Prof. Chakravarty Advocates for BEFR as a Constitutional Asset

Kohima, India Aug 30, 2026 ALN: Prof. Shantanu Chakravarty of Girijananda Chowdhury University, Assam, addressed the concluding day of a two-day national seminar on the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation (BEFR), 1873, organized by the Inner Line Regulation Commission-Naga Students’ Federation (ILRC-NSF) in Dimapur on August 29. He argued that the BEFR should not be viewed merely as a choice between national integration and regional isolation, but rather as a crucial element of India’s constitutional commitment to safeguarding indigenous communities and maintaining its pluralistic character.

The BEFR, enacted during British colonial rule, was initially designed to regulate the movement of people into certain areas of the northeastern region of India, primarily to protect the indigenous populations from the influx of outsiders. This regulation is particularly significant in the context of India's diverse cultural landscape, which is marked by a multitude of ethnic groups, languages, and traditions. The BEFR creates a framework within which the rights of indigenous peoples can be protected, particularly against the backdrop of rapid economic development and migration that often threaten their cultural and demographic stability.

In his presentation titled “The BEFR, 1873: A Mainland Indian Perspective vis-à-vis the Constitutional Safeguards of Indigenous Peoples,” Chakravarty offered insights from a 'mainland' perspective, acknowledging his own roots in Assam, which initially complicated his understanding of how mainland Indians perceive the regulation. His unique position allows him to bridge the gap between the mainland and the northeastern states, providing a nuanced perspective on the implications of the BEFR.

Chakravarty identified two competing perspectives within the mainland discourse regarding the BEFR. The first, an integrationist view, posits that the Inner Line Permit (ILP) system may conflict with fundamental rights and hinder economic integration. Proponents of this view argue that the requirement for permits to enter certain regions can create barriers to trade, tourism, and overall economic development. They contend that such restrictions could be seen as contrary to the spirit of national unity and the free movement of citizens within the country.

The second perspective emphasizes the need to protect indigenous rights, arguing that unrestricted migration and land acquisition threaten cultural identity and demographic stability. This view is particularly relevant in the context of the northeastern states, where indigenous communities have long expressed concerns over losing their lands and identity due to external pressures. Chakravarty's acknowledgment of this tension highlights the complexity of the BEFR debate, which is not merely about legal frameworks but also about the lived experiences of people in these regions.

He noted that the tension between national integration and the protection of regional diversity is central to the BEFR debate. Although requiring a permit to enter a part of one’s own country may seem contrary to national unity, it must be contextualized within Article 19(5) of the Constitution, which allows reasonable restrictions on movement for the protection of Scheduled Tribes. This constitutional provision underscores the importance of balancing individual rights with the need to safeguard the interests of vulnerable communities.

Chakravarty also addressed the colonial origins of the BEFR, acknowledging its introduction by the British for commercial and administrative purposes. However, he argued that its colonial background does not invalidate its relevance in the constitutional framework. He referenced Article 372, which states that pre-existing laws remain in effect until altered or repealed by a competent legislature, asserting that the BEFR maintains constitutional continuity and legal validity. This perspective is crucial in understanding how historical regulations can evolve and continue to serve contemporary needs.

He emphasized that the constitutional protection for indigenous communities is anchored in Article 371A, which safeguards Naga social practices, customary laws, and land ownership. Chakravarty argued that land is intrinsically linked to community identity and survival, rather than merely an economic asset. This assertion speaks to the deep-rooted connection that indigenous peoples have with their land, which goes beyond mere ownership and encompasses cultural, spiritual, and social dimensions.

Highlighting demographic concerns across the North-East, including in Tripura and Assam, he stressed the need to balance the free flow of capital and people with the risk of marginalizing indigenous populations. The demographic shifts in these regions have often led to tensions and conflicts, as indigenous communities fear being outnumbered and losing their cultural heritage. He noted that demands for an ILP regime in Assam have arisen from such demographic anxieties, reflecting a broader desire among local populations to assert their rights and protect their way of life.

In conclusion, Chakravarty proposed that the ILP should not be seen as an “isolationist barrier” or a “constitutional anomaly,” but rather as a “vital constitutional asset” that preserves India’s federal and pluralistic character. He suggested a balanced model of Inner Line governance based on three pillars: protection of indigenous land and cultural identity, accessibility through a transparent permit process, and accountability with judicial oversight. This framework, he argued, could safeguard the distinct rights of frontier states while fostering constructive integration with the rest of the nation.

The implications of Chakravarty's arguments extend beyond the academic discourse surrounding the BEFR. They resonate with ongoing debates about the rights of indigenous peoples in India and the need for policies that respect and uphold their unique identities. As India navigates the complexities of modernization and integration, the BEFR and the ILP could serve as crucial tools for ensuring that the voices of indigenous communities are heard and that their rights are protected in the face of rapid change.