Human migration is a universal phenomenon and it has been taking place throughout human history. It has also been recognized as one of the basic human rights by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. The Declaration in clauses 1 and 2 of Article 13 states,
Almost all regions of the world have experienced migration of people of one type or the other caused by one or the other factors and there is hardly a region that is not affected by this phenomenon. Migration of people often takes place from those regions with higher density of population to those with less density, from those having lower level of development to those with higher level of development and from those that are conflict-ridden to those that are more peaceful and ensuring better security system for human life.
Like in other parts of the world and other parts of India, the different states in Northeast India also have experienced migration of people from outside the region at different periods of history. Tripura experienced migration of the Bengalis from Bangladesh to the extent that the indigenous tribals have been reduced to a minority status. The population of the tribals in the State was reduced from 53.16% in 1941 to 28.44%in 19811. Besides, there has been migration of the Chakmas from Chittagong Hill Tract (CHT) of Bangladesh to the State2. Similarly, in Sikkim the indigenous tribals have been over swamped by the Nepali migrants who constituted over 70% of the population of the State. Assam has had a long history of migration of people from outside particularly the Bengalis. Assam has been experiencing migration of Bengalis from erstwhile eastern part of Bengal and later East Pakistan or present day Bangladesh. Commenting on the extent of migration from East Bengal during the colonial period, C.S. Mullan, the Census Superintendent for Assam, in 1931 stated:
Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram experienced migration mainly of the Chakmas from Chittagong Hill Tract of Bangladesh. Migration of people from other parts of India or across the international borders precipitated strong ethnic reactions and anti-foreigners’ movements in the different states in Northeast India that often culminated into violent ethnic conflicts between indigenous communities and migrants.
Carved out of Assam first as an Autonomous State on April 2, 1970 and later as a full-fledged State on January 21, 1972, Meghalaya is largely a tribal inhabited state with the Khasis and Jaintias and the Garos forming the main indigenous tribes. Meghalaya is one of the Indian states that experience higher growth rate of population than the national average. As per 2011 Census Meghalaya’s decadal growth rate of population (2001-11) was 27.95% which was higher than the national growth rate which stood at 17.70%. High population growth rate in the State is often perceived by many as being contributed by migration of non-tribals from outside the state.
Legally and technically, the term ‘non-tribal’ can be used to refer to any person or his/her descendants who have migrated to Meghalaya and belonging to those communities that are not included in the list of Scheduled Tribes in the State as provided by the Acts of Parliament. However, there is also a general but politically significant understanding of the term non-tribal. Taking the latter perspective, Charles Reuben Lyngdoh and L.S. Gassah 3 use term non-tribal to
According to this definition, two categories of non-tribals in Meghalaya can be identified. First, they are those non-tribals who migrated from the plains or other parts of India; and second, they are those who migrated from other countries. Lyngdoh and Gassah, however, identified Bangladesh and Nepal as being the other countries, thereby limiting the scope of their definition. It may be noted that the term non-tribal can be applied as a description to those people who have their origin in countries besides Nepal and Bangladesh but resemble in their physical feature, dress, food habits and/or religious practices to the people of Bangladesh, Nepal or other parts of India. In spite of the limitation of the definition, it is taken as the basis of the understanding of the concept ‘non-tribal’ in this study and on its basis, the persons belonging to European races, the Africans, the Chinese, the Tibetans, the Bhutias and such other mongoloid races migrating from other countries other than Nepal are excluded from the definition of non-tribals. It is to be noted that the population of these communities in the State was insignificant. In 1961 their total population was 981 and in 1991 Census their number was registered at 765.
