Dominic Leo

Abstract

This paper is an attempt to understand and integrate the history of land and its relationship with various identities, space and place according to the Poumai Naga narrative. The Poumai Naga spirit and strength has deep roots in land, water and air. For the Poumai Naga, land is revered and sacred – it is the nurturing mother. Festivals and day to day life of the Poumai Naga revolve in connection to nature and cosmology. Land tenure is interlinked with traditional customary laws including ancestral frames of morality and access, ownership and mutual aid to ones lineage. With active enforcement of the Manipur Land Revenue & Land Reform Act, 1960, land has become a metaphor of litigation and the cause of pseudo-wars between the tribal and non-tribal, i.e., the Meiteis. The shifts in the Land Reform Act is potentially perplexing, thus understanding the relativity of land rights according to tribal customary laws and traditional cultures can bring potential positive.

An Indian will never ask to what nation or tribe or body of people another Indian belongs to but “to what land do you belong and how are your land (…) named?” Thus the very name of the Indian is his title deed to his home

. . . John Wesley Powell

Introduction

The struggle and conflict over land is not a new phenomenon. Millions who have been deprived of their land are engaged in a daily struggle to regain their rights, dignity and way of life. The ILO convention on indigenous and tribal peoples, 1989 (No. 169) recognises the right of ownership and protection of land. Articles 13 to 19 contain provisions on the land rights of indigenous and tribal peoples. It recognizes and understands the deeply spiritual relationship between tribal people and their land as basic to their existence as such, and to all their beliefs, customs, traditions and culture and their identity. In the Indian context, as experienced in the past with the land tenure system, land is an economic power and an important factor capable of determining one’s social status and a potential means to advance one’s social status as well.

In the tribal world with special reference to tribal areas in North East India, land and its resources are under attack by State machinery, private corporations and neighbouring non-tribal majorities. These struggles with neighbouring non-tribal majorities are becoming the essence of conflicts like the Kuki-Paite conflict in Manipur, Bodoland struggles in Assam, Dimasa-Hmar conflict in Assam, Kuki-Naga conflict, etc (Fernandes & Barbora, 2009). In the midst of the struggles and conflicts, Manipur has emerged as a conflict zone due to assertion of tribal rights against state machinery and assertion of ethnic identity and rights among the three struggling communities, i.e., the Naga, the Kuki and the Meitei (also known as Manipuri). These ethnic communities compete and contest to carve out their exclusive political space through ethnic mobilization, leading to ethnic conflict. The Naga fight for political space defined in terms of Nagalim and United Naga Council (UNC) demand for an alternative arrangement outside the Manipur state, the Kukis on the other hand demand for Kukiland i.e. a separate state within the Indian Union, later readjusted to demand for a separate district of Sadar Hill. The Meiteis however assert for a Manipuri identity or pan-Manipuri protection of territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state. Every ethnic community in the state asserts their rights and often clashes with one another. For instance, the Nagas are opposed to the creation of Sadar Hill District for Kukis, Meiteis are against to the demands of the Nagas for an alternate arrangement, Hmars and Paites are fighting for their identity within the Kukis etc.

The territorial politics further enrages and isolates the tribals when the majority community ensures their hegemonic discourse prevails through enactment and regulation of uniform land laws. Among these land laws are The Manipur Land Revenue & Land Reform Act, 1960 and amendment of several Acts like The Manipur State Hill Peoples (Administration) Regulation, 1947, The Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956 (latest Amendment in 2011), The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971 (latest Amendment in 2008, 2010). It further alienates tribes when the state government instead of promoting rights of the tribes, their customary laws and safeguarding tribal land, enacts laws and frame policies that give legitimate control over tribal territory.

The assertions for territorial rights by tribes irrespective of their differences, especially among the Nagas can be traced back to the coming of the British in the early part of the nineteenth century with the Treaty of Yandabo, 1826. In the Treaty of Yandabo, the Manipur King was asked to pay a yearly tribute of Rs.300, 000 to the British Crown and the Manipuri subjects were supplied with 3000 muzzle loading guns. This Treaty became a defining event in the Naga – Manipur relationship as the Manipuri King later ransacked many Naga villages, including the Kohima village in 1852 using this new weapon (Xaxa, 2011). However, the history of the Naga or for that matter, the Poumai Naga did not begin with the fall of the Manipur Kingdom under the British Imperialist. On the contrary irrefutable history reports shows that long before Manipuris settled down in the present Imphal valley, the Nagas were already firmly settled in the mountains and hills of what is presently created as states in India called Nagaland, Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh (UNC Working Group 2006 and Kaka, Iralu 2011).

Many arguments such as the writing of Sir Robert Reid, the then Governor of Assam (1883-1941), P.B. Pemberton, another British administrator writing in 1827 under the caption ‘A Singular Race, wrote about the Naga tribes thus:

Various attempts were made by the Rajah of Manipur, Kachar and Tripperah to reduce this savage to a state of vassalage, but uniformly without success. They steadily refused to acknowledge allegiance to either power.

Sir James Johnstone, the Political Officer of Manipur, in his writing (1870’s) clearly stated the boundary disputes between the Manipur and Naga:

There was a long boundary dispute between Manipur and the Naga Hills. The boundary has been most arbitrarily settled by us when the survey was carried out, so far as a certain point, beyond that it was vague. Manipur claimed territory which we certainly did not possess, and which she had visited from time to time, but did not actually hold in subjugation.

