By Dr H Kamkhenthang
Manipur distinguishes itself in definite characters into plain areas and hill areas having respectively geographical areas of 10% and 90% of the State. The hill areas surrounding the valley are the home of different ethnic groups who are the first people in an American term and are Scheduled tribes in the term of Indian context. They are also indigenous people in terms of United Nations Declarations. The Naga tribes in Ukhrul, Senapti, Tamenglong and Chandel districts and the Chin-Kuki-Mizo group of tribes have different sets of land system. The Naga land system is an evolved type of the land ownership system over that of the Chin-Kuki-Mizo (Zoumi) group of tribes having a population of more than three millions dispersing in three different countries like the Chin State of Burma, Mizoram State, Manipur, Tripura of India and Chittagong Hill tracks of Bangladesh. Unlike the Nagas of Manipur and Nagaland, the Chin-Kuki-Mizo (Zoumi) people are homogeneous group having the same structure of land system, hereditary chieftainship invested with ownership of land to the chief wherever they are. Bertram S.C and Truck H. N in The Chin Hills (preprinted in 1976): p 3 wrote:
The Government of the Naga tribes is distinctly democratic. Their chieftainships do not necessarily pass from father to son, but are practically dependent on the will of the tribesmen, and the Naga Chiefs are therefore without much individual power and their rule is based on the general approval of the clan. The Kuki chiefs, on the other hand, invariably inherit their position by the right of birth and take the initiative in all matters concerning the administration of their clansmen, by whom they are respected and feared. Of course, even among Kukis, it sometimes happens that a Chief fails to govern his clan with a firm hand or is so overbearing that he is deserted by his people, who fly to another village and to the protection of a more lenient ruler. The braves of a tribe, too, will not always forsake the excitement of the war-path at the command of a peace-loving Chief. It is true that the elders of the village, called “ Vaihawmte in the north and “Boite” in the south and by the Lushai officers, “Kharabari” and Mantri,” surround the person of the Chief, but although they will discuss questions together, they have no power to over-rule the decision of the Chief himself...”
The lands of the chief among the Chin-Kuki-Mizo group of tribes belong to the Chief is true in Mzoram, Manipur, Burma etc. A village belongs to the chief. At the time of asking a stranger about his village a man puts a question, Nang kua khua na hia? This literally means to whose village do you belong? The original correct answer to this kind of question have been to mention the name of the village chief followed by the term khua (village). This is an indication that the village and the village land belong to the chief in the traditional rights. In the system of land holding among the Nagas, there are individual ownerships of land with right of transfer by inheritance, sale and gift besides clan land, village community land. It is found that the lands of the autocratic chiefs of the Chin-Kuki-Mizo traditionally belong to them as well as Naga individual lands belong to the individual Nagas with right to transfer and to get compensation on eviction by Government. In a case Civil Rule No. 1331/90/90/91 in the Imphal Permanent Bench of the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh between the North Eastern Council, Shillong, the State of Manipur, the Deputy Commissioner, Ukhrul District versus Hundung victims of Development, the judgement was in favour of the petitioners whose lands had been acquisitioned by the North Eastern Council through the Government of Manipur for (1) Construction of Mini Cement Factory with an approach road (2) Construction of the Imphal-Ukhrul road and (3) Construction of the Nungshangkhong Mini Hydro Electricity power project. In the judgement and Order of this case it is noted at Sl. No. 25 as:
“We are here concerned with Hill areas of Ukhrul... the learned Judicial Commissioner held that there is no Government Khas land in the hill areas of Ukhrul. The ownership of land situated in the hill villages at Manipur vests in the villagers. They do not hold the land under the pleasure of the Government...,” The High Court in its Judgement directed that compensation should be paid with interest at the rate of 15% on the amount not paid or deposited before taking possession of land as prescribed under the proviso to Section 34 of the land Acquisition Act. Solatium shall also be paid at the rate of 30%. The extension of MLR and LR Act of 1960 in certain parts of the hill areas deprive the people of ownership of land based on tradition and customary practices. In Khuga Dam construction certain persons who are made genuine land owners only got compensation and those who hold land only on the basis of traditional practices and customary laws happen to be encroachers in their own lands.
