SHILLONG: The resolution brought by HSPDP legislator Ardent Basaiawmoit on the application of Article 371 of the Constitution of India to Meghalaya in line with Nagaland and Mizoram was withdrawn by the legislator but not before issue provided a platform for the legislators to discuss the matter in the Assembly, perhaps for the first time.
Moving the resolution, Basaiawmoit said that introduction of Article 371 was necessary in Meghalaya as the local indigenous people of the State are in confusion as to the existence of multiple institutions and laws related to the special rights.
Basaiawmoit moved the resolution in the context of recurring conflicts due to the laws passed by the Government and the district councils – whether they are empowering headmen or the building byelaws.
The HSPDP legislator said that the political leaders should advocate the need to extend the applicability of Article 371 similar to that of Article 371A incorporated in the Constitution for the State of Nagaland and likewise Article 371G for the State of Mizoram.
According to Basaiawmoit, the object of the resolution is that as a State “we suffer from the existence of multiple authorities – the District Council, the Syiem, the Dolloi, the Sordar, the Lyngdoh, the Wahadadar – which deals with customs and traditional practices of the local indigenous tribes in as far as the administration of villages is concerned”.
He also pointed out that the fight for supremacy between the KHADC and the Urban Affairs Department in connection with jurisdiction over the applicability of the building byelaws has resulted in a lot of confusion among the people.
Article 371 A speaks about the special provision with respect to Nagaland, which highlights that “no Act of Parliament in respect of religious or social practices of the Nagas, Naga customary law and procedure, administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Naga customary law, ownership and transfer of land and its resources, shall apply to the State of Nagaland unless the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland by a resolution so decides.”
As far as Article 371 G is concerned, the special provision with respect to Mizoram is that “no Act of President in respect of religious or social practices of the Mizos, Mizo customary law and procedure, administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Mizo customary law, ownership and transfer of land, shall apply to Mizoram unless the Legislative Assembly of the State of Mizoram by a resolution so decides.”
Taking part in the discussion, HSPDP legislators K.P. Pangniang and Witting Mawsor extended support to the resolution moved by Basaiawmoit.
Opposition Leader Donkupar Roy while stating that it was an ’emotional resolution’, stressed the importance of Para 12 (A) B of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution which gives provision for a Presidential notification to exempt Central laws from being made operational in Meghalaya.
He also said that the State Government has a more effective Meghalaya Land Transfer Act to protect the indigenous people of Meghalaya compared to Nagaland and Mizoram.
Citing statistics, Roy said that Meghalaya had earned more revenue than Nagaland and Mizoram though these two states had much potential to tap natural resources.
Paul Lyngdoh (UDP), who appreciated the spirit of the resolution, however, adopted a cautious approach in its implementation.
“The issue should not been in emoting context which takes away the intellectual discourse,” Lyngdoh said.
Referring to a specific Para of Article 371, Lyngdoh said that as far as ownership of land is concerned, there are growing numbers of people with a lot of wealth entering the electoral politics. “The influence of money power increased upsetting the level playing field of politics in the State. If ownership of land is entirely left with the State Government with the Parliament having no say, will it be in the interest of Meghalaya?” Lyngdoh questioned.
He also pointed out that multinational companies can capture the entire land of Meghalaya.
The UDP legislator also stressed the need of inclusive growth and proper checks and balances while the traditional heads perform their duties.
“In the fitness of things, let us debate and let us not resolve,” Lyngdoh added.
In his reply, Chief Minister Mukul Sangma said that there will be confusion if the Assembly adopts the resolution on Article 371 as the Government had already intended to pass another resolution to invoke Paragraph 12(A) B of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution.
“If we mix up both, it will not serve any purpose as this will only confuse the Centre,” the chief minister added.
Later, while stating that the issue was not an emotive one and that he had moved it after much thought, Basaiawmoit pointed out that he was happy that the resolution generated a lot of interest and discussion.
He withdrew the resolution expressing hope that the debate and discussions would continue.
