The debate over the Inner Line Permit (ILP) system in Arunachal Pradesh has intensified after the All Arunachal Pradesh Students’ Union (AAPSU) strongly opposed a demand by the Assam-based Takam Mising Porin Kebang (TMPK) seeking exemption for the Mising community from the permit regime.
The ILP, introduced under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation of 1873, remains one of the most important legal safeguards for indigenous communities in Arunachal Pradesh. More than 150 years after its introduction, it continues to be at the centre of identity and tribal rights issues in the state.
TMPK argued that the Mising community shares common roots with several Arunachal Pradesh tribes, including the Adi, Nyishi, Galo, Apatani and Tagin, under the broader Tibeto-Burman ethnolinguistic family. TMPK external affairs secretary Reedeep Jack Doley said the Mising people had historical links with Arunachal Pradesh before migrating to the plains. He also noted that members of the community continue to live in districts such as East Siang, Lower Siang, Lower Dibang Valley and Papum Pare.
Based on these historical and cultural ties, TMPK argued that making ILP mandatory for the Mising community was unjustified.
AAPSU, however, rejected the demand.
“The ILP system is not a matter of sentiment or community preference. It is a constitutional and statutory protection guaranteed to the indigenous peoples of Arunachal Pradesh,” AAPSU president Meje Taku said.
The student body acknowledged the Mising community’s cultural heritage and historical association with tribes of Arunachal Pradesh. However, it maintained that such connections do not change the community’s legal status under the ILP framework.
AAPSU said every non-Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe (non-APST) individual must obtain an ILP and that no exceptions should be made.
The organisation warned that granting exemptions based on historical ties could weaken a protection mechanism that has existed for more than 150 years.
“If historical ties become the criterion for exemption, it would weaken a protection mechanism that has existed for more than 150 years and remains vital for safeguarding the interests of the indigenous people of Arunachal Pradesh,” Taku said.
The latest dispute comes amid a broader debate over the ILP system in the state.
In mid-May, the Arunachal Pradesh ST Bachao Andolan Committee (APSTBAC) called a 36-hour bandh over concerns that the new “Arunachal Pradesh Inner Line Permit Guidelines, 2026” could dilute existing protections for indigenous communities.
Following the protests, Chief Minister Pema Khandu held an eight-hour stakeholder consultation on May 27 and another meeting two days later.
The state government subsequently agreed to set up four high-power committees to examine re-verification of APST certificates, issues related to non-APST offspring, strengthening of the ILP framework through a review of the ILP Guidelines 2026, and concerns over illegal infiltration.
Khandu also announced in-principle approval for a separate ILP Department, a long-standing demand of both AAPSU and the ST Bachao Andolan Committee.
On June 2, the Chief Minister met the newly constituted AAPSU Central Executive Body led by Meje Taku and reiterated the government’s commitment to protecting indigenous rights.
“Protecting the rights, identity, and future of the indigenous people of Arunachal Pradesh is absolutely non-negotiable. It is our foremost responsibility, and I am glad to say that the State Government and the AAPSU stand firmly united on this mission,” Khandu wrote on X after the meeting.
He described the discussion as “candid, constructive and focused”.
The four high-power committees, each headed by a cabinet minister, will include representatives from AITF, AAPSU, the ST Bachao Andolan Committee, legal experts, research scholars and women representatives. The committees have been given six months to submit their recommendations.
AAPSU clarified that its stand is not directed against the Mising community, which it described as culturally rich. However, it maintained that the ILP system, supported by Article 371(H) of the Constitution and the special powers granted to the Governor in matters of law and order, cannot be relaxed on a community-by-community basis.
At the heart of the debate are concerns about protecting Arunachal Pradesh’s indigenous tribal population. With a small population and a long international border with Myanmar, many in the state view the ILP as a crucial safeguard against demographic change and outside influence.
As the newly formed committees begin their work, the debate over the future of the ILP framework is set to continue with both the state government and AAPSU maintaining a firm position on preserving protections for indigenous communities.
