By Airpeace Ranee
The first public consultation on the Meghalaya Regulation of Landlords and Verification of Tenants Bill, 2013 (in short the Meghalaya Tenancy Bill) on November 20 last was supposed to be a meeting between the Ministerial Committee of the Bill and the students’ community of the city. The officials of the District Administration (East Khasi Hills) on whom lies the onus to organize the meet took for granted that only genuine students from invited institutions would attend and thus no verification was made during the registration process. As per the lists of participants’ registration, not less than 350 students were present in the hall. The programme began with a power point presentation on the Bill by one of the officers of the District. The students were rowdy right from the start when the presenter began to speak in English. He was requested to speak in Khasi and he complied. I saw some of the non-Khasi speaking students moving out from the hall at the very start of the programme as if expecting hell to break loose.
After the presentation, the Chairperson of the Ministerial Committee, Prestone Tynsong took charge and presided over the discussion. He began with an introductory remark that since the State is facing the problem of influx and that the Inner Line Permit could not be implemented, the State Government is seeking for an alternate mechanism to contain the problem for which the Bill was drafted. After touching this hornet’s nest, Tynsong invited queries and suggestions from the students on the proposed Bill. Emotional as they are supposed to be, students took the opportunity to raise question as to why such a consultation was called for when Government had never called for public consultations before passing many important bills in the state? They also sought a clarification whether the proposed Bill would replace the ILP to solve the influx problem in the State? There were no clear cut answers to these questions from the members of the Ministerial Committee. Taking advantage of the weakness of the panelists, the students like devil’s advocates created a storm in a tea-cup by raising innumerable questions related to influx and the ILP. Therefore, instead of discussing the Bill, the discussion veered towards the issue of influx and ILP. The consultation went haywire simply because the Chairman failed to keep the discussion on track. If he had got the agendum straight which is that the bill is concerned only with the regulation of landlords and tenants in the State and has nothing to do with influx or ILP, then it could have taken a different turn. Although it is obvious that influx and the inability to implement ILP was the reason for introducing the above Bill, Tynsong could have moderated the discussion better. In fact, a student even pronounced that he was ready to discuss the Bill provided it is not linked to influx or ILP. Ironically, the students who demanded to run the programme in Khasi medium, they themselves spoke in Khalish (Khasi-English)
I could sense that both the Government and the students understood the need to regulate the landlords and tenants in the State because such regulations are necessary for a civilized living in any society. According to the preamble of the Bill, its objective is 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’. Looking at the proposed Bill from this perspective, one cannot deny its significance. But to say that it would be a mechanism to contain influx in the State is a fallacy. For the pro-ILP students it was like ‘asking for a fish and being offered a serpent instead’. The Bill with 18 articles and several clauses and sub-clauses has several loopholes right from the definition to the conclusion. The Bill fails to properly define a landlord and a tenant. It exempts the Government buildings and establishments from the purview of the proposed Act. The provisions for the establishment of the District Task Force are also faulty as they would override the powers of the traditional institutions. The mandatory affidavit for tenants would only fatten the advocates at the cost of the landless and houseless. Though the Bill aims at bringing social order and security in the society its framework is confusing.
Despite everything however, I thank the Government for inviting students for consultation on such an important Bill. This shows that our Government has faith and confidence on our students as scholars of the present and leaders of tomorrow. Some argue as to why college students be called for such consultations as they could hardly comprehend the content of the Bill, not to speak of their capacity to deliberate. But the Government has its own logic. On the one hand it may mean that if non-matriculates and under graduates can become law makers, then why not college and university students to discuss on such a Bill. On the other hand, it seems the Government took for granted that it would easily convince the students to accept the Bill unquestioningly. The meeting proved otherwise as students vehemently opposed the Bill and also sensed the agenda behind it. They substantiated their stance with facts and references. This shows that our students are no longer apolitical but are serious about the issues concerning the State. The meeting also proved that the legislators who are members of the Ministerial Committee of the Bill did not do their homework. They were not thorough with the proposed Bill and they even failed to convince students on the simple definitions such as the ‘Bill’ and an ‘Act’, leave alone the different phases and the technicalities involved in the passage of a Bill.
The consultation turned into a students’ unrest. They boisterously raised questions with regard to the objective of the consultation and the Bill. Though they used parliamentary language while debating, yet they were a bit antagonistic and aggressive in their approach to the extent of moving out from the hall and tearing down the Bill and kick the pieces like football. Students could have shown better discipline and decorum of the meeting. In a democracy, one can disagree and protest but not to insult and humiliate anyone. Venting their anguish against the Government, few students marched in a procession from the venue to Motphran with the slogan ‘We want ILP’ and ‘No ILP no rest’. Fortunately no untoward incident took place that day as the police had things under control. These sorts of protests are a healthy trend of democracy and can purify and refine our democracy provided they are not politicized to serve vested interests.
Dr. Mukul Sangma has proved yet again that he is an able leader and a diplomatic warrior. He knows how to fight battles and win wars. We should remember that the demand for ILP has gone through a winding road paved by Dr. Mukul Sangma alone. He constituted the High Level Committee to take ILP for a ride during 2012. He knows where his Achilles’ heel lies and always covers that. He never surrenders in the battle-field and ultimately wins the war. To take the heat off the ILP demand he has offered the Tenancy Bill which is now the bone of contention. Sangma has constituted the Ministerial Committee for the Tenancy Bill to take ILP for a four year ride. The Committee has to tour the entire State for consultations and then reframe the Bill before tabling it in the Assembly. This is a dilly-dally political game when one is already on the winning side. The Government knows that it is difficult to sustain a social movement and thus the ILP demand will slowly subside. The MUA-II Government is controlled by New Delhi. When the reins are firm and the cushion is soft and cozy, who will move out? This is how the accommodative ideology of the Congress is bred. When election comes, these members will be re-elected because they have learnt the art of making promises and explaining why those promises could not be fulfilled (sic).
The final outcome of the Consultation is, ‘We don’t need the Tenancy Act so stop holding consultations elsewhere in the State.’As such the consultation was a dead duck. Who bears the cost of the programme and who will pay its price?
(Author’s email: [email protected])