SHILLONG, April 24: The Meghalaya government had signed the boundary MoU with the Assam government by allegedly overlooking many of the recommendations of the West Khasi Hills District Regional Committee.
The committee had recommended that Malchapara under Gizang should be under Meghalaya. It had mentioned that people expressed their willingness to be part of Meghalaya and for which a resolution was adopted on November 16, 2021 which was duly signed by the headman and 187 villagers.
A source told The Shillong Times on Sunday the committee had recommended that altogether 15 villages should be part of Meghalaya.
As per the MoU, areas of Tarabari with villages such as Upper Tarabari/Walkam, Rangkhet, Thangkhola, Chingipa/Chiginde, Doini Charadonu, Dapbolpara and Balkam, comprising an area of 4.69 sq km, will be with Meghalaya based on the boundary delineated on the map by Meghalaya in its claim in 2011.
The MoU also states that the village Malang Salbari (Lat – 25.855361 N, Long – 91.076944 E), situated in Assam and outside the claimed area, will continue with Assam. However, another location referred to by Meghalaya as Malang Salbari (Lat – 25.848797 N, Long – 91.074233 E) is within Meghalaya and will continue to be with it.
The source revealed that villages such as Nam Tarabari/Balsrik, Watre Rangchong, Borsum, Garo Jan, Damrang/Damrangkona, Malang Joypur and Huhuapara were not mentioned in the MoU despite being recommended by the regional committee.
“Now all these villages have gone to Assam,” the source said.
The source claimed that the state government had not adhered to the terms of reference while going ahead to sign the agreement by adopting the “give-and-take” policy.
As per the terms of reference, the regional committee was to visit each of the villages and interact with the communities, including the elected representatives of the Autonomous District Council, to learn about the perception of the people living in the area.
“But the regional committee did not visit the villages. They had only convened a meeting of two-three villages in one place during the field visit. The committee did not meet the elected representative of the ADC and he was only invited to attend the meeting convened during the field visit,” the source said.
The committee was supposed to cross-reference and verify the names of the villages (sub-villages) claimed by Meghalaya with the names of villages as per records of Government of Assam and also to establish the geographical location of the villages and their contiguity.
“But even this exercise was not carried out,” the source claimed.
Further, it claimed the MoU was not based on the agreed yardsticks of historical perspective, ethnicity of the local population, administrative convenience of the local people, contiguity with the boundary and the perception of the people living in the area.