In light of these historical facts, on August 27, 1948, when some Nagas were staging a peaceful procession at Mao Gate refusing to pay house taxes to the Manipur King and refusing to be a part of Manipur, they were fired upon by the Assam Rifles killing Asusu Heponi, Modo Kholi, and Mahrili Lorhu and seriously injuring another four Nagas (Assam Tribune, 28 th August 1948).

Narrating the Poumai teidei

Poumai teidei (teidei meaning territory or country) is geographically well defined, sharing borders with neighbouring tribal territories. The boundary is well demarcated either by the roughed hill terrain slopping down or by rivers and streams. The Poumai teidei shares borders with territory of the Angami and Chakhasang in Nagaland on the north, the Thangals (Koirengs) and Kukis (Senapati district, Manipur) on the south, the Mao and Maram (Senapati district, Manipur) on the west and the Chakhesang of Phek district in Nagaland and Thangkhul (Ukhrul district, Manipur) on the east. The Poumai Naga territory is divided into three circles namely the Paomata Circle, Lepaonai Circle and Chiiliivai Circle. The Poumai Naga territory have sixty revenue villages in Manipur with a population of 1, 87,174 (Census 2001) and four villages in Nagaland with a population of about 6.5 thousand (2003) (Thohe 2007).

The Poumai Naga was recognized officially as a separate tribe from that of Mao tribe under the Constitution of India in 2002. The Poumai Naga is famous for their Poulei (Pottery) and Poutei (Pou Salt) to the adjoining territories since ancient times. The three main rivers of Manipur, the Barak River on the west, the Ngairei River on the north and the Eril River on the east rise from the land of the Poumai Naga.

Etymology and Lineage of Poumai

The word Poumai is derived from two syllables ‘pou’ and ‘mai’. ‘Pou’ is the progenitor of Poumai and ‘Mai’ is the descendant of Pou. In other words, Pou is the ancestor and his descendants are known as Poumai. The Mao tribe called the Poumai ‘Shipfo’, while the Angami tribe called the Poumai ‘Sopvama’. The descendants of Pou were Meo, Leo and Pao. However, it is believed that Lapaosuru, Paoyao (Paodu) and Propoziio were the last Poumai progenitors who took the Poumai en masse from Makhel to their present villages.

According to the Poumai Naga narrative:

Dao epaipao maizii deimao hini kheaphii pase,

kheaphii hini Siiphii(Siifii) pase

“We came from a floating land (marshy land),

we came from Makhel and we came from Siifii”.

The Nagas were led by a man name Pou from the floating land (which is controversial as it can also be understood as marshy land or an island or sea coast) to Makhel. After their dispersal from Makhel, the tribe was named after their progenitor (forefather), the genealogical evolution from Shifowo (Pou) to his descendants can be seen in Figure 1.

It is said that Pou erected his walking stick at the spot where all the Naga tribes met at Shajouba village near Makhel before their departure. His walking stick sprouted into a wild pear tree (known as Tyaobe/ Tyaoshibe) and is still alive in Shajouba. Today, this tree is one of the relics and is an important archeological evidence of Makhel (Gangmumai, 2008). This wild pear tree is considered sacred and is held in reverence by all the Naga tribes who migrated from Makhel. The falling of branches from the wild pear tree due to storm or wind is foretelling of a bad omen. Whenever a branch breaks a nanurei (genna) observed, this forbids one to work in the field. People were strictly restricted to cut even small branches from the pear tree. It is believed that anybody who cuts down any branches of that tree will die instantly and heavy rain and storm would arrive in the areas.

Figure 1: Oral History-Genealogical Evolutions and Migration Route

-Naga from China

– Myanmar (Burma) (From Burma/Myanmar to Makhel)
– POU (Shipfo) one of the Naga leaders to Makhel)
– MEO -LEO -PAO -Prou Other Nagas
– Kheapou -Dukhou -Napou -Rokhuo -Siipou -Paoyao -Prouposiio
– Mao(Ememei) -Lepaona -Paomata -Chiliive
– Mao – Paodai -Lepao -Paodai -Paotya -Paodai -Proungidai
Fig: 1. Oral History-Genealogical Evolutions and Migration Route (Thohe 2007: )

The Poumai Naga took their last en masse migration from Kheaphii (Makhel) towards the northeast and southeast direction. It is believe that the descendant of Pou first settled at Siifii, the present Saranamai village and then migrated to various directions. Liio (Leo) and his descendant (Lepaona) migrated towards the southeast and first settled at Namei (Koide) village under the leadership of Rokhuo. The descendant of Pao, Paomata migrated towards the northeast at settled at Siifii (Saranamei) village, after this the four chiefs from the descendants of Pao dispersed further and headed the new settlements respectively. The descendant of Prou (Chiiliive) went further ahead of the descendants of Pao in the northeast direction and settled at Prouphii.

