By Morning Star Sumer
Four administrators of traditional institutions, namely, Himas/Syiemships, of Khyrim, Mylliem, Nongkhlaw and Maharam received their copies of a letter No.POL. 161/2012/Pt-I/75 dated Shillong, the 8th December, 2014, requesting them to make it convenient to attend a meeting to be held on 17th December, 2014, convened by the Dy. CM in-charge Law etc. as Chairman, of a “Committee to examine the Meghalaya (Benami Transaction Prohibition) Act, 1980 and amendment if any and reframing the Tenancy Verification Bill”. The Syiems of Khyrim and Nongkhlaw Syiemships, and representatives of Mylliem and Maharam Syiemships attended the meeting. This request is significant because it indicates a shift from the past when heads of traditional institutions were not consulted to get their views on any important issue(s) before taking decisions or before enacting any law. It is hoped that this precedent will be followed by all succeeding governments in the future. It is also for the heads of traditional institutions to demand their right of being consulted after due empowerment by the state government.
In fact, the UPA 2 Government had provided a healthy precedent by placing The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2011 in the public domain before debating and enacting it in Parliament. It bears repeating the narration of the fact that the Meghalaya government of the day had ignored the Bill completely while it was being hotly debated in other states of the Union. Even this writer’s impetuous barging/gate-crashing into the then Dy. CM, Mr. Rowell Lyngdoh’s office on September 6, 2011 to force the govt. to make a committed statement on the Bill/issue, had elicited nothing more than the arrogant and irresponsible statement that the government had never heard of the Bill!! Worse, even after that episode, the powers that be failed to act responsibly and failed to offer any suggestion(s) to have the state’s interests considered in Parliament before debating and enacting/passing the Act. Even our Hon’ble MP., Vincent H. Pala, in a singular display of irresponsibility, did not bestir himself to the extent possible to inform us about what he was doing about it! In exasperation this writer convened a series of meetings of like-minded and responsible citizens to discuss the proposed provisions of the Bill and, after passing resolutions, a petition of 19th Sept., 2011 was addressed directly to Mr. Jairam Ramesh, then Union Minister for Rural Development, – with endorsement to the Meghalaya CM – requesting him to consider our suggestions to project our views in/during the ensuing debate on the Bill. We literally requested him to act as our MP. The result was that the final proviso to Sec. 2 (2) was inserted in the final Act which is now titled, The Right to Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which provides that the Act should be implemented in Scheduled Area States only in accord with the provisions of the respective states’ own land Acts. I challenge the government to deny these facts.
While writing this, there are news reports telling us that the present Narendra Modi’s BJP govt. at the Centre has amended (by Ordinance) the Act to make acquisition of land easier for certain designated areas besides others. With no strong Land Act to benefit from the last proviso of Sec. 2 (2) it is an ominous sign that indigenous Meghalayans will soon have no land to work and live on. That situation will be certain unless an Act to regulate ownership, possession and transfer of land in Meghalaya for the protection of the interests of the indigenous Scheduled Tribes there in is enacted now. The enactment of such Act/Law had been proposed to the government in the wake of the HLC on influx as well as directly to the CM, Dr. Mukul Sangma, vide the KKR letter dated 08-12-2011. In a model Act proposed to the government. is a provision that land should not be sold to non-indigenous citizens and even to government. Governments may acquire land only through lease deeds with land owners. The provision is necessary because if land is acquired through compensation it is as good as being sold outright to the compensator(s) while traditional institutions and governments as entities are not recognized and accepted as land owners in our cultures and traditions. While one may find fault with many injunctions of our ancestors of the “hoary past” it is not wise to ignore the one about land ownership. Even primitive man, before the dawn of intellection, had grasped the idea of land ownership to survive. It is, therefore, necessary that we all, to a man, move the government even to the point of agitating, to enact the land Act to respect an individual’s right to own a piece of land to live and to work on according to his needs and capacity.
For much too long, the so-called Kings in Europe, Rajas/Maha-Rajas, Nawabs, Sultans, Zamindars and the like in India had usurped the rights of people to land possession. It is now time to assert the rights of the people to land within the region in which they are indigenous. This principle should apply not only in Meghalaya and other States in North East India, but also to indigenous people elsewhere in the whole wide world where the idea of Democracy has been accepted and now being practised. If this is ignored now, we, of this generation, would have to bear the blame for not acting at the proper time if our future generations (posterity) should experience what those in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea are experiencing now at this very moment, in Eurasia, where Russian immigrants out-number the locals so that Russia now claims possession and territorial right. This writer had drawn attention to this very kind of situation in the article entitled, “Annexation by Immigration?” (ST August 22,2012). The question this writer asks himself, after so much efforts to wake up both governments and concerned intellectuals, is, have they read his articles and understood his views? He is not sure; because though friends and well-wishers had expressed appreciation to commend his efforts, no activists in politics or civil societies had deigned it worth their efforts to study the problems and issues crying for attention and solution. He received private recognition from leaders of these organizations who seek his advice but do not act to pursue the issues/problems to logical end.
If this situation continues, his cry would be only a cry in the wilderness. Nevertheless, he will continue to cry when crying is necessary to wake up people’s conscience: may be, somewhere, sometime, someone or more, might grasp what the issue(s) really is/are and would move to put these ideas to work.
As for The Meghalaya (Benami Transaction Prohibition) Act, 1980, the most important part of the Act is missing. When I pointed out this fact at the meeting, I was asked what that missing part is. My answer was that it is the Preamble. Mr. L.M. Sangma, Secretary, Law Department and Mr. T. Dkhar, IAS, Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Political Department, responded by saying that what is printed at the top of the Act is the Preamble. My response was that we are not satisfied with that kind of Preamble: the Preamble should define what goal the government aimed to achieve by passing the Act. That statement was missing from the body of the Act.
It transpired during the course of the meeting – as reported in the media – that the government’s aim was to project it as a “comprehensive mechanism to curb influx and illegal immigration into the State” as also stated by the Chairman at the meeting. If so, the fact should have been stated in the Preamble; but it is missing. Supposing or given that this fact is stated in the Preamble, it is necessary to examine, analyse and debate the provisions of the components of the Act.
In Section 2 (a) the definition of the term “benami transaction” does not contain anything to suggest that it is an undesirable business activity. Therefore, by definition, the benami transaction is no anathema to anything. A definition of this term should state the undesirable or objectionable factor(s) in the transaction. It is illogical to prohibit a business activity which does no harm but which may well be good for the people.
In Section 2 (d) the definition of the word “tribal” should be, “means any person who is indigenous in the State”, and nothing else. That definition would exclude all other “tribals”, domiciled in the state, notwithstanding the fact that they are included in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, e.g. Rabhas, Kacharis and Kochs etc. These arguments should be sufficient to repeal this Act.
The argument that this Act will stop influx of illegal immigration does not stand scrutiny. By no stretch of imagination can one claim that this Act can have any effect on influx of illegal immigration. This, clearly, is an inspired attempt to misinterpret things to sell the idea of a hypocritical view of both the Act and the illegal immigration issue. To control and stop illegal immigration, there is already a law which, without mentioning influx of any kind, has a provision which is a fool-proof device against illegal immigration.
“THE MEGHALAYA REGULATION OF LANDLORDS AND VERIFICATION OF TENANTS BILL, 2013”, had already been totally rejected by the people. The government should now bring out another which should be placed in the public domain for debate.