By Bhogtoram Mawroh
The 2011 Socio Economic and Caste Census (SECC) was the first time landlessness was directly measured. So, when the data were released, the country knew how many people were actually landless. That number was revealed to be 56% of the rural households which, considering the size of the country, is a massive number. What was most surprising was the fact that the North East had figures higher than the national average, and Meghalaya reported the second-highest figure of landless households in the region, at 76%. This shocked the state and questions were raised about the failure of the local indigenous community’s supposed egalitarian structure where theoretically everyone was supposed to be equal.
However, it is very important to revisit the data and analyse whether it actually captured landlessness or whether it revealed the non-compatibility of the traditional land tenure system with conventional methodology. The exact question that was asked to assess landlessness was given under Section 5, 5A of the SECC questionnaire under the title: Land Owned, where the question was “Owned any land (excluding homestead)? (1 = Yes, 2 = No); If Landless skip to section 5B”. This question does not consider usufructuary rights (to use land but not own it) over community land which is an important feature of the land tenure of indigenous communities including the Khasi in the North East. Therefore, the landless figure is grossly inflated and is not the accurate number. Instead, one must look at the proportion of households reporting manual casual labour as their main source of income which is a proxy for landlessness. That number is around 40% for the region which means that the actual number of landless in Meghalaya is less than 50%. It is still a big number but not approaching 80%. But why engage in nitpicking? Doesn’t a larger number advocate for more urgency and therefore, if it is false, is it still useful?
A few days ago, the Chief Minister of Meghalaya, Conrad Sangma was speaking during the Shillong Literature Festival and lamented that despite all the government’s effort to spruce up the image of Shillong as a most-sought destination for all kinds of cultural activities, there are those who are always complaining. To support the claim of benefits accruing from the various cultural activities, like the Cherry Blossom festival which always comes in for criticism, he revealed that the government was able to earn more than 120 crore after spending just over 20 crore on those events, a gain of more than 400%. This, he claims, the state earned directly, i.e., GST collection, and indirectly, i.e., livelihood of local entrepreneurs. Among the local entrepreneurs who saw an increase in their income, he mentioned the local vendors (street).
GST collection can be assessed through official data but how did the government get data on the income generated, for e.g., the vendors? Was it not long ago that the street vendors were evicted from their place of business which, as seen from reports in the newspapers, has drastically affected their earnings? So, who are these street vendors who got the benefit of all these cultural activities? Furthermore, how was the income gained from livelihood support measured? I did not hear of any survey as such, for I would love to read a report on it and look at the methodology. But to deny that the state gained any revenue is also stupid. It is similar to believing the 76% landless figure as accurate. We need to be critical but it has to come from a place of facts, not petty politics. But landlessness does exist. So, what should be done about it? In this regard, the ‘The Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Regulation and Administration of Land) Act, 2021’ can be quite useful.
The Act recognizes two kinds of land ownership, Ri Kynti or private land, and Ri Raid or community land. Ri Kur or clan land has been categorized under Ri Kynti, while Ri Raid has been defined to mean “lands set apart for the community over which no person(s) has proprietary, heritable or transferable rights excepting the right of use and occupancy. Heritable and transferable rights over the Ri Raid lands accrue when the occupant has made permanent improvements on the land. These rights lapse if the occupant completely abandons the land continuously for more than three years or for a period as the Dorbar Raid and the Executive Committee deem long enough”. So, two things become clear from this definition: first, Ri Raid cannot be owned but only utilized for occupancy or agriculture by all members of the Raid or community; and second, Ri Raid can be transformed into Ri Kynti when someone makes permanent improvements on the land.
It is this conversion of Ri Raid into Ri Kynti which has been responsible for the privatization of community lands which has ultimately led to the growing problem of landlessness in the rural community. Since permanent improvements are usually made by the more affluent members, it is also creating a class difference seen in the housing pattern in many areas now: houses of poor households sitting alongside those of richer households. Very soon, they will become separate localities. In the city, gentrification has already begun and one can see that clearly in some of the new areas that are being developed, e.g., the Mawroh-Sanker area. The problem is made worse in the rural areas because affluent and influential families from Shillong are buying up land either for making a farmhouse or hoarding it to be sold when the land is acquired by the government for some project. Ri Bhoi has been notorious for this, but it appears places like Mairang and others are also going to experience it very soon.
A simple way to prevent the growing landlessness is to include a clause that states that Ri Raid cannot be transformed into Ri Kynti despite any improvements made by the user. However, that would go against customary norms and KHADC is the upholder of customary norms, not its violator. So, another way has to be found. And indeed, there is a section in the Act which allows that possibility.
According to Section 15 (1), the “Executive Committee may, with the consent of the Chief and his Dorbar, Dorbar Raid, Dorbar Shnong or the Land Owner or clan(s) as the case may be, declare and set apart any area of land as Land Bank … (and) the Declared Land Bank shall be allotted only to a landless person or persons who are below the poverty line (BPL) belonging to the Khasi Tribe, to sustain their livelihood, for settlement …” This is a very progressive provision and ensures that no member of the community is left without a roof over their head or land to grow their food.
Taking the concept of Land Bank further, an amendment can be made to the Act that could state that the community can also create Land Banks by buying back land from private individuals and converting it into Ri Raid which can never again be appropriated by private individuals by having the Dorbar Shnong or Dorbar Raid pass such a resolution. Villages like Nongtraw in East Khasi purchased land in the past, categorizing it as VDC (Village Development Council) land, earmarking it for farming for all the members of the community. Support can also be provided to certain communities to buy land for a Land Bank where the entire village is owned by absentee landlords. Nongtraw’s neighbouring village of Dewlieh is such a case. This amendment will complement the section on ‘Fixation of Ceiling on Raid Land Holding’ where it has been provided that “the … Dorbar Shnong, Dorbar Raid and the Dorbar Hima may by notification, fix a ceiling over the settlement, allotment or setting apart of raid land made by it …” This will ensure that no individual families, especially the affluent ones, can hoard land and that enough is available for everyone in the community.
Landlessness is a growing problem and the 2021 Act is a very important tool to tackle that. What is now required is political will to implement the Act by the present KHADC. Granted that comprehensive change may not come immediately, but incremental progress has to be seen. I hope, therefore, that we can rise above petty politics to tackle this very important issue.
(The views expressed in the article are those of the author and do not reflect in any way his affiliation to any organisation or institution)
