Ngaranmi Shimray’s observations are incoherent and devoid of truth

K. Yugindro Singh, Sh Janaki Sharma & M Manihar Singh (Independent Researchers)
Apropos Ngaranmi Shimray’s article entitled “Rebuttal to the article ‘Absurd rebuttal of Ngaranmi Shimray’s article Meetei/Meitei’s exclusion from ST list-queer controversies’ by K Yugindro Singh & Others: The Meitei may have missed the bus” published in The Sangai Express (E/ Edition) on 15th November 2023. After a careful reading of the article authored by Ngaranmi Shimray, it has been noticed that the observations made by him are devoid of truth. As the inclusion of a community in the Scheduled Tribe list is a perpetual process under Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 342 of the Constitution of India, his assertion that “The Meitei may have missed the bus” is quite fussy and implicitly or explicitly devoid of truth circumventing the arguments with lots of hackneyed words apart from dwelling at large on blank remarks, irrelevant to the points under rebuttal. Hence, we put forth the following logical arguments based on illustrative and referable documents which are almost reiterated in earlier publications:
1. Ngaranmi Shimray cannot term his article dated 15th November 2023 as a rebuttal to our article ‘Absurd rebuttal of Ngaranmi Shimray’s article Meetei/Meitei’s exclusion from ST list-queer controversies’ simply on flimsy ground as he has failed to appropriately argue with justifications rather than beating around the bush against the 11 (eleven) points, raised in our article.
2. Being himself a person already listed as a Scheduled Tribe of Manipur, Ngaranmi Shim-ray has no moral right or concern to comment on the ongoing movement for inclusion of Meitei in the ST list as the Central/State Govt. authorities at different levels are the exclusive adjudicators to decide its merit, following the established norms and patterns in letter and spirit. Raising vociferous but better avoidable objection from a brethren community with a gnawing misery against a community in the same pool, corresponding to the stimulating move on its inclusion in the ST list of Manipur, is quite preposterous.
3. Ngaranmi Shimray’s observation that “There are still some Meitei Hindus who are included in the list of Scheduled Castes (SC)in the Order of 1951” is entirely false expression of his ideas as the said Order of 1951 did not specify belongingness of any community of Manipur to Scheduled Castes (SC). The Schedule to the Constitution Order of 1951 in respect of Manipur reads as: “PART VIII – MANIPUR, Throughout the State: - Castes, races or tribes, or parts of, or groups within, castes or tribes specified as Scheduled Castes in relation to the State of Assam.”
4. Ngaranmi Shimray’s remarks that “The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 provides in paragraph 3 that only a member of Hindu or Sikh religion shall be deemed to be a member of Scheduled Caste” is concocted as paragraph 3 of the actual The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 reads as “3. Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 2. no person who professes a religion different from Hinduism shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste”.
5. Ngaranmi Shimray’s observation that any community who professes Hinduism is not eligible for inclusion in the ST list is untenable because ST is open to all communities irrespective of caste, creed, and religion across the country. The idea that Meitei cannot claim for ST on the pretext of being a mix of OBC and SC is more untenable as the status of OBC and SC shall be washed off automatically once Meitei is notified as a ST. Though they profess Hinduism, Meitei are not of Hindu descent, being the actual descendants of the aborigines of Manipur. Notably, the Caste System of Mainland India does not prevail in the Meitei society.
6. Ngaranmi Shimray’s assertion that “Seven SC groups from the Hindu Meitei social order of Manipur fulfilled the requisite conditions and listed as SC in 1950-51 Order” is entirely untenable for the reasons: (i) No community from Manipur is listed in the Constitution Orders of 1950 and 1951 and (ii) Meitei had never been with seven SC groups. So whatever arguments being protracted by him based on the above unfounded assertions are all infructuous. It is only in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Modification) Modification Order, 1956 dated 29th October 1956 that seven communities viz., (i) Dhupi or Dhobi, (ii) Lois, (iii) Muchi or Ravidas, (iv) Namasudra, (v) Patni, (vi) Sutradhar and (vii) Yaithibi” were notified in the first Scheduled Castes list of Manipur. Out of these seven communities, only two communities viz., Lois and and Yaithibi are affiliations of Meitei and the rest are migrant Hindu communities from the mainland India who had settled in Manipur.
7. In the matter pertaining to the revision of the lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the mandate of authority assigned to the Backward Classes Commission (BCC), popularly known as Kaka Kalelkar Commission reads as: ‘The President of India was pleased to direct the commission to examine the lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as already published under his order and to suggest any revision of those lists, if on enquiry it was found that such a revision was necessary’ (See Chapter IX: Revision of Lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, page 154 of the BCC Report Vol. I). This constraint faced by the Kaka Kalelkar Commission is reflected in the Preface of the said QUESTIONNAIRE circulated by the Commission on 15th June 1953 wherein it was stated that “We have only to suggest if any modifications in the list of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are necessary in order to make them exhaustive, and up-to-date”(See page 220 of the BCC Report Vol. I). The response sought in question nos. 5 and 6 under Section II: Revision of Lists was for the purpose of making the then existing lists of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes of Manipur exhaustive and up-to-date.