There has been a general tendency in the State to divide non-tribal residents into “permanent residents” and “non-permanent residents” or simply ‘Meghalayans’ and ‘non Meghalayans’. Also, it may be noted that the term permanent is used interchangeably or together with the term ‘genuine’ and it is referred loosely to those non-tribals who became the residents of the state before independence of India. This kind of categorization and description of non-tribal residents has been part of the debates and discussions in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly, amongst the media and by political parties and pressure groups. However, there was no agreement with regard to the meaning and definition of the above terms and the criteria of identification. Moreover, these classifications and descriptions are non-official and non-legal as no policy or legal framework has been framed by any legal authority to determine who is a permanent and a non-permanent non-tribal resident in the state. It may be noted that The Meghalaya Residential Bill, 1973 passed by the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly attempted to make a clear definition of who could be considered the permanent resident in the state. According to sub-section (b) of Section 2 of the Bill, a permanent resident is defined as:
Problematizing non-tribal migration
Non-tribal migration to Meghalaya4 has had a long history5 but it was in the 1970s that it became a major political issue when a section of the indigenous tribals harboured the apprehension of being swamped demographically, culturally as well as economically by the non-tribal migrants. This problematization of non-tribal migration can be attributed to the role of the tribal educated elite across political spectrums that who “not only became politically conscious, but also could articulate their demands and grievances”6. The educated elite in Meghalaya were mainly the urban based section of the society whose members drawn from among lawyers, teachers, students, and even government servants who still remained connected with the rural population7. It is this section of the society that shoulder the task of speaking on behalf of the community and to whom the general masses turned towards for providing leadership role. Further, while these educated elite from the Khasi and Jaintia and Garo communities were exposed to western ideals, at the same time they were responsible for ethnic identity formation by raising the issue of promoting and safeguarding their respective traditions, customs and promoting their social, political and economic interests.
Even before independence, the educated elite were trying to build the consciousness of the pernicious impact of non-tribal migration though their main focus was to achieve political autonomy through which the interest of the tribals could be well protected. However, there was divergence of standpoint between those who supported the Federation of Khasi States which sought to strengthen the traditional political institutions 8 and Rev. J.J.M. Nichols Roy who demanded for a separate Khasi Federated State 9 under the Constitution of India. Being a member of the Constituent Assembly, Rev J.J.M. Nichols Roy further tried to pursue in the post independent period though he failed to achieve the objective. In view of the failure to accomplish this objective, the Sixth Schedule under the Indian Constitution was constructed as a conciliatory formula. However, E.M.R. Syiem who supported the Federation of Khasi States vehemently criticizes Rev J.J.M. Nichols Roy and the Sixth Schedule for empowering non-tribals and the Government of Assam to meddle with land, political and cultural rights of the indigenous tribals. Nevertheless, upon achieving separate constitutional arrangement under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, notwithstanding a limited one, the tribal educated elite began to bring in legislations to counterbalance the imminent threat posed by migration of non-tribals from the plains to the indigenous tribals’ interests on land and employment. Therefore, the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council enacted the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District (Transfer of Land) Act, 1953 (hereinafter Land Transfer Act, 1953) and the United Khasi- Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council (Trading by Non-tribals Regulation) Act, 1954. But the Land Transfer Act, 1953 was declared ultra vires by the Guahati High Court whose ruling was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court on the ground that it was beyond the constitutional mandate of the Autonomous District Councils to enact such legislation. Realizing the inadequacy of the Sixth Schedule to protect the interests of the indigenous tribals and prevent alienation of land to non-tribal migrants and being further augmented by the chauvinistic attempt of the Assamese elite to impose the Assamese culture and language over the tribals and assimilate them into the larger Assamese culture, the educated elite renewed the demand for the creation of a separate hill state. All this eventually led to the formation of Meghalaya as a separate state.
It was after achieving the objective of attaining political autonomy that the educated elite started to forcefully problematize non-tribal migration and at the same time pursued ‘sons of the soil policy’. The adoption and propagation of sons of the son policy can be described as the latest phase in the development of ethnicity in any particular ethnic group asserted after it manages to attain political autonomy and gains control wholly or partly of the state’s instruments and processes of decision making and decision implementation. It is a policy followed in which the local people are given preferences in educational, employment and political opportunities, acquisition of land and even in matters of trade and business. However, the term local people is not defined by place of birth, rather it is explained by membership of a particular ethnic, religious or linguistic group10. In addition to those measures already enacted by the Autonomous District Councils in the state, concrete measures were put in place by the leaders of the All Party Leaders Hill Conference (APHLC) – the party under whose leadership the hill state movement was launched, to protect the interests of the indigenous tribals from possible exploitation by non-tribal migrants. The Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter Land Transfer Act) was enacted with twin objectives of not only preventing alienation of tribal lands to non-tribals but also to reclaim the lost land.11 Similarly, the APHLC Government was responsible for the adoption of the State Job Reservation Resolution (hereinafter State Job Reservation Policy) in early 1972 reserving 80% of State Government jobs for the Khasis and Jaintias and the Garos, thereby, leaving little scope for non-tribal residents to get employment opportunities under the State Government. The APHLC Government further made a legislative attempt to restrict migration of non-tribals through the stringent provisions of The Meghalaya Residential Permit Bill (hereafter Residential Permit Bill) passed by the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly in December 1973.12However, this Bill failed to receive the assent of the President after it was reserved for his consideration by the Governor of the state.