There will be no expediency in devising land laws without properly studying the intricacies in various aspects of the people. Guidelines devised by Professor Malinowski in his study of land tenure system of the native peoples in the Micronesian islands is going to be the best model in the study of the land tenure system of the hill people of Manipur. The same principles applied by Stevenson in his study of the land tenure systems of the Central Chin Tribes in the present Falam district of the present Chin State in Burma may be adopted in our study and assessing the land tenures system of the ChinKuki-Mizo group of tribes and that of the Naga group of tribes in the hill areas of Manipur. Proper study of land system of the native people is needed in order to see the complicacies in the true perspectives. HNC Stevenson, FRAI, member of the Burma frontier Service in his book The economics of the Central Chin Tribes quoted a warning or an excellent lead given by Professor Malinowski while Stevenson himself gave his ideas and experiences on his works among the Central Chin Tribes. Stevenson wrote”
“In this analysis of local land tenure I follow humbly the excellent lead given by Malinowski in Coral Gardens and their Magic.”
“Professor Malinowski has uncovered what must be regarded as the fundamental factor in any land tenure enquiry, that is, the fallacy of attempting to assess tenure from its legal aspects alone”. He writes further in, (Vol.1, page 31 in his book, Coral Gardens and their Magic).
“We would lay down at once the rule that any attempt to study land tenure from a legal aspect alone must lead to unsatisfactory results. Land tenure cannot be defined or described without an exhaustive knowledge of the economic life of the natives. Again he mentioned (Vol. 1, page 319) as, “The complications of land tenure go further than this, as we know, the purely economic uses of land cannot be separated from rights of settlement, political claims, freedom of communication and transport; from territorial privileges connected with ceremonial, magical and religious life. No doubt the economic utilization of land forms the solid core of all these privileges and claims. But land tenure must be conceived in a more comprehensive manner; it is the relationship of man to soil in the widest sense, that is, in so far as it is laid down in native law and custom and in the measure in which it controls political life, affects the performance of public ceremonies and gives access to opportunities for recreation and sport, Man’s appointed and culturally defined place on his soil, his territorial citizenship, his type of residence, and those rights which underlie the various use of his soil for an organic whole of which the economic exploitation is but a part, albeit the most important part.”
The Chin-Kuki-Mizo people living in different countries have traditional land system. The basic elements in their land system are the same everywhere. The Meitei King claimed absolute ownership of lands within his territory. Das J.H. (Cf.1989 :14) says that the King can make extensive grants of lands to Brahmins, sepoys, priest, idols, his own relatives etc in the earlier period of Meitei land system. Basing on this concept of Meitei land system anthropologists and administrators all agreed that the land belongs to the Raja and that he could give away or retain land as he pleased in the valley. Lokendra, A. (Cf. 1997 : II -13) had shown nine different types of lands in the valley measuring a total area of 26,500 paris under cultivation in 19th century. Rent or revenue was collected only from 9,900 paris out of the total cultivated land of 26,500 paris. Of these 9 kinds of land, six types of lands were rent free land. The rent of the cultivated lands had been eaten away by the king and his men. Three types of lands are tax paying land consisting of only 2,200 paris.
The Chiefs among the Chin-Kuki-Mizo group of tribes also had absolute right over land. To Zahau Chin, studied by Stevenson, his land is Keimah ih ram meaning my own land. He said that the Chief was the master of the soil. The claim of the chief of Zahau Chin of Falam of the Central Chin State of Burma over the land as the owner of the land is ideally similar with the other Chin, Kuki, Mizo and Zoumi group of tribes elsewhere. The fact that the village chief is the absolute owner of the village land among the ChinKuki-Mizo group of tribes and individuals in the community among the Naga tribes and the former Metei King were the absolute owners of the land in their own ways without interference and any imposition. Ownership of land by the tribals is something like their universal rights under international law. This point will be clarified by a famous case called Mobo case in the Supreme Court of New Zealand in which the lands acquisitioned by the Queen of England had been reverted to the natives after a long legal battle.
The MLR and LR Act of 1960 is extended to the whole of Manipur except the hill areas but the provisions of the Act had been applied in as many as 1167 villages in four hill districts. Law Research Institute, Gauhati High Court observed many problems created by the extension of the act to the selected hill villages. Das J.N ( Cf.1989; 144) states thus:
The extension of MLR & LR Act 1960 to the village inhabited by the Kuki tribes has created many problems beside that of annual pattadars... but the customs relating to the land system of these villages are different... The villagers were his tenants, and they used to pay regular rents in kind besides other presents... Without abolishing the ownership rights of the Chiefs, how could these be brought directly into contact with State Government? Yet, this was done, -wrongly in our view...