Figure 2: Poumai Paoh-Progenitors of Poumai

– Poumai Paoh (Progenitors of Poumai)
– Paotya Paodai Lepao Paodai Proungidai
– Siipao, Khipao Nahiipao Shochaonapao Kodom, Lakhamai
– Phyapao and Zhaipao Lanapao and Dumaipao Sirong Shamai
Fig 2: Poumai Paoh-Progenitors of Poumai (Thohe 2007)

Administration of the Poumai Village

Village is central to the Poumai Naga. It is the most important part of their lives. Their identity and roots can be traced back to the village. The Naga village is highly organized and forms a social, political and cultural unit and enjoys sovereign and democratic practice (Venuh 2004, Shimray 2008). The village economy is self-sustaining and administered by indigenous customary laws. The customary laws are revered and its primary duty is to promote harmony and security and create a sense of belonging. The village is administered by the Village Council. The Village Council is headed by Chairman and Secretary who are democratically elected and its members are nominated by the respective clans. There is no uniform number of Village Council members but it represents at best all segments of clans or khel in all fairness. All social, religious and political matters are decided and administered through customary laws and according to the collective mandate.

Not much is known about the early history or evolution of the Veo (Village Headman) except tales of the great warriors and their victories during war and the number of enemy heads they were able to hunt. In accordance, it may have recognized the role of the great warriors and leaders might have emerged among them to take on the role of leadership in the existing villages. The traditional Veo or Headman is the administrative head of the village and his jurisdiction is limited to the village with the responsibility to announce the observation of genna (rituals) with equal respect to napaoh (priest) or foretellers and other village headmen (can be referred as clan elders). The rules of succession of the Veo are not very clear and specific and hence there is always a space and scope for interpreting them differently by various individuals, depending on individual convenience. According to the Hiimai narratives, succession to Veo was never hereditary or based on lineage, but depends on an individual elder irrespective of clan and khel with the wisdom of juristic view and skills as a great warriors and wealth. Thus, the Feast of Merit may have the merits through these narratives. The nobility of Veo comes from the vested powers of the village council, who are representatives of the respective clans. The village council, which is the decision making body and also the biggest assembly convenes on day to day basis and on special occasions, including the death and appointment of Veo. Thus, the whole Poumai Naga society is based on a classless, free society and practices a direct democratic form of government in the village.

Land Tenure

The village location and its landscape cannot be overlooked while trying to understand the type of land tenure that prevails in Poumai Naga territory. Poumai Naga territory is rugged, hilly terrain of about 1200 sq.km. Villages are settled mostly on the peak of a hill or on the ridge of a hilly terrace running down from a higher range. The villages were well fortified and located on the peak or ridge of hills keeping in mind regular raids between villages. Family, clan and village affiliations are of paramount importance to the Poumai Naga. The village land and boundaries are zealously guarded and any encroachment or dispute related to land is strictly dealt with. Due to lack of land survey till date, it is difficult to classify the exact land use pattern. The land holding pattern varies from village to village as each village is a sovereign republic having different categories and names for land use. For approximations on the land use pattern, the following categories can be used:

• Land under terrace field
• Land under Jhum cultivation
• Bushes and pastoral lands
• Forest

For long it has been known that the Poumai teidei (teidei which can be divided into two syllable words, tei meaning sky/landscape/space and dei meaning land) can be classified into the following three categories – paomai dei or private land, khii dei or clan land and maisou dei or communal land (village land). The land system has its origin in the foundation of the village. Village land is owned by the whole community. The finer nuances of tenure shows its significance as undivided land within maisou dei which later came under the control of individuals and how traditional systems have allowed for the accumulation and ownership of property.

Paomai dei is ancestral property obtained through inheritance and the pattern of ownership of land in Poumai Naga society varies from village to village. Paomai dei can be subcategorized into kiphii or homestead, khu or private forest/woodland and lu or terrace fields. These individual lands were inherited from forefathers and within the village such individual lands can be sold and bought.

Kiphii is the village settlement area where each family has its own homestead land or compound. Usually kiphii would be located within the khel or clan location. In this kiphii, each family also utilizes at least some portion of the land for peida or garden in which they grow vegetables for domestic use.

Khu is the private forest which lies immediately outside the kiphii area. This is the reserve forest for the family from which they collect firewood throughout the year and also preserve trees for timbers for construction of houses. This area is restricted and outsiders are not allowed to encroach or set fire.

Lu are the individually owned terrace fields and which can be further divided into two types – diilii which are perennially wet terraced fields used for rice cultivation and fish rearing, and luthe which are dry terraced fields where water is available only during the monsoon; rice is cultivated on these fields only then.

Khiidei or clan lands are those divided among the founding clans near the village and consist of some family owned lands which usually are lu, heiphao (pastureland) and semi-forested areas. At times even vao or forest is included within khiidei. These lands are owned by the respective clan to be utilized by the concerned clan members and they are usually leased among themselves or to any other tenant. Land is also given away freely to the lesser land owning families of the clan for certain periods. Some of the vao and heiphao also come under clan ownership from which individual clan members can obtain firewood, graze cattle and collect thatches also known as ngaiche for roofing the house. Access to pastureland is allowed to any individual within the village provided they acknowledge the rightful owners.

