Pruning the Inner Line: A Study of Inner Line Permit in Arunachal Pradesh (Research Paper Sample)

Pruning the Inner Line: A Study of Inner Line Permit in Arunachal Pradesh
Date 
Abstract
Inner Line Permit (ILP) is the sacred cow in North-east. The state is beset with many general and tribal specific serious issues but all the political footage is taken over by ILP which people believe addresses them. The paper intends to study the Inner Line Permit (ILP) in Arunachal Pradesh. It seeks to identify various dimensions of justification given for continuation of ILP in its present form and argue against them while providing effective alternatives to protect the interests of tribal and at the same time diluting ILP with time.While arguing against them, the paper also lightly touches on the gravity of issues which are believed to be protected by ILP and discusses ways to address them but focuses mainly ILP and its inefficacy. The argument may be similarly extended to other states with ILP but this study was done in A.P.
* HISTORICAL DIMENSION
Inner line permits isissued by the secretary (political) of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. It is required for entering Arunachal Pradesh through any of the check gates across the interstate border with Assam or Nagaland.
Inner Line Regulation (ILR) was introduced by Britishers in Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation of 1873 titled as ―a regulation for the peace and government of certain districts on the Eastern frontier of Bengal‖. Talking to people of Arunachal Pradesh (A.P) will tell that the majority opinion favours continuation of ILR. Every discussion on it mostly starts with mention of its history to the time of Britishers,which is more of an embellishment rather than a variable governing the decision whether it should be scrapped, continued or reformed. General opinion is that the act was introduced to protect the tribal interests, to protect their culture and traditions, to provide them with political autonomy because this is the only way they should be governed and overall primarily for their benefit. This doesn’t appear to be true after a historical analysis of ILR.If the Britishers were so much inclined on protecting the culture and tradition of any society then why in the first place they colonized this subcontinent which acted as ―jewel in the crown‖ for centuries or other nations, where ultimately the culture was completely swamped by the policies of colonizers? ―God, gold and glory‖ was always the prominent purpose of colonization and colonial policies. Dance forms, to take one aspect of culture, of many countries suffered because of colonization, from a country as small as Hawaii and its Hula dance (―Hula was banned as it was a pagan ritual dance with moves the missionaries saw as vulgar, disgusting and sinful. It was taught and performed only in secret for a while.‖)To a country as big as India and its various dance forms (
―There were protests from many quarters, especially from a Christian missionary by the name of Reverend J. Murdoch. He printed a number of publications strongly condemning these "nautch parties" and called for all British to refrain from attending them.The persecutions of Indian dancers by reverend Murdoch were just a small indication of a social phenomenon that was emerging. This was the spread of the Social Purity movement from Great Britain to India. As it turned out, once the Social Purity Movement spread to India, it would assume a character that in some ways was different from its original British form.‖(David Courtney)). Local languages, literature, philosophy were discouraged and denounced and were swamped and in some countries entirely wiped out. On the other hand there were indeed some indologists who studied Indian literature, philosophy and science
and even appreciated it like it’s always the case in this world where one can easily find a variety of people. So why would Britishers exclusively support preservation of culture in the case of hill tribes of the north eastern India? They never did actually and even this regulation was for meeting their own colonial needs. The Britishers were always particular about acting in their own interests under the subterfuge of some ethical and moral motivation, so that it is supported by people of all calling. Believing them that their policies solely were to actually benefit the people of hill tribes is to believe that the sole purpose for the colonisation of other lands was only to civilize them out of duty or that they built railways for the development of India rather than their meeting own economic needs. The history of interaction between Britishers and the hill tribes of north east is red and replete with death, destruction, conflict and expeditions by each into other’s territory and huge loss of livesand property.
―the British pursued the Aka, Nishi, Adi, Mishmi, Khampti and Singpho tribes as and when necessary. Troops were sent beyond the outer line and the government exacted fines, arrested criminals, destroyed villages of the tribes and were thus free to deal with them.‖(M L Bose 1997;122).
―british administration should reassert our authority over the Nagas and bring them under a system of