By AH Scott Lyngdoh
The ongoing discussions and debate, on the efficacy of the inner line permit as a means to check influx, has stirred up consciousness among various sections of the Meghalaya community. Some are for it, an indeterminate number have no views, while some groups talk among themselves- shake their heads and murmur that such a scheme won’t work. Public perception however, is that influx has taken place, is continuing on a large scale, and needs to be checked.
This article, is about fact checking of ILP history, its insipid application with no one answerable, influx on the rise, citizen apathy, the politicians’ role, and a way forward. ILP as the big story, was born way back in 1873 as would isolate and safeguard the fierce frontier tribals from outside influence and exploitation. As the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, its jurisdiction was originally confined to the frontier districts of Cachar (read Lushai Hills), Darrang, Kamrup, Khasi and Jaintia Hills, Lakhimpur, Naga Hills, Nowgong and Sibsagar and other adjacent tracts, narrowing down in the course of time to Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. In a brief statement of intent, the Regulation barred Indian citizens from entering such areas without a permit to ensure peace and good governance. During this comparatively long 139 years journey, much has changed – districts are redefined, movements of larger populations blur the border lines, while the quickening of modernization has altered the status quo beyond recognition. The unfolding drama of events, wrought by socio economic development, is to call for introspection, with firm decisions to change course..
A crucial issue to contend with is the growth of population. From this angle, the 2011 Census highlights the North East way upfront, exceeding by far, the All India decadal growth rate which stands at 17.64 percent, compared to Meghalaya at 27.82 percent, followed by ILP States of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram at 25.92 percent and 22.78 percent respectively. (Nagaland figures not available). It is an open question whether such growth is due to the tribals producing larger families, or are other forces at work, such as the flow of migrant job seekers and foreign nationals posing as Indian citizens? Perhaps the reverse is a good sign, as large numbers of north-easterners flock to major Indian cities for jobs and education.
Moving on, is a cursory review of recent immigration history in the three States referred to, which shows aberrations in working the ILP system. The first case is Mizoram, where the writer had his most successful posting. Mizos now peaceful, after 17 years of insurgency, face new challenges as revealed in the changing demographic profile, witnessed by a team from Meghalaya visiting Aizawl in December 2000. Delegation leader R.A. Lyngdoh the then Meghalaya Minister of State for Home, accompanied by representatives from the KSU, GSU and JSU were in the Capital to study the functioning of the ILP system, and following discussions with the authorities, submitted a report to the Chief Minister Meghalaya. Briefly it states, that about 40,000 non tribals are settled in Aizawl, compared to the town’s population of about 2 lakhs, about 9000 enter the town annually, while 2000 to 3000 overstay at any given point of time. Local organisations, they were told, shield the migrant labourers on expiry of the permit. Although the Aizawl district administration is aware of such problems, an eviction drive is ruled out, for fear of destabalising communal harmony. Discarding such trends, a relaxation of immigration policy is under consideration, to meet the requirements of labour for GOI construction projects like NH 54, the airport and so on. Pressure from the Mizo Zirlai Pawl (MZP), a leading student organisation could not make much headway, in view of the prevailing circumstances.
The spotlight shifts to the Naga people, who have resisted occupation and shed blood, are now victims of intrusion. One of the visible signs is the Dimapur gateway, highlighted as a safe haven for migrant labour, and possibly foreign nationals. Locals themselves, provide the support base, getting cheap and skilled labour for developing farm land, building construction and shopping centers. Kohima, the State capital where the ILP is in force, the ethnic ratio is also changing rapidly. Evaluating a situation getting out of hand, leading social activists, notably Niketu Iralu, Susan Lotha, Robert Solo and Rozzelle Mero got together on 20th October 2012 and were seen on Doordarshan NE TV. The talk was about ‘Illegal Migrants, Problems, Challenges and Solutions.’ The team discussed some of the disturbing features as outlined below (a) Locals’ aversion to manual jobs create a void which is filled up by outsiders. (b) Harbouring foreigners as a vote bank. (c) Politicians not concerned, allow things to drift. (d) Benami transactions. (e) The hardworking, mild and submissive outsider, easily adapts to local conditions, picks up the local language and dialects in quick time. (f) Glorifying govt. jobs has led to a scarce output of essential services such as plumbers,electricians etc. (g) The outsider has an uncanny knack of analysing the weaknesses in the system, takes advantage of govt. schemes, gets contracts and opens shops. (h) Overflow from Assam when disturbances occur. (i) ILP- easily available, encourages corruption.
Winding up the discussions, a few suggestions came up for consideration, such as introduction of modern machinery, viz JCVs/Bulldozers to get locals engaged, a 2 tier birth certificate, one for locals and a temporary one for non locals. An inter faith dialogue with international involvement will help. Put the responsibility on the NGOs to take the lead with Govt. support, to detect and evict illegal immigrants. Citing the Mokokchung eviction drive as a positive development, the job vacancies are filled by the locals themselves, an example for other townships to follow suit.
Inhabited by 25 tribal groups, the Arunachal Pradesh people are also affected by the winds of change blowing in all directions. The journey from a loosely administrated frontier, to Union Territory status in 1972, graduating to a full fledged state in 1987 has all been too rapid. How will the tribals in this sensitive border region, comfortably adjust with 2.5 lakh migrants in their midst, with the State’s total population of 11 lakhs in mind? Trends are such, that the migrant population will further rise, as road construction, dams, and other development activities gather pace. In view of the stated facts, the unmistakable verdict is that the ILP has failed to meet the objective as envisaged in the Regulation. It is the bounden duty of the Government of India in consultation with the States concerned to take stock of developments, to ensure a smooth and peaceful transition, avoiding the pitfalls of an Assam type conflict situation arising.
