By Airpeace Rani
The article by Dr Fenela Lyngdoh Nonglait captioned, “Inner Line Permit: A Legal Paradox” (ST October 3, 2013) is revealing. Examining the legality of the ILP under the ambit of Regulation 5 of the Eastern Bengal Frontier Regulation (EBFR), 1873, the author articulated that Meghalaya as a state under the Indian Union has no locus standi to frame a law on ILP since the entire state of Meghalaya is outside the ambit of the above Regulation. The author pointed out that Garo Hills falls outside the above Regulation as the same was repealed in 1897. On this crux, the article convinced the readers that legislation on ILP is not within the domain of the state legislature. This very same retort was given by the chief minister against the recommendations of the High Level Committee for the implementation of ILP in the state. Based on Nonglait’s argument, we can surmise that the demand for ILP in Meghalaya should take a different turn in that the movement spearheaded by the ten NGOs should be directed towards the central government rather than the state government. However, this is not to say that state government can wash its hands off the issue. Rather it has to play a mediatory role as a legitimate government on behalf of the people. Therefore, the state government should have thrown the ILP ball to the court of the Central Government. It may be reminded that Nonglait contested the last Assembly election from Mawthadraishan constituency on the HSPDP ticket which had ILP as a prominent issue in its manifesto. Going by her arguments we infer that the HSPDP stance on ILP is not to implement it but to move the Central Government to frame a law on the same as per the EBFR, 1873.
The government of Meghalaya under the leadership of Dr. Mukul Sangma denied the implementation of ILP on the grounds that it lacks the technical applicability in the state as a whole and that it would deter tourism and development. Some have also argued that ILP cannot be implemented in a transit state like Meghalaya through which the national highway passes. That the state government cannot implement the ILP is understood but its reluctance and unwavering attitude on the issue, is something which has irked the NGOs. If the Government of Meghalaya does not have the authority to legislate on the ILP then on what authority does it reject it? In a democracy the government cannot work in obstinacy.
Now that the ILP resolution of the Opposition has been defeated in the Assembly, can we say that, it is the end of the ILP demand? Who is defeated here, the Opposition or the issue? In a democracy, the decision taken by the government is always considered legitimate. However, this legitimacy is confirmed only when the people or the civil society does not oppose such decisions. Therefore, the state today is still waiting to see how the ten NGOs would react to this defeat, most probably after the Puja festival. Does the feat of the Government over ILP resolution reflect the feat of the people or a mere majoritarian rule? Democracy, especially a liberal democracy is based upon the principle of majority rule but not majoritarianism. Majority rule means leading by the majority in consensus with the minority. Is our democracy liberal in true sense of the term? Are we not being dictated by the top brass party members?
The current demand for ILP by the NGOs can be termed as an ethnic based social movement. It can be classified as a conservative movement with an emphasis to preserve the land and identity of the tribes in Meghalaya. The NGOs perceive the outsiders as the threat to their identity and land. Though, social movement is important in the journey of a democracy but it can itself become undemocratic when it is articulated through unconstitutional methods. But this is subjective because what can be seen as unconstitutional by the government may be seen as revolutionary and rightful by the movers. The obstinate stance of the Government vis-à-vis the NGOs over the issue of ILP has turned Meghalaya into a land of turmoil. A revolutionary social movement is often marked by two common elements i.e., fire and blood. In the demand for ILP in the past two months, Meghalaya has witnessed strikes, picketing, road blockades, and bandhs. However, arson related fire incidents like burning of shops, government vehicles and even the puja pandal have also occurred. It is suspected that some of these fire incidents mark the angst in the demand for ILP. Fortunately, till today we have not seen any bloodshed in the name of ILP. Should we wait for bloodshed and then smell the coffee?
Mukul being the blue-eyed boy of Sonia Gandhi does not fear anyone politicizing ILP. He will ensure that ILP is not a box of fluffy ducks of the hypocrite NGOs. Who will give a damn to people in Meghalaya who is ready to hosanna somebody today and shout for crucifixion of the same tomorrow? In the movement for ILP today, the people of Meghalaya can be divided into four categories (1) those in the government (2) the NGOs (3) intellectuals or concerned citizens and (4) the masses. Of these four categories, the first two have their own politics to play whereas the other two are left to feel the brunt. The main concern of the government is to ensure that it doesn’t die prematurely and that those in government will enjoy the 5-year ride smoothly. Silence is golden and obedience is bliss to them. The NGOs will go their way so long they don’t meet better crossroads to turn too. While the third group will be left high and dry at the end of the scene the masses will be left with bruises and scars impacted by the political collision.
Many who discuss the ILP tend to link it with influx, development and tourism. They seem to have forgotten to revisit the basic objectives laid down in the EBFR of 1873. The basic objective of ILP is to protect the natives from the onslaught of the non-natives. It primarily laid stress on the protection of land and land rights of the natives whereas the non-natives who will be permitted to enter into an inner line area shall not acquire any interest on the land and its products. If implemented, therefore, the ILP will help to do away with illegal migrants and to regulate the migrants staying and working in the state. So, economic development and tourism will continue as usual with a slight difference – developers from outside and tourists need to get an ILP. I don’t see why developers and tourists should shy away from coming to our state just because of the ILP. In this case the fundamental right of freedom of movement and residence will be maintained but with certain restrictions in favour of the minority which the Constitution itself permits.
Though strikes, picketing, processions, bandhs etc are the devices of social movement to pressure the power holders but ultimately they will boomerang on the society. Making the demand felt by burning government’s vehicles and offices is not a wise idea because there is nothing like government property. Everything is public property. Real social movements with genuine objectives should ensure that the general populace are involved in it to the maximum otherwise it becomes a mere power game. We should also remember that in the game of the political class, we the people are only a lost ball in the high weeds.
(The author can be reached at [email protected])