Nghimai dei or Maisou dei is the communal land owned by clans in the name of the village. The maisou dei forms the outermost layer or enclosure of the village land and are the grounds for dancing and sport, sites for veo and morung/bachelors dormitory house. Maisou dei is common land where an individual can undertake shifting/jhum cultivation or cut firewood for domestic use. Maisou vao is the reserved village forest; supplying firewood and building material like bamboo, cane and timber. Heiphao or common pastureland is used for grazing animals and cultivating thatch grass known as ngaiche (used to roof houses). Villagers who have no land of their own are given village land by the village administration for cultivation, collection of wood for fuel, building of a home and other domestic use.

Ownership and Control: The customary land tenure recognizes the permanent and heritable right of a person over paomai dei and khu dei. The demarcation of land boundaries of private land are noted with erected stones and it is believed that removal of these stone for encroachment will bring bad omen and a curse to the individual and his generations. In general, the ownership of land among the Poumai Naga is the individual, clan and community. Land which is owned by the individual family is controlled by the father, the head of the family. A father has full right of ownership and absolute right over it. He divides land among the sons when they get married.

Being a patrilineal society Poumai Nagas trace descent through male lineage. Men have the right to own both paipoahmai dei (ancestral land) and earned land .i.e., purchased land. Women cannot own ancestral land except joint earned property. The earned properties are joint properties between the husband and wife and thus a man does not have absolute right on the joint earned properties of the family. Although a man enjoys absolute and unconditional ownership over whatever he owns and can gives all the properties (movable) to whoever he please and chooses but in case of immovable properties, it is restricted to certain extent even though he holds the right of ownership. In case of immovable properties .i.e., the ancestral land and self-acquired land (earned land) are always disposed off in consultation with the nearest kin and relatives. It is the customary practice that the individual owner should first of all sell his land to his clan members and kinsmen. If and only if his kinsmen and clan are unable to or not in a position to buy the land, can he sell to the khel and lastly to any person within the village. It is also mandatory that the land title and boundary should remain in the village. The individual may have the right to sell the land but those inheriting ancestral land cannot be sold or transferred until and unless he is permitted by his clan elders.

Khii dei , is owned by the clan as a whole and its ownership always remains with all the members of the clan. This land is mainly leased or at times given to individual families for cultivation over a limited period. It is also used for developmental purposes of the clan. No individual within the clan can claim private ownership over the khii dei.

Maisou dei is the third type of land owned by the village as a whole. The maisou dei is controlled by the village council and is for the general use for the welfare and benefits of the villagers. The traditional system in Hiimai (Purul) village allows individuals to use maisou dei for individual purposes. However, if an individual wishes to maintain and upkeep the land for a longer duration permission should be sought from the Village Council. Rent for the same should be paid to the Village Council and this leasehold is neither heritable nor transferrable. Most importantly, the individual cannot claim ownership of the land. Vao khu is forest land managed by individuals and veori is reserved as a village forest, where from time to time the Village Council can pass rules and regulations restricting or declaring it as a prohibited forest. The ownership, maintenance and control of land is wholly under the control of the Village Council at the village level, however, the title also remains in the name of the Veo or Village Chief who is also the head of the village. The Village Chief however, does not have any control or jurisdiction over the land where paomai (private) and khii or clan owns land for the purpose of settlement and cultivation and even that of maisou dei or communal land.

Kilu Phea or Mode of Inheritance : In Poumai Naga society, the mode of inheritance (phea) is traced through male lineage. According to tradition, the highest share of property goes to the eldest son. Even the parental house is inherited by the eldest son. The second highest share goes to the second son and continues till the youngest son gets a marginal share of the property. Females do not inherit property, especially not immovable property. However, in the present context daughters can be given immovable property if that immovable is an earned land which is purchased and not the ancestrally inherited. The father is the head of the family and owner of the property. He divides the property among all his sons. Sons inherit property only after marriage and cannot claim more than what is given to him.

In case of childless couples, their property is inherited by the brothers or the nearest kin. It is the tradition of the Poumai Naga that in case a couple dies without a son, the nearest kin takes the responsibility of the property, movable or immovable. A couple with no male child is allowed to pass on immovable property to their daughter(s); however such immovable property can only be inherited till their daughter(s) live, after which that immovable property goes back to the nearest male relatives of the daughter(s) father. In case of death of the husband while the children are minors, the wife inherits the property but she is not allow to sell or transfer any of the immovable property without the consent of the nearest male relatives or clan elders. When the son becomes an adult, he succeeds the position of his father as the head of the family and under such circumstances marriage is not the criterion to inherit property. It is the duty of the nearest male relative to look after the widow and her children’s property in case the husband dies without a male child. If a widow dies without getting her daughter married it is also the duty of the male relative to look after her and arrange for the marriage.

Notion of Land in Poumai Naga Narrative and Theoretical Discourse

It is imperative and essential to understand the worldview of the Poumai Naga to situate ones epistemological location. Honore Frances (1997) states that our worldview affect our belief systems, decision making, assumptions, and modes of problem solving. Similarly, Philippe Descola (1994) argues that in the process of socialization of nature, two conceptions navigate and usually present as mutually exclusive. One approach focuses and sees nature as an object to animate its thought process for the taxonomic and cosmological imagining of forest peoples. The other approach is the entirety and reductive approach which is mainly symbolic morphology, and ecological reductionism that wildly attempts to explain all cultural manifestations as epiphenomena of nature’s ‘natural’ work. Postulating that society is totally determined by its environment this symbolism is often implicit and not necessarily visible in the normative ideological production. Thus, Descola argues that the framework of location is an organic totality in which material and conceptual aspects are closely interwoven; if it is an oversimplification to say that the latter is no more than a deformed reflection of the former, it is perhaps not impossible to assess their respective roles in the structuring practices as similar to that formula of Maurice Godelier’s “the conceptual part of reality” is no less concrete than its material part.