The sons of the soil policy adopted by the APHLC Government in the 1970s assumed significance in view of the tribals’ vulnerability to being exploited by the politically and economically more advanced non-tribal population including the state machineries which largely represent the interest of the non-tribals. It may be strongly noted that the Report of the High Level Committee on Socio-Economic, Health and Educational Status of Tribal Communities of India, the tribal communities remain the most vulnerable and marginalized communities in India in spite of the existence of constitutional provisions for safeguarding their interests and that colonialism for them is yet to come to an end in spite of independence due to the nature of development pursued by the Indian State. The importance of sons’ of the soil policy is particularly true with regard to the Land Transfer Act in view of the importance of land in the lives of tribal communities. It has been observed that land plays a critical position in the lives of the tribals not only from the economic, social and political perspectives, but their very identity and existence as a distinct ethnic community depends on it .13It is an undeniable fact that the Land Transfer Act has been able to prevent land alienation in the state though in recent years there have been incidents where tribal lands were alienated in the form of acquisition by the state government for the developmental projects in New Shillong Township which is legally permissible under the Act14 and long term lease to cement companies in different parts of the state.15 Similarly, a study has shown that since Meghalaya attained statehood and the subsequent adoption of the Job Reservation Policy, the number of indigenous tribals holding the higher posts in the Government of Meghalaya increased over the years showing a positive correlation between job reservation and the access by the tribals to position of authority in the State.16
The adoption of the sons of the soil measures and the increasing concern for the need to protect the interests of indigenous tribals by the tribal educated elite belonging to the different political parties as well as students’ organisations created an apprehension in the minds of non-tribal communities particularly the Bengalis which was the largest community among them. While participating in the discussion on the Meghalaya Transfer of Land Regulation Bill, 1971 in the state legislature, Md. Akramozamman, a non-tribal member in the State Provisional Legislative Assembly raised an apprehension that the interest of the permanent non-tribal residents was not protected. The more radical among them were furious and openly condemned and confronted such measures. For example, on the 13th April, 1972 following the enactment of the Land Transfer Act, the local daily “Young India” whose editor was Kapila Chatterjee, in its editorial condemned the Act as ‘obnoxious’ and ‘infamous’. It further described those members of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly responsible for the enactment of Act as “ignorant mischievous politicians” and blamed the Hill Sate People’s Democratic Party (hereafter HSPDP) and APHLC for
Similarly, the non-tribal members of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly (MLA), P.N. Choudhury, D.N. Joshi, Jaganbandhu Barman and Md. Akramozamman who were the members of the Congress Party along with the other tribal MLAs of the Party opposed the Meghalaya Residential Bill. Section 4 of this Bill provides, “No person who is not a permanent resident or member of Schedule Tribes resident in Meghalaya shall reside in a notified area for a period of more than four months without the previous permission of the competent authority”. It was the Congress opposition that played a crucial role in the President’s withholding of his assent. The opposition of the non-tribal to the Bill might have contributed to the suspicion in the minds of the indigenous tribals on their intention and attitude towards them and this might have contributed to the growing chasm in the inter-ethnic relationship between the indigenous tribal and non-tribal communities and further complicated the matter. It may be noted that Kapila Chatterjee who according to the then Chief Minister, D.D. Pugh again took a strong posture in the editorial of the Young India against the demand of the indigenous tribals for measures to protect their identity and to prevent non-tribal migration was assaulted on March 10, 1978. Eventually stained relations led to a series of ethnic conflagration in the State beginning in 1979. Subir Bhaumik [Footnote]Bhaumik, Subir. (2009). Troubled Peripheries: Crisis of India’s North East, New Delhi, Sage Publications.[/footnote] and Nabanipa Bhattacharjee describe ethnic conflicts in the state as an act of ethnic cleansing against the non-tribal communities on the part of the indigenous tribals. But these authors come to such conclusion by looking at the problem with bias from the perspective of the non-tribals only and their sources of information come from newspapers owned and controlled by non-tribals or from the subjective experiences of non-tribals.
