By Toki Blah
In an effort to come up with an effective and viable legal provision to contain and control influx into the state of Meghalaya the Government has come up with a draft “Meghalaya Regulation of Landlord and Verification of Tenants Act 2013”. It is an Act the Government feels should be able to provide the people of the state with that sense of security and confidence they need against the onslaught of influx of outsiders. To give the Government its due, it has given the public of the state a chance to react to this offer through comments and suggestions on the same. This write-up is the writer’s response to this invitation of the Government.
From the outset it must be clearly understood that the preamble or Aims and Objectives of any piece of legislation is the raison d’ etre of the same. It sets the tone; the direction and vision and most important future course of action. The Bill under question seeks to “to provide a framework for regulation of landlords and compulsory verification of the tenants so as to enhance the security of the citizens of the state and to prevent breach of peace and maintenance of public order”. It is a proposal to regulate landlords and tenants; it seeks to ensure peace and maintenance of public order. Period! The objectives of the Bill however remain conspicuously silent on the need for influx control. So if the objective is other than to provide a control mechanism against influx, then one fails to understand why the Bill is being touted as the answer to influx?
As Meghalaya and its people are currently convulsed by the ongoing agitations over the ILP and as the Government on its part comes up with its Tenancy Act as a counter proposal, aspects of influx continue to remain as vague, fuzzy and unclear as ever. We have yet to come up with any clear idea as to what we mean when we speak of “immigrants and illegal immigrants”; “outsiders and foreigners” and if “entry or settlement” constitutes the real threat from influx. I sincerely believe that any attempt towards a satisfying and effective influx control mechanism must take into consideration all the above. From this perspective the proposed Tenancy Bill hardly offers any sense of comfort.
A Tenancy Act is basically a by product of social welfare concerns and it usually seeks to protect and uphold the interests of the tenant. The irony of the Meghalaya Tenancy Bill, in its professed attempt to check influx, is that it distinctly promotes concepts of feudalism that have been discarded elsewhere. The suspicion of influx has been shifted on the shoulders of the tenant and the burden of proof has been placed on his shoulders. Until then he is assumed to be guilty until proven otherwise. Will a court of law uphold such a stance? What if someone challenges the Act and the court upholds the interest of the tenant as it in all probability would. Then what? The rights of the poor tenant will be protected, but what happens to the original intention of the Bill to control influx through regulation of tenants? It’s too much of a headache to contemplate!
In Para 2, under “Definitions”, sub para (j) makes mention and attempts to define “relative or members of family”. Somehow this definition appears to be a cut and paste job from some existing Act or the other and has no relation whatsoever with existing ground realities in Meghalaya. In a tribe and clan dominated society such as ours, relative cannot be limited only to the definitions given by the act. Relative in our case, especially among the Khasi Pnars is solely determined by the adage of ‘Tip Kur, Tip Kha’. How can a poor “Kur” staying with a caring relative be called a tenant and treated like one? It’s culturally unacceptable more so in the rural areas where kur and family ties still remain strong and vibrant. The Act remains insensitive and oblivious to such cultural possibilities. From this perspective its acceptability is doubtful .
Not all local and indigenous residents of Meghalaya are rich, well to do and owners of their own establishments. As a matter of fact in our urban and semi urban centres, 70% of the residents are migrants from outlying rural habitats. Most occupy urban shelters as tenants and the tendency to move from one house to another is frequent. Applying for resident certificates; paying high lawyer fees for affidavits and paying for passport photos each time a poor family has to move can prove to be expensive and time consuming. The poor can ill afford either of the two. The Act cannot make the poor the whipping boys for the Government’s inability to come up with a more creative and viable Influx Control Mechanism. This particular proposal of the Bill goes against the grain and needs rethinking. It serves no practical purpose except to harass the poor and needy.
The proposed Bill is unequivocal in its intention to make the “Meghalaya Regulation of Landlord and Verification of Tenants Act 2013” as participative as possible. The intention over stakeholder participation is well meaning as implementation of any Government scheme or programme has a greater chance of success if participation of the people is ensured. In this case the active participation of the ‘local authority’ has been emphasised time and again. Of surprise therefore is the total silence of the Bill over the role and participation of the Autonomous District Councils ( ADCs) in the whole affair. The Bill speaks of the power of the District Task Force over the local authorities. Is it not stepping into the domain of the ADCs? Wouldn’t stakeholder participation be more effective by bringing the ADCs on board? What’s the harm if it could contain influx better? So why has this been neglected?
Other provisions that need serious review relates to the District Task Force (DTF) and its role and functions. The DTF, the PS and the Local Authorities are expected to work together. This aspect of the proposals, in the absence of a clear common format for sharing, monitoring and comparing data appears like wishful thinking than anything else. In the context of the Bill under discussion, the distinct possibility of migrants becoming the focal point for future vote bank politics cannot be ruled out. This makes it increasingly difficult for local political aspirants to remain immune to pressure from such vote banks. As both the local police and the local authorities come increasingly under the influence of local politicians, the need for safeguards against the same become imperative. The Bill is silent on such safeguards.
The Bill also smacks of inbuilt mechanisms to slow down any attempts at making it work. Red-tapism seems to be the corner stone of this proposal and this is most obvious in Sub para 5 of Para 5 “District Task Force, Police Stations and Local authorities to maintain data base”. This section speaks of action to be taken by the DTF on receipt of reports of violation of provisions of the Act. This part is totally ambiguous and its where red-tapism will operate to its maximum. Its vagueness is totally in tune with the manner in which a visionless bureaucracy wishes to operate. Wishy-washy governance at its very best!
Then of course there is that provision for a Chairman for the DTF and para 10 provides for joint inspection of tenants and verification of credentials but only with the authority of the Chairman. Again that inbuilt check and balance so beloved by the civil servant will ensure nothing else but delay and lastly if the Chairman delays approval for verification then who takes the Chairman to task? If we are really serious about influx control and if the ILP is deemed as non-tenable, then let’s not counter it with another unworkable Act. Meghalaya and its people have lost enough time, money and precious lives while bickering about impractical solutions. It’s time we got together to discuss and deliberate about Influx; its ramifications; vision for the state; the roadmap to development and most important how do we as a people visualise ourselves 50, 80 and 100 years from now. Without such an in-depth exercise we will once again end up in a blame game while the real problem continues to fester and rankle.