Decoding the Tenancy Act 2013
By Phrangsngi Pyrtuh
A historic moment in the State’s history unraveled recently during the public consultation of the Meghalaya Landlords and Tenancy Regulation Act 2013 at the U Soso Tham auditorium. The force of resistance from the student community against an unpopular government policy is an ominous sign which any wise government is well advised to pay heed to. While on the one hand the MUA-II government persists against opening further discussions with the pro-ILP groups (for which it is blaming the loss of lives and property) it is extending the same to a population group which is potentially more reactionary than the pressure groups. Students’ movements have changed the course and fate of many governments in the world and India is no exception. One can recall the events leading to the declaration of the national emergency in 1975 by the Congress Government to suppress the growing students’ and peoples’ movements in various parts of the country.
What compelled the MUA government to start the public consultation with this group of the population is a mystery. Perhaps the Government assumed that this docile and passive section is easily influenced and it may have already taken for granted their goodwill after the massive M-tablet distribution programme. There is a theory gaining ground that the Government was convinced it could bulldoze the students to acquiesce to the controversial Bill. This theory is circumstantially true going by the vague and incongruent answers provided by the Chairman of the Committee, Minister for Forest and Environment etc., Mr Prestone Tynsong who did most of the talking with little help from his colleagues. The timing of the Consultation is also hugely miscalculated since many colleges and educational institutions are either conducting exams or running to complete the curricula backlog. The Government picked the students hoping that they would be pre-occupied and have no time to prepare for the deliberations. This may also explain why all the six members of the Committee came unprepared. The fiasco that resulted from the meeting made headlines and was the talk of the town everywhere, in the marketplace, institutions, shops et al. One thing we are sure is that it would not go well with the CM Dr Mukul Sangma whom luckily for the six members was out of town (yet again) at that point of time.
The congregated students from different colleges were excited the moment the Bill was thrown open for discussions. Direct questions that could have been easily clarified were not adequately answered thereby prompting supplementary questions or rephrasing of questions. Eventually the volley of questions resembled bullets from an AK rifle. The uneasy posturing of the ministers present was all too evident. What exactly was happening, they must have all wondered? They sought to bell the cat but got cowed down instead. The walkout staged by the students was a unique display of disrespect or mis-trust for the government and its bureaucrats.
Now let’s briefly look at the issue that has caused a rift between the government and the student community. Tenancy act (under housing) is a state subject and not a central subject as pointed out by Urban Affairs minister Ampareen Lyngdoh at the public consultation meet. She must be reminded that many Central Acts passed by Parliament are not necessarily legally untenable in the 6th Schedule areas. The Supreme Court has issued a general guideline regarding the necessity for regulating rent (agreement) and accommodation related issues to safeguard the interest of the tenants. Tenancy act is primarily a rent control mechanism and ensures security of tenure. Those who have experienced renting a flat/house in the Indian metros where tenancy act prevails find it an absolute nightmare to get the house agreement, affidavits, police verification etc., It is a racket which remains beyond the purview of any authority. Even in sensitive Delhi, the Tenancy Act is simply a mechanism for rent control and not for curbing influx. Moreover the apex court has never ruled that the Tenancy Act would stop influx. This ludicrous imagination from Mukul Sangma is totally new (with no facts to support his claim) and has no bearing at all to the problem here. The experience of Assam our closest neighbor punctuate the claim that the Tenancy Act is a panacea to the issue at hand.
In the consultation meeting Mr Tynsong barely hid his frustration on the functions of the traditional bodies such as the Dorbar Shnong headed by the Rangbah Shnong. His comments on the incapacity of the RS to assuage the question on influx should set alarm bells ringing. The Meghalaya Congress has time and again expressed its displeasure on the traditional bodies acting as stumbling blocks to many development schemes such as the JNNURM, to the Municipal elections etc and is trying out devious methods to short-shrift their credibility from a development paradigm. The Party’s disdain towards the Dorbar Shnong is apparent since it did not send an invitation to the Synjuk ki Rangbah Shnong to any of the public consultation meetings. There is a calculated move to reduce their powers one at a time and the Tenancy Act is geared to do precisely that (and to bring the municipal concept into being). The Government is trying to undermine the relevance of the Dorbar Shnong as an institution. The primary objective of the Meghalaya Tenancy Act 2013 is to handicap the traditional bodies thereby providing an alibi for their total abolition sometime in the future.
The neo-liberal driven agenda of the Congress government is to dismantle barriers to development even if that means removing an important tradition such as the Dorbar Shnong which is the only link of the Jaidbynriew and to the ancient practices of our ancestors. The Tenancy Act seeks to place a nomenclature on the Rangbah Shnong (RS) as agents and middlemen subsumed under the District Task Force (DTF) which will be accountable to none, not even the court of law. But the Sixth Schedule has upheld the sanctity of the traditional bodies as living embodiments of the unique cultural practices of the tribes and therefore constitutionally gua-ranteed. Any law which seek to undermine their sanctity is unconstitutional. The MUA- II government instead of seeking to empower them is sizing up the coffin for the graves already dug for the Dorbar Shnong. The RS have taken cognizance and have opposed the Tenancy Bill because once the Act is institutionalized, functions would overlap creating stiff competition or collusion between the government officials and the RS. With time the arrangement would become unviable and the government would eventually have to make a decision to terminate one of the two. By that time it would have enough ammunition to declare the RS and Dorbar Shnong null and void. The Tenancy Act therefore is the precursor to the eventual introduction of the Municipal elections.
The implication is astounding. For one the dilution of the Dorbar Shnong would make the act draconian especially for the poor and the powerless rural folks leaving them at the mercy of the state and its machinery. This act must therefore be condemned and boycotted by one and all.
(The author teaches at Shillong College and can be contacted at [email protected])