By Toki Blah
The issue and agitation on influx has apparently moved full circle. From all reports available now, it appears that Govt and the agitating NGOs have managed to move one notch up in their love – hate relationship. From accusations and hurling abuse at each other they are now exchanging notes on existing Laws. A ‘kiss- and-tell’ exercise as one cynical wag puts it. Whatever it maybe, it does appear that they have both moved from confronting to engaging each other. One therefore fails to understand why this consultation between the two antagonists could not have taken place from the very start? Talking could have saved everyone all the bother, misery, pain and unnecessary bloodshed that Meghalaya recently went through. Both Govt and NGOs are after a viable solution to influx. Both claim to speak on behalf of the general public. The only way they can best serve the interest of the sate and the people is to continue talking to each other until a solution is found.
Within the calm that the ongoing truce is providing, one can now afford to take a deep breath and begin to approach the issue of unregulated influx from a rational and impassioned perspective. This is needed since the ongoing truce can breakdown at any given moment. If it does, God forbid, but if it does, let’s not go back to stupid uncalled for violence. It helps no one. It does not further the genuine demand for an Influx Control Mechanism in any way. Confrontation, ego trips and violence will simply drag Meghalaya back by another decade. We are already the poorest and most backward state in the country. Let’s not punish the poor any further. We owe them that much of consideration. The only beneficiaries from needless violence, arson and killings will be opportunistic politics and self-centred politicians. Vultures who have waxed fat over the misery and suffering of the poor, the innocent and the blameless. It’s a bitter truth that had to be said!
Within the truce mentioned above let us take time off to introspect. While so doing let us also accept that introspection can hurt. It can be painful but also helpful. It is likely to show where we went wrong; the mistakes we made; how things could have been handled and managed in a better way. Introspection is a catharsis of sorts, to purify emotions. In the recent prolonged and troubled agitation for a viable Influx Control Mechanism, rightly or wrongly associated with the ILP, Meghalaya and its people had invested time, man days, money, emotions, precious lives and the reputation of the state to boot. The investment failed and at the end of the day, we have precious little to show for our pains. This article has no intention of pinpointing blame. Everyone is to blame. We all are to blame. The cardinal sin we committed, in so far as search for a viable Influx Control Mechanism was concerned, was our failure to invest in a resource we all have but seldom use. We failed to invest in serious rational thinking and visioning over the issue called ‘influx’!
The above is being said with all the seriousness it deserves. The problem of influx has been with us for 40 long years. The tragedy lies in the fact that all past attempts to tackle influx have been sporadic and kneejerk reactions. They lacked sustainability and conviction of purpose. The allegation is that agitations over influx have always preceded elections and this time too, one sees no reason to contradict this fact. Elections depend on demagogues, roused passions and sensationalism to drive home an election agenda. Excite the mind; rouse the emotions; suppress rational thinking; especially among the less educated; that is how votes are gathered and elections won. Influx has proved to be a most convenient theme for demagogic election strategies. Solutions to the problem however have failed to materialise. The time to correct this fault line by investing in rational thinking and visioning is now at hand
Let’s initiate the process by asking ourselves, why this apprehension over unregulated influx? Within the geo-demographic profile of Independent India, the Constitution has provided us with the 6th Schedule. Legal experts contend it is a mini constitution within the Constitution. It’s a specially designed constitutional provision aiming at the preservation of indigenous culture, tradition, practices and identity. Indigenous people recognise the administrative uniqueness of this Schedule; of its importance and relevance to check exploitation by other more advanced societies. This Constitutional logic therefore militates against the unregulated inflow of outsiders into Meghalaya if this should cause a demographic imbalance, the consequences of which would be, directly at odds with the aims and objectives of this protective Schedule of the Constitution. Influx is a threat to our identity and culture. It needs to be curbed.
The recent ILP agitations sought restrictions over the ‘entry’ of outsiders into Meghalaya. Yet we have to accept that either by circumstance or ignorant design, the economy of the state, be it mining or construction, is primarily dependent on outside labour. Tourism, identified and visualised as a potential economic activity capable of lifting the economy of the state, also depends on the arrival and entry of visitors from outside. Meghalaya is also a transit state for Assam, Mizoram and other NE states. Restricting ‘entry’ of outsiders can be therefore disadvantageous to the economic growth of the state and its healthy relations with its NE sister states. Yet in the same breath there is this urgent practical need to curtail influx. We therefore seem to have a paradox? It is now necessary for us to redefine influx beyond its emotional ‘entry’ interpretation. The real threat from influx lies not in simple entry but on the ability of outsiders who enter Meghalaya to easily assimilate themselves into Meghalayan society. The threat lies in the ability of such persons to settle down, to intermarry, to influence voting and to become permanent residents of this Tribal State. It upsets the delicate demographic, political and economic balance Meghalaya has been able to maintain between its indigenous population and its genuine non tribal society. The communal harmony that prevails is threatened. Influx needs to be reined in.
Simply restricting entry of outsiders is therefore no answer. At best it’s a kneejerk emotional reaction that acts against Meghalaya’s geo-economic strategic interests. Instead, a plea for a mechanism to prevent outsiders from settling down would be a more meaningful demand to make. It would immediately check the demographic imbalance we fear. It would address our apprehensions over the eventual impairment of our culture and identity while at the same time allow the state to continue with its economic agenda towards growth and development. Constitutional provisions can be tweaked to support such a demand. Past experience and logical thinking should show that ‘infiltration check gates’ and ‘work permits’, Meghalaya’s scandalous and thoughtless attempts to stem entry into Meghalaya, have caused more harm than good. It would be disastrous therefore to replicate the same model in any form whatsoever. A new strategy towards influx control is therefore called for.
If the recent ILP agitation can be credited with any positive contribution, it would be its ability to make the Govt view influx with the seriousness it demands. The establishment has constantly maintained that influx is a non-existent issue. Influx on the other hand has always been a civil society concern. Now that everyone has come on board in recognising the severity of the threat, any influx control mechanism agreed upon should not be implemented by Govt and its agencies alone. Civil society, NGOs, grassroot governing institutions working closely with Govt, should all be concerned participating stakeholders working continuously in tandem, to curb the menace. Constant monitoring at all levels of society is a must. Such a monitoring system needs to be designed for implementation. Logic demands that we think not only for our today but more importantly for the needs and requirements of tomorrow. Economics will eventually decide our destiny and future identity. We must therefore come up with a strategy that satisfies our present needs as well as our future requirements. Only rational thinking through focused discussions will be able to provide us with the answers we need.
Author is President of ICARE