The introduction of the MLR and LR Act in the midst of oppositions from the Chiefs and the public is natural for those who understand and comprehend the possible complications. It appears that any amount of persuasion of the hill people by the valley people to directly amend the land system of the hill areas and introduction of the MLR & LR Act of 1960 is the hill areas with a bait of making the hill plots mortgageable commodity for securing bank loans is an erroneous approach. The Gauhati High Court Research Institute found that the land systems prevailing in the hill are different from those prevailing in Manipur valley and observes as:
‘The MLR & LR Act 1960 is better suited to the villages of Manipur Valley than those of the hill districts. Even its well-meant provisions may create unforeseen complicacies, as have been seen in the few villages where it has been already extended. Different systems of inheritance and different methods of cultivation are followed among the different tribes and these have a direct bearing on the prevalent land-system, Rights over land everywhere are acquired either by clearing jungles or by inheritance or by transfer. Difference in these three methods creates differences in the land-system, too.’
Individuals as resident cultivator, as a hunter, as a fisher and so on have claims and rights as found by Stevenson particular among the Central Chin Tribes and the same is true in the cases of Manipur. The MLR and LR Act, 1960 cannot make a villager in the districts to be a land owner on the basis of his traditional system of land rights without first foregoing his traditional rights to the land of his forefather he has inherited by succession. Throughout the discussion above we mention about the rights of the chief and individuals relating to land, the extension of the said act without examining the complicacies is to nullify the rights and ownership of land permitted earlier by the chief to his tenants. In the extended area of the Act in certain parts of Churachandpur district there was a report that 15 plots of land allotted by the village chief of Saikot have been covered by allotment orders on payment of premium as per the relevant section of the Act. But there are 13 plot holders with permission of the chief of the village, occupying the plots of land for many years were treated as unauthorized encroachers of Government land. Such peculiar situations are being created as a result of the extension of the MLR and LR Act. No body wants to be a refugee in his own land and nobody wants to be an encroacher and unauthorized occupant on his own land. Under this situation the report of the Research Institute of Gauhati High Court observed as:
‘Tribal lands had not yet been taken by the Government as yet from the village chief and the community. How could the chiefs rights over the land be ignored? These rights have not yet been acquired by Government. Legislation for acquisition of Chiefs Right) Act, 1967 has been enacted but it had not been implemented yet. In Mizoram, a similar legislation called the Assam Lushai Hills District (Acquisition of Chiefs Rights) Act 1964 had been passed long ago and it was forthwith implemented. The chiefs and the headmen in the hill areas irk the treatment of their present positions while their rights are ignored but their co-operations are sought whenever a Government official comes on a visit to his village. They are in an ambivalent position. The Mizo chiefs (and the chiefs of the Chin tribes of Burma-unquoted) who had enjoyed the same kind of rights over the village lands as Kuki chiefs do now in Manipur have disappeared and the Mizoram State Government has now issued pattas to the erstwhile tenants of the Mizo chiefs. This shall have been and may still be the model for Manipur-fringe-villages to which MLR & LR Act 1960 has been extended.’
It has been found that the Chin-Kuki-Mizo group of tribes in Manipur, Mizoram, Burma and Chittagong Hill tracts of Bangladesh have the same structure of customary laws relating to social, economy, culture, land system etc. They need to be treated similarly on the same grounds. The traditional chiefs of Mizoram and that of the Chin State were compensated as the King of Manipur was given Privy purse. But the ChinKuki-Mizo chiefs in Manipur Hills were not given any sort of compensation as it was done in Mizoram and Burma. Compensation of land for the hereditary chief of the ChinKuki-Mizo is a sine quanon in order to abolish the chief right on land in the same manner their cognate tribes were meted out in Mizoram and in the Chin State. The said Act, if enforced steadily in a planned manner in certain selected pockets will deprive the tribesmen of their traditional lands and reduce them to landlessness. In addition to this the Naga tribes having a little evolved type of land system over the Chin-Kuki-Mizo group should be compensated whenever there is land acquisition of traditional land by government as it was done in the case of the Hundung Victims of development.
It is also a very high time on the part of the authority to rethink the present situation, in stead of holding the view that extension should be done gradually, in planned manner and in selected pockets only. A proper assessment and study of tribal land tenure system, rights and claims of the chiefs, individuals etc. not only for the legal application but in a comprehensive manner encompassing broader spectra as suggested and applied by Prof. Malinowsky and Stevenson already highlighted above is the need of the day.