It is now appropriate to examine the contemplated ILP for Meghalaya, which shares a 425 km border with Bangladesh and a 500 km border with Assam. For this, a viable administrative framework is required to meet the following challenges: (a) An ILP application cannot be legally refused to Indian citizens visiting Meghalaya as tourists, for business reasons, contacting friends and relatives, for students of other states and professionals, or for any other legitimate purpose. Safeguards are necessary, against undue delay in issuing permits, lest corruption creeps in. (b) Designating entry points (DEP), the staffing pattern, manning, and administrative control of such points. (c) Since certain DEPs will be handling a huge volume of permit seekers, the problem of suitable parking areas and other facilities will arise. (d) Safeguards to prevent forgery, and make the documents non transferable. (e) If a permit holder has overstayed, or disappeared into the unknown, which agency is to monitor the whereabouts of such persons? – not the overstretched police administration which is fully engaged in traffic duties and law and order problems. (f) Detention and removal centers to replace the ‘catch and release’ practice.
Major towns in Meghalaya have become cosmopolitan. There is a deep commercial dependence between locals and non locals. The ILP ineffectively scratches only the surface with an ‘out – in’ approach, leaving out the more delicate and sensitive ‘in – in’ aspect. The reputation of a tourist friendly state will get damaged, causing income generation to drop. The overall economy will also suffer due to the State’s over dependence on the mainland for goods and services.
Another form of legislation, the Inter State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 is on the cards to check influx. As a Minister during 1998-2003 the writer examined the provisions but found them wanting, as the Act is clearly limited to promoting the interests of inter state labour, when five or more migrants are employed. The law seeks to safeguard the interests of such workers, to ensure that the contractor provides suitable wages and living conditions. Apparently there is a misreading and misinterpretation of the provisions, as the problem of influx is of smaller numbers already in the state or coming from outside. Any proposed amendment to the Act, will be thrown out by the Union Labour Ministry, if such proposals are not in keeping with the interests of labour.
And thus, a fair and objective evaluation of alternative strategies is to be considered. It is to be noted, that a system of identity cards was proposed almost a decade ago by a a Working Group Committee, headed by T.H. Rangad the then Home Minister, with Paul Lyngdoh (President KSU), Purno A. Sangma (President GSU), Ardent Basaiawmoit (President FKJGP), Colin Laloo (President JSU), Jemino Mawthoh (President SSSS), M. Suchiang (President KWADAM) and M.R. Alya (President KJWA) as members, to go into the problem of influx The recommendations submitted to the Govt. of
Meghalaya were neither in favour of the ILP nor the 1979 Migrant Act. It was explained in the case of the former, that a large number of outsiders have already settled in the State, and hence the enforcement of the Inner Line Permit system, if it can be made applicable at all, will involve a lot of problems and disturbances. Tourism, both domestic and foreign will be affected. Referring to the Migrant Act, the Committee had this to say, ” This Act deals with migrant workmen/labour force who come into the State on contract basis; that is, the local contractors should have acquired their services from other contractors outside the State. The Labour Department which enforce the law reported that there is no contract labour force in the State which necessitate action under the provisions of the labour law. Jobseekers and labour-force who come into the State from outside the State are doing so on individual basis and therefore do not fall within the purview of the law. Hence, all steps taken by the government for appointment of a few EACs as ex-officio Inspectors of Labour in their respective districts has not produce any result at all. “
The Rangad Committee suggested a 3 tier identity card with 1971 as the cut off year, to determine the status of a resident in the State. The card would be issued to (i) A permanent resident, (ii) Semi permanent resident, and (iii) Temporary resident. This proposal incorporating many details, mentions a Multi Purpose National Identity Card sponsored by the Government of India on a trial basis in some states wants Meghalaya included. It will be in the fitness of things, for the Govt. of Meghalaya to follow through on the Rangad Committee recommendations, as the most suitable option to contain influx.
Assam is forging ahead, by adopting the Unique Identification Project (UIP) initiated by the Planning Commission to provide identification for each resident across the country. The National Population Register (NPR) is now being digitalized along with updating the National Register of Citizens (NRC) of 1961, and the first phase would cover 42 of 126 legislative assembly constituencies. This updating will be based on the electoral rolls of 1971, 1966 wherever there are no records of NRC of 1961. The Assam Government is also setting up a NRC directorate to undertake this massive exercise. It may be helpful, if Meghalaya were to study the various aspects of the scheme.
Lastly, the influx of foreigners from across the border, either from the Bangladesh side or through the porous Assam sector is to be addressed head on. While the BSF is on guard with the aid of a fence, the search for greener pastures, does not deter the foreigner slipping through occasionally or in substantial numbers from time to time. One can enter Meghalaya from Assam along the 500 km porous sector, which facilitates easy access to foreigners, masquerading as Indian Nationals armed with legitimate documents from the neighbouring States. It would be naive to believe such persons have no proof of residence. It is more likely they have more papers than, say, a long term resident of Pynursla or Chokpot. Granted that, the Infiltration Check Gates, at Byrnihat and Sonapur have never functioned properly, the same could be said of the Indian Foreigner’s Act 1941 which exists only on paper.
The task of curbing influx, to be a success, must be a combined effort, involving the Govt., the District Councils, the Dorbar Shnongs and NGOs. It is upto the local youth, to take up skilled and unskilled jobs as would greatly discourage immigrant job-seekers. Let civil society without stirring emotions, ponder on the ILP issue as the debate continues. In conclusion, the views expressed are entirely those of the author, who was privy as a Minister to the R.A. Lyngdoh led team report, coupled with the Rangad Committee recommendations.
(The author is former Deputy Commissioner, Kohima, Development Commissioner, Arunachal Pradesh, Chief Secretary, Mizoram, Finance & Home Minister, Meghalaya)