to be displaced by migrants in trade and small businesses.
Mero also stressed the need to sensitize youth on cultural pride and responsibilities, alongside legal protections.
MLA Dr Sukhato A. Sema highlighted the concerns of Eastern Nagaland, where porous borders and lack of economic opportunities had made the region particularly vulnerable to migrant influx. He appealed for equitable development and stronger monitoring mechanisms.
Sema further observed that indigenous protection must be holistic—covering not only jobs and education but also land, resources, and cultural heritage.
Advisor Kekhrie Yhome said that identity was at stake and said Nagas must be careful not to repeat the fate of indigenous groups elsewhere in the Northeast who had become minorities in their own land. He stressed that protective laws like ILP and RIIN should be strictly enforced, but at the same time urged introspection on why Nagas continued to depend on outsiders for basic economic activities.
“Safeguards alone will not be enough unless our people fill the economic vacuum,” he remarked.
MLA Dr Tseilhoutuo Rhutso raised concerns about the reservation system, pointing out anomalies in defining backward and forward tribes and regions. He argued that periodic review was necessary to ensure fairness and relevance.
Rhutso suggested a rational approach that balanced historical disadvantages with present realities, noting that several committees had already examined the issue but their recommendations needed to be acted upon. He also stressed the need for accurate census data in order to frame sound policies.
Advisor KT Sukhalu also participated in the discussion, reiterating that indigenous protections were the cornerstone of Nagaland’s statehood. He said loopholes in certification and lack of monitoring had weakened the system.
Sukhalu called for strengthening administrative mechanisms at the village level, while ensuring that customary institutions, church bodies and civil organisations played their roles responsibly. He further emphasised that the youth must be equipped with education and skills to compete in a changing economy, otherwise safeguards alone would not be sufficient.
Throughout the discussion, members repeatedly stressed that Nagas must learn from examples of states like Tripura and Assam where indigenous populations had lost their majority status. They urged the state government to ensure that RIIN, ILP, and reservation policies were implemented without compromise, while also providing clear guidelines to avoid confusion and misuse.
The debate reflected a broad consensus across party lines that safeguarding indigenous rights was central to the survival of Naga identity. Members underlined that laws and notifications were already in place, but needed stronger enforcement and collective responsibility.
