By Patricia Mukhim
The much-vaunted talks between the conglomerate of NGOs and the Government on the issue of the Inner Line Permit (ILP), as a mechanism to control influx have ended in a stalemate. That the NGOs had come with an ultimatum that it should be the ILP or nothing was evident from the opening statement of the NGO spokesperson, Joe Marwein whose exact words were, “We have had enough discussions on the issue of influx. The Government should implement the ILP because it is the best solution to curb influx…… If Government agrees we will continue the talks. If not we will walk out.” Now can we afford to have such intransigence in a democracy? Is the ILP the only solution to the myriad problems, much of them internally induced such as our own disinclination to do certain kinds of work; no dignity of labour; no industrial culture; an inclination to short-sell our interests to the highest bidder (the reason for benami transactions). These societal ailments cannot be solved by a political instrument that will lend itself to the shortfalls that besets every other aspect of governance. It is curious that we have never had time to introspect on the social malaise (unabated greed, destruction of the environment including common property resources, disdain for rule of law etc.) that affect us more than the influx and “the outsider is responsible for our dystopia,” argument.
The point with us is that we are neither fully democratic nor oligarchic. We are swinging like a pendulum not knowing where we will land. And if we do land on our faces because of this dilemma then we need a scapegoat to blame. With so many institutions to guard our destinies why are we still complaining? The fact is that some of these institutions have become our undoing. Why are the District Councils for instance silent on the issue of influx? The Councils are promoting trade and commerce by non-tribals by collecting money for trading licences. They are of the view that genuine Indians have the right to conduct trade and commerce in Meghalaya.
Now here is a point of contention. From my conversation with an NGO leader last evening I was clearly told that ILP is meant to check other Indians and not just the Bangladeshi infiltrator. I asked him whether all the passengers bound for Silchar or Mizoram or Tripura would need to have an ILP. He said ‘No.’ So I asked him what happens if some passenger decides to alight at Nongthymmai and loses himself among the crowd? His reply was that if we have strict tenancy laws then the person might find it difficult to get accommodation anywhere because he would then have to produce valid documents. “We are not apprehensive about professionals who come here to work or of students (such as those in the IIM and other institutes)but we are more concerned about those who come here surreptitiously with the intention of settling permanently.” My counter question is, “Why do such people come here?” He replied, “Of course they come because there is work to do and I accept that our own people have no work culture and all that blah…blah..blah. So but we have to educate our people the importance of a work culture. That will take time.”
This young man said if the ILP check gates are set up at all and entry points and the ILP is implemented on a bottoms-up formula at the level of the Shnong where the tenancy laws as proposed by Government will be made to work, much of the influx would be curtailed. I asked this gentleman why he did not prepare a blue-print (on how exactly to make the ILP work), to the Government? He said, “If the Government asks us for it we will give it.” I said to him that as citizens if we have a bright idea we should give that to the Government because that is what being a citizen in a democracy entails. It does not mean putting the Government on the mat through threats and ultimatum. He said he would put together a step by step blue-print of action for curbing influx through the ILP and put it before the Government. He also said that the NGOs were preparing a pamphlet for wider dissemination of the ILP discourse.
Would such a dissemination of ideas from a group with a closed mind about any other mechanism other than the ILP be of any worth? Does the person reading the pamphlet have a choice? In a free country we give people the right to choose. We don’t burden those without the wherewithal to understand the larger ramifications of the ILP, with the notion that the ILP is the only way for the ‘jaitbynriew’ to survive! When people are not in a position to make an informed choice, either because they are not allowed to or because they are brainwashed by rhetoric, then we are not practicing democracy. We are exercising another kind of muscle power through auto-suggestion.
The memorandum submitted by the All India Garo Union begins with the preamble that there is a ‘perception’ that the indigenous tribals are swamped by people from across the border. Perception is a dangerous word because on the basis of perception many people have committed crimes. Perception is the same as speculation. It is the anti-thesis of facts. The facts and figures of our demographic structure speak otherwise. The non-tribal population has significantly reduced over the decades. This is statistics based on data collected from door to door. It is not manipulated because the scope to do so is almost nil since it is conducted by central agencies with no vested interest in playing around with figures. It was Voltaire who said, “Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.” Most people are quick to buy into a fear psychosis than engage in a rational argument. The Large majority don’t even ask questions because they don’t know what to ask. They listen and believe. And this happens because we are still not fully in a position to understand the politics of democracy.
The last part of the conversation I had with the NGO gentleman was about ILP as a deterrent to investments. He said anyone who comes with a transparent model of investment with proper documents and goes through the rigmarole of the Revenue Department should have no problem. He could be given a long term ILP. Students he said should be given a 3- year or 5-year ILP (after calculating the length of their studies here) so that they are saved the hassle. I asked him if the weekend tourist from Guwahati who comes here to spend his hard earned money would need an ILP he said, “Yes.” Now this sort of logic is mind-blogging for most of us. And I would like to believe that the NGO representatives who were sitting in that room for talks too must be figuring out the equations like many of us were doing.
So if the NGOs are going to submit a blue-print to the Government why have they been quick to declare a bandh? What sort of democracy is this? Do the NGOs represent the voices of the 30 lakh people of Meghalaya? Please give us a break! The ILP demand should not become an ego trip for anyone!