Balancing Development & Tribal Rights in Meghalaya
By Erwin K. Syiem Sutnga
The Meghalaya State Investment Promotion & Facilitation Act, 2024 (Act No. 6 of 2024) is a significant legislative effort aimed at boosting economic growth and creating an investor-friendly environment in the state. It seeks to streamline processes for land acquisition, investment clearances, and industrial development. However, in a state where 95% of land is owned by clans, families, and communities under customary law, this Act raises critical concerns about its impact on tribal land rights, environmental sustainability, and the role of Autonomous District Councils (ADCs). Drawing on past experiences such as the cement factories in East Jaintia Hills, this analysis delves into the Act’s pros and cons while proposing a way forward.
I. Key Features of the Act
The Act aims to:
1. Simplify regulatory frameworks by centralising approvals through a Unified Investment Portal (UIP).
2. Accelerate economic development by fast-tracking land-use permissions and investment clearances.
3. Reduce procedural bottlenecks and promote ease of doing business.
4. Facilitate industrial and service sector growth while creating employment opportunities.
II. Pros of the Meghalaya State Investment Promotion & Facilitation Act, 2024
1. Ease of Doing Business:
* By consolidating various approvals under the UIP, the Act minimizes bureaucratic hurdles, encouraging private and public investments.
2. Economic Growth:
* The Act fosters industrialisation, potentially diversifying Meghalaya’s economy beyond its traditional reliance on agriculture and mining.
3. Employment Generation:
* New industries could create jobs, especially for Meghalaya’s youth, reducing outmigration for employment.
4. Improved Infrastructure:
* Industrial investments often bring associated benefits such as better roads, electricity, and healthcare facilities, contributing to overall regional development.
5. Revenue for the State:
* Investments in industries and services could enhance the state’s revenue through taxes and royalties.
III. Cons and Concerns
1. Alienation of Tribal Land
• Meghalaya’s land tenure system is rooted in tribal customs, with community ownership protected by the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. The Act’s emphasis on centralising land-use decisions risks bypassing customary institutions such as Dorbar Shnong, the Syiem Raid and the Kurs and ADCs, leading to the potential alienation of tribal lands and leaving tribal communities landless. It also opens the door for the land mafia which has recently emerged to gain control and monopoly over land sale in Meghalaya.
2. Exclusion of Traditional Governance
• ADCs, empowered by the Sixth Schedule, have legislative powers over land use and tribal rights. The Act minimises their role, raising concerns about sidelining constitutional safeguards for tribal land. Land Acts of the ADCs has been totally by passed by this state Act.
3. Environmental Degradation
• Industrialisation often comes at the cost of environmental sustainability. Lessons from the cement factories in East Jaintia Hills reveal how unchecked industrial activity can result in deforestation, water pollution, and destruction of biodiversity.
4. Lack of Local Benefits
• Experiences with cement factories in East Jaintia Hills demonstrate that industrial projects often fail to benefit local communities:
* Employment Exclusion: Most jobs in the cement factories have gone to non-tribals, sidelining local youth.
* Monopolistic Practices: Contracts for logistics and raw material supply are awarded to external players, excluding local entrepreneurs.
* Unsustainable Resource Use: Overexploitation of mineral resources has left future Jaintia tribal generations with degraded land and depleted reserves.
6. Potential Conflicts with Existing Laws
The Danger of Section 34 of the Meghalaya State Investment Promotion & Facilitation Act, 2024
Section 34 of the Meghalaya State Investment Promotion & Facilitation Act, 2024, titled “Act to Override Other Laws,” states:
“Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other State law for the time being in force or any custom or usage or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.”
This provision effectively allows the Act to supersede any state law, custom, or usage that conflicts with its objectives. While Section 34 aims to streamline processes and promote investments, it raises significant concerns about its implications for existing legal frameworks, tribal rights, and constitutional safeguards.
Key dangers of Section 34
1. Undermining Tribal Safeguards
• Conflict with the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1972:
* The 1972 Act prohibits the transfer of tribal land to non-tribals without approval from the Competent Authority and safeguards community ownership. Section 34 allows the 2024 Act to override such protections, enabling industrial land use without adequate scrutiny or consultation with local communities.
* This risks alienating tribal land to non-tribals or corporations, undermining tribal identity and autonomy.