The pedagogical role of ‘land’ in Poumai Naga community is the creation of an identity as people and culture which is entwined with the nature. Land is considered the umbilical cord that cannot be separated from people. According to Poumai Naga narratives humans originated from land and will return to it. Land and its nature have close relations with the human life cycle. The way Descola argued about the Achuar societies, similarly the Poumai Naga have no coherent canonical theories of the world. The structures for representing practices are pieced together from a motley collection of clues: oral history, an avoidance practice, rituals and festivals. Wherein one of the Poumai Naga narratives says:

“Dao epaipao maizii deimao hini kheaphii pase,

kheaphii hini Siiphii(Siifii) pase”

We came from a floating land (marshy land),

we came from Makhel and we came from Siifii.

Another narrative continues from Makhel to Siifii:

“Dao eipaihpaoh Kheaphii hini Siifii pa-e

Peihivapeiyu teihai apou-ye

Pheihi dei hai apii-ye

teideih ni ei-ye hah peilai

Ratho-a aliro raha po-a e-hai peilaimoe”

From Makhel to Siiffii we came over,

The blue sky above is my father,

The flat earth below is my mother,

The heaven and earth shall bless me,

And I shall have no fear under heaven’s hallowed favour

The Poumai Naga begin their speech with the above lines especially when a meeting is held; invoking Gods, symbolizing an oath for their courage to stand for their location (place). These lines also symbolize the special relationship to the places they have occupied which does not only define their interaction with land, but many other aspects of their lives and social relations which are embedded in traditional, natural settings. For instance, their livelihoods also depend on maintaining control over land resources and the capacity to access these resources. Both narratives give importance to land and space and state that people emerged from the floating land (here the concept of ‘Deimao’ in Poumai Naga can also be understood as wetland or emergence of land from sea, island etc). They took the land called Makhel and Siifii and give to the land their sweat and hardship: thus they are nourished by the land, their spirits and strength have roots in the land, the air and the sea – symbolizing that land serves as a crucial marker of continuity with the past as well as a reassurance of identity in the present and a promise of the future.

Many arguments legitimize and justify property and inheritance. Among Poumai Naga and Mao narratives one that stands out (as accounted and traced back through genealogies) is that of the first existing woman, a virgin called Dziilimosiiro meaning ‘the purest water’ or ‘crystal clear water’. One day, as she slept under a Marabu (Peepal tree) at a place called Kheaphii or Makhel, a cluster of white clouds came over her. From these clouds, a drop of liquid came down on her body and she became pregnant. She gave birth to a Tiger, a Spirit and a Man. As the three children became adults, Dziilimosiiro was getting quite old and was sick. The three brothers took turns to look after their ailing mother. When the Tiger looked after her, he would touch her body to identity the fleshy, good muscles which he could eat after her death – this intensified her worries and made her sicker with anxiety. When the Spirit took care of her, she became more feverish and developed acute headaches. The mother felt at ease and relaxed only when the Man, also the youngest looked after her, as he tended to his mother with great tender care. The mother knowing that her time had come decided something had to be done to settle the dispute as to who would inherit the land, as the quarrels among the three brothers became more frequent and violent. She devised a competition where she created a ball-like grass at a distance and told the three brothers that whoever touched the ball-like grass first would inherit the land. Man being the youngest and a good fellow was his mother favourite. His mother instructed him to make a bow and arrow and shoot at the ball-like grass as she knew that he could not compete with the power of the Tiger and Spirit in such a race. On the day of the competition, the Man following his mother’s instruction succeeded in touching the ball-like grass target first by firing the arrow. Man thus inherited the land. Out of despair, the Tiger went to the thick jungles of the north and the Spirit disappeared into the far south (khailukou) forever.

This narrative is symbolic of nature where Tiger and Man represents the animal kingdom while the Spirit represents the supernatural realm – it is shown that all three are related since they are born of the same mother. The woman represents reproductive energy. Her name signifying pure water is a metaphor for fertilization of nature intertwined with culture – the union of the sky god father and the receptive earth mother, from which all things have originated and man’s inheritance of land.

The philosophy of property is also confronted directly in the writings of Plato. While Plato argued that collective ownership was necessary to promote common pursuit of common interest, Aristotle reflects on private ownership; focusing on the ethical attention of a person exercising his rights of private property and its contribution to citizenship. In the medieval period Thomas Aquinas discussed the moral obligation of the rich to share property and the right of the poor to equal property. Inheritance or property (land) is also a theologically rich concept. In the Bible (Joshua 13 -19 chapter) Yahweh commands Joshua to divide the land as ‘inheritance’. The Book of Deuteronomy 24:19-22, 15: 1-18, Exodus 23:10-11, Leviticus 25 talks about land as a common property and family inheritance and not as a commodity that could be bought and sold for private gain.