[www.thesangaiexpress.com]
Manipur distinguishes itself in definite characters into plain areas and hill areas having respectively geographical areas of 10% and 90% of the State. The hill areas surrounding the valley are the home of different ethnic groups who are the first people in an American term and are Scheduled tribes in the term of Indian context. They are also indigenous people in terms of United Nations Declarations. The Naga tribes in Ukhrul, Senapti, Tamenglong and Chandel districts and the Chin-Kuki-Mizo group of tribes have different sets of land system. The Naga land system is an evolved type of the land ownership system over that of the Chin-Kuki-Mizo (Zoumi) group of tribes having a population of more than three millions dispersing in three different countries like the Chin State of Burma, Mizoram State, Manipur, Tripura of India and Chittagong Hill tracks of Bangladesh. Unlike the Nagas of Manipur and Nagaland, the Chin-Kuki-Mizo (Zoumi) people are homogeneous group having the same structure of land system, hereditary chieftainship invested with ownership of land to the chief wherever they are. Bertram S.C and Truck H. N in The Chin Hills (preprinted in 1976): p 3 wrote:
The Government of the Naga tribes is distinctly democratic. Their chieftainships do not necessarily pass from father to son, but are practically dependent on the will of the tribesmen, and the Naga Chiefs are therefore without much individual power and their rule is based on the general approval of the clan. The Kuki chiefs, on the other hand, invariably inherit their position by the right of birth and take the initiative in all matters concerning the administration of their clansmen, by whom they are respected and feared. Of course, even among Kukis, it sometimes happens that a Chief fails to govern his clan with a firm hand or is so overbearing that he is deserted by his people, who fly to another village and to the protection of a more lenient ruler. The braves of a tribe, too, will not always forsake the excitement of the war-path at the command of a peace-loving Chief. It is true that the elders of the village, called “ Vaihawmte in the north and “Boite” in the south and by the Lushai officers, “Kharabari” and Mantri,” surround the person of the Chief, but although they will discuss questions together, they have no power to over-rule the decision of the Chief himself...”
The lands of the chief among the Chin-Kuki-Mizo group of tribes belong to the Chief is true in Mzoram, Manipur, Burma etc. A village belongs to the chief. At the time of asking a stranger about his village a man puts a question, Nang kua khua na hia? This literally means to whose village do you belong? The original correct answer to this kind of question have been to mention the name of the village chief followed by the term khua (village). This is an indication that the village and the village land belong to the chief in the traditional rights. In the system of land holding among the Nagas, there are individual ownerships of land with right of transfer by inheritance, sale and gift besides clan land, village community land. It is found that the lands of the autocratic chiefs of the Chin-Kuki-Mizo traditionally belong to them as well as Naga individual lands belong to the individual Nagas with right to transfer and to get compensation on eviction by Government. In a case Civil Rule No. 1331/90/90/91 in the Imphal Permanent Bench of the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh between the North Eastern Council, Shillong, the State of Manipur, the Deputy Commissioner, Ukhrul District versus Hundung victims of Development, the judgement was in favour of the petitioners whose lands had been acquisitioned by the North Eastern Council through the Government of Manipur for (1) Construction of Mini Cement Factory with an approach road (2) Construction of the Imphal-Ukhrul road and (3) Construction of the Nungshangkhong Mini Hydro Electricity power project. In the judgement and Order of this case it is noted at Sl. No. 25 as:
“We are here concerned with Hill areas of Ukhrul... the learned Judicial Commissioner held that there is no Government Khas land in the hill areas of Ukhrul. The ownership of land situated in the hill villages at Manipur vests in the villagers. They do not hold the land under the pleasure of the Government...,” The High Court in its Judgement directed that compensation should be paid with interest at the rate of 15% on the amount not paid or deposited before taking possession of land as prescribed under the proviso to Section 34 of the land Acquisition Act. Solatium shall also be paid at the rate of 30%. The extension of MLR and LR Act of 1960 in certain parts of the hill areas deprive the people of ownership of land based on tradition and customary practices. In Khuga Dam construction certain persons who are made genuine land owners only got compensation and those who hold land only on the basis of traditional practices and customary laws happen to be encroachers in their own lands.
