By Morning Star Sumer
In an article, “Is ILP the solution to the influx dilemma?” (ST AUG 24, 2012) Patricia Mukhim tries vainly to refute the view that ILP may be the solution to the influx dilemma. Her fulmination against those who clamour for implementing the Inner Line Permit (ILP) is not justified if one goes only by her arguments against it.
To begin with, Mukhim’s statement that the demand has come following the recent bloodbath in Assam is palpably wrong. I know that implementation of the ILP had been one of the many demands of most, if not all, NGOs in Meghalaya, but somehow the demand had been shelved each time it was brought up for reasons best known only to the leaders of the NGOs themselves. The suggestion that the demand should “be backed up by sufficient data and statistics from those states where it has been implemented” is worth considering; but it presupposes that no one has test-checked to find out whether the ILP has worked in those states. As a supporter for the demand – not as an activist – I had personally braved all odds to find out for myself. My finding is that “Mizoram”, as the writer grudgingly testifies, “is demographically pristine” because its people ” have the experience of living with this Instrument”. The writer also refers to Nagaland where the ILP has not been able to restrict influx of illegal immigrants as I have personally witnessed. I have not test-checked how the ILP works in Arunachal Pradesh, so I cannot yet include it in my purview. The diametrically opposite effects of the same ILP in two states may not be sufficient to evaluate the worth/value or need for an instrument such as the ILP. It is, however, sufficient for analysis to get to the bottom of what causes were at play to produce such diametrically opposite effects. What I had witnessed in Mizoram was diligent enforcement of the guidelines for successful implementation of the provisions of the ILP. The grass root levels of administration were empowered to participate in the process. In contrast to the diligence and business-like approach I had witnessed in Mizoram, the attitude and approach I witnessed in Nagaland is lackadaisical at best! One may ask why there should be such differences in attitude and approach to the same problem. The answer lies in the perception, attitude and above all, the commitment, of the powers that be to the problem. If those in powers in Nagaland were committed enough to solve the problem they would have found a way to achieve the same results as Mizoram has. Coming nearer home, I see the Nagaland picture in my own state, Meghalaya. The powers that be here pay only lip service to the problem either because they are too indolent to move a finger or because they have selfish and vested interests in ignoring it. In fact the ILP does not seem to be on their radar; so when the NGOs point to the blank screen they hedge and resort to dilly dallying to buy time in the hope that the issue would die down. Dr. Sangma claimed he has a machinery to supplant what he sees as a flawed ILP. In plain language he is hedging and dilly dallying; else, why has he not revealed his pet machinery? Certainly it is not a classified object! And we have no time to waste.
I am not sure whether Joseph Stiglitz’s prognostication on global markets is relevant to the ILP debate but Mukhim also stated “…he also argues that there is no alternative to market forces except that they should be regulated”. The operative word here is “regulated” which, I think, means regulation of whatever venture – global economy included – one may be talking about. The question is what makes for global economy? I believe that the richest and most powerful globally market-minded person in Meghalaya would be just a small fish among the sharks of the global market! The unanswerable question I often ask is, why is it necessary to own a piece of land to exploit its resources? One can easily possess a plot of tribal land on leasehold terms as provided for under the laws of the land. Many a craftsman/tradesman in Shillong has prospered by exploiting the resources of leasehold property: others can also do so on an even larger scale, subject to the provisions of the laws as applicable. The problem here is that there is no law to regulate land possession/ownership and land alienation in the state. Kong Patricia, has recently castigated the land holding system in which certain clans claim to own the earth while the majority of clans are dispossessed of their land or own no land. I would like to participate in any debate on issues relating to land ownership, possession, alienation and ceiling. The so-called Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971, enacted to protect indigenous tribals’ interests, has degenerated, by the introduction of flaws inserted by uncalled for amendments, into becoming a virtual instrument to render Meghalaya a prospective landless State after a few decades from now! The suggestion, that sensible people would prevent scams from happening by keeping a vigilant eye on policies is easier said than done. For one, unpleasant things may happen before any policy is publicized or notified: for another, serious accidents may occur while a policy which is shrouded in government’s secretive blanket exists. Look at the so-called Mineral Policy touted by a Cabinet Minister . Where is it now after much fanfare announcing its (still?) birth? It is also wrong and fallacious to regard the RTI as a “post facto document of something that has happened and where the next stop is to take matters to a court of law”. The utility of the information extracted under the RTI Act, 2005, is not necessarily limited to its use at law courts. My own perception is that the extent of its utility is very vast indeed, limited only by the genius of its possessor who may choose what to do with. For that reason, access to the provisions of the RTI Act may have to be judiciously controlled to prevent or obviate gross abuse. Mukhim’s proposition to contain influx by introducing a three-tier identity card system to determine three categories of citizens as proposed by Toki Blah and mooted in the Assembly by a local MLA, Manas Choudhuri, but found no takers, seems like a plausible way out of the impasse: we ought to have debated it. There is still time to do so.
Finally, I would disagree with the final statement in the article that, “…the ILP…has been tried, tested and found wanting” . My reasons for disagreement are set forth in the arguments in this article. Laws, regulations, guidelines etc. need teeth to be effective. A mouthful of teeth, however, can do nothing if the mouth does not close to bite. So, laws/regulations even with teeth can achieve nothing if enforcement is lax. Enforcement is the responsibility of not only the law enforcement branch of government but also the public who should be vigilant and responsible enough to cooperate. That kind of cooperation is seen in Mizoram in the implementation of ILP. To answer the question posed in the titled heading of the article I would aver that ILP is only one factor amongst many that may be necessary for the solution to the influx dilemma. In the midst of arguments and counter-arguments about the ILP we should not lose sight of the basic fact that the Eastern Bengal Frontier Regulation Act, 1873, commonly known as Inner Line Regulation, was initially introduced in the eastern-most parts of the erstwhile province of Bengal of which Assam was then a part, to protect the people (us) inhabiting these areas, from increasing social and economic exploitation and to prevent the prospect of incessant invasion into their (our) independent domain. The ILP is still a potent instrument to do what is was designed to do since, and post 1873. The Regulation was adapted under the Government of India Act, 1935, and, thereafter, under the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950. It was again adapted under the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971. Successive governments in Assam had been loath to implement ILP in the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) areas because their plan is to scotch the Bodo’s aspiration for a separate state. Rajesh Pilot, Former Union Minister of State in the Home Ministry, in 1993, was reputed to have stated that, for the Bodos, statehood would remain an impossible dream because they are a minority in their own land. That is home truth for you out of the horse’s mouth. Thanks to vote bank politics, the Ahoms themselves are now being outnumbered by immigrants. We should be grateful to Indira Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India for agreeing to grant Meghalaya statehood while we were still a majority in our land. We should not be complacent: there are still forces at work to reduce us to a minority in our own land. If they succeed, Meghalaya would become a landless State sans indigenous tribals! Fanatical resistance to implementation of ILP in Meghalaya is a weapon those forces use for their nefarious plan to succeed!