SHILLONG, July 31: Leader of Opposition and Trinamool Congress (TMC) stalwart Mukul Sangma on Thursday slammed the state government on the Inner Line Permit (ILP) issue, calling its empty promise that it will convince the Centre to implement this Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation of 1873 offshoot in Meghalaya its “biggest lie.”
He accused the NPP-led government of deliberately stalling the Meghalaya Residents Safety and Security Act (MRSSA), 2016 to allegedly allow outsiders to “grab land.”
“They told the NGOs at the State Central Library that ILP will be granted. It was the biggest lie,” Sangma said, adding that he never made such false promises during his tenure as the chief minister.
He said the implementation of ILP is the Centre’s prerogative. When a resolution was adopted unanimously by the Assembly in 2019, the House was told with authority that the Centre would be convinced. He viewed this as misleading the House.
Sangma claimed that it was a calculated move by the government not to implement MRSSA to ensure unregulated influx and land-grabbing by outsiders.
“They are not sincere in dealing with the influx issue. They want all people from outside to come to Meghalaya and grab our land. That’s why, they don’t want this Act to be implemented,” he said.
Calling MRSSA a “powerful legal instrument” with strong deterrence against unregulated entry, the TMC leader said, “If implemented in letter and spirit, MRSSA is good enough to deal with the challenges of influx.”
He said the Act empowers traditional heads, like Rangbah Shnongs, with clear authority over local settlement decisions.
“I stay in Nongrum Hills…the overall power vested upon the Rangbah Shnong is capable of deciding on who can stay or who cannot in the locality. Other localities have similar structures administered by traditional bodies and empowered by this Act,” he said.
He hit out at the government for attempting to amend the Act “without due diligence” stating that this is the reason behind the delay in its implementation.
Sangma said he had cautioned the government that the amendment would not stand legal scrutiny. “As I cautioned, they hit the wall and the implementation is delayed. Now the facilitation centres are not functional at all,” he said.
He pointed out that the entry and exit provisions under MRSSA are constitutionally sound.
“This entry and exit points are not challengeable in a court. It is well within the Constitution,” he said. But the government, he argued, “did not know how to implement it” and approached the matter half-heartedly.
“The issue went to court. They messed it up. The court said this cannot be done in the absence of guidelines. Why were the guidelines not framed and submitted? Why could the government not fight back?” he asked.
Responding to the debate around whether MRSSA directly addresses influx, he said, “Some have referred to it as an effective tool to protect the demography of our state. You have to look at it comprehensively and not in isolation.”
He noted that although the Act may not explicitly mention the word “influx,” yet it regulates internal movement in accordance with constitutional limits.
“You know fundamental rights…influx relates to movement of people from state to state. It is not up to the state legislature to look beyond its legislative domain,” he said, adding that the law was carefully crafted with those limits in mind. “When you make an Act, it’s a tightrope walk. I know we did it.”
Sangma warned that the facilitation centre component of the Act had become “a bone of contention” purely because of poor execution by the present regime.
“How you do things is crucial. The government of the day did not know how to implement it,” he said. “This is not a lip service or playing to the gallery. We came up with this after a lot of hard work,” he further stated.
