By A Wanshai Shynret
It was a concern that any well meaning person should and would have taken seriously when Patricia Mukhim recently sought the opinion of the youth in The Shillong Times about their response to the current ILP imbroglio. As a Khasi, I too am deeply concerned about our identity, its future and the related ramifications. Far as I may stay from my motherland, my concern gets magnified and therefore the urge to share my opinion. I argued, debated with all my friends, elders, colleagues, acquaintances and others to seek opinions and perspectives on this crucial issue. An informed debate on the ILP is critical and crucial to our understanding of our day to day polemics. Therefore the current debate on the ILP and the concern of our civil society and others is highly appreciated.
At the outset, I believe that the debate on ILP should held at a level of acceptance of contradictory opinions, understanding and also removing our personal biases/vendettas. I start my concerns with a caveat. I am saddened that the debate on the ILP, at present, in some quarters is being positioned as a Tribal versus Dkhar issue. This is misleading, disconcerting and unwarranted. For one, non-tribals who have resided here for decades and are permanent settlers in the State have also contributed to the social fabric of the Meghalaya as noted historian and current member of the UPSC, Prof. David Syiemlieh had mentioned about Bengalis in, “Influence and contribution of Bengali settlers in Khasi Hills.”
The whole debate about ILP and its various avatars such as the much debated 3-tier identity system have primarily risen because of one and only one issue – migrants, or more specifically ‘illegal’ migrants. This coupled with the genuine concern of preserving our ethnicity makes the issue quite a heady mix. Add to this political considerations of vote-bank politics and it becomes a dreaded cocktail that can knock even the senses of seasoned tipplers.
Most ethnic societies have had to deal with this dilemma. But somehow the issues have got drowned in the theatre of political one-upmanship with the common folks left high and dry, forced to endure the economic consequences of bandhs, hooliganism and arson. On this point, it is imperative that we learn from the great leaders of our hill-state movement – Prof G G Swell, Capt W A Sangma, Mr. Hopingstone Lyngdoh Mr. B.B. Lyngdoh, Mr. Martin Narayan Majaw, Mr. S.D.D. Nichols Roy and many more – who successfully fought for the creation of Meghalaya without resorting to arson and hooliganism. Protests become a necessary tool when the government of the day is adamant and undemocratic. But to destroy public and private property in the name of a bandh is outright condemnable.
Coming back to the central issue, the problem related to migrants is manifold. We have economic migrants looking for jobs and illegal migrants who I believe should be the focus of our attention. A thriving economy will attract economic migration. Any demand at stopping this mobility will adversely affect the economy of the state. Our State now boasts of a national medical institute, a national institute of training, a central university, an IIM, various central government institutions and a steady flow of tourists due to the relative peace and beauty of the place. Investments are slowly but surely trickling in. Can we really honestly claim to be able to run these institutions and face harsh economic realities while restricting the mobility of resources? Can we maintain the quality of the above institutions of excellence when we oppose mobility of intellectual resources through the ILP? Wouldn’t it act as a deterrent to excellence? Many noted individuals have elaborated on the ILP acting as a deterrent to tourism and capital investment. Mobility and movement of resources both intellectual and otherwise is a reality which we have to accept in this highly integrated and globalised world.
As for the issue of ‘illegal’ migrants, I believe there cannot be two opinions about it. That’s why they are called ‘illegal’, not permissible to migrate under any legal provision in this nation. This is where our effort and energy should be focused. We do not want our state to undergo what the Bodos are currently facing with the influx of illegal migrants from across the border eating into our social fabric and threatening our ethnic identity. The Bodos face it, the tribals of Tripura have faced it and many others have had an uneasy history with the influx of illegal migrants. But will the ILP resolve this? Allow me to point out a few critical aspects to this.
The debate about the ‘origin’ of the ILP Act – issued under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation Act, 1873 – has been beaten to death in recent days. It should now move ahead of its year of origin to crucial issues. A section points out to ILP being a colonial legacy which should be shunned and discarded; unfit to deal with modern day social complexities and economic realities. VS Jafa in his paper, Administrative Policies & Ethnic Disintegration Engineering Conflict in India’s North East, had outlined that the intent behind the ILP is one of administrative control and so to blindly accept that ‘protecting’ tribal identity was the sole motive is a little far-fetched.
