Monday Musing
[ Tongam Rina ]
The Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly has turned 50. From a small Assam-style building in congested Naharlagun to a sprawling, hi-tech structure in Itanagar, the legislative assembly has witnessed and shaped the state’s growth since its inception as a provincial legislative body in 1975 with 30 members, later increasing to 60 with the grant of statehood.
Even though the sessions may not always be engaging due to the lack of debate and thought-provoking discussions in recent years, they provide a glimpse into the government’s priorities. Most bills are often passed with little opposition, as there is only one opposition member in a 60-member assembly.
This trend of not having an opposition reflects the overall political landscape of the state, where governments often shift allegiance to whoever is in power at the Centre. There is no clear distinction between the Centre, left, or right in Arunachal politics. Depending on who holds power at the Centre, one could easily shift their stance overnight. Records show that most members have switched political parties at least twice during their careers. The longer one remains in politics, the more frequent these shifts become. But that’s how survival works in a state where resources are scarce, and the Centre controls almost everything.
From village republics to a state in the Indian union, Arunachal’s journey has been both fascinating and remarkably swift – from NEFA to Arunachal, from being under the Ministry of External Affairs to the Ministry of Home Affairs. The journey is still evolving, with the state taking part in elections for the first time only in 1977.
On 21 January, 1972, the region was reconstituted as the union territory of Arunachal Pradesh under the provisions of Section 7 of the North Eastern Area Reorganisation Act, 1971. It became a union territory with a lieutenant governor as chief administrator, and a council of ministers was formed on 15 August, 1975. Arunachal Pradesh gained full statehood on 20 February, 1987, with a 60-member assembly.
However, the state remains firmly under the grip of the Centre, with no special constitutional provisions that specifically protect the state or ensure rights over its land. Traditional rights may hold social significance but do not stand in court, as constitutional guidelines ultimately prevail. Therefore, there is a need for legislation to protect indigenous rights and the resources they depend on.
The Statehood Act for Arunachal continues to shape its politics and identity. Arunachal is the only protected state that has no control over its security apparatus or resources. Everything must go through the home ministry and the governor, not the state cabinet. The state is still under the command of the Centre via Article 371(H), which grants special powers to the governor.
The power of the governor was recently highlighted when Governor KT Parnaik chaired a special Cabinet meeting to commemorate the completion of one year of the state government’s tenure. Former MP and Congress leader Takam Sonjoy objected, arguing that the governor does not have the right to attend a Cabinet meeting.
The article grants extraordinary powers to the governor of Arunachal regarding the law and order situation. While the governor is supposed to consult the council of ministers, the article allows the governor to “exercise his individual judgement” as to the actions taken, and this judgement cannot be questioned. In contrast, Articles 371(A) and 371(G) grant constitutional rights to the people of Nagaland and Mizoram over their land and resources. The people of these states still control their resources unless they permit otherwise. Arunachal, however, lacks such protections, with resources still controlled by the private sector and the Centre. The only provision granting tribal people some rights regarding land ownership is the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation of 1873. This regulation specifies Inner Line Permit (ILP) for entry in the state under the Foreigners (Protected Areas) Order of 1958.
Commonly known as ILP, this regulation requires that one cannot enter Arunachal without a permit issued by the state, nor can they acquire land or take away resources or even elephants. However, the effective implementation of ILP in the state is questionable. There is no strict enforcement, and it is not even deemed mandatory, though it is recommended for one’s own safety. Many times, student organizations and other groups have taken matters into their own hands, checking documents and making it unpleasant for visitors with and without ILP. This form of vigilantism, while the state machinery watches in silence, has arisen due to the weak implementation of ILP by the state. If ILP actually served its intended purpose, much of what has happened in Arunachal, including the plundering of resources by those who need ILP, might not have occurred.
Instituted by the British in 1873, BEFR may not have originally been designed to protect the people, but today it remains the only document offering some level of protection.
“Lifting the ILP may create conditions that threaten the extinction of tribal culture, rights, and heritage,” read an official document.
Revisiting both Article 371(H) and the BEFR is essential: one needs to be removed or replaced with an Act that will actually safeguard the indigenous people, and the BEFR should be effectively implemented.
We should not live under the false impression that the only protection needed is secured international borders. What happens internally will ultimately determine the fate of the state, its people, and the rights of the indigenous community. Discussions on Arunachal’s identity have often been patriarchal, excluding the other half of the population from the discourse. The discussion is often on who married whom and racial purity.
The real discussion, which protects land and property through the BEFR, has often been taken for granted and has rarely been part of the discourse. The BEFR is just a regulation, and one Cabinet meeting is all that is needed to remove it. With the Hindutva agenda of one nation, one identity, the BEFR is under constant risk of being diluted or removed altogether by the centre.