Contemporary Debates around Land

Today, the discourse on land can viewed within framework of the state having the sole legitimate right to frame rules and laws on tribal land – spreading the Meitei pan-Manipuri dream through the MLR & LR Act, District Council and other Acts in the Hill Areas. The other aspect has been the resistance movement by the tribal community to assert their identity, rights and territoriality. Thus it brings us to the evolution of struggles by the tribes of Manipur. The context and implications can be examined from different causes and perspectives.

Manipur Land Revenue & Land Reform Act, 1960: The edifice of terror and fear to the tribes and their territory (hill areas) is the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reform Act, 1960 (MLR & LR Act, 1960). It is modeled around the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reform Act. It was enacted by the Parliament to consolidate and amend the law relating to land revenue in the state of Manipur to provide certain measures of land reform. The land laws date back to colonial rule in India – the British introduced the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (AL & RR, 1886) which was only limited to the valley (Manipur Kingdom). This was replaced by the Manipur State Hill People’s Regulation Act, 1947 and subsequently by the MLR & LR Act, 1960.

The MLR & LR, Act, 1960 was intended to about bring uniformity in distribution of land throughout the State. However, Section 2 of the Act states, “It extends to the whole of the State of Manipur except the hill areas thereof.” Thus, the Act did not apply to the hill areas of the state but hill districts do not automatically mean hill areas and the Act assigned a special meaning to hill areas. According to Section 2(1), hill areas refer to such areas in the hill tracts of the State of Manipur as the State Government by notification in the official Gazette declared to be hill areas as mentioned earlier. The State Government under different notifications had notified 1161 villages as hill areas in the six hill districts for the purpose of this Act.

Section 2 of the Act furthers states that “Provided that the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, extend the whole or part or any section of this Act to any hill areas of Manipur also as may be specified in such notification.”. Thus, this Act curtailed the provisions for protection of the ‘Tribal and its Land’. Regardless of opposition and resistance from the tribes, the Government of Manipur had extended this Act to 117 villages of the Hill districts (Tribal districts), .i.e., 89 villages of Churachandpur district in 1962, vide notification no. 142/12/60, dated 22/2/1962, 14 villages in Senapati districts, vide notification no. 134/4/64, dated 25-2-1965 and 14 villages in Temenglong district, vide notification no. 3/12/83, dated 14/11/1987 (Dena 2011 and Binodini Devi 2006).

The MLR & LR Act was amended several times enacting new provisions. Many attempts have been made to remove restrictions on of transfer of land to a non-Schedule Tribe (ST). Inserting the provision to 158 clause (b) of the section (Miscellaneous Amendment) ordinance 1976 (Third Amendment of MLR & LR Act, 1976) gives exception to this restriction. If the transfer is made by way of mortgage to a co-operative society, government and bank consent from the District Council is not necessary. Another attempt to remove the above restriction on transfer is the MLR & LR, Act (6th Amendment Bill) 1989, where in the proposed Amendment Bill seeking insertion of New Sections .i.e., 158-A, 158-B, 158-C and 158-D, after the section 158 of the principal Act (Binodini Devi 2006: 84)

The Sixth Amendment Bill (1989) was sought or intends to remove the provision “the hill areas thereof and the provision thereto”, in sub-section (2) of Section 1, above which means that the Act, be made absolute or made statutory authority in hill areas of Manipur. The Seventh Amendment Bill 1992 sought new amendments and insertions. It introduced new sections to remove the restriction on provision of land transfer from tribal to non-tribal; control of jhum cultivation in the hill areas and making the Revenue Tribunal the highest revenue court for the purpose of determination of any question or disputes under MLR & LR Act, 1960, retrospectively from the 1975 amendment and restricting further appeal in any court of law (ibid.:84).

Contestation

The complexities and problems in the MLR & LR lie in the alienation of tribals from their land. Rightful owners are condemned as encroachers as they have no records which can be clearly understood. Saikot village in Churachandpur district was established in 1920, prior to independence. After the Government notification in the Official Gazette (under the MLR & LR Act, 1960) this village was included within the Act. The Chief and the villagers who have enjoyed full rights over land and other natural resources were turned into illegal ‘encroachers’ as per Section 14 and 15 which states that “a person in a tribal village can be treated as trespasser or encroacher if he does not apply for allotment of the land which he possessed or occupied for generations without any hitch” (Dena, 2011).

Even the chief had to pay a premium for obtaining allotment of the land, which he had customarily owned and cultivated for years. Failing to do so, he would be treated as an encroacher on his own land. For instance, in the construction of Khuga Dam, many villages and households were affected and displaced. Those affected were never compensated by the state, instead they were forced to shift to another location within village territory after which the state (under the notification in the official Gazette of the MLR& LR Act 1960) declared the newly settled areas as having genuine land owners. This is a complete mockery in the name of rehabilitation. The tribals who had been living there even before the framing of land laws owned the land on the basis of traditional and customary laws. The extension of the MLR & LR Act has deprived people of ownership of land based on traditional and customary practices.

