By Wankitbok Pohshna
It’s exactly a year since the 60 MLAs passed a resolution in the august house that Meghalaya should also be brought under the ILP regime since the Citizenship Amendment Act was passed by both houses of parliament. The special session of the Assembly was convened as pressure was mounted on the government from several pro-ILP groups. While the assembly debated the ILP, thousands of protestors gathered outside the streets to impress upon the MLAs to pass the resolution come what may. The assembly must have certainly deliberated on the matter, following which the MLAs to consensually passed the resolution for implementing ILP in Meghalaya as the only means to safeguard our tribal identity and indigenous culture in this vast nation.
Ironically the same Assembly had never used the same yardstick when the authority of traditional bodies’ was questioned by the High Court of Meghalaya. No discussion was even brought to the assembly on subject related to the grassroots system of governance which is the first contact point when it comes to issues like influx etc. Except that such similar session was only convened by the KHADC to pass the Village Administration Bill (VAB) which never could see the light of day. No doubt in the advent of CAA, many have argued that ILP was the only tool, since our identity was at stake as post CAA will bring in unabated influx. But this agenda was never debated at length except by demands put forth in public meetings led by various groups. It has also reached a point that the Sixth Schedule and Land Transfer Act are regarded as failed laws and their inability to tackle core issues of our ‘Jaitbynriew’ when it comes to protectionism.
We are soon turning 50 years as a tribal state and our so called leaders are still of the opinion that we are an endangered species. Hence who has failed who should be the point of debate. Now exactly a year after, just like an anniversary occasion, we see some MLAs from the Opposition urging the Government that an all-party meeting should be called to discuss at length on the demand for ILP and that groups should also be taken on board. The million dollar question is what had they discussed in the special session of the Assembly? Why were they party to the resolution passed when they were in doubt all this while? While the leader of the Opposition is all praise for the MRSSA passed during his regime, those who have gone through the Act will agree that it can be effective if there is a fool-proof mechanism to check on doubtful residents at the grassroots. The MRSSA if implemented in letter and spirit will tackle the issue of influx appropriately. The Government should have ensured that this act is made applicable in every nook and corner of the state but as usual this Act too reached the Governor’s office to not return with the assent. But most MLAs till date are unaware of which law is better when it comes to tackling influx – ILP or Resident’s Act? The state itself is in doubt with an Act on the one hand and a Resolution on the other for the very same purpose of protecting our race. Perhaps if at all such demands are met, Meghalaya will become the first state in the country with its tribal identity, the Sixth Schedule, the MRSSA and the ILP, all with the same purpose and intent – to protect – but from whom?
As a citizen of the State who has thoroughly observed the entire episode of anti- CAB protest and ILP demand since 2013, I can surely conclude that the problem here is not which law is better to protect our identity, our race or our culture. The problem lies with our representatives and their fickle minded attitude and their readiness to come under pressure whenever time warrants them to be. As representatives they have surely failed to uphold their duty as enshrined in the Constitution. They are less of legislators and more of agitators in the least literal sense. Not all stakeholders were taken on board when the Resolution was passed in the Assembly that Meghalaya needs ILP, and after CAB became CAA with riders that the Sixth Schedule areas have been exempted. The matter is being politicized and misinterpreted instead, and the normal area is being made the bone of contention. The MLAs are silent to speak on the exceptions that the CAA speaks of; they are playing to the gallery instead of performing a constructive role in the interest of the state as a whole.
The article ‘What if the ILP doesn’t work’ by Patricia Mukhim has enlightened not just what impact the ILP will have on the state especially in job creation and the economic disparity that will follow if such a regime is introduced.
Now let’s turn to our public representatives. What assurance do they have that ILP is the only tool which would protect the tribes of Meghalaya from invasion etc? Since invasion is the only language they use when speaking publically, no other word fits here. As representatives how do they define Protectionism? Who do they represent the people or the pressure groups? With the pandemic experience at hand aren’t our so called MLAs aware that those who had returned to the state since March are either jobless or clueless. Many hostels are shut and those running them are in despair. Aren’t they aware that tourism industry is collapsing no matter how much the Government is claiming to boost this industry? The local economy is cold as footfalls from students/day tourists are almost negligible. Some may argue that the pandemic is the cause of the dwindling footfalls, but the Covid-19 situation could as well be taken as an eye opener.
As the saying goes the poor becomes poorer while the rich gets mightier is true when the system tries to justify such irresponsible actions of judging the book just by its cover. I’m sure the MLAs are more busy thinking of 2023 rather than resolving reasonable issues at hand such as unemployment, health, grassroots governance and many more. Did they take their constituents on board when such a contentious permit regime was proposed to be imposed into the system?Is there a concrete database of exactly what is the source of local economy that runs the daily lives of many in the state, not accounting only the lives of politicians, businessmen, group leaders and govt servants? Will the ILP regime not cause a glitch to the flow of normal activities in the state? Will the ILP not affect the future economic condition of the state and its people in general?
The system cannot be biased just because one side is of the opinion that ILP is the only mechanism and that we shall be free from all apprehensions if it is implemented. Politicians should make their stand clear to the people they represent in general and not play second fiddle just to satisfy the agitated lot.
Email: [email protected]