Problematization of non-tribal migration and anti-foreigners’ movement can be described, in the terminology used by Weiner, as a “nativist phenomenon” which represents “the response of the emerging nationalities…to internal minorities with foreign connections”. In the context of Meghalaya, the term foreigner is generally used to identify those non-tribals who migrated to the region from other parts of India or foreign countries and their descendants and are often considered as exploiters. This consideration of even fellow Indians but belonging to other cultural and linguistic groups as foreigners is not Meghalaya specific but rather it has been experienced in other parts of India as well. It may be noted that tribal communities in places like Chotanagpur region of present day state of Jharkhand, Arunachal Pradesh and other tribal areas had asserted for their native rights against the migrants at different periods. What is interesting was the existence and occurrence of native movements even in non-tribal areas of Mumbai, Hyderabad and Assam. On the basis of these historical facts, it can be argued that it is too idealistic to expect the indigenous tribals in Meghalaya to be liberal to the extent that they would need not to require any measure to protect their land, economic, socio-cultural and political rights.
The question that needs consideration is why there is a native phenomenon? Territoriality which can be defined as a sense of exclusive ownership and control of a defined space and its resources which are not only linked to physical survival but also to a complex issue of identity of a particular community could possibly facilitate an explanation. It has been argued that a number of human behaviour is linked to territorial consideration either openly or discreetly17. According to Fiona Armitage it is territorially that also contributes towards assertion of distinct identity of a particular group of people whether tribal or otherwise18. However, there is a debate between the two schools of thought about the nature of territorial behaviour of human beings whether it is intrinsic in human physiology and analogous to animal behaviour or it is a consciously acquired and learned behaviour. John R. Gold describes this debate as a “nature-nurture controversy”. Irrespective of whether territoriality is instinctive or acquired, but it cannot be denied that it plays an important role in shaping human human behaviour. L.S. Gassah observes that the Jaintias has exhibited territoriality even among themselves and this can be dated back to the early state formation where the affairs related to the selection or election to the office of the Dolois19 of different Elakas20 were largely the privilege of the members of the founding clans of the particular area excluding those later settling clans. From territoriality perspective one can make sense that the assertion was not essentially anti non-tribal exclusively but rather it was their genuine fear of the exercise of power over them by the other non-indigenous groups. The assertion of the non-tribal residents against their demand for measures to protect their interests made them to have a genuine fear that there was a possibility of a Tripura like situation taking place in their own land where the indigenous tribals would be dominated by the migrant non-tribals.
Factors for problematization of non-tribal migration
As stated earlier non-tribal migration had already started in the earlier centuries particularly after the British colonisation in the first half of the nineteenth century, yet it’s problematization started to take place after Meghalaya became a separate state early 1970s. Several factors may help to explain as to why the educated elite began to make non-tribal migration a major political issue in the State in the 1970s. This is partly because of the domination by the non-tribals when the tribals were placed in the then composite State of Assam and increasing alienation of tribal land especially in Shillong in view of the absence of any law prohibiting non-tribals from acquiring interest on land. Tribals led by the educated elite nurtured strong non-tribal feelings in view of the chauvinistic attempt to impose the Assamese culture and language over the tribals. It was because of their chauvinistic tendency that the Assamese were considered as the replacement of British colonial masters. In this context, it may be noted that unlike the Assamese, the British had made their contributions towards the development of tribal language and culture though such promotion of tribal language and culture was meant to serve their own colonial interests. Therefore, the educated elite during the hill state movement attributed the problems faced by the indigenous people to the rule of the outsiders which meant the non-tribals. The word outsider and the consideration of the Assamese as the replacement of British colonialism assumed special political significance because the Assamese tried to enforce their imposition on the tribals from Shillong which is the land of the indigenous tribals. Shillong at that point in time was the State capital of the then composite State of Assam. Therefore, attaining separate statehood for the tribals also implied expelling non-tribals just like the British had to leave when India attained independence.
