By Toki Blah
It now appears that the CM’s invitation for unconditional talks will be accepted by the agitating pro ILP NGOs. Before we proceed further, let us be clear on one critical central issue and that is, everyone, repeat everyone, indigenous tribals and genuine non tribals alike, are equally concerned about unregulated influx of outsiders into Meghalaya. The word genuine non tribal is used because influx is all about the wrong kind of outsiders who pose a threat to the delicate demographic balance that prevails in this tribal state. The current agitation is all about the above threat and what to do about it. It is a shame that the threat still continues to fester and rankle even after 40 years of statehood. A blot on our civilisation that it continues to claim innocent lives; wreak mayhem and cause havoc to one and all. The time to settle the issue once and for all is now at hand. Pray God that he gives us the wisdom and foresight to do so.
A question hangs heavy in the cold winter air. If everyone is so concerned about influx then why do we have this silly standoff over a sorely needed influx control mechanism? People have been shouting at each other; finger pointing and accusing each other. Funny thing is they are all demanding the same thing. Sounds stupid but there it is. A closer look will immediately reveal that it is ego, political adventurism and the desire to project oneself or ones organisation as the champion of Meghalaya that is the main culprit. Instead of speaking to, people are talking at each other. The “I and my organisation alone am the fountain of all knowledge and truth, so everybody should listen to me” stance is playing havoc with our search for a solution to influx. One-up-manship never pays! Never! It is relevant therefore to flag a warning that if rigidity and inflexibility continues to dominate the forthcoming talks then nothing shall come out of them. The talks will then once again fail. Both Govt and the NGOs should remember that they meet to discuss an agenda on behalf of the people of Meghalaya. It is not a Govt agenda; not an NGO agenda. It’s a people’s agenda. In the interest of the state, their respective self interests and ego domains should all take a back seat. Only then can talks produce positive results.
By now it is obvious that neither the Tenancy Act nor the ILP are acceptable as viable solutions to influx. Both suffer from inherent deficiencies which this essay has no intention of addressing. The problem however remains and by now it is clear to everyone that if we are serious about an effective influx control mechanism then a 3rd alternative is called for. Easier said than done! The first hurdle to overcome is that both parties should be willing to engage in a dialogue where convergence of ideas takes place instead of confrontation. So what is the 3rd alternative all about and how will it be different from the 1st and 2nd proposals? Firstly a 3rd alternative calls for a paradigm change in our approach to the influx problem. Instead of knee jerk, emotional and politically motivated proposals, the 3rd alternative can only emerge from a Processed Thought approach. The 3rd alternative must be based on rationality. It can only develop out of processed thinking that will be devoid of emotions, sentiment and politics.
Processed thinking between two opposite parties seeking a common acceptable solution can only come about if the parties agree to put their collective heads together; pool in their resources and come up with an acceptable common and workable solution, for the good of all. It is the need of the hour and every right thinking person has called for it. Processed thinking in connection with the influx problem will consist of three phases. First is the call to identify the problem. What is Influx; how does it take place; who is responsible, what threat does it pose and how can it be halted. The composition of influx needs to be understood before we come up with solutions. This has never done before. We need to do it now! Secondly we have to accept a hard fact staring us in the face. Our future survival as indigenous people will lie not in isolating ourselves but ironically in our ability to live and interact with others. We can’t ignore the universal shift towards economic globalisation. As a miniscule community, our future survival, demands we integrate ourselves with this movement. Secluding ourselves from it will be a bad idea. As such we should be wary of those who propound such a theory.
Thirdly, processed thinking will also need to examine in detail all the economic pros and cons of any proposed influx control mechanism. Economics or the economic well being of our people will be the lifeline to our future survival. Withdrawing into a tribal shell or reservation ghetto, will ultimately result in an economic decline; exodus of our educated youngsters accompanied by flight of capital and hope. Any control mechanism will invariably impact on the economy of the state. Anyone who says otherwise is bluffing or simply does not know what he is talking about. The idea is to choose the control mechanism that works best but has the least impact on our present and future economic prospects. Is this possible? Everything is possible! But not through an emotional outcome of mob hysteria from Students field. Its possible only if we sit down and put our heads together. This is what the public want. There is demand for participative discussions on the subject. In its absence how can we dismiss the possibility of a 3rd alternate acceptable solution to influx?
At this point I can literally hear the voice of the cynics. Voices of those who have invested ego and pride, saying we have run out of time. We need to act now. We need to grab anything that is on offer. We’ll deal with the consequences later. When hungry, do we eat and gobble up anything available? Indigestion and food poisoning would likely follow such rash behaviour. Or do we choose what we think is best for our health and digestion? We invest on the food we eat and through such investment attain health benefits that see us through today and tomorrow. Similarly processed thinking is an investment we have to make if we want to protect ourselves and our identity. Processed thinking is an intellectual investment, minus ego and pride, we make on behalf of our future generations. Emotions, ego, political opportunism and downright stubbornness should have no place in the planned development for our children and our future generations.
At this juncture one can only hope that the 15th of Jan talks will come up with an acceptable, effective and implementable solution to influx. There is need to place tremendous emphasis on the word ‘Hope’. Processed thinking as an intellectual investment needs to build on hope not fear. Fear is always the by product of emotional upheaval. Hope on the other hand can only be visualised and planned by a calm and collected mind. For the last 40 years emotions, based on fear, have been the main driving force behind all of Meghalaya’s failures. This has to change. Hope has to replace Fear if we are to succeed in all our future initiatives. Influx no doubt is a threat but it can be defeated only by visionary planning based on hope. Create a vision for our future. Visualise where, how and what we want our children to be, 50, 100 years from now. Invest in thinking. Plan for the future with Hope! That and that alone is the only way to design and format the preservation of identity for tomorrow