By Paul Lyndoh
The Langpih cauldron is on the boil yet again. Amidst the rising decibels on who is to blame for the current state of affairs, one fact clearly stands out: Meghalaya’s failure to define its boundaries at the time of its creation, has returned to haunt this generation with a vengeance. I, for one, have nothing against a group of political activists upping the ante on the issue in order to compel the Government of the day to act decisively and facilitate an enduring settlement of the dispute. In fact, any attempt at pulling the attention of either the local government or the centre is justifiable. But when the shrillness is not matched by maturity, when we merely generate heat and not light, things begin to look hollow and we end up as petty actors engaged in political grandstanding. That is when the need to invent scapegoats begins.
That is why when Ms. Fenella Nonglait, (a Gen-X member of the HSPDP, which had represented Langpih to the State Assembly for the last 40 years) castigated me at Langpih for allegedly failing to submit the Border panel report to the State Government, I was least surprised. For the information of readers of this piece, it was not Paul’s panel but a sub-committee of the MUA with members who included Dr Donkupar Roy (Chairman), Paul Lyngdoh (Secretary), Ardent Basaiawmoit, Dr. Advisor Pariong, Coming Ymbon and PynshngainSyiem . It was constituted on 9th June 2010, held a series of meetings and invited written submissions from Political Parties, NGO’s, Traditional Institutions and individuals. The Sub-Committee met last on 18th August 2010and submitted its report to the Chief Minister, Dr Mukul Sangma in February 2011. Going through the voluminous reports and documents submitted by the UDP, HSPDP and Individuals like Shri. L.M. Sanghvi, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, Bah M.M. Thaiang (who wrote on the History of the people of the Labang- Nongphyllut and Pangam-Raliang areas), the State Level Land Revenue Committee report of 2000, among others, was no easy task. As Secretary of the Sub- Committee, I was tasked with the responsibility of culling the various reports in a condensed form after editing them and present a comprehensive view of the very intricate issue. It took me three months of intense reading and editing- literally burning the proverbial midnight oil- before I could draft the final report. Some of the observations made by the respondents made interesting reading. For instance, Shri L. M. Sanghvi while giving his interpretation of the words “Territories known as the Khasi States like Bordwar of Nongkhlaw Syiemship, Nongwah- Mawtammur of Hima Jirang, Dasdemoria Mauza of Hima Mylliem and Hima Rambrai, etc” observed that the expression “ transcends mere administrative exigencies of the past and comprehended social, cultural, historical, linguistic and other facets and that, in any event, the character and status of Khasi territories could not be wiped out except by annexation, cession or legislative enactment which is fully tenable in International Law as well as Constitutional Law”. To my mind, this observation holds the hidden key that might finally unlock the enigma surrounding the Inter-State boundary tangle. Even on the question relating to Block-I & II which were tagged to the then Mikir Hills District by Notification no TAD/8/31/50/149 dated: 19th April 1951, Shri. Sanghvi had affirmed that “the Question was not really finally decided because objections had been invited against the aforesaid Notification and the matter was not finally disposed of. In the instant case, the Constitution of India explicitly recognises the socio-cultural and historical indicators as factors for determining the status under Para 20 (2) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India.” Sanghvi then offered his prescription: “The only alternative is a Boundary Commission or an Inter-State Commission to be appointed by the Central Government and followed by a Parliamentary Legislation to remove the doubts and to resolve the disputes.”
The Sub- Committee then proceeded to the final denouement which contains the following recommendations:-
To recommend to the State Government the setting up of a Boundary Commission under the auspices of the Union Government in line with the legal opinion tendered by Shri. L.M. Sanghvi, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court in 1980 which would remedy a historical blunder committed by the British imperialists.
That, the State Government be urged to persuade the Government of Assam to extend its full co-operation to such a Commission as and when constituted.
That, in resolving the dispute, the following parameters be taken into account:
» Oral tradition and history of a particular area of settlement.
» Ethnic composition.
» Language and medium of communication.
» Historical records, agreements, electoral rolls, etc
That, the Commission be given the task of settling the entire boundary between Assam and Meghalaya, including villages forming part of Block I and Block II which were forcibly tagged to the State of Assam in 1951.
The Report formed the basis of a Government sponsored Resolution to the effect that the Meghalaya State Legislative Assembly recommends the setting up of a Boundary Commission which was adopted unanimously by the House on 16th March 2011. The matter now lies with the Union Government which has to be persuaded to agree to play the role of a non-partisan umpire in consonance with well-defined Constitutional parameters.
Perusing bulky reports and documents for an active legislator requires time, focus and a temporary disconnect from the teeming crowds. It is entirely different from converging in a public space, ranting your anger against the powers that be, hogging the limelight and scoring brownie points. It does not afford you with any opportunity of running to the rooftop and shouting that you are engaged in a very important people-oriented, “patriotic” exercise (We now even have self-proclaimed “patriots” who will not wait for the public to issue them with such a certificate). Yes, as Bah Mohrmen quipped recently, it can even rob you of the sheen you acquired through years of media coverage, and being the focus of attention and adulation. Yet the fundamental question is: Is leadership all about staying in the headlines and playing to the gallery? Is it more about the anticipation of applause rather than the quiet pursuit of a cause? Can effective leadership be reduced to popularity ratings shorn of depth and focus? The questions loom large and the answer is, well, blowing in the wind. As for yours truly, I would rather lose my sheen to imbibe more substance. And not the other way around. Period.