By Sadon K Blah
In a globalised world we cannot live in isolation. But the merging of humans, economies, cultural and political rights – in short cosmopolitanism must have parameters so that the convergence does not result in the total annihilation of the merging entity. The ILP that the NGOs demand is a model based on coalition of interests (tribal and non-tribal); not a merging of interests. Strangely when the NGOs demand the implementation of the Inner line Permit they are told that the ILP is a colonial law which cannot be invoked in contemporary India of which the State of Meghalaya is part of. This classification is opportunistic , arbitrary and the only bastion of argument that the government trots out to counter the demand for the ILP in Meghalaya. There are many colonial laws which are still in force in this country. If the Indian nation has to move out of the colonial mindset we might have to do away with many laws in the IPC and CrPC including the addictive 144 CrPC. We still have the vague classification of administrative areas as British areas , Municipal areas, European Wards, all designed by the British to suit their colonial administration. That administration is borrowed by the present rulers who are mostly the neo-rich with a neo-colonial mindset and a multi pronged system of exploitation. They exploit us directly and also outsource that system of exploitation to companies from across the world and country to exploit our natural resources as the cement industries, including the mining giant Lafarge are doing.
Demand for the implementation of ILP is not outside the purview of the Constitutional because the said law is very much alive in our State. Our only mistake is that at the time of demanding statehood our leaders failed to do their homework by properly studying the existing laws and also enacting new laws. Had they realised that the ILP is a law that existed in parts of the State of Meghalaya, the problem might have been resolved once and for all. In the absence of statesmen we are now bombarded by central laws, even though the Indian Constitution contains several provisions for protection of the rights of Indigenous people .
Let us look at the counter arguments about how implementation of ILP will not affect the Tourism Industry of the State. Since statehood Meghalaya has no record as to (a) how many people visited our state as tourists (b) of those who entered, how many have become residents of Meghalaya by taking roots in our State? The person who enters is in Khliehriat or Polo or Police Bazar, Jhalupara etc., staying or working or married to a woman in this tourist destination. The ILP will help identify those who enter as tourists and record if they have left the state after their visits. This will help records the incoming and outgoing tourists in the state and the revenue that accrues from the tourism industry. Is it the big Marwari or Punjabi hoteliers in Police Bazaar or the plastic-shed shop owners in the remote tourist destinations? Hence ILP as demanded does not say no to tourism. In the debate over development vis a vis implementation of ILP-we have to take a broader perspective of development and not just economic development. Development has many dimensions such as social, political, cultural development etc., which does not threaten the existence of the ethnic, indigenous population. Any nation that stresses only on economic development comprises a community of misers whose prime motive is self-interest. This will leave future generations at the mercy of the economic forces which transcend all boundaries. If we stick to this theme, it proves that we are a community of crass materialists dictated by the few who create wealth out of anything .We should consider our priorities. Should we choose development over marginalisation? Should we consider economic development over other aspects of inclusive development mentioned above? The choice is ours!
When our Government argues that ILP will hamper development lets us look the other way. Right now we do not have ILP in place but are we better developed? Meghalaya is the least developed state with high levels of corruption. Our roads are pathetic; our health sector is in shambles; our education scenario, because of rampant commercialisation denies access to the majority who cannot afford it. This does not mean that once the ILP is implemented the Government will have to further shed its developmental role, but if we consider development as the role of the private investors ILP will not affect that because any worthwhile investment will not need to go through the ILP; only the investors will need one. All investments will have to pass through the usual processes of trading license and NOC which our State is too willing to facilitate through the system of Single Window Agency. On analysis we find that none of the industries operating in Meghalaya bring any benefit to the state whether in terms of development or employment or even in revenue generation. The tax holidays (subsidies) given by the government both Central and State to the cement industries in our state is far higher than the revenue they generate for it.
Right now we have eight cement companies only in Jaintia hills District. So where is the development without ILP? On the contrary there is rampant exploitation of our natural resources, the poisoning of our rivers, the land grabbing and land alienation of the farmers in the proposed New Shillong Township. If our environment and our farmers are displaced in the name of development, then this is a counter-development even without ILP. Both industrialisation and New Shillong Town ship will necessitate and encourage influx and migration. The more the government insists on the role of private sector in development through industrialisation the more valid is the demand for regulating the inflow of outsiders into our State through the ILP. In a corporate driven national and international economy, investments is not only industrial. Other sectors of investment such as the service sector exist. So far as this sector has not developed in Meghalaya. Apart from the mobile phone service providers we do not have any substantial investments in this sector by private players.
It is the service sector where our educated youth can find employment. But investments in this sector is outsourced beyond the borders of our State. After nearly two decades of liberalisation of the Indian economy the world is interested only in our raw materials for extractive industries. Yet we do not say no to development.
Some fear that implementation of the ILP will reduce Meghalayans to toads in the pit. But ILP is not a total restriction or a Berlin wall which will bar the entry of non Meghalayans here. It is merely a regulation to prevent the entry of outsiders and illegal migrants from settling here and pose a threat to our economic and political rights and to our future. As per Section 2 and 4 of the Eastern Bengal Frontier Regulation 1873, contemporary governments can make provisions within the said regulation to suit the contemporary needs. This means we don’t say no to the coming of people from any part of the world.
Presently there are several mechanisms to tackle influx. We have the Foreigners Act, the labour license ,work permit, trading license, Infiltration check gates, the yet to function Directorate of Infiltration, the proposed Block level task force and lately the panacea pill against influx and migration manufactured by Chief minister, Mukul Sangma i.e. the Tenancy law. But these laws have failed to dent the issue of influx and migration. They deal only with migrants who enter our State out of need but do not address migrants enter Meghalaya out of greed. Even the Tenancy law will address only migrants whose income is stable enough to pay rent, but what about migrants who do not need to rent any rooms? There are migrants in the Madrassas ,the Hindu and Christian institutions and migrant work forces in the commercial areas of our State. They stay at the workplace. The coal miners stay in make shift sheds, beggars live on the streets, there are slum dwellers along the Wah Umkhrah. How will the Tenancy law deal with those who don’t pay rent? How do we know how many Indian citizens and illegal infiltrator are filling the hotel rooms in our state on a daily basis? And where do these people go, are questions we have to answer before we conclude that the Tenancy law is enough to deal with the issue of influx. Existing mechanisms have proved to be a failure. The incoming laws also are bound to fail to address the issue of influx and migration because entry is unregulated. They will fail because the laws work independently of each other without any direct correlation. As the saying goes “everybody’s job is nobody’s job.” Existing laws have failed because there is no single oversight authority. Hence the NGOs insist on the implementation of the ILP because firstly it will address the issue of entry, secondly all the above mentioned laws or provisions will fall under the ambit of the ILP as per section 2 and 4 of the EBFR 1873. This is a flexible demand coming from a flexible mindset. With the up-gradation of the existing institutions both legal and traditional and the identification of the Nodal Agency for implementation of ILP this Regulation will play that part of coordinating and synergising the already existing provisions and it is here that accountability and responsibility can be fixed.
(The author is General Secretary Hyyniewtrep National Youth Front (HNYF) and a lecturer in Political Science, Seng Khasi College).