The other contention was the acquisition of land in Ukhrul district by Government of Manipur under the pretext of MLR & LR Act, 1960 for (i) Construction of Mini Cement Factory with an approach road (ii) Construction of Imphal –Ukhrul road and (iii) Construction of Nungshangkhong Mini-Hydro Electricity Power Project. However in the landmark ruling of the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in Imphal permanent Bench under Civil Rule No. 132/90/91, between the North-East Council, Shillong, the State of Manipur and the Deputy Commissioner, Ukhrul versus the Hundung Victims of Development Project, the judgment was in favor of the petitioners whose land had been acquisitioned by the North-East Council through the Government of Manipur. In the judgment order as noted at Sl. No. 25 says’ “We are here concerned with Hill areas of Ukhrul’ that there is no Government Khas Land in the hill areas of Ukhrul. The ownership of land situated in the hill villages of Manipur vests in the villagers. They do not hold the land under the pleasure of the Government.”(Daimai, 2011). Today, land alienation in Hill Districts of Manipur especially in Naga territory is rampant. It takes place in various ways in alarming proportions, threatening the right to life of the tribal population. Leasing land for mining by the state government to private companies is common. Land has been leased to the following private companies:

• M/S Orissa Industries Ltd. Bhubaneshwar: 132.781 Hectares at Shiroi village for Chromite Mining for 20 years. Recommended on 12-09-2011
• M/S Rourkela Minerals & Ores Pvt. Ltd. Orissa: 85 Hectares at Shingcha-Gamnow village for Chromite Mining for 20 years. Approved by GOI vide letter dated 05-08-2007
• M/S Sarvesh Refractory Pvt. Ltd. Orissa: 132.781 Hectares at Lunghar village for Chromite Mining for 20 years. Approved by GoI vide letter dated 10-08-2007.
• M/S Anand Exports. Bhubaneshwar: 0.51 Hectares at Nampisha village for Chromite Mining for 20 years. Recommended on 16-06-2012.
• M/S Super Ores & Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Assam: 2 sq. km at Phungyar and 2 sq. km at Hundung for Limestone Mining for 20 years. Recommended on 31-01-2012 and 30-08-2011 respectively.

Besides this, there are a list of applicants seeking Mining Leases and Prospecting Licenses for Limestone, Chromite, Copper, Cobalt and Nickel in Ukhrul District.

The State Government instead of attempting to bring about an amicable solution to the land issues of the tribal population and protecting tribal customary laws is attempting to extend the provisions of the Act in planned manner. Tribes have their own system of regulating land holding based on tradition and customs. This conventional system is still effective in tribal societies.

From the Perspective of United Naga Council (UNC): As quoted from United Naga Council Working Group:

The Nagas in Manipur occupy contiguous areas and have lived our own lives, with our own culture and values. Contrary to the much flouted Naga-Meitei amity, the divide has become well defined in all aspects of life-be it social, cultural, or economic. It is the desire and design of the Meiteis for perpetuating their monopoly over administration, culture, party politics……… etc, which has brought about attempts to distort history and project the territorial integrity of Manipur as sacrosanct and inviolable.

That the MLR & LR Act, 1960, does not cover the hill areas is the legitimate proof today that the hill people are true owners of their land that the Government of Manipur has no jurisdiction over it….There are therefore, no land patta system in the hill areas, it simply never existed. This situation is unique in the whole country. (UNC Working Group 2002:37)

From the Perspective of Poumai Naga Village: The Poumai Naga village possesses a well defined territory demarcated either by hill ranges, rivers or streams. The village is independent and sovereign, following a democratic type of political system. The traditional Poumai Naga village will consist of at least two or more khels and clans. The clan elders form the village council to ensure administration of the village. Each village is highly organized, having well regulated land ownership systems, judicial systems and other well-administered institutions through traditional customary laws. The village is an independent political, social, economic and cultural unit which also creates a sense of belonging to the people and the land.

From the Perspective of State: Many attempts have been made to administer hill areas through the succession of Acts – The Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947; The Manipur Hill Peoples (Administration) Regulation, 1947; The Manipur Hill Areas Village Authority Act, 1956; The Manipur (Hill Areas) Acquisition of Chief’s Rights Act, 1967; The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971. Besides this, Article 371 (c) of the India Constitution provides a special provision for the legislation and the administration of the hill areas of Manipur in the form of Hill Area Committee. The distortion of history can be dated back to the colonial period where “Hill Tribes” was used under the Rules for the Management of Hill Tribes, 1935, however the term “Hill Tribe” was substituted by the term “Hill People” in 1947 under the Manipur Hill People’s Regulation, 1947 (Gangmumei, 2008). There was severe opposition to these Acts since their inception on grounds that it posed a danger to the customary laws and traditional systems of self-governance.

The legislation of and amendments to the Acts is not a new experience to the tribes in Manipur. The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act has no foundation in the Constitution of India, it is just a mere creation of the Manipur Government to suit their sweet will and convenience leaving no autonomy. A Third Amendment to the Act was made in 2008. The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils have no constitutional powers for the protection or welfare of tribes in Manipur. Thus, the Nagas have declared the District Council elections ‘null and void’ and going a step further, they affirmed that they were severing all ties with the Manipur government and have asked the Government of India to make Alternative Arrangement for the tribes, especially the Nagas in Manipur.