Contrariwise, others which include our MLA, Mr. Ardent Basiawmoit, have opined, as reported in your esteemed paper, that if the ILP is a colonial legacy, so is the ‘European Ward’ and therefore even the ‘European Ward’ too should be brought under the provisions of the Sixth Schedule. I for one argue that in the midst of this heated debate, let us not throw away the baby with the bath-water. For, in the argument of the well-respected Legislator also lies an existing solution – The Sixth Schedule – meant to protect us tribals.
Therefore the question that actually needs to be asked today is: What have the constitutional authorities -District Councils, et al – mandated with protecting our interests been doing all this while then? If there is a threat to our tribal identity due to unabated and continuous illegal influx, then shouldn’t those constitutionally mandated under the Sixth Schedule to protect the identity of the tribals be made accountable? Why is this not being asked? On paper, we couldn’t have asked for a better law to safeguard the interest of tribals in India. But alas, it remains on paper. [Refer to Clause 3.1(a) of the SIXTH SCHEDULE [Articles 244(2) and 275(1)] Provisions as to the Administration of Tribal Areas in the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram]
Furthermore, it has been pointed out that that the implementation of the ILP will solve ‘all our illegal migrant problems’. Before giving the ILP such generous credit, let us further examine the provisions of the ILP in some states. Examples have been cited of Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh being models of the ILP implementation. However, it would be pertinent for this debate to realize that current ILP regulations in these states have provisions for Inner Line Passes for ‘casual’, ‘contractual’ and ‘muster-roll’ employees of the Government of India and its ‘instrumentalities’. In addition, there are also provisions for Inner Line Pass to ‘import labour in bulk’. The provisions are vague, filled with loopholes and open to exploitation. It will, I sadly fear, lead to a Licence Raj which can play havoc in the long-term. Such vague provisions in ILP have led unscrupulous contractors and labour suppliers to exploit the loopholes, especially in menial jobs where there is a huge labour vacuum. Besides, the implementing authority of the above stated law is again those who have failed us in the first place. Will the same Police Infiltration Wing which has not been very effective till date, be now tasked with implementing the ILP?
We have enough laws to tackle the menace of illegal migrants – the Sixth Schedule, the Meghalaya Transfer of Land Regulation Act, etc – and we do not need another one. But since the constitutionally mandated authorities have failed the people of Meghalaya in implementing those, it is high time that members of the civil society are taken into confidence to resolve this issue of illegal migrants. Therefore, just like the Residents’ Welfare Associations in metros which follow the Bhagidari System or ‘Collaborative Partnership’ with the government, amendments should be made to existing laws to make ‘Dorbar Shnong’ active participants in resolving this problem. We all have a stake in ensuring that no illegal migrant manages to hoodwink the law. The Dorbar Shnong’ should be given a legal sanction and the Executive Committee of such ‘Dorbar – and not the ‘Rangbah Shnong’/’Gaon Burah’ alone – will be part of this ‘Collaborative Partnership’.
Having lived in cities like Kolkatta and New Delhi, I have seen first hand the ‘Collaborative Partnership’ system as being effective in checking illegal settlers and also more effectively resolve a host of other problems like water, sanitation and security. Existing provisions of the Sixth Schedule, the Land Transfer Act and vigilant ‘Dorbar Shnong’ should ensure a credible system of ‘checks and balances’. The ‘Dorbar Shnong’ will register themselves, receive government funds, hold regular elections and maintain an audited account and function as per the amended laws and create and give every resident of Meghalaya a sense of responsibility. The outcome will be positive and harmonious.
Finally, a question should also be raised as to why this issue reoccurs and disturbs our lives off and on every few years, creates disharmony and remains unresolved. It happened in 1987 and periodically reappeared in the 90s, early part of 2000’s and now. This has raised serious questions in the minds of many as to whether the ILP has become a case of political manipulation. Are governments brought down and installed as part of its grand design? Are we really serious about carrying this through or is it just a subterfuge for political gains. Its periodic recurrence without any resolution has certainly raised eyebrows. If we are really serious about the ILP issue, we need to amicably settle this once and for all.
One thing has, however, visibly changed this time. Members of the civil society are not hesitant anymore to voice their opinions through different platforms. It is positive, encouraging and should be appreciated. On this bright note, we should move forward to find an amicable and lasting solution, once and for all. (The writer is Assistant Professor, University of Delhi)