LO warns of a long-term threat hidden within the proposed law—how lands acquired under the amendment could eventually be auctioned off under corporate bankruptcy laws
SHILLONG, March 12: Leader of Opposition Mukul Sangma on Wednesday raised concerns over the Meghalaya State Investment and Promotion (Amendment) Act, calling it a “systematic elimination” of tribal land ownership in the guise of investment.
There are apprehensions that the proposed law could override existing protections, paving the way for large-scale land transfers which may leave indigenous communities vulnerable.
“We facilitated investment earlier, and we did it successfully. So, there is a reason to question the intent of the government on why they suddenly need this new legislation,” Sangma said, pointing to existing frameworks that have historically governed land transactions in Meghalaya.
However, what troubles him is the way the amendment seeks to “supersede” existing laws, potentially allowing land acquisition through mechanisms that he believes could lead to alienation.
He emphasised that past governments have been cautious while allowing investment, ensuring that ownership remains with the people. He cited cases where lands granted for investment, particularly in areas bordering Assam, were misused.
“Instead of one acre, they were given 10 acres, 15 acres, and what happened? These lands became godowns, residences for outsiders. Systematic alienation is happening,” he said.
Sangma warned of a long-term threat hidden within the proposed law—how lands acquired under the amendment could eventually be auctioned off under corporate bankruptcy laws.
“If a company that has invested in Meghalaya goes bankrupt, their landholdings will go to the National Company Law Tribunal and then, be auctioned off. This is how slow elimination of land takes place,” he added.
Sangma is unconvinced with the government insisting that the law will not affect land transfer restrictions.
“We already have laws like the Meghalaya Land Transfer Act. If those need strengthening, let’s do that. But why create a new law that overrides everything else?” he questioned.
He made it clear that he supports investment, but only when it aligns with protecting indigenous ownership.
“Investment will come, but you don’t have to be in a hurry. We must move cautiously, with due diligence, ensuring our people are not left landless in the future,” he added.
He stressed that any new investment model should include safeguards such as mandatory local ownership in corporate ventures.
“Every investment should have a clause ensuring a minimum shareholding by local tribals. Otherwise, when the company fails, our people will lose everything,” he said.
The debate has fuelled a growing sense of insecurity among the people which is also reflected in the demand for Inner Line Permit in Meghalaya.
Sangma said, “People feel threatened because past experiences show how land is systematically taken away. When the government rushes things, the first question people ask is: what’s the intent.”