ATRPFM questions STDCM

IT News
Imphal, Sept 11

All Tribal Rights Protection Forum Manipur (ATRPFM) had questioned the logic behind STDCM’s demand for ST status.
“Do they really wanted to go back to the status of 128 years ago with same educational and economic condition of 1891? But no community would like to roll back in that condition. It is upto the wisdom of Parliament to decide but as per our own opinion, Meitei is a forward caste that do not need ST status. Although Constitution does not defined Scheduled Tribe, there is a clear criterion for specification as a Scheduled Tribe. They are: (1) indications of primitive traits, (ii) distinctive culture, (iii) geographical isolation, (iv) shyness of contact with the community at large, and (v) backwardness. The Meitei community does not fulfilled the above-mentioned criterion and thus does not qualified for specification as ST. So, on what ground STDCM demands ST status”, a statement asked the STDCM.
Economically, socially and ethnically, Meitei is the most advanced community in the entire North East region. When we see the percentage of representations in public employment of all Departments, representation of Meiteis are already high. As per rules, reservation for reserved categories shall be in proportion with their respective population. ST’s population of Manipur as per Census 2011 is 34%, however, representation of STs in public employment is nowhere near 31%. Representation of STs in public employment for all grades of posts taken together was only 23% and has not improved till date. ST status is given for such weaker segments of the society, the statement added.
The statement further stated that in the legislature, Meitei has 40 MLAs, both Judiciary and Executive is dominated by Meiteis. For protection of indigenous people, there is already ILP or Manipur Peoples’ Bill. For protection of land, there is already land protection law known as the Manipur Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2014. For reservation purpose, there is already 10% reservation quota  for the weaker upper caste. What’s more STDCM wants? There is no reasonable purpose at all.  
ATRPFM  urged the State Government not to recommended and justified the illegitimate demand.