SHILLONG, May 27: Days after the chief ministers of Meghalaya and Assam started the second phase of the interstate boundary dispute talks, the State Congress has asked the government to first resolve the issues pertaining to the first phase and only then proceed to the second phase of the boundary dispute solving process.
“I want to request the government they should not start engaging in the second phase because there is an MoU in the first phase signed by both the chief ministers of Meghalaya and Assam…I can say that the traditional heads also went to the court. So, let us first solve the issues discussed in the first phase and after that proceed to the second phase,” said Meghalaya Pradesh Congress Committee (MPCC) secretary and Mawhati MLA, Charles Marngar on Saturday.
Referring to the first phase, he said, “We all know that the sentiment of the people is very high and also that of the NGOs, the traditional heads are all against the MoU signed by both the chief ministers.” “In my opinion the governments should keep in abeyance the second phase. They should understand the sentiments of the people. We have to listen to the NGOs and the traditional heads,” he added.
Asked if it is the stand of the party, he confirmed, “Yes that is the party’s stand and from my side also as a local representative from Block 2. I am one of the members of the regional committee. But till today nothing substantial has started”.
The six remaining disputed interstate border sites to be taken up in second phase of talks are Langpih, Block 1 and Block 2, Khanduli-Psiar, Nongwah Mawtamur, Borduar and Desh Doomreah.
It may be recalled that the two states had signed an MoU on March 29 last year in New Delhi in the presence of Union Home Minister Amit Shah after reaching a consensus on six areas that include Hahim, Gizang, Tarabari, Boklapara, Khanapara-Pilangkata and Ratacherra.
However, widespread discontent following the signing of the MoU, a case was filed in the High Court of Meghalaya by four traditional chiefs — the Syiem of Hima Jirang, the Acting Syiem of Hima Mylliem, the Sirdar of Nonglang Sirdarship and the Acting Syiem of Hima Nongspung — who alleged that the MoU was signed “without consulting or taking the consent of the traditional chiefs and the concerned Dorbars.” They also claimed that the MoU violated provisions of the Sixth Schedule and encroached upon the powers of the autonomous district councils.
The High Court ordered an interim stay on the MoU in December last year after which the state government approached the Supreme Court which in turn ordered a stay on the high court’s order staying the MoU.