There will be no expediency in devising land laws without properly studying the intricacies in various aspects of the people. Guidelines devised by Professor Malinowski in his study of land tenure system of the native peoples in the Micronesian islands is going to be the best model in the study of the land tenure system of the hill people of Manipur. The same principles applied by Stevenson in his study of the land tenure systems of the Central Chin Tribes in the present Falam district of the present Chin State in Burma may be adopted in our study and assessing the land tenures system of the ChinKuki-Mizo group of tribes and that of the Naga group of tribes in the hill areas of Manipur. Proper study of land system of the native people is needed in order to see the complicacies in the true perspectives. HNC Stevenson, FRAI, member of the Burma frontier Service in his book The economics of the Central Chin Tribes quoted a warning or an excellent lead given by Professor Malinowski while Stevenson himself gave his ideas and experiences on his works among the Central Chin Tribes. Stevenson wrote”
“In this analysis of local land tenure I follow humbly the excellent lead given by Malinowski in Coral Gardens and their Magic.”
“Professor Malinowski has uncovered what must be regarded as the fundamental factor in any land tenure enquiry, that is, the fallacy of attempting to assess tenure from its legal aspects alone”. He writes further in, (Vol.1, page 31 in his book, Coral Gardens and their Magic).
“We would lay down at once the rule that any attempt to study land tenure from a legal aspect alone must lead to unsatisfactory results. Land tenure cannot be defined or described without an exhaustive knowledge of the economic life of the natives. Again he mentioned (Vol. 1, page 319) as, “The complications of land tenure go further than this, as we know, the purely economic uses of land cannot be separated from rights of settlement, political claims, freedom of communication and transport; from territorial privileges connected with ceremonial, magical and religious life. No doubt the economic utilization of land forms the solid core of all these privileges and claims. But land tenure must be conceived in a more comprehensive manner; it is the relationship of man to soil in the widest sense, that is, in so far as it is laid down in native law and custom and in the measure in which it controls political life, affects the performance of public ceremonies and gives access to opportunities for recreation and sport, Man’s appointed and culturally defined place on his soil, his territorial citizenship, his type of residence, and those rights which underlie the various use of his soil for an organic whole of which the economic exploitation is but a part, albeit the most important part.”
The Chin-Kuki-Mizo people living in different countries have traditional land system. The basic elements in their land system are the same everywhere. The Meitei King claimed absolute ownership of lands within his territory. Das J.H. (Cf.1989 :14) says that the King can make extensive grants of lands to Brahmins, sepoys, priest, idols, his own relatives etc in the earlier period of Meitei land system. Basing on this concept of Meitei land system anthropologists and administrators all agreed that the land belongs to the Raja and that he could give away or retain land as he pleased in the valley. Lokendra, A. (Cf. 1997 : II -13) had shown nine different types of lands in the valley measuring a total area of 26,500 paris under cultivation in 19th century. Rent or revenue was collected only from 9,900 paris out of the total cultivated land of 26,500 paris. Of these 9 kinds of land, six types of lands were rent free land. The rent of the cultivated lands had been eaten away by the king and his men. Three types of lands are tax paying land consisting of only 2,200 paris.
The Chiefs among the Chin-Kuki-Mizo group of tribes also had absolute right over land. To Zahau Chin, studied by Stevenson, his land is Keimah ih ram meaning my own land. He said that the Chief was the master of the soil. The claim of the chief of Zahau Chin of Falam of the Central Chin State of Burma over the land as the owner of the land is ideally similar with the other Chin, Kuki, Mizo and Zoumi group of tribes elsewhere. The fact that the village chief is the absolute owner of the village land among the ChinKuki-Mizo group of tribes and individuals in the community among the Naga tribes and the former Metei King were the absolute owners of the land in their own ways without interference and any imposition. Ownership of land by the tribals is something like their universal rights under international law. This point will be clarified by a famous case called Mobo case in the Supreme Court of New Zealand in which the lands acquisitioned by the Queen of England had been reverted to the natives after a long legal battle.
The MLR and LR Act of 1960 is extended to the whole of Manipur except the hill areas but the provisions of the Act had been applied in as many as 1167 villages in four hill districts. Law Research Institute, Gauhati High Court observed many problems created by the extension of the act to the selected hill villages. Das J.N ( Cf.1989; 144) states thus:
The extension of MLR & LR Act 1960 to the village inhabited by the Kuki tribes has created many problems beside that of annual pattadars... but the customs relating to the land system of these villages are different... The villagers were his tenants, and they used to pay regular rents in kind besides other presents... Without abolishing the ownership rights of the Chiefs, how could these be brought directly into contact with State Government? Yet, this was done, -wrongly in our view...