8. In respect of ‘Scheduled Tribes’ of Assam and Manipur as provided in the ‘Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations’ on Page 209 of the BCC Report Vol. I, the Commission stated that “All the tribes should be listed by their own particular names in the hilly areas of Assam and Manipur”. The lists of Scheduled Tribes of Manipur existing at that point of time are those mentioned in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) (Part C States) Order, 1951 dated 20th September 1951 viz., (i) Any Kuki tribe, (ii) Any Lushai tribe and (iii) Any Naga tribe. Against these three ambiguous tribe names, the Kaka Kalelkar Commission recommended 27 tribes by their own names for inclusion in the Scheduled Tribes list of Manipur. The list of the 27 tribes recommended by the Commission is enshrined on pages 231-232 of of the BCC Report Vol. II Commission’s report and comprises of “1. Aimol 2. Anal (Moyon, Monsang) 3. Angami 4. Chiru 5. Chothe 6. Gangte 7. Hmar 8. Kabui 9. Kacha Naga 10. Khoirao 11. Koireng 12. Kom 13. Kuki 14. Lamgang 15. Lushai 16. Maram 17. Maring 18. Mao 19. Naga 20. Paite (Simte) 21. Purum 22. Ralte 23. Sema 24. Suhte 25. Tangkhul 26. Thadou 27. Vaiphei”.
9. The Kaka Kalelkar Commission submitted its report to the President of India on 30th March 1955. Quite surprisingly, a major blooper is found to have occurred while notifying the revised ST list of Manipur under the Constitution Order dated 29th October 1956 as the list contains 29 tribes instead of 27 tribes recommended by the Commission.
The names of 29 tribes included in the ST list of Manipur notified under the Constitution Order dated 29th October 1956 are: “1. Aimol, 2. Anal, 3. Angami, 4. Chiru, 5. Chothe, 6. Gangte, 7. Hmar, 8. Kabui, 9. Kacha Naga, 10. Khoirao, 11. Koireng, 12. Kom, 13. Lamgang, 14. Any Mizo (Lushai) tribes, 15. Maram, 16. Maring, 17. Mao, 18. Monsang, 19. Moyon, 20. Paite, 21. Purum, 22. Ralte, 23. Sema, 24. Simte, 25. Suhte, 26. Tangkhul, 27. Thadou, 28. Vaiphei, 29. Zou”. The two extra tribe names, added in the ST list of Manipur are ‘Any Mizo (Lushai) tribes’ and ‘Zou’. These extra tribe names were added clandestinely by T Kipgen, the then Home Secretary, Government of Manipur as evident from his letter dated 30th November 1955 communicated to the Central Government. The presence of two extra names in the ST list of Manipur are strongly objectionable for the following reasons: (i) The two tribe names viz., ‘Any Mizo (Lushai) tribes’ and ‘Zou’ were not recommended by the Kaka Kalelkar Commission, (ii) The ambiguous name ‘Any Mizo (Lushai) Tribes’ was contradictory to the recommendation of the Kalelkar Commission which emphasized that “All the tribes should be listed by their own particular names in the hilly areas of Assam and Manipur” and (iii) The tribe name ‘Zou’ did not appear in all census data of Manipur before its merger into India on 15th October 1949. 10. Having Meitei not been included in the list of Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) (Part C States) Order, 1951 dated 20th September 1951 and the constraints faced by the Kaka Kalelkar Commission as per the President’s direction, the Commission neither had the authority to examine the case of Meitei tribe for inclusion in the revised list of tribes of Manipur nor had the authority to recommend the Meitei tribe to the President. Accordingly, the assertion of Ngaranmi Shimray that ‘It was an open invitation to give representations for inclusion in “the existing lists of any tribe, caste or community’ falls entirely in the domain of absurdity in so far as the recommendation of the Commission for inclusion of Meitei in the revised ST list of Manipur is concerned.
11. Sanskritization and consequential changes in cultures and traditions do not come within the ambit of the definition of Scheduled Tribes. ‘Scheduled Tribes’ are defined by Clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India and according to which ‘Scheduled Tribes’ are those tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are deemed under Article 342 of the Constitution.
Scheduled Tribes are notified under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. Since the British Government of India had already recognized Meitei as a primitive hill tribe of the erstwhile Assam Province, as may be verified from many sources of authority such as census reports published by the British government of India, various books and research articles authored by contemporary British ethnographers, linguists and administrators, it still remains as an undisputable truism that Meitei is an aboriginal tribe and hence, Meitei is eligible for inclusion in the ST list under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. It may be worthwhile to note here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Judgement dated 5th January 2011 passed in Kailas & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. has observed that the Adivasis (Scheduled Tribes) are the descendants of the original inhabitants of India.
