By Morning Star Sumer
The recent news report, “Centre okays Meghalaya proposal” (ST. AUG.3., 2011) with New Delhi dateline, which relates to the state’s proposal “To allow traditional institutions to nominate members to the urban civic bodies with certain terms and conditions”, jogged my memory to recall what Bah Toki Blah had written on ” The Audacity of Nonsense” (ST. NOVMEBER 25,2010), a riposte to which was my article “Making Nonsense of Civic Polls,” (ST. December 8,2010) and on “Selective tradition and civilized urban existence – Part I and II” (ST.January 8,19,2011). In part I (ST.Jan 18), he comes out as usual – ambivalent and a fence-sitter. After navigating through and around the usual verbiage we find him ridiculing the so-called “traditionalists” and followed this by lecturing us on the virtues of municipalities, and, his verbosity confounds readers who are left wondering whether he was writing a judgmental discourse/dissertation on modern legislators or on a proposal for a utopian body of administrators who would replace or parallel them in local self-governing bodies – elected by the same process of election followed in electing the present legislators. It is important to note that election of ward commissioners under the present mode in which political parties take part or nominate candidates is not suitable for election in civic bodies.
In part II (ST. Jan 19,2011)of the article, Bah Toki Blah seems to have metamorphosed from being an opponent to being a proponent of the idea/proposal for enacting Meghalaya’s own Municipal Act. There is another welcome change to be seen in this article: he has come out with one of the most constructive suggestions ever seen in print in the debate on civic polls in Meghalaya. That suggestion was for village durbars (Dorbar Dong/ Shnong) to nominate five members (3 males +2 Females) as members of their Ward Committee. Bah Toki Blah should elucidate his views on how this should be done. I hope that something will be done to examine his, as well as others’ suggestions and to incorporate them in the proposed Meghalaya’s own (not ‘State-owned’ please as some had indicated) Municipal Act. I suspect that Meghalaya’s proposal to the centre for traditional institutions to nominate members to urban civic bodies was based on Bah Toki Blah’s constructive suggestions in his article. If so, kudos to the present incumbent Minister of Urban Affairs, Kong Ampareen Lyngdoh, who, unlike her lethargic predecessors in office, appears/seems to be active and to have the good sense to feel the people’s pulse expressed in and through diverse means which, in this case, seems to be that in articles or letters published in the media. Now that the Centre has okayed the proposal it is hoped that all stake holders keep themselves informed of the modality or of the procedure to be followed in the process of sending Ward Commissioners in the municipalities.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has been and continues to be the thorn in the flesh of indigenous people in the Country. At the time it was enacted there was recognition that land belonged to the rulers, everywhere. So, when it is extended to apply to people whose rulers do not own the land there would be problem. We have recently had that experience in West Bengal where Mamata Banerjee’s followers defied the West Bengal government’s acquisition of farmers’ land for the Tata car plant in Singur and a chemical industrial complex in Nandigram. In our own State we have the same problem. How, why, when, then, was the provisions of Land Acquisition Act extended to Meghalaya? People justify the extension of Acts to our State by mentioning that there are provisos which state that the President/Governor may order extension of Acts to an areas not originally covered, but there are conditions which may justify such extension, may be, in an ad-hoc manner. However, that can not be done if it contravenes indigenous traditions.
Now, the grapevine has it that the draft Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement ( LARR) Bill, 2011 to succeed the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been circulated country wide by the Ministry of Rural Development: are our legislators aware of it? If they are, why do the media in Meghalaya keep it away from us? Why are we in Meghalaya not aware of it?
It is very disquieting to note that a Deputy Chief Minister had, in his – Cabinet’s? – wisdom stated that land acquisition is not an issue in Meghalaya! Are my compatriots awake to the danger implied in this statement? Wake up NGOs! Woefully, we read in a vernacular daily that the State’s Minister for forest too, in his greater wisdom, has chosen to ridicule our land tenure system while suggesting that government will purchase large areas of land for afforestation. There is supposed to be a social forestry scheme in the state. Why do they not think of improving that scheme instead? The Minister’s suggestion about afforestation by government sounds hollow when legislators have had their hands in deforestation. It is getting curiouser and curiouser by the day!
There is an on going raging debate on the new draft Bill: we depend on the wisdom and sagacity of our MP, Vincent H. Pala to see that it is not extended to this State if it contravenes our traditions. Specifically he should see that the land should not be acquisitioned with compensation which is tantamount to sale of land to government because it runs counter to our system in which rulers including government are not land owners. Taking compensation for land acquired by government is tantamount to outright sale to government which cannot own landed property. He should see that there is provision for government to hire or take land on lease agreement instead of acquiring by compensating the owners. I hope this is sufficient for our leaders to wake up and act.
The grapevine also has it that the extra-constitutional body known as National Advisory Council (NAC), headed by Sonia Gandhi, had suggested that every major Act of Parliament should be debated by the public at least two months before being tabled in Parliament. Our MPs should be aware of this. Most importantly, they should contribute to the debate in Parliament and make sure that laws on subjects of National importance are not extended to this State if they contravene our tradition. Instead, they should ensure that alternative provisions are there to ensure that such laws may be applied differently. For example, as suggested above, land acquisition may be replaced by land lease agreement.
So much for now, I hope our legislators at all levels – District Council to Lok Sabha – take notice of these suggestions.
(The writer is a social thinker)