By Recordius Enmi Kharbani
The problem of influx and the mechanism to check it has consumed much of energy and time of Meghalaya. People’s life has been disturbed, suffered and even taken away. The obstinate stance of the state government and the pressure groups on the brand of mechanism to check influx has caused much upsets and torments to the people. Many concerned citizens and academicians have endeavoured hard to contribute to the discourse on the problem in different forms, capacity and through different platforms. Intellectual debates have been going on, on a massive scale, mainly centred on the ILP and the Tenancy Act and the mechanisms proposed by the pressure groups and the state government. Some resort to outright rejection and condemning attacks on the opposite perspective and vehemently propagate that theirs is the only way out. Others calls for moderation between the two opposing ideas, and still others look for a third alternative. These are all part of the deliberations that a liberal democracy provides space for. This analysis is one perspective of the whole debate which is more in line with post-modernist temperament.
In the debates there have been different perspectives/opinions. There have been different opinions on the fundamental problem, the phenomenon of influx itself. The collectivist Right thinks that influx is a reality. Others think that it is only an irrational fear propagated to serve vested interests. The collectivist Left views it as an exploitative propagation targeted solely against the poor. And for those who are targeted, there is no influx but their movement is facilitated by their search for means of survival. It is nonetheless, summarily accepted by the state government, the collectivist Right, intellectuals and many others that the phenomenon of influx is a menace, necessitating the utility of a mechanism to arrest it.
There is, however, no unanimity on the mechanism/s but different perspectives, ten in total (S. Marbaniang, ST 22 Oct., 2013). These perspectives are highly pre-conditioned by the subjective rationale. The collectivist Right is infatuated by the Inner Line Permit (ILP) which is negated to be outdated, non-progressive and problematic. The government is obsessed with the Tenancy Act 2013 which is criticised by many that it has no direct or little indirect relation with checking influx. Other proposed recommendations like the three tiered ID card system (which was recommended for implementation by the HLC on influx) have been totally forgotten or not even considered.
The different perspectives on the mechanism possess both positive and negative points. None of them can claim to possess the exclusive attribute of being the only solution to influx. Meghalaya however, has been tormented by the dictates of only two perspectives: the ILP and the Tenancy Act. Despite of the availability of other perspectives and the opposition expressed by many, these two perspectives have taken prominence and have become the centre of attention. They have taken the position of being the only options left not for the citizens of the state to exercise a choice upon but to be forcibly imposed. They have excluded others outside their fold to make their share of contributions. They do not only constitute the centre of the already existing problem but have become themselves the roots of more problems that call for further solutions. They have been the cause of enormous sufferings and injuries to the citizens in the state.
The ILP and the Tenancy Act have obtained superior position over other proposed perspectives not necessarily on account of possessing features that are better than others but because they are promoted by groups who possess or appear to possess physical power to impose upon others. The ILP is advocated by the pressure groups and the opposition political parties and the Tenancy Act is proposed by the state government. In other words, the ILP and the Tenancy Act have prevailed over other perspectives because they have established a coalition with power. The deciding factor is not efficiency and utility but power. Stripped of power they will be forgotten like the other perspectives. Whatever extent the proponents go to justify the effectiveness of their respective perspectives and the ineffectiveness of their corresponding adversary, the underlying force is power. Such maneuvers are merely arts of deception to win popular support to fortify their power base to advance the position of their perspective.
Further, the manifestation of coalition of perspectives and power in the current situation in Meghalaya is seen not only in the subordination of other perspectives in the wake of supremacy of the ILP and Tenancy Act. Having defeated the others, these perspectives have turned against each other in the form of the current standoff between the respective advocates. While the government is aggressive on the implementation of the Tenancy Act, the pro-ILP groups have advanced forward in imposing their perspective through various programmes of agitation such as bandhs, night blockades, etc. The government resorts to banning such activities signifying a new trend that it wants to command absolute obedience from citizens on all its commission and omission. The pressure groups pledge to intensify their agitations. And there is a sequence of actions and reactions. The current tussle between the government and the pressure groups exposes the struggle for supremacy between two perspectives propelled by their alliance with power. It is close to the struggle for supremacy between ideological and religious perspectives that have led to wars and massive homicide in the past human history.
The struggle for supremacy has become the root cause of other subsequent problems. It has led to a situation where there is not only the non-acceptance of each other’s perspectives but the attempt by the advocates of each perspective to impose it on all. It has left no space for others to operate. It has taken much of the energy and attention and even snatched away the space where other perspectives and concerned citizens would have otherwise occupied to contribute in dealing with influx and other more immediate problems of the society.
Indeed, the government and the pressure groups need to realise that ILP and Tenancy Act, the things they and all citizens in the state are immensely suffering for, are merely two perspectives among many. They do not hold absolute truth of being the exclusive and perfect solutions to the summarily accepted problem of influx. Both possess shortcomings and are subjected to modifications and accommodation of some aspects of other perspectives and views. It is important and proper that perspectives are exposed in the public domain, but not to be forced upon all individuals who do not subscribe to them or are not even aware of them. That nullifies the attempt by both sides to impose their respective perspectives on dissenting citizens by means of legislation and pressure tactics. On this point, while propagation of each perspective is necessary, accommodating others’ opinions by means of dialogue is indispensable. If both the government and the pressure groups realise that the ILP and Tenancy Act are just perspectives which do not constitute the absolute truth, then the absolutist idea of “mine is the only way, you should subscribe to it” would be done away.
There seems to be a positive development in the wake of declaration by the advocates of both ILP and Tenancy Act for softening their stances and coming for a dialogue. They have professed their conditional readiness for dialogue. The “Brainstorming Session on Vision for Democratic and Progressive Meghalaya: On and Beyond the Inner Line Permit” organised by the Department of Political Science, NEHU in ICSSR-NERC concluded with an optimistic statement and appreciation for the change of trends seen in the readiness of the pressure groups for public debates. They have become more tolerant to criticisms and counter-points, trends which were hardly experienced in the past years. Another trend seen is their maintenance of restraints in actions in relation to public sentiments and need. Such trend is seen in the suspensions of agitations during the Puja festival, seasons for school examinations, Christmas and New Year celebrations. The current impasse would end sooner if another trend of open mindedness in dialogue is reconceived by both the government and the pressure groups. Perhaps sincere and unconditional dialogue may result in a more workable and generally acceptable mechanism, better than the ones that they are infatuated with.
(The author is a research scholar in Political Science Dept, NEHU and can be reached at [email protected])