SHILLONG, March 30: Leader of Opposition in the KHADC, Pynshngainlang N Syiem said the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed between Meghalaya and Assam to resolve the long-pending interstate boundary dispute was against the wishes and sentiments of the border villagers.
Pointing out that the Sixth Schedule Khasi states were mentioned in the Assam Reorganisation Act, 1969, and North East Reorganisation Act, 1971, he slammed the state government for going ahead with the agreement without taking the Khasi states into account.
“The Assam Reorganisation Act, 1969, said the boundaries of the United Khasi and Jaintia Hills should be based on the Khasi states. The North East Reorganisation Act, 1971, said the boundaries should be defined according to what is mentioned in the Assam Reorganisation Act, 1969,” Syiem said on Wednesday.
He also said Paragraph 22 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution defines the Khasi states.
“How could we sign the MoU outside this spirit?” he asked.
Syiem said he had stressed in each meeting called by the state government that the solution to the interstate boundary dispute should be based on these two Acts and the Sixth Schedule.
Echoing a similar view, the Voice of the People Party (VPP) said it is too early to celebrate the signing of the Meghalaya-Assam boundary agreement.
“At this stage, it is very difficult to say whether this agreement is historic or a disaster. Though we would like to give this government the benefit of doubt, the rush to reach an agreement without being transparent only fuels speculations,” VPP president Ardent Miller Basaiawmoit said.
According to him, the government needs to be asked why it has not put the details of the agreement in the public domain. The government should also reveal if the stakeholders have been informed about the entire process before finalising the agreement, he said.
Basaiawmoit pointed out that the current dispensation is trying to convey it has managed to settle the boundary problem after 50 years of statehood where others had failed.
“If we go by the media reports, it is a different story altogether. People are made to believe that Meghalaya has not had a boundary since it was carved out of Assam,” he said.
The VPP president said the agreement between Meghalaya and Assam was made possible due to the consideration and efforts of the NDA government at the Centre. But the fact remains that no state can become a unit of the Indian federation without a proper boundary, he said.
He said the territory for the autonomous state of Meghalaya was defined by the Assam Reorganisation Act of 1969 and the boundary of the full-fledged state of Meghalaya was defined by the Northeast Reorganisation Act of 1971.
“Therefore, the narrative created by both the states and the Centre that Meghalaya does not have a proper boundary is misleading and baseless,” he said.
Basaiawmoit said there is a dialogue on the border issue between the two states on one hand while there is a continuous encroachment by Assam into the territories of Meghalaya on the other.
“It is also quite interesting to note that HSPDP president KP Pangniang, who claims to be a follower of the late Hopingstone Lyngdoh who never accepted the term ‘disputed land’ in his argument, went on record to claim that the 12 disputed areas were not even parts of Meghalaya,” he said.
He observed that pressure groups who once hailed this government, are now expressing apprehension about the manner in which the pact was signed between the two states. “Therefore, in view of what has been stated above, the VPP would strongly urge the government to issue a white paper on the agreement reached upon between the two states,” Basaiawmoit said.
Terming the signing of the MoU as an act of betrayal against the people of the state, Hynniewtrep Youth Council (HYC) president, Robertjune Kharjahrin said the boundary agreement has totally discarded the traditional boundaries of the Khasi states.
He asserted that the state government should have consulted the Hima, Raid and the district council before finalising the MoU.
“It is really unfortunate that the signing of the agreement has allowed many areas that fall under the administration of Khasi states such as Hima Mylliem, Hima Nongspung, Nonglang Sirdarship, Syiemship of Jirang, have been given to Assam through this agreement,” Kharjahrin said.
He demanded a review of the boundary agreement signed on Tuesday.
The FKJGP echoed the HYC and asked the state government to reconsider the boundary agreement.
FKJGP president, Wellbirth Rani said the federation along with the KSU, HYNF and RBYF will meet the Syiem, Hima, Raid, land owners and the residents to find out if they were satisfied with the MoU.
“If the majority is unhappy then we will pressurize the state government to reexamine the boundary agreement,” Rani said.
He asserted that people residing in the border villages, Syiem, Hima and Raid should be privy to the MoU.
“As per the land tenure system in Meghalaya, the land belongs to the individual and the community. Therefore, the state government cannot decide on its own since they have no authority over the land,” the FKJGP president asserted.