During the Bangladesh War of 1971, Meghalaya which had a population of only 10.11 lakhs as per 1971 Census received huge number of Bangladeshi refugees numbering more than 6.6 lakhs. This inflow of refugees was further compounded by the 1971 Census report showing the rising trend of non-tribal population in the State. Moreover, the numerical outnumbering of the tribals by the non-tribals in Shillong being the State capital made the presence of non-tribals more visible and, therefore, appeared more threatening. As per the 1971 Census, non-tribals constituted 58.53% of the population of Shillong. Not only in terms of numerical strength but also in terms of employment in the Government offices and other professions such as law, higher education and possibly in other professions, it was the non-tribals who had superior position compared to tribals. The superior-inferior relationship between non-tribals and indigenous tribals had wider implications in view of the nature of the Indian state where there is discrimination, exploitation and suppression by those who are politically and economically powerful over the ordinary citizens. This superior-inferior relationship between non-tribals and tribals contributed towards the development of anti-non-tribal feelings among the tribals in the State. Moreover, during this period three regional parties – the All Party Hill Leaders Conference (APHLC), the Hill State People’s Democratic Party (HSPDP) and Public Demands Implementation Convention (PDIC) were competing for political space and all of them sought to attract the tribal electorate. Therefore, electoral compulsion might also have contributed towards the process of problematization of non-tribal migration to the State.21
Problematization of non-tribal migration became acute with the emergence of the ethnic based student pressure groups that were formed in the 1970s which included the Meghalaya Students’ Union (MSU) formed in 1975 and the Khasi Students’ Union (KSU) in 1978. These pressure groups immediately after their formation began to demand for detection and deportation of foreigners 22. The student organizations launched the movement against migration of the alleged foreigners in view of their perception that such migration did continue even after attaining statehood which they expected to end. However, it can be argued that the different student pressure group were both the product and the cause of the process of problematization of non-tribal migration.
Problematization of non-tribal migration in Meghalaya was a complex process with several factors being responsible. The processes of problematization of non-tribal migration may be considered by the critics of tribal’s identity politics as an act of parochialism and ethnic chauvinism, yet it cannot be denied that it had played a critical role in the attempt towards protecting the interests of the tribal communities in the State. It would be quite erroneous to allege that the educated elite initiated and pushed through the agenda to check non-tribal migration more for gaining political space than real intention to protect the interests of the tribal communities as their commitment and intention to the task was evident by the fact that they came up with a landmark Meghalaya Transfer of Land Regulation Act along with the State Job Reservation Policy in the early part of the 1970s, that is, soon after the inauguration of the Autonomous State. In the context of the Land Transfer Act, 1971 even the strongest critic against problematization of non-tribal migration among the indigenous tribals would agree of its importance to protect the interests of the tribals in the State and would agree to appreciate of the farsightedness of those responsible for its legislation. Moreover, other attempts to check non-tribal migration were made in the form of attempted legislation of Meghalaya Residential Permit Bill, 1973 and the Meghalaya Regulation of Employment Bill, 1980. The attempts made by the educated elite no doubt on the negative side of it led to the occurrence of ethnic conflicts from time to time, yet undoubtedly they had contributed to the avoiding of a situation of existential crisis where the indigenous tribals would be reduced to a minority status in their own land thereby threatening not only their identity but their very existence as happened in other parts of India such as in Tripura, Jharkhand and Assam.
Books and Articles
- ————————. (2015) “Transformation and Consolidation of Ethnic Identity in Arunachal Pradesh: Exploring the Role of the Educated Elite”, Journal of Political Science and Public Affairs, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp.1-5.
- Armitage, Fiona. (2002). “Imitating Ethnicity: Land Territoriality and Identity in a Swazi Zionist Christian Church”. In Micheal Saltman (Ed.), Land and Territoriality, Oxford: Berg, pp. 135-158.
