By Phrangsngi Pyrtuh
April 17th 2014 is a day that will be remembered in Meghalaya for a very long time. The NGT pronounced mining in Meghalaya which follows primitive rat- hole system of extracting coal as illegal and unscientific. Some have hailed the verdict (which is an interim order and still revocable) and have thrown their weight in its favor. At the same time opposition to the NGT ban has grown which includes landowners, coal exporters, NGOs, political parties and even the banned and proscribed outfit the HNLC. There are two debating camps one pushing for full scale ban and the other lobbying for revoking the ban.
The historicity of mining in Meghalaya is too well known. Some form of mining albeit of very primitive method on a small scale basis was practiced even before the British came to these hills. Evidence from archival records point to lime stone quarrying in some parts of Khasi hills which was shipped to the plains of Bangladesh in exchange for other commodities. However coal mining started with the advent of the British and there has been no turning back and it has indeed become one of the main occupation of the local population and is bounded to the local economy. It is against this backdrop that some groups viz the Joint Action committee (JAC) from Sohra have asked for the exclusion of the entire area from the purview of the mining ban.
Mining of mineral resources is unquestionably desirable as underground mineral resources fuel the industries and power sector whose development signify the rate of development of the country. Coal, limestone and most recent uranium deposits are found in abundant supply in the state. Looking at the history and the economic significance of mining in Meghalaya one can presume mining as a supplementary activity (to agriculture) which is also primitive and unscientific. It can absorb surplus labor from agriculture if business is brisk but there has not been any official study to determine if mining in Meghalaya as an occupation is seasonal or permanent. Such a study will also statistically determine labour participation from both local and non-local population, gender and wage distribution, the numbers of licenses and unlicensed mines, and how many of these mines practice rat hole mining or otherwise; whether safety measure are in place etc. The study should also establish the ownership of these mines with all the necessary documentation such as NOC, child labour etc.
Following the ban the opponents of the ban have raked in the livelihood issue which they say support the local economy such as the transport and service sector which have collapsed dramatically following the ban. Notably when the NGT pronounced rat hole mining as illegal it has repercussions on all sorts of mining whether coal or limestone (even sand mining along river banks) in as far as the mode of extraction is unscientific. If a study had existed the state could have made provisions for temporary and permanent relief to resettle, rehabilitate and relocate the displaced and the jobless from the endless number of schemes.
The government is in a sticky wicket however for its lackadaisical attitude to the issue right from the start. Surely it should have seen the writing on the wall. If anything the pro-mining group should have criticized the government too but that is too much to expect considering the nexus that exists between the two. What we are seeing is the shifting of responsibility from both the government and the mine owners towards those affected from the ban.
Legal experts siding with these opponents have questioned the validity of the ban terming it unconstitutional for we are a scheduled area under the benevolent protection of the 6th schedule. This side of the argument is completely misplaced. The 6th schedule is an empowering provision thrusting the responsibility (with liberty) of protecting and securing the interest of the tribals inhabiting the schedule areas in so far as those interest conform to the overall scheme of the Constitution which guarantees rights and freedom to every Indian citizen. The rights and freedom of population in scheduled areas are unequivocally similar to any other Indians. The 6th schedule is not supposed to insulate us from taking responsibility when we have caused harm not only to our interests but to others as well (as evident in case of the All Dimasa Student Union et al).
It is the duty of the Indian citizen to protect the environment and it is unconstitutional to say otherwise or we could defer the same just because we are a scheduled area. This argument is flimsy and would not stand the legal scrutiny. What about the human rights of those miners killed in these holes? Are we therefore to say that such lives are not worth a penny (with no rights) since they died in scheduled areas? For how long can we hide our faults and shortcomings in the guise of the 6th Schedule. When will we learn to take accountability and responsibility towards the environment and the future generation?
According to the opponents the judgment is ill-timed and does not reflect the ground reality. In my opinion the NGT has not been biased in its judgment as some have alleged. There is no sinister or ulterior motive on its pronouncement. It has only sought to redress a grievance placed before it by two groups the All Dimasa Students Union and Dima Hasoa District Council. A counter petition of which many including the government of Meghalaya and the KHADC are countersigned is duly awaited. It would be interesting to see the counter arguments from the stakeholders from Meghalaya also. There is fear among the landowners that the ban may push them out of business since they are not financially well endowed to switch to scientific mining which is only feasible if production is on a large scale something which does not exist in most parts of Meghalaya. This argument may provide space for easing the ban in the next hearing but the government must show its sincerity to address these fears and worries. The Government may use the Mines and Mineral Policy Act 2012 to bail the state from the conundrum which unfortunately does not provide for regulation of rat hole mining.
The humanitarian aspect of the judgment has been vastly deemphasized as we often do not give two hoots as far as humanitarian issues are concerned. And humanitarian crisis is deeply related to environmental and ecological crisis on which the judgment rests. All eyes are on the next move of the NGT.