Tackling immigration

In the politically correct stances of unconditionally denouncing xenophobia and racism, what is often ignored is the embedded notion of a certain hegemony of idea. Often these stances are pushed as ideological positions, be it from the right or left wings, or for that matter the centrists. But as Anthony Giddens pointed out, “ideology” may be more than simply a system of ideas and beliefs, and be actually and closely tied to the concept of power. Giddens defines ideology as a “shared ideas or beliefs which serve to justify the interest of dominant groups”. The obvious implication is, ideas under the blanket guise of ideology often become instruments for pushing the status quo in which the dominant groups have an ensured position of dominance. It is for this reason that every now and then there arises the need to counter this idea hegemony. It is from this perspective that the xenophobic fears in the Northeast today of indigenous populations losing their grip on the power levers must be viewed. To what extent is this fear superfluous and to what extent legitimate, must be the focus of these inquiries, for indeed there is a good measure of both. While racial hatred must be forbidden, the apprehensions of demographic marginalization of small communities is not trivial by any means especially in a democracy where a headcount decides who holds the rein of power. The fact is also that this is an open ended question. If there are fears in Manipur of unending immigration from outside, there is also a fear amongst hill communities of valley hegemony, and both must come under the same scanner and analysed impartially. Sauce for the gander must have to be sauce for the goose too.

We bring up the issue in the wake of the recurrent waves of demands for the introduction of an inner line permit system, ILP, in Manipur and other Northeast states which do not have this legislation. The states which already have it are Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura as a late joiner. The question is, does Manipur need it? Well, one fact is clear, the state’s that do have this legislation in force are the ones facing migration problems much more than many states like Manipur that do not have it, with the exception we suppose of Assam. The implication is, it would be wrong to treat the ILP as the panacea and that there are so many other factors, many of them natural that determine and regulate the inflow of immigrants. Hence, the scale of immigrant population of Bangladeshi origin in Nagaland must be many times more than what it is in Manipur. Arunachal and Mizoram have seen violence against immigrants (Chakmas and Brus in Mizoram, and Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh) where racial venom was more than apparent. By contrast, Manipur, where the ILP does not exist, has faced a different kind of problem, and it no points for guessing that the trouble is still far from over. We see no problem if the immigrant inflow is at a pace moderate enough for its impact to be absorbed by the host society organically, without any social dislocation. As for instance, in Manipur, many of the communities which have since become indigenised to varying degrees, are originally of immigrant origin. Except amongst those fanatically purist, these have been no cause for any unique social disharmony. We can say the same of many of the newer immigrant population too. It is only when there is an unregulated inflow that xenophobia becomes the reaction. The cases of Tripura and Sikkim are too close in the memory of the region to not be alarmed.

The ILP is too raw and affronting, but some sort of regulatory mechanism such as work permits and landed property ownership restrictions on fresh immigrants, will be prudent from the point of view not just of protecting regional demography, but also preventing conflict situations. One is reminded of the not so famous “Nannygate” controversy in the Bill Clinton administration of yore in the US. One of the President’s important staff had to quit when harried by the opposition for breaking federal immigration law by hiring an immigrant nanny with no work permit. Much later, we have also seen how Indian diplomat, Devyani Khobragade, was arrested for bringing in a house helper from India and paying her less that the US minimum wages. If we acknowledge that it is work that brings in immigrants then it is in this area that immigration can be most effectively controlled. The best alternative would also be by implication, locals coming forward to fill in the workers vacuum that immigrants are often left to fill in. Since this vacuum is in the unorganized labour market, the locals must be prepared to take up these jobs.