Government of India Policy on Tribal Land: The Government of India safeguards the interests and well-being of the tribal population through the Fifth and Sixth Schedule in the Constitution, whereby special provisions are included in the administration of scheduled or tribal areas.While the Fifth Schedule outlines the structure of governance of scheduled areas in tribal interests, the Sixth Schedule was conceived as an instrument of tribal self-rule. Tribal areas in nine states of mainland India are included under the Fifth Schedule and the Sixth Schedule covers such areas in four northeastern states: Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram (with special constitutional provisions as Article 371B in Assam and Article 371G in Mizoram). Nagaland is governed by Article 371A, wherein it is stated: “Notwithstanding anything in this constitution – no Act of Parliament in respect of (i) religious or social practices of the Nagas; (ii) Naga Customary law procedure; (iii) administration of civil and criminal justice; and (iv) ownership of land and its resources shall apply to the state of Nagaland.”

Conclusion

This paper briefly discussed the notion of land from a Poumai Naga narrative, stating the basic foundations of land use. It highlighted their relationship with land as symbiotic and unique – as land is believed to be the umbilical cord connected to livelihood, culture and identity; guided by customary laws and traditional practices. The village territory is well defined and land is communally owned, it is also the collective responsibility of the community. The Poumai Naga reinforce their tradition and location of identity through ‘village, clan and home’ which in other words is land and to every Poumai land is their backbone and not a commodity. One has to follow traditional and customary laws while transferring ancestral land. This uniqueness lies in the traditional land tenure entwined with culture and nature.

In Manipur traditional polity and customary laws of the tribes have been trespassed and their aspirations for freedom and progress have been sabotaged. Their land has been commodified and land resources have been alienated. Thus, the sense of belonging and identity is being questioned. Land is now about survival. Today, Manipur has emerged as the epitome of ethnic conflict and one can closely say that it is due to land alienation of the tribes.

Reference:

Biswas, P and Sulklabaidya, C, 2008. Ethnic Life-Worlds in North East-India: An Analysis. Sage Publication, New Delhi

Barooah, J (dir) 2007. Customary Laws of the Maos of Manipur: With Special Reference to their Land Holding System, Law Research Institute, Eastern Region, Guahati High Court & North Eastern Council, Shillong.

Descola, P (Translated from the French by Nora Scott), 1994. In the Society of Nature: A Native Ecology in Amazonia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Devi, P.B, 2006. Tribal Land System of Manipur, Centre for Manipur Studies. Manipur University, Imphal and Akansha Publishing House, New Delhi

Fernandes, W & Barbora, S (eds), 2008. Land, People and Politics: Contest over Tribal Land in Northeast India. North Eastern Social Research Centre, Guwahati.

Kamei, G, 2008. Ethnicity and Social Change: An Anthology of Essays. Akansha Publishing House, New Delhi

Nongkynrih, A.K. 2008: ‘Privatisation of Communal Land of the Tribes of North East India: Sociological Viewpoint’ in Fernandes, Walter and Sanjay Barbora. (eds). Land, People and Politics: Contest over Tribal Land in Northeast India. North Eastern Social Research Centre, Guwahati.

Shimray, U.A. 2008: ‘Land Use System in Manipur Hills: A Case Study of the Tangkhul Naga’ in Fernandes, Walter and Sanjay Barbora. (eds). Land, People and Politics: Contest over Tribal Land in Northeast India. North Eastern Social Research Centre, Guwahati.

Thohe Pou, R.B, 2007. The Poumai Naga: Socio-Cultural and Economic Change. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Pune: University of Pune

United Naga Council Working Group, 2002. The Naga Perspective: Issues Relating to the Territorial Integrity of Manipur. United Naga Council Working Group, Senapati

Venuh, V (ed) 2004. Naga Society: Continuity and Change. Shipra Publication, Delhi

Dena, L, 2011. Land Alienation and Self-Government in the Hill Areas of Manipur

http://manipuronline.com/features/land-alienation-self-government-hill-areas-manipur/2011/03/09.

Retrieved on 17/02/2013 at 3:21pm

Daimai, K. 2011. Land Rights of Tribal and State Land Laws: Manipur

http://manipuronline.com/features/land-rights-of-tribal-and-state-land-laws-manipur/2011/01/09 Retrieved on 17/02/2013.3:14pm

ILO Convention on indigenous and tribal peoples, 1989 (No.169): A manual

Geneva, International Labour Office, 2003

http://pro169.org/res/materials/en/general_resources/Manual%20on%20ILO%20Convention%20No.%20169.pdf

Misra, B.P. 1979. Agrarian Relations in a Khasi State. Economic and Political weekly. Vol.14, No. 20 (May 19, 1979), pp.888-892. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4367612. Accessed on 25/02/2013 at 05:07 pm

ILO 169, 1989 Convention

Sir Robert Reid (1883-1941) wrote, “ The state of Manipur consist of a central valley some 700 square miles in area surrounded by 8000 square miles of hills. In the valley there lived 300,000 Manipuris and a few Hillman, while the hills are inhabited by 160,000 Hillman and no Manipuris. The contrast between the almost fanatically strict Hindus of the valley and the beef eating, dog eating tribesmen of the hills cannot be too strongly emphasized. The boundaries of the state does not enclose a cultural unit.” (Reid as quoted in UNC Working Group 2002: )

See Varrier Elwin, Nagas in the Nineteenth Century, p42.

See Sir James Johnstone, Manipur and the Naga Hills, p93.

The mythology is narrated by different tribes of the Naga. For further references see, Mao, X.P, 2009.