By Homnath Gautam
The demand for the implementation of ILP is deeply rooted in the indigenous tribal communities Khasi, Jaintia, and Garo to safeguard their cultural identity, land, and traditional rights. These concerns are legitimate and deserve sincere attention in a democratic and diverse society. The fear of being reduced to a minority in their own land is real for them, and this sentiment has shaped much of the current discourse.
At the core of this fear lies the issue of influx especially from across the border, including illegal Bangladeshi migrants. This is a serious concern, and every community tribal or non-indigenous (non-tribal) must stand united to prevent such infiltration. Thankfully, Meghalaya has a strong traditional village system where every locality is overseen by a headman (Rangbah Shnong). Most of them are already doing their best to keep a close watch on who enters and resides in their villages.
In urban areas like Shillong, we already follow a local verification system. Most residents are registered under their respective villages, and whenever someone wishes to shift to a new locality, they must produce a residence certificate from their previous village or locality. Only then are they permitted to take a rental house or accommodation elsewhere. This existing mechanism, combined with community vigilance, is already a strong filter against illegal settlers.
In fact, it is also our collective duty to inform our headman or local authority if we see strangers or suspicious individuals in our neighbourhood. This not only strengthens community safety but ensures that genuine residents are not mistaken for outsiders.
From the perspective of the non-tribal population who have lived here for generations, contributed to the economy, and share a deep bond with Meghalaya , there is growing anxiety. While time and again, the Government and pressure groups have assured that “genuine non-tribals will not be harassed,” the big question remains — how will our interests be protected?
At present, there is no clear legal framework that protects non-tribals in matters such as:
Employment in state departments.
Business licenses and trade registrations and restrictions
Land transfer even between non-tribals.
It’s also worth noting that the non-tribal population has declined from 20% at the time of statehood to around 9% today. This shift should not be ignored and must prompt reflection on the lived experience of non-tribals in the state.
Another long-pending concern is the non-issuance of OBC certificates to eligible non-tribals. Many Central Government institutions in Meghalaya offer reservations under the OBC category, but our own state government has stop issuing OBC certificates to genuine non-tribal . This not only deprives locals non-tribals of rightful opportunities but also invites competition from outsiders who use OBC status to apply in Meghalaya. It must be emphasized that granting OBC status to eligible individuals will not affect the existing SC/ST reservation quotas, which are constitutionally safeguarded.
Additionally, there is growing concern about the state’s new roster system being applied even to minority-run and linguistic minority institutions, which will severely affect these long-standing institutions. It sends a message that the government is not concerned about our rights or contributions. We often feel like fourth-class citizens in our own state. While the Government of India is actively supporting tribal upliftment nationally, in Meghalaya, minorities feel ignored and marginalised. We sometimes painfully ask ourselves why our forefathers chose this land to call home.
Though we are not against any law passed by the Government of Meghalaya be it ILP or MRSSA our concern lies in the protection of our rights. A law, however well-intentioned, must provide equal clarity and assurance to all communities that have contributed towards the growth and development of the state. We must also reflect on the experiences of other North-eastern states where ILP is implemented — such as Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, and Mizoram. Although intended to safeguard the rights of the indigenous communities, these laws have inadvertently resulted in the following challenges:
Decline in private investment and industrial development. Reduced tourism despite immense natural potential.
Limited economic engagement with the rest of India.
In today’s globalized world, we cannot afford isolation. True growth lies in inclusive development, not exclusive laws. Ironically, it is the tribal communities themselves who will suffer most if economic opportunities, tourism, and investment begin to shrink.
In conclusion, while the preservation of indigenous identity is essential, it must not come at the cost of exclusion and imbalance. The Government of Meghalaya and all stakeholders must ask: How will genuine non-tribals be protected under ILP, MRSSA, and future policies? Without honest answers, this state risks repeating a dangerous cycle of mistrust and division.