The Government has called for a public discussion on the Tenancy Bill. Public discussion on issues affecting them is the sine qua non of democracy. There is no saying as to where the discussions will lead. People might come up with different models for tackling influx and/or illegal immigration. Whether the Government accepts those views or not people would have been able to make their voices heard. However, if the discussion is based on the democratic principles of a dialogue and if the Government truly respects dissent it would be open to new and better ideas on an issue that has been on the agenda of at least one pressure group – The Khasi Students’ Union (KSU)for a very long time. Many elections have been fought and won on the influx issue; many have lost their lives in the ethnic cleansing that preceded elections; many homes have been uprooted. If this issue is not tackled there is potential for a similar ethnic unrest in Meghalaya in the future.
One leader of the KSU even wrote a booklet called ‘The Silent Invasion’ pitching the issue of influx from across the borders as a major threat to the tribal population of Meghalaya. There is no doubt at all that there are twin threats to Meghalaya – the threat of land alienation to mining companies whose owners are not even permanent residents of this place and the threat of influx from neighbouring Bangladesh. The sense of urgency to address both threats is called and they can no longer be undermined. The contention is about how to deal with the threats. Obviously, there is need for strategic and cutting edge interventions to tackle these two issues. The Inner Line Permit is too narrow in its ambit to tackle both threats. In fact illegal immigration actually calls for a universal enrolment of citizens in the National Population Register. This will at least give us an idea of who a genuine citizen is and who is an interloper. However, the only way to tackle both internal and external influx is to remove the vacuum that exists in different sectors of the economy. Tribals have to get acclimatised to the work culture of the private sector with its punishing schedules which is what our own people who work outside the State have accepted. If the KSU has suggested a modified form of the ILP why do they still stick to that same acronym? Why not the KSU too organise a public discussion on mechanisms to check influx and leave the floor open for all kinds of suggestions? But the suggestions that come forward need to be tested for their efficacy and must be based on sound scientific principles and not on rhetoric.