Patricia Mukhim
In Meghalaya some individuals and groups take it upon themselves to rake up an issue; to confront the government and put everyone else on notice. Such groups do not believe in the democratic process of discussion and debate before arriving at a decision. They believe they have all the wisdom. Yet they have arrived at their decisions by simplistic arguments. Take the case of influx. These groups feel that the Inner Line Permit (ILP) is the only solution. Perhaps the problem lies somewhere else; so too the solution! Influx happens because there is an employment vacuum that’s filled up by people from another state who have the required skills. Influx in Meghalaya means there are opportunities for work here which the local people either do not have the skills for or are unwilling to engage in. Try getting an electrician or a plumber and you hit a wall. You would have to know some electrical store which has a number of electricians at its beck and call. Getting a good plumber through is not easy. I have never seen a local refrigerator repairer or a mobile phone repairer. I also do not believe that all these people in the trade mentioned above can claim they are domiciles of this state. They have come here because they are needed for certain trades. Without them most firms that require the services of such professionals would have to close shop.
I reiterate what I had said in the past about the ILP. Meghalaya is not a dead end state like Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh or Nagaland. It is a transit state. People from Assam’s Barak Valley transit to and from the Brahmaputra valley through Meghalaya. So too the people of Mizoram and Tripura. How on earth do you regulate the movement of transit passengers through Meghalaya and check their ILP? Does Meghalaya have that human resource? Is it a viable proposition? Influx requires better solutions than the ILP but pressure groups want instant solutions. How can a far-reaching policy be decided by one or two groups?
The major stakeholders who need to be consulted about the ILP are tour operators and all those running the hundreds of guest houses and eateries in our villages. In Tourism, the money generated is shared in a horizontal manner; there are many beneficiaries. Some earn more than others but everyone earns something. Contrast this to the coal or limestone mining businesses where only a few gain from the environmentally destructive activity. Coal mining requires maximum labourers from outside the state since few locals would want to venture into a death trap called a rat hole. It’s quite surprising that the pressure groups too are very selective about who they target. None of the leading pressure groups in Meghalaya have said a word against illegal mining and transportation of coal. Now they are up in arms wanting to implement a regressive instrument that dates to the colonial period in this era where trade and commerce requires easy transit and no unnecessary check gates. Imagine one of the universities inviting a professor from outside for a lecture and then having to tell him/her that they have to get permission to enter the state. There will be arguments that the same professors wanting to enter Nagaland, Mizoram or Arunachal Pradesh have to take permits. But let’s get real and find out how many such visitors actually travel to the above three states and how many national centres of excellence do they have and whether they are thriving. Will it be possible for Nagaland, Mizoram or Arunachal Pradesh to have an IIM or IIT with all the constraints that are put on visitors? And yet despite the ILP, Nagaland complains of IBIs (Illegal Bangladeshi Immigrants).
Be that as it may, let me come back to the point I started with, which is that we should bring all issues of concern before a bigger body. No issue can be exclusively dealt with by one or two or three organisations. No group has proprietary rights over any issue. The purpose of the Dorbar Syiem, Dorbar Raij and Dorbar Shnong was primarily to address all issues that concern the Khasi people – an inclusive term for the Pnar, Bhoi and War people. Citing from Kynpham Sing Nongkynrih’s book, “Hiraeth and the Poetry of Soso Tham, the author quotes from what the Late RT Rymbai, one of the earlier administrators, says of the Khasi Dorbar. Rymbai says, “This concept of Ki Hynniewtrep of the role of their kings and the fact that power lies in the hands of the people, forms the corner stone of the democratic nature of their political organisations where the will of the people is expressed by consensus. In their case the goodwill prevails throughout the deliberations, for or against, because each participant is guided and governed by the ruling spirit of the motto – ia kaba dei yn ia bat, ia kaba lait yn ia bret (We shall keep and hold what is right and reject and dismiss what is wrong).”
If dialogue and debate was the essence of Khasi democracy why has it now been replaced by singular, strident viewpoints that are being pushed as an agenda of the entire state? Have the Dorbar Hima, Dorbar Raij and Dorbar Shnong been consulted about the ILP and its repercussions? What are their considered views? What are the pros and cons of implementing the ILP? Do the negatives outweigh the positives? And should those who have a different viewpoint be considered anti-jaidbynriew and not be allowed to have an opinion? In an enlightened society no decision is taken without consultation. The jaidbynriew Khasi has been admired for its ability to hold a dorbar for days until a consensus is arrived at. One would like to believe that such consensus takes into account the views of even the poor and disempowered (ki kup shiliang, ki sem shiliang kiba dei ki khun ki hajar ka Ri), irrespective of gender, because they too are members of U Paid Khasi Baiar .
Every Khasi, nay every Meghalayan is concerned at the influx that is visible especially in Shillong city. Let us also not forget that Meghalaya today is domiciled not just by the Khasi people but by non-Khasi, non-tribal people too, many of whose ancestors have their lived here for hundreds of years. They too are as worried as we are about the consequences of influx on our fragile economy. Should they be kept out of the consultations and should we just impose our decisions on them as if their voices don’t matter? Let’s admit some facts. We Khasis are not the centre of the world and our culture is not the linchpin of human history. Nor are our concerns exclusive to us. We have to learn to trust that those who have made Meghalaya their home are not outliers who are out to stab us in the back. They too are as human as we are with the same concerns and problems that beset all of us. True that non-Khasis have more acuity for business but we should have imbibed that from them in all these years of social interface.
We are now entering a very challenging era. As Yuval Noah Harari in his book, “21 Lessons for the 21st Century says, “Billions of us can hardly afford the luxury of investigating, because we have more pressing things to do ; we have to go to work, take care of the kids or look after elderly parents. Unfortunately, history gives no discounts. If the future of humanity is decided in your absence, because you are too busy feeding and clothing your kids – you and they will not be exempt from the consequences. This is very unfair; but who said that history was fair?”
The ILP will have consequences for all of us if it becomes a policy even though we have not been part of the debate on it. The question is whether we were allowed to be part of the debate. If not, why not? Should policy be decided by one or two pressure groups? Has enough research gone into the mechanisms for checking influx? Isn’t the ILP just a copycat agenda? Don’t we have the capacity for a more intelligently designed mechanism? These are questions that trouble many who may perhaps not want to voice those questions for they fear the consequences. We often have to pay the price when we resist and rebel against mainstream views. At this point, to contest that the ILP is not the best mechanism for checking influx is swimming against the tide of public (read pressure group),opinion. But it has to be done for the simple reason that we value the freedom of expression.