• Conflict with the Sixth Schedule:
* The Sixth Schedule grants Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) the power to regulate land use and protect tribal customs. Section 34 bypasses ADC authority by centralising decision-making under the Unified Investment Portal (UIP) and state-level committees, eroding the constitutional mandate of ADCs.
• Disregard for Customary Practices:
* Tribal customs and traditional governance systems, such as Dorbar Shnong and Dorbar Raid and the Kurs, play a critical role in managing land. Section 34 dismisses these practices, creating tension between the state’s developmental agenda and community-based governance.
2. Erosion of Central Legal Protections
• Conflict with the LARR Act, 2013:
* The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act) mandates:
* Consent of tribal communities (Section 41) for land acquisition in Scheduled Areas.
* Land alienation as a measure of last resort.
* Section 34 undermines these safeguards by prioritizing streamlined investment approvals, allowing industrial projects to proceed without adhering to the LARR Act’s protective measures.
• Article 254: Doctrine of Repugnancy:
* Central laws like the LARR Act prevail over conflicting state laws under Article 254 of the Indian Constitution. However, Section 34 creates ambiguity by claiming to override all inconsistent state laws, potentially leading to judicial challenges and invalidation of the Act’s provisions.
IV. Lessons from the Cement Industry in East Jaintia Hills. The cement factories in East Jaintia Hills exemplify the pitfalls of unchecked industrialisation:
1. Neglect of Local Employment:
* Promised employment opportunities have largely benefited non-tribals, leaving local tribal communities marginalised.
2. Environmental Devastation:
* Cement production has degraded the region’s natural resources, leading to water pollution, deforestation, and loss of biodiversity.
3. Monopolistic Exploitation:
* Local businesses have been excluded, and monopolistic practices have entrenched economic inequality.
These failures highlight the importance of ensuring community participation, environmental sustainability, and equitable benefits in future industrial projects.
V. Way Forward: Balancing Development and Tribal Rights. To address the shortcomings of the Meghalaya State Investment Promotion & Facilitation Act, 2024, the following measures are recommended:
1. Strengthen Community-Based Development
• Public-Private-Community Partnerships (PPCPs):
* Encourage models where tribal communities co-own industrial projects, ensuring that benefits are shared equitably.
• Mandatory Local Employment:
* Enforce quotas for hiring local tribal youth in industries, supported by skill development programs.
• Support for Local Entrepreneurs:
* Prioritize local businesses for contracts and supply chains in industrial projects.
2. Protect Tribal Land
• Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC):
* Mandate FPIC for all industrial projects involving tribal land, ensuring community participation in decision-making.
• Preserve Customary Governance:
* Integrate ADCs, Dorbar Shnong, and other traditional institutions into the approval process for land-related investments.
3. Promote Sustainable Industrialisation
• Focus on industries aligned with local strengths and ecological sustainability, such as:
* Eco-tourism leveraging Meghalaya’s natural beauty and culture.
* Agro-processing industries to add value to local agricultural produce.
* Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) that use local resources without large-scale environmental damage.
4. Introduce Transparent Revenue Sharing
• Establish revenue-sharing mechanisms where a portion of profits from industrial projects is reinvested in community development.
5. Strengthen Environmental Safeguards
• Comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs):
* Ensure EIAs are conducted transparently, with active community involvement.
• Sustainable Resource Management:
* Regulate resource extraction to preserve mineral wealth and biodiversity for future generations.
6. Harmonise Laws and Institutions
• Align the Act with the Sixth Schedule, the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1972, and the LARR Act, 2013, ensuring that tribal rights and land protections are upheld.
• Involve the judiciary in reviewing land-use decisions to prevent violations of tribal safeguards.
Conclusion: The Meghalaya State Investment Promotion & Facilitation Act, 2024, presents a dual challenge: fostering industrial growth while protecting the rights and heritage of tribal communities. The failures of the cement industry in East Jaintia Hills serve as a stark reminder of the risks of prioritizing corporate interests over community welfare and environmental sustainability. To avoid repeating these mistakes, the Act must adopt a balanced approach that integrates community participation, strengthens customary governance, and ensures sustainable industrialization.
By incorporating these measures, Meghalaya can achieve inclusive development that respects its unique cultural identity, safeguards its natural resources, and empowers its tribal communities. Only then can the state truly fulfill its potential as a model for equitable and sustainable growth in India.