Patricia Mukhim
The book Development Dilemma: Displacement in Meghalaya 1947- 2010 published by the North East Social Science Research Centre, Guwahati and authored jointly by Walter Fernandes, Veronica Pala, Gita Bharali and Bitopi Dutta is a very revealing study of the status of land ownership in Meghalaya and how a huge tracts of land acquired by Government over the years for public purposes are not properly recorded. The study was carried out by interviewing people in the Government, retired Government officials and key informants. The writers admit that getting data from official sources was a big challenge because of poor record keeping. Officials in Meghalaya claimed that since the state was under Assam until 1972 the land records were kept in Guwahati, but officials in Assam say that all papers have been sent to Meghalaya. Another interesting information is that land donated by an individual or community to the Government is not recorded. Citing from AK Nongkynrih’s study (2009) the book says that about two-thirds of the land in Meghalaya is Common Property Resource (CPR) but that neither the village councils nor the State keeps proper record of such land. Hence it is difficult to get reliable information of the land holding system in Meghalaya.
This brings me to a topic I have spoken and written on times without number, and that is the urgent need for a cadastral survey in Meghalaya so that it becomes clear and transparent as to how much land Meghalaya actually has as against land claimed, which is 22,249 sq kms and who owns how much land in our State. This should then be followed by a Land Reforms Bills and the legislation for a Land Ceiling Act. People I share my views with are cynical that such legislation will ever come about since politicians, local bureaucrats and business persons own the bulk of the land in the State today. Well, we can ignore the need for such legislation at our own peril since poverty is stark in Meghalaya today. And by poverty I mean, land poverty, the poverty of access to health and other services which are easily available to the ‘haves’ only.
What’s interesting about the Book is that it has gone in-depth and recorded every aspect of land acquisition details from different departments of the State Government. There is mention of more than 4000 acres acquired for administrative structures and as such should have been listed under the General Administrative Department (GAD) but the land was listed as being required by the Home Department which looks after police and jails. No further details are known about this land. The question that arises then is that if a large acreage of land acquired by the Government is neither recorded nor the purpose for acquisition made known then it follows that an intelligent revenue minister or person in charge of revenue could easily convert that revenue land into private land. And that is what’s happening in Meghalaya. I once asked a senior official to provide us with details of land acquired by Government since 1972 and how all that land is used. He told me to take the route of Right to Information because he said, “it’s a lengthy process and someone will have to sit and do grunt work for days.” So that’s the situation as far as government land is concerned.
Consider another fact. The Relief and Rehabilitation Colony in Rynjah is land allocated to the refugees who came to Meghalaya from erstwhile East Pakistan on account of their being Hindus and persecuted in that country. The land given should have been recorded and this being revenue land, if any person no longer resides on it then it should revert to the Government. One wants to know how this land has been converted to private land where MLAs, ministers and other wealthy tribals have been able to buy such land. The questions we need to ask is (1) Who sold the land and to whom (2) How did the seller convert revenue land to private land? Who gave that permission? The answers we get will also give us an idea of how those in the government and their cohorts use their clout to take over revenue plots in the city of Shillong and elsewhere.
Only when you read the book do you realize that Government is a land guzzler. Land is incessantly being acquired for so- called development projects such as power projects, defence and security establishments, tourism purposes, educational purposes, road transport and communication and for extension of reserved forests.
When it comes to mining, the cement plants in Jaintia Hills have used a total of 2606.91 acres. It was only after the Supreme Court instituted a Joint inspection Team (JIT) following allegations that the companies were occupying forest land that it was reported that 9 companies are on forest land. The JIT also found out that out of the 2150 hectares inspected, 838 hectares was forest land, 1254 hectares non-forest land and 58 hectares was listed as “unresolved.” But another 1142 hectares under cement plants was not surveyed. And in all probability this is forest land!
The report further adds that an independent surveying agency must be tasked to assess the mining areas of the cement plants, “since most mines prima facie are larger in extent than shown on the map or on the lease granted to them.” The cement plants showed mines as being under 5 hectares since any area larger than that would require clearance from the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. This is clear indication that the State Environment and Forest Department is in cahoots with the cement companies. This is also the prime reason why the definition of forests in Meghalaya was changed.
Insofar as coal mining is concerned, the survey says forest cover has decreased substantially between 1975 to 2007, during which time there was a three-fold rise in coal mining activities. The gradual decline of forests during the above years is visible in the 56 sq.km of dense forests and 29 sq km of open forests which have become non-forest area. Interestingly only 0.7 sq km of land is transferred directly for coal mining. Hence there is a total loss of 85.6 sq km of forests to coal mining. Gradually the local people also converted agricultural land to coal mines. In all these transactions there is no clarity as to whether the land acquired outside of the forest land belonged to the community or to individuals. There are no records even in the district councils about the transactions. Land ownership in Meghalaya is therefore opaque and “people” and “community” are words that hide a multitude of sins. The phrase, “land belongs to the people,” is a myth that will be blown apart once a cadastral survey is conducted. That is why those in the seat of power will continue to resist this process which was first proposed by BB Lyngdoh and resisted by Hopingstone Lyngdoh in his wisdom. The absence of a cadastral survey is what has caused landlessness especially in rural Meghalaya.
As can be gauged from the name, the Book looks primarily at development induced displacement or project affected displacement. The findings reveal that Meghalaya has no clear relief and rehabilitation package for families displaced from land acquired by government or by mining companies. One would have liked to see a table giving the total land area in Meghalaya; the total land mass lost to mining and other activities; how much land is still available etc. More importantly, the study could have gone a little further to delve into the issue of community land so as to give the reader a feel of how much land is still held by the community. If so, is there a consultation with the community each time land is alienated in favour of “development?” Or are only a few people in the Dorbar Shnong or the Syiemship taking that critical decision?
I am disappointed at the fact that the book mentions traditional institutions as being actively involved in the conservation and management of forests, of community land and other resources. If so how did forest land go to cement companies and to coal mining? The statement, “ Activities like selling of land, establishment of factories, hospitals, schools etc., can take place with the knowledge and permission of the village headman,” actually is a misnomer. The village headman has no right to sell or barter land. It is the dorbar-in-council (meaning the entire executive body) after due consultation with the public under his jurisdiction which has the right to give away any land for public purpose.
Let’s not fool ourselves that land is still owned by the community. I am part of the Khasi community. I am not allotted any community land. And so are thousands of other Khasis. So who are we trying to fool? ‘Community,’ is a word that needs to be deconstructed by researchers from outside of the community for greater objectivity. Community if it means decision making by the Syiem or village headman then it’s the biggest symbol of patriarchy.
And this is not to say that one is anti-development. But development at what cost is the question!
