By B.M. Lanong
It has gone on record that the whistle blower of this current leg of the ILP is the Chief Minister, Dr. Mukul Sangma himself, at whose instance, the official order to constitute the High Level Committee on influx was notified on September 4, 2012, appointing the author as Chairman, four cabinet ministers, three other MLA’s, three ADC CEMs, three Traditional Institution Chiefs, three members of civil societies and three representatives from each of the ten NGOs, all selected by him.
The main terms of reference were to review the situation of influx in the state and to recommend a comprehensive institutionalized mechanism. Within three months time to be precise, the Committee completed its task and forwarded the comprehensive report to the government, comprising all suggestions and opinions expressed by members, including the 3 Tier ID Card System proposed by Toki Blah and four other suggestions by G.P.Wahlang, both retired IAS, which includes, conditional ILP and Toki’s ID Card System, amongst others.
Various memoranda and all other written documents received from many quarters, including that from non-indigenous citizens of the State have been included in the report. Prominent amongst all however, was the unanimous demand for introduction of the ILP, bolstered by the NGOs, followed by unconditional support from many Committee members, including the ministerial group and MLAs, the ADCs and also Traditional Institutions. At least three Ministers in the Committee gave tacit support from their body language, when none opposed the ILP proposal inside the Committee sessions.
What is ILP?
For the benefit of many, it was precisely in the context of peace and good governance, that the then pre-independent India, who was then subjected to Her Majesty, the Queen of England and the British Government, by the Regulation under the Government of India Act 1870, enacted the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation 1873 on 27.8.1873 applicable in certain areas of Eastern Frontier of Bengal, which includes the districts of Kamrup, Darrang, Nowgong, Sibsagar, Lakhimpur, Cachar, Naga Hills, Khasi and Jaintia Hills and Garo Hills (later repealed in 1897), thereby prescribing the “The Inner Line” in the above areas, prohibiting outsiders not belonging to the above areas, from entering the aforementioned regulated districts without obtaining Inner Line Permit. This is the bottomline of the ILP which had evoked so much of mudslinging and tussle for and against.
I was flabbergasted indeed to see the writings of prominent persons, who expressed through one’s hat that non-indigenous persons are being harassed, that ILP will derail development; will slump tourism; a lawyer asserted that the pre-constitutional enactment has become outdated and it strikes against the fundamental rights of individuals as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India; Yet some others perceived that the non-indigenous group will be reduced to the status of a second class citizen and all that crap.
Amazingly some local Durbar headmen who are affiliated to the newly christened Grand Council of Traditional Chiefs of Meghalaya of Mr John F. Kharshiing, hastily made wild allegations in writing, that the non-indigenous persons in Meghalaya are being harassed and that tourism is nose-diving seriously.
Voicing the same chorus, many government connects who have business and political links with government, opposed ILP to demonstrate their solidarity, obviously for their own interests; the truck owners and miners in Jaintia Hills raised hammer and tongs and others too for funny reasons. Interestingly, the Meghalaya Tourism Development Forum (MTDF)announced skipping of the autumn festival this year, due to ILP agitation.
As a matter of fact, some women and other social and youth bodies, including those from Umiam Lake site, the traditional venue of this festival, have been expressing their disgust over the manner of conducting this autumn festival, which according to them, causes more chaos and harm than any good to the society, particularly the youths.
It would be of help to relook into the constitutional question, raising apprehension on the effect of Art 19(1) of the Constitution of India over the fundamental rights of the individuals, particularly pertaining to Art19(d) and (e), viz,
d) to move freely throughout the territory of India
e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India.
Art 19, Cl. 5, further says-“nothing in sub-clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law, in so far as it imposes or prevent the state from making any law, imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub-clauses, either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.”
The above Cl.5 of Art 19 has therefore, removed any misgiving over the infringement of the above two rights (d) and (e) of any citizen of India, whenever the government wishes to impose reasonable restrictions as defined above, it could be the ILP Law or the like. It is not also a fact that the ILP Regulation is outdated. It is obsolete and old-fashioned no doubt, but it is still in force, status-quo-ante, in the three ILP states.
The non-indigenous persons in the ILP States of Arunachal, Mizoram and Nagaland enjoy a normal life and are not subjected to obtain Inner Line Permit, when they return home from their visits outside the state. In their case, they have other forms of identification provided by their respective governments. It should clearly be noted, that the ILP Scheme does not bar anybody from entering the prohibited areas in the ILP States. The only condition is for an outsider to obtain permit by going through a simple procedure.
The whole philosophical essence of the ILP is for the procedural identification of the credentials of the entrant, the purpose of his visit etc., and to determine whether he qualifies the conditions for his entry.
Coming back to the porous state of Meghalaya, whose geographical location is like a way-through-paradise, all kinds of persons come and go freely and do what they like. To cite a few instances, last year, a criminal who was found looting from the vehicles at the G.S. Road was a foreigner who came to Meghalaya only three months ago. Many outstation burglars visit Shillong in the morning, rob people during the day, like the Animal Planet TV channel, tactfully draw depositors money from ATMs, hire new tourist vehicles in the guise of being tourists, kill the poor drivers and run away with the vehicles in the evening. Sounds like Jackie Chan stunts, but true. Other crimes being witnessed almost every day are human trafficking, drug trafficking, business piracy, cheating, kidnapping etc. All these are committed mostly by visitors from outside the state.
In fact only to deter such characters, ILP or any form of entry permit should be welcomed by everyone who actually cares for the state and for the safety of all. Right thinking observers have pinned their hope on the government, to be able to come to some reasonable agreements with the pro-ILP groups, if not the ILP Scheme, at least some alternative protective measures.
That hope was belied, when on the first day of the dialogue between the government and the NGOs, the Chief Minister, Dr. Mukul Sangma, exposed his lack of dexterity to negotiate and buy time to heal the situation. Instead in his strange trepidation, he haughtily drubbed the members of the NGOs, stating plainly that the ILP was not an issue in the Congress Election Manifesto and offered the Tenancy Act as an alternative, which was not acceptable to the NGOs, on the ground that the Act will not be an effective mechanism to check influx. Thus, the present cataclysm. Having failed to contain the situation, he dragged the opposition of having nexus with the NGOs. Artfully, this also serves as a belated reaction to what the opposition has been questioning – Mukul’s links with the outfit in Garo Hills.
A cursory glance over the draft copy of the Landlord and Tenants Bill 2013, provides a gloomy insight, as the proposed law suffers from many constitutional and legal intricacies, which no amount of amendments will serve the purpose. Tenancy Act has no bearing at all with ILP.
A metaphoric description of the proposed bill is like allowing the thief to enter the premises, roam about in and around and let the landlord keep all the doors bolted. A moot question that arises, is why did Dr. Mukul constitute a High Level Committee on the eve of the Assembly election, when the ILP was not part of his Party’s Election Manifesto?