ILP issue


The issue of Inner Line Permit (ILP) in Meghalaya requires extensive public debate. The NGO’s and few individuals in the State have the tendency to decide things on our behalf (the public at large ) or take us for a ride on many occasions and on various issues without our consent or approval. Not once can I recollect any NGO seeking public opinion/views on issues concerning the interest of the people. We understand the sole objective of demanding the ILP is to curb the flow of influx to the State but have the other North Eastern States which are protected by the ILP not have influx issues? Take the case of Nagaland. In spite of the ILP the condition in Dimapur is pathetic. The entire commercial area, bazaars, hotels and business houses are controlled and manipulated by the outsiders. In Kohima barring the meat shops, all other business enterprises are run by outsiders.

In Arunachal Pradesh too business is run not by the indigenous people but by illegal immigrants from Nepal. Let us say that we have the ILP in Meghalaya and a group of people in a bus coming from Guwahati ( Assam ) are checked and found not to posses valid documents for entering Meghalaya and they plead that they are heading towards Silchar or Mizoram via the highways through Meghalaya. Suppose they are allowed entry but somewhere in their journey, they disembark either in Nongthymmai or Ladrymbai, how does the ILP system work then? Illegal immigrants for obvious reasons will not come through the official entry points. Who will check those unofficial points? Please, not the Government officials or the police personnel! The reason I doubt the efficacy of the government and police is because the cops manning the infiltration check gate at the Byrnihat have become rich overnight. Then whom do we trust? The NGO’s will not have time to check illegal immigrants. But even if, for arguments sake, lets say NGOs can somehow handle the situation and check the flow of illegal immigrants, but can they handle about 30 to 40 entry points to Meghalaya! With the implementation of ILP in the State, the tourism industry will be severely affected. Tourist resorts, tourist guides and rural people who had ventured into tourism sector as a means of livelihood will find their future imperiled. I subscribe to the idea that we need a mechanism to check and curb influx into the State but definitely ILP is not the ideal mechanism. We should also learn from our neighbour’s blunder. The Assam Accord which was signed between the AASU and the Central Government way back in 1985 had certain provisions to protect their indigenous identities but till today they are still howling . The NGO’s should instead fight for the immediate implementation of the 3 – tier comprehensive system of identity cards with a base year to establish how to detect illegal immigrants .

Yours etc.,

Cliff R Sohtun

Shillong -6

 MPSC violating UGC norms?


In the current job advertisement by MPSC (No. MPSC/ADVT-38/1/2012-2013/49, Dated, Shillong the 21st August, 2012), NET/PhD has, suddenly, become an essential qualification for the post of Lecturers in Government Colleges under Education Department. Although NET/MPhil/PhD is an essential minimum qualification for lecturer’s job according to UGC regulation, 2009, MPSC and Education Department have not been complying with the regulation so far. Lately, there has been no notification/circular from Education Department for the change in qualification requirements for the said posts. If, indeed, from now, UGC norms are being adopted for recruiting lecturers then Education Department must also specify the effective date, which I assume, will coincide with the date from which UGC regulation, 2009 came into force.

For reasons best known to MPSC and Education Department, even after UGC Regulation, 2009 came into force, candidates without NET/MPhil/PhD were being appointed in Government Colleges and these appointments were made even when meritorious candidates having NET/MPhil/PhD were available and could well be appointed without violating the state’s reservation policy. Further, exemption of NET may be granted only in the subjects where NET is not conducted or when NET/MPhil/PhD qualified candidates are not available; that too on condition that the candidate shall acquire their NET/SLET/SET qualification preferably within a period of 2 years (clause 3.3.3). Therefore, it is not apt for the Education Department to regularize the services of lecturers who do not possess NET/MPhil/PhD qualification.

By not following the UGC regulation, 2009 in appointing college lecturers, Education Department has not only unfairly deprived the UGC qualified candidates but has also denied the students of qualified teachers. Therefore, Education Department should review the selection and appointment of lecturers that has been made after UGC regulation 2009 came into effect.

While the Education Department’s recognition of the college teachers’ nature of work and activities to be distinct from other normal administrative works and coming up with a revised ACR (Annual Confidential Report) format for grading the performance of teachers in Government Colleges is a positive move; it would also be good if Education Department realizes that recruitment of teachers cannot be as per the recruitment of other administrative jobs. Due weightage should be given to academic performance of the candidates . The API Scoring System proposed in the UGC Regulations 2009 in Appendix III- Tables II(a & b) should be adopted for recruitment of lecturers in the colleges.

Yours etc.,

John Richards,

Via email


Get real time updates directly on your device, subscribe now.

Comments are closed.