12. The Government of India had on 15.6.1999 (and further revised on 25.6.2002) approved the modalities for determining claims for inclusion in and other modifications in the list of STs. As per these modalities, only proposals for inclusion in or excluded from, the list of STs recommended and justified by the State Government concerned and agreed to by the Registrar General of India (RGI) as well as the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) are considered for amendment of legislation. All the actions are taken as per the modalities. The recommendation of the concerned State Government is pre-requisite to process the case further. The following criteria set out by the Lakur Committee in 1965 viz., (i) indications of primitive traits (ii) distinctive culture (iii) geographical isolation (iv) shyness of contact with the community at large, and (v) backwardness are basics for specification of a community as Scheduled Tribe.
13. Vide six letters bearing Nos. 19020/05/2012-C&LM dated 29.05.2013, 12026/09/2013-C&LM(E:661) dated 06.03.2019, 12026/09/2013-C&LM dated 23.07.2021, 12026/09/2013-C&LM(E:661) dated 15.02.2022, 12026/09/2013-C&LM(E:661) dated 07.04.2022 and 12026/09/2013-C&LM(E:661) dated 31.05.2022, the Government of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs have been in continuance with repeated requests to the Government of Manipur to furnish the recommendation, under prolonged pendency, for inclusion of ‘Meitei/Meetei’ community in the Scheduled Tribes list of Manipur. Thus it speaks for itself, debunking his assertion “The Meiteis may have missed the bus” that the bus is still not missed, instead still invites Meitei on the journey. Now what matters most is the pending recommendation from the side of the Government of Manipur.
14. The Meiteis are the descendants of the aborigines of Manipur and the resultant of the amalgamation of seven clans/tribes called Yek-Salais and the Hindu Brahmins who settled in Manipur after intermingling matrimonial relationship with Meitei thereby adapting themselves to Meitei culture and traditions. Though Meitei profess Hinduism, they are not of Hindu descent and so, the concept of Kshatriya Caste prevalent in the ladder of Hindu Castes of mainland India is not applicable to the Meiteis in the true sense of the concept. In his book ‘History of Assam’, E. A. Gait wrote about the then Meitei (Manipuri) as follows: “They pretend to be Kshatriyas, and are supported in their claim by the degraded Brahmans who serve them, and who, after giving the State its present name and identifying it with the Manipur mentioned in the Mahabharat, have invented a legend that the people are descended from the hero Arjun by a Naga woman, with whom he cohabited during his alleged sojourn in this neighbourhood” (1906. pp.264). Likewise, L.A. Waddell, In his research article entitled ‘The Tribes of the Brahmaputra: A Contribution on their Physical Types and Affinities’ published in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Part III (1900, pp.60-61) wrote: “MITAI: This Indo-Chinese tribe is fast becoming Hinduised into a caste, claiming to be Kshatriyas or Rajputs, though its members are not admitted to be such by orthodox Hindus.”
Therefore, the remarks made by W. Nipamacha Singh, a former Chef Minister of Manipur are purely a manifestation of his personal chauvinistic articulation on Meitei, but are found to be absolute lacking factual support.
15. The English national daily, The Hindu in its e-newspaper published on 15th March 2023 reported that the Ministry of Tribal Affairs while responding to a question in the Rajya Sabha, did mention that the current procedure for inclusion in the ST list was adequate. This, in turn, means the amended modalities of 1999 of the Govt. of India for inclusion in the ST list and the criteria set out by the Lokur Committee in 1965 for specification of a community as ST list are currently alive. Hence, it is undoubtedly clear that Meitei fulfils the five criteria of the Lokur Committee for specification as a as a Scheduled Tribe viz., (i) Indications of primitive traits, (ii) Distinctive culture, (iii) Geographical isolation, (iv) Shyness of contact with the community at large and (v) Backwardness.
Thus, the mandatory obligation on the part of the State Government is to justify the recommendation based on an ethnography report of Meitei covering the five criteria of the Lokur Committee while the merits of the issue are to be adjudicated by the authorities at different levels of the Central Government, as per established norms and patterns.
16. To bring down the curtain once for all with illustrative and referable documents, the respected Editor of the esteemed daily THE SANGAI EXPRESS is cordially requested to kindly cause an ‘Interface’, if deemed feasible at the Manipur Press Club, Imphal in order to unravel the confusion as we become totally jaded by the fly-shuttle-like repeated-rebuttal-service in the more or less similar rebuttal. Till then, articles from both sides relating to the issue be kept shrouded in the cloak of the Press with a proverbial clause that “Arguments decide who is right and debates decide what is right”. This brings the curtain down on the issue from our side.