By Morning Star Sumer
On the 15th October, 2012, I was privileged to have been included by the Syiem of Khyrim, Dr. Balajied Sing , in his party to represent his Durbar at the meeting of the High Level Committee, chaired by the Dy. CM, Mr. Bindo M. Lanong to discuss the issue of ILP as a mechanism to stop/control influx of migrants into Meghalaya. It was a disappointment to me that the press release on the meeting did not mention the fact that along with the NGOs, the Syiems of Mylliem and Khyrim Syiemships were also present as invited co-opted members to participate in the proceedings of the meeting. It would have been better still had the chair also invited responsible individuals , especially senior citizens to offer their views, advice/suggestions. It may be worthwhile to suggest here that the powers that be consider inviting public participation in meetings on important matters of concern and relating to the common interest of the people at large. As of now, it seems to me that only the views of the powers that be with their bureaucrats, and of leaders of some NGOs are given weight in considering any issue, that, too, only when NGOs hold out threats of agitations. Therefore, the omission, in the press release of the presence of the Syiems of Khyrim and Mylliem Syiemships or their representatives among others in the meeting would seem to me that there is a questionable motive to project the idea that only the NGOs and the powers that be with their bureaucrats are concerned with the matter or issue. However, as a concerned individual and a temporary representative of a Syiemship (Hima) present at the meeting, I was eager to have my views considered by the committee. I have prepared my presentation which I would like to share with the reading public for wider publicity of the great significance of the ILP and the crucial place it should take now in the process of stopping mindless influx of migrants into and from our state at this juncture and until an acceptable and strong Possession, Ownership and Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act is enacted as suggested by me since I began writing about it.
The ILP may be regarded as a body created by the BENGAL EASTERN FRONTIER REGULATION, 1873, into which the soul is to be breathed by the state government which is mandated to use it as a mechanism to comply with the provisions of the Regulation. We are looking for that soul which should be found in the body of terms and conditions to be framed by the bureaucrats who should, or ought, to know how it should be done. One may only hope that their sagacity would enable them to produce the body of the terms and conditions which would ensure that both the letter and the spirit of the Regulation would be observed / served in practice.
It is, therefore suggested that the following requirements may be seriously considered for embodiment in the ILP.
Suggestions for terms and conditions in the implementation of the provisions of Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873.
1. To issue Notification Order prescribing the “Inner Line” which should be the boundary line of the State recognized as on 21st January 1971 as per the North-Eastern Areas (Re-organisation) Act, 1971 (Act No. 81 of 1971), to comply with Section 2 of the Regulation V of 1873 (Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873).
2. To draw terms and conditions to be incorporated in the ILP along the following lines.
a. Entry into and exit from the state should be only at designated points along the border lines between Meghalaya and other states or countries. Deviation from this provision should be dealt with according to the provisions of the Regulation V of 1873 (to comply with Section 2 of Regulation V of 1873)
b. ILP holders or beneficiaries are debarred from the right to own landed property as freehold possession within the state’s boundaries as per letter and spirit of Section 7 (to comply with Section 7 of Regulation V of 1873).
c. ILP holders may be allowed to possess landed property under leasehold agreements executed only with indigenous tribals’ people who are lawful land owners. Lease agreements executed through agents/authorities should not be permitted and should be deemed to be unlawful (to comply with Section 7 of the Regulation V of 1873).
d. ILP holders may be permitted to stay/reside within the state for as long as may be necessary to accomplish the purpose for which the permit was initially required and issued as indicated in the application for ILP with the proviso that they should not have the right to register their names in the States’s electoral rolls. Constitutional amendment may be necessary to provide that every citizen has the right to only one vote in the whole country ; and it should be exercised only at the constituency in which one is “permanently resident” which term should eventually replace the term “ordinarily resident” occurring in Section 20 of The Representation of the People Act, 1950(to comply with Section 7 of the Regulation V of 1873).
e. Business activities involving trading in products of land including minerals of all kinds should be conducted only through indigenous people (to comply with Section 7 of the Regulation V of 1873).
f. For regular commuters not holding ILPs a condition may be inserted in relevant documents viz, driving licence etc. requiring them to adhere to the limits of Inner Lines on each side of highways through which they may travel in transit between the points of entry and points of exit with indication of period within which they may complete the journey between the two points – of entry into and exit from the state (to comply with Section 7 of the Regulation V of 1873).
g. Implementation of the provisions of the law to comply with Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 & 11 of the Regulation V of 1873 (BENGAL EASTERN FRONTIER REGULATION, 1873).
3. Traditional institutions, i.e. those of village Headmen, Sordars, Sirdars, Wahadadars, Lyngdohs, Syiems etc. should be empowered to participate in the process of implementation of the provision of the Regulation. For obtaining the desired result these institutions should be strengthened by providing guidelines to enable them to function effectively. Facilities for speedy access to police stations and financial assistance should be provided. In fact, this part of the suggestions ought to have been taken care of since 1952 when the District Councils were introduced/formed in the state.
4. The enactment of a strong Possession, Ownership and Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, should be considered and carried through with all speed to render ILP unnecessary in the state. This is the most essential and urgent need of the hour and calls for real commitment of all 60 representatives of the State to enact it.
The process of enactment of a law may be quite a long drawn out and time consuming one; but, given the sincere approach and commitment of all legislators, it may not take much time to accomplish. It did not take the Meghalaya Legislature any significant time to enact the Martin Luther Christian University Act, 2005. May we hope to see the same urgency of action in the enactment of the suggested land law?
Having put all my cards on the table, I leave it to the wisdom of readers as well as of the powers that be, to sift grains from chaff and do the right thing by the people they govern. I, however, still wish to make the point that I do not believe that what I say is gospel truth. I place my views on the spot light to be examined, analysed or mangled as the readers would like. I am not one of those who think “my way or the high way” as some may wish to brand me.