- Bambenze, Vital. (2012). State of the World’s Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2012, London, Minority Rights Group International.
- Bhattacharjee, Nabanipa, (2015), “Shillong: A Tale of Blue Love, Mainstream”, Vol. LIII No 27. Retrieved from http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article5757.html on 16.01.2018.
- Bhaumik, Subir. (2009). Troubled Peripheries: Crisis of India’s North East, New Delhi, Sage Publications.
- Debbarma, P.K. and Suddhir Jacob George. (1993). The Chakmas Refugees in Tripura, New Delhi: South Asian Publishers.
- Deepak K. Singh. (2010). Stateless in South Asia: The Chakmas between Bangladesh and India, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
- Gassah, L.S. (1998), Traditional Institutions of Meghalaya: A Study of Doloi and his Administration, Delhi: Regency Publications.
- Gold, John R. (1982), “Territoriality and Human Spatial Behaviour”, Progress in Human Geography, 6: 44, pp. 44-67.
- Lyngdoh, C. Reuben and L.S. Gassah, (2003), “Decades of Inter-Ethnic Tension”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 38, No. 48, pp. 5024-5026.
- Malngiang, Pascal (1998), “Ka Khasi Students’ Union ha kine ki 20 snem”, in Paul Lyngdoh (ed.), Souvenier: Khasi Students’ Union (KSU) 20th Anniversary Celebration 1978-1998, Shillong: pp. 122-127.
- Mary F. Katzenstein, (1973), “Origins of Nativism: The Emergence of Shiv Sena in Bombay”, Asian Survey, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 386-399.
- Myron Weiner. (1978). Sons of the Soil: Migration and Ethnic Conflict in India, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
- Nair, Bhaskaran M. (1993). “The Emerging Middle Class, Regional Political Parties and Regionalism in Meghalaya”. In B. Pakem (Ed.), Regionalism in India, New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications, 1993, pp. 273-279.
- Narzary, Victor and Bibharani Swairgary, (2015), “Tribal Lands, Identity and the State: An Overview of Conflicting Paradigms”, Journal of Tribal Intellectual Collective India, Vol.2,Issue 3, No.3, pp.24-36.
- Nongkhlaw, Sita. (2011), Politics of Pressure Groups: A Study of Student and Youth Organisation in Meghalaya, Guwahati: DVS Publishers.
- P.R. Kyndiah. (2010). No Hill State No Rest, Shillong: Vesta Book Agency.
- Sack, D. Robert, (1983), “Human Territoriality: A Theory”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 73 (1), pp. 55-74.
- Sen Gupta, Susmita. (2005). Regionalism in Meghalaya, New Delhi: South Asian Publishers.
- Singh, Prakash. (2006). “Bangladeshi Immigration: Are We Heading for Another Partition” in B.B. Kumar (Ed.), Illegal Migration from Bangladesh, New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company, pp. 163-174.
- Syiem, E.M.R. (1998). Ka Ri Khasi: Ka Jingthmu Ban Pynkylla Ia Ka, Shillong: E.M. Reade Syiem.
- Syiem, Micheal. (2015, April 02). “Old wounds reopened”, The Shillong Times, p. 6.
- United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2000). The State of the World’s Refugees 2000: Fifty Years of Humanitarian Action, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Government of India and Government of Meghalaya Publications
- Census 1971, Series 13 Meghalaya, District Census Handbook, U.K. & J Hills, District.
- Census of India 1961, Volume III, Assam, Part II – C, Cultural and Migration Tables.
- Census of India 1931, Volume I.
- Census of India 1951, Volume XII, Assam, Manipur and Tripura, Part I – B.
- Census of India 1991, Series 18- Meghalaya.
- Census of India, 1991 Series 16 – Meghalaya, Part VIII (C).
- Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Proceedings (1973) Winter Session.
- The Meghalaya Residential Bill Permit, 1973 (as passed by the Assembly).
Batskhem Myrboh, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Synod College, Shillong and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
IJDTSA Vol.3, Issue 1, No.2 pp.18 to 38, April, 2018