SHILLONG, Sep 14: The Meghalaya Legislative Assembly on Wednesday witnessed noisy scenes over the controversial memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by the chief ministers of Meghalaya and Assam to resolve the dispute in six out of 12 areas of differences in the first phase.
North Shillong MLA Adelbert Nongrum, Chief Minister Conrad Sangma and Deputy Chief Minister Prestone Tynsong were the primary contributors to the high decibel levels in the House.
Nongrum was visibly agitated after being berated by Speaker Metbah Lyngdoh for accusing the chair of trying to annoy him.
The KHNAM MLA wanted to raise a supplementary question on the status of the MoU and also the second phase of the border talks which was asked by Nongpoh MLA Mayralborn Syiem during the question hour.
Speaker Metbah Lyngdoh had already moved to the next question when Nongrum stood up expressing his desire to participate in the discussion. When the Chair tried to reason with him, the MLA retorted back at the Speaker saying: “You are trying to annoy me.”
When the Speaker permitted Nongrum to raise his question, he dared the CM to review the MoU arguing that if amendments can be brought to the Constitution of India, why it can’t be done for the MoU.
In his reply, the CM dared Nongrum to name all the 12 areas of difference and asked him whether he had ever visited these areas or met the residents.
Tynsong joined in, advising the MLA to raise questions and not get emotional.
The Speaker had to intervene several times to end the heated exchange of words between the two members and asked them to maintain the decorum of the House.
The Speaker told the KHNAM legislator to put his supplementary question, reminding him that the question hour was in progress and he had already allowed over 45 minutes for the subject.
Earlier, the CM told the House that the border talks with Assam was in the second phase. “The survey for the purpose of demarcation of border is under way. The second phase of talks with the government of Assam has already commenced on August 21, 2022,” he said.
To a pointed query from the Nongpoh MLA on whether the government will make any attempt to revisit and review the MoU, the CM said, “The question of revisiting the MoU does not arise.”
The CM reasoned that the government signed the MoU after detailed consultations with many stakeholders, including the Himas, KHADC, JHADC as well as political parties and different organisations.
According to the CM, over 28 meetings were held and 18 field visits were conducted during the first phase of the dispute settlement.
Informing that the government has also finalised the regional committees for the second phase, the CM assured that representatives from the autonomous district councils (ADCs) will also be part of these committees.
TMC’s George B Lyngdoh questioned the state government for parting with the land in some places which were not considered as areas of differences.
Lyngdoh mentioned that as per the MoU, it was agreed that the ASTC transit camp, two police outpost, Assamese inhabited areas around the Namghar, one village in Khanapara and the Dreamland Resort area totaling approximately 0.03 sq km will be with Assam.
“But my question is whether these places were included in the area of difference because according to historical facts and data these areas fall under Meghalaya,” the TMC MLA questioned.
In his reply, Chief Minister said that it was within the discussions and within the areas of differences.
Earlier, Lyngdoh had pointed out that as per clause 9 of the MoU it had stated “it was decided that any other areas/villages situated outside the area of difference shown in the maps submitted by Meghalaya vide their letter dated August 8, 2011 will not be considered.”
“It is understood that there are areas outside the areas of differences that have been claimed by Meghalaya in 2011. And as per this clause, the government agreed not to discuss those areas that lie outside the areas of differences,” the TMC MLA said, adding that the MoU has veered away from the documents submitted by the state government whereas the CM in his reply stated that it is difficult to move away from the 2011 report.
In his reply, the CM said both points were the same.
“The simple point is that there was a map that was submitted by Government of Meghalaya in 2011. What we decided in the MoU is that we can’t go outside that map,” Sangma said, adding that it had been decided that any other areas situated outside the areas of differences shown in the map will not be considered.
Earlier, the CM told the House that it would be difficult to change the documents submitted to Assam in 2011.
“We will discuss and we will try to make adjustments with the collaboration and support of our stakeholders and the Assam government. As of now, we will have to stick with the 2011 report submitted by the Meghalaya Government to Assam,” Sangma added.