The introduction of the MLR and LR Act in the midst of oppositions from the Chiefs and the public is natural for those who understand and comprehend the possible complications. It appears that any amount of persuasion of the hill people by the valley people to directly amend the land system of the hill areas and introduction of the MLR & LR Act of 1960 is the hill areas with a bait of making the hill plots mortgageable commodity for securing bank loans is an erroneous approach. The Gauhati High Court Research Institute found that the land systems prevailing in the hill are different from those prevailing in Manipur valley and observes as:
‘The MLR & LR Act 1960 is better suited to the villages of Manipur Valley than those of the hill districts. Even its well-meant provisions may create unforeseen complicacies, as have been seen in the few villages where it has been already extended. Different systems of inheritance and different methods of cultivation are followed among the different tribes and these have a direct bearing on the prevalent land-system, Rights over land everywhere are acquired either by clearing jungles or by inheritance or by transfer. Difference in these three methods creates differences in the land-system, too.’
Individuals as resident cultivator, as a hunter, as a fisher and so on have claims and rights as found by Stevenson particular among the Central Chin Tribes and the same is true in the cases of Manipur. The MLR and LR Act, 1960 cannot make a villager in the districts to be a land owner on the basis of his traditional system of land rights without first foregoing his traditional rights to the land of his forefather he has inherited by succession. Throughout the discussion above we mention about the rights of the chief and individuals relating to land, the extension of the said act without examining the complicacies is to nullify the rights and ownership of land permitted earlier by the chief to his tenants. In the extended area of the Act in certain parts of Churachandpur district there was a report that 15 plots of land allotted by the village chief of Saikot have been covered by allotment orders on payment of premium as per the relevant section of the Act. But there are 13 plot holders with permission of the chief of the village, occupying the plots of land for many years were treated as unauthorized encroachers of Government land. Such peculiar situations are being created as a result of the extension of the MLR and LR Act. No body wants to be a refugee in his own land and nobody wants to be an encroacher and unauthorized occupant on his own land. Under this situation the report of the Research Institute of Gauhati High Court observed as:
‘Tribal lands had not yet been taken by the Government as yet from the village chief and the community. How could the chiefs rights over the land be ignored? These rights have not yet been acquired by Government. Legislation for acquisition of Chiefs Right) Act, 1967 has been enacted but it had not been implemented yet. In Mizoram, a similar legislation called the Assam Lushai Hills District (Acquisition of Chiefs Rights) Act 1964 had been passed long ago and it was forthwith implemented. The chiefs and the headmen in the hill areas irk the treatment of their present positions while their rights are ignored but their co-operations are sought whenever a Government official comes on a visit to his village. They are in an ambivalent position. The Mizo chiefs (and the chiefs of the Chin tribes of Burma-unquoted) who had enjoyed the same kind of rights over the village lands as Kuki chiefs do now in Manipur have disappeared and the Mizoram State Government has now issued pattas to the erstwhile tenants of the Mizo chiefs. This shall have been and may still be the model for Manipur-fringe-villages to which MLR & LR Act 1960 has been extended.’
It has been found that the Chin-Kuki-Mizo group of tribes in Manipur, Mizoram, Burma and Chittagong Hill tracts of Bangladesh have the same structure of customary laws relating to social, economy, culture, land system etc. They need to be treated similarly on the same grounds. The traditional chiefs of Mizoram and that of the Chin State were compensated as the King of Manipur was given Privy purse. But the ChinKuki-Mizo chiefs in Manipur Hills were not given any sort of compensation as it was done in Mizoram and Burma. Compensation of land for the hereditary chief of the ChinKuki-Mizo is a sine quanon in order to abolish the chief right on land in the same manner their cognate tribes were meted out in Mizoram and in the Chin State. The said Act, if enforced steadily in a planned manner in certain selected pockets will deprive the tribesmen of their traditional lands and reduce them to landlessness. In addition to this the Naga tribes having a little evolved type of land system over the Chin-Kuki-Mizo group should be compensated whenever there is land acquisition of traditional land by government as it was done in the case of the Hundung Victims of development.
It is also a very high time on the part of the authority to rethink the present situation, in stead of holding the view that extension should be done gradually, in planned manner and in selected pockets only. A proper assessment and study of tribal land tenure system, rights and claims of the chiefs, individuals etc. not only for the legal application but in a comprehensive manner encompassing broader spectra as suggested and applied by Prof. Malinowsky and Stevenson already highlighted above is the need of the day.
[www.thesangaiexpress.com]
No comments:
Post a Comment