By Morning Star Sumer
I am encouraged to write this article by the front paged news report under the heading, “Chief Justice, his team emerge newsmakers – A YEAR OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM” (ST. December 30, 2015), highlighting the High Court’s suggestions and orders in the recent past. All the issues that the Hon’ble High Court had taken cognizance of – even Suo Moto – are important ones that the concerned responsible authorities/ government departments, had either ignored or seemingly shelved for good. This has rekindled in me the flame of hope that all is not yet lost in the indigenes’ struggle to force the authorities to perform their mandated constitutional responsibilities that they have been shirking for so long. That flame is also being fanned by the evident activism of the Supreme Court itself, which, in recent times, has been asserting its authority to act as empowered by the Constitution. For instance, in Uttar Pradesh (UP), because the state government had failed to perform its constitutional responsibility to appoint a Lokayukta within a stipulated period, even after having been prodded more than once by the SC, the apex court had stepped in to appoint one.
In the hope that the Court may extend its activism to the long-standing popular demand for implementation of the provisions of Regulation V of Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation), I write this piece to draw attention to the need for the logical end of this ILP debate and agitation by invoking the Regulation. In my speeches as well as in my writings I had frequently expressed the view that the powers that be are placed by the citizens in position of power with a mandate to govern within the constraints of existing laws. Wherever a law for regulating or solving a particular problem does not exist, the authorities should waste no time in using their mandate to legislate for regulating/solving the problem.
For decades, there has been a demand to implement the so-called ILP instead of the whole Regulation which is the instrument to guard against adverse demographic impact of illegal immigration. So far, we have been led up the garden path by both the governments and NGOs who have been barking up the wrong tree. To see the problem as a mere influx is to pull the wool over our eyes. The imperial/colonial power had taken steps to protect the indigenous citizens by promulgating the Regulation, which is retained by the Constitution of India, 1950 and, therefore, is in the statute book. It had been amended as considered necessary and expedient from time to time: now it has eight Sections, each providing for solutions of a specific problem. The demand for implementing only the so-called ILP is not appropriate. What is needed is invocation of the whole Regulation which also provides for drawing an Inner Line and, consequently, to prescribe the ILP. If no Inner Line is drawn, there is no need for ILP. The most important provision of the Regulation is in Section 7, which reads, “It shall not be lawful for any person, not being a Native of the districts…to acquire any interest in land or the product of land…” This provision debars any non-indigenous citizen(s) in the districts from owning landed property or to deal in the products of the land. The denial of rights to own land and deal in products of the land helps to protect indigenous citizens from being deprived of their land and from social and economic exploitation by clever and cunning non-indigenous citizens. This means that non-indigenous citizen(s), may hold/posses land on lease with lease deeds executed according to law but not with sale deeds, which, if executed, would be invalid and not recognized in law. It is necessary now therefore, to have a suitable land law to cover cases of land holding and usage. The Mukul Sangma government, however, is against such law. This is evident when, the suggestion offered by the KKR convened by me and held at the Khasi National Durbar Hall, Mawkhar, Shillong, on 6th of December, 2011, to legislate a suitable land law has not been considered by the Chief Minister though he was provided with a copy of the Organisation’s own Proposed Draft of Model Act and when requested to grant us an audience with him to discuss it, he refused even to acknowledge it in spite of my own personal effort, as the convener of the KKR to get his acknowledgment.
The demand for implementing only one provision of the Regulation does not seem to be appropriate. My views expressed to both the govts. and the agitating NGOs at some meetings as well as in articles published in local media made no impression on them. To mention just one article I would refer to one under the caption, “ILP: time to call the govt’s bluff” carried on the op-ed page of a local daily in September 10, 2013.
To make matters worse, celebrities jumped into the ring to air their considered opinions without official evidence to support their views. Concerned people usually listen to celebrities’ speeches with rapt attention and read their statements in the media with studied attention. They (concerned people) cannot miss the fact that these statements are not supported by any historical, factual or interpretative evidences.
Late Purno A. Sangma, former speaker of Lok Sabha gratuitously offered the opinion that the ILP was “…set up to protect the residents of the country from the fury of the tribals of the state…” (Meghalaya Times, August 31, 2013). No official record was mentioned.
To the question as to why the provisions of the Regulation was prescribed “….for the adjoining district of Cachar (adjoining Lushai Hills)” “…under the same Regulation…” the explanation is obtained from the Foreign Department Notification No.2299 P dated 20 August, 1875, which reads, “…to prevent adventurous planters, traders and shikaris from making excursion across the boundary line which might lead to political complications…”. There is no mention here of the fury of the tribals endangering the country’s residents.
In a meeting held at the Science and Seminar Hall of NEHU on 28th September, 2012, to ‘debate’ (later changed “to discuss”) the question, “Do we need the Inner Line Permit (ILP) in the State?” another celebrity RG Lyngdoh, former Home Minister of the State, now Vice Chancellor MLCU, had stated authoritatively that the ILP was devised for the protection of the outsiders, not of the indigenous people in the area! He did so without supporting evidence/facts. This authoritative outlandish statement was carried the following day in all the newspapers in Shillong – English as well as vernacular.
Those who agree with RG Lyngdoh that the Regulation is not for the protection of the insiders but for that of the outsiders, may kindly read the reply of a Minister of State in the ministry of Home Affairs, Shri R.P.N. Singh, to Question No.393 in the Rajya Sabha on 27/Feb/2013, which reads, “The main aim of ILP system is to prevent settlement of other Indian nationals in the States where ILP regime is prevalent, in order to protect the indigenous/tribal population”.
Evidently, the hon’ble Minister of State had read and understood the provisions of the Regulation though his wording seems to hide some ulterior motives. However, these facts should put paid to RG Lyngdoh’s pet theory.
In a booklet titled “VISION FOR MEGHALAYA on and Beyond the Inner Line Permit” (Editors H. Srikanth, C. Joshua Thomas and Recordius Enmi Kharbani) all the learned contributors to the volume had not touched upon the real purport of the ILP which they had apparently not studied with sufficient circumspection on and about the originator of the ILP – the Regulation itself. Had any of them deigned to read any of my articles with even an iota of concerned attention, none of them would have written in the vein they had done in their contributing articles published in the volume – all had flown off at a tangent from the central point (the Regulation); perhaps, being carried away by emotions.
No state government(s) had deigned it necessary to counter or confirm any of my views as expressed in my articles/write-ups; especially since the publication of my article carried on the issue of Meghalaya Times dated September 10, 2013.
In spite of my painstaking efforts, I have not come across any official statement to refer to any acts of savagery by the so-called savage indigenes, which could have anything to do with the need to promulgate the Regulation since 1873 until now.