The Inner line Permit (ILP) continues to be a political hot potato. Last year around the same time there was a furore over this issue following the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) by both houses of parliament and its immediate concurrence from the President of India. This led to a series of agitations as the Act was seen to be directed at depriving citizenship to Muslims including those that might not have valid papers for several reasons. In the North Eastern states particularly Assam, Meghalaya and Tripura which are already suffering the pain of influx from Bangladesh and earlier East Pakistan, the agitation took a different form. None of the states was going to accept any further resettlement of those with doubtful antecedents or ‘D’ voters as they are termed in Assam. The National Register of Citizens’ process in Assam had already disenfranchised about 19 lakh people who were detained in makeshift camps and decrepit living circumstances. It was a human rights’ violation but no one could be bothered because they were considered non-citizens.
In Meghalaya, the 60 MLAs were coerced by pressure groups that they had to pass a Resolution in the State Assembly to demand from the Centre the extension of the Inner Line Permit to the State. The MLAs complied and the Resolution was taken to the central government. The matter remains inconclusive and now the Khasi Students’ Union (KSU)has threatened to arbitrarily implement its own brand of ILP. The question is whether the ILP will necessarily control influx when illegal migrants don’t use the regulated entry points. The ILP will instead check all Indian citizens from other states and become a deterrent for any economic activities in a state that has almost no source of revenue generation and depends entirely on central government doles.
Much has been argued about the ILP not being a Berlin Wall or the Great Wall of China but that it is only a glass wall where those who have applied for e-permits would have to produce them at the entry points. But this argument does not hold water. Examples have also been cited that Sikkim with the Restricted Area Permit (RAP) still has many visitors and so have the other states with the ILP regime. But tourism cannot be the only revenue generating activity. Why do states like Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram not have any industries? Why do hordes of youth from Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram have to leave the state to find employment outside? Is this not because there are no job opportunities in these states? Tourism alone cannot feed all mouths. There is such a thing as ease of doing business which investors would look for. No investors would want to deal with an ILP regime. Hence the economy is the first casualty should the ILP be implemented in Meghalaya and the precarious situation will push more youth from here who are without godfathers, to look for jobs outside.
It is unfortunate that an issue that has far reaching effects is sought to be implemented without a public debate. Meghalaya has enough protective mechanisms provided these are implemented in letter and spirit. Besides, an overdose of protectionism kills entrepreneurship. Therein lies the rub!