By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, Jan 4: The Khasi Students’ Union (KSU) has raised strong objections to recent comments made by Deputy Chief Minister Prestone Tynsong regarding the Meghalaya Residents Safety and Security (Amendment) Bill, 2020 (MRSSA).
Tynsong had claimed that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) suggested the Bill could not be implemented as it conflicts with central laws, particularly because it proposes the establishment of entry-exit points to regulate the movement of people into the state.
KSU general secretary Donald V Thabah rejected the Deputy Chief Minister’s assertion, questioning how the MRSSA Amendment Bill could be in conflict with national laws. He argued that the proposed system of regulating entry is comparable to the Inner Line Permit (ILP) system already in force in states such as Nagaland, Mizoram, and Manipur.
“The Deputy Chief Minister’s argument doesn’t hold water,” Thabah said. “The MRSSA Amendment Bill, which includes provisions for entry and exit points, is no different from the ILP in other states. If the ILP can be implemented elsewhere, there is no reason why it cannot be applied in Meghalaya.”
The MRSSA Amendment Bill was introduced with the objective of creating Facilitation Centres, or entry-exit points, to monitor and regulate the movement of individuals into and out of the state, particularly in light of growing concerns over illegal immigration. However, the MHA raised concerns that the amendment could contradict national laws governing the free movement of people across India, thereby complicating its enforcement.
Tynsong explained that the amendment was proposed because the existing MRSSA, enacted in 2016, does not contain provisions for establishing entry-exit points. He said the government’s intention was to better regulate movement and curb illegal immigration, but the MHA returned the amendment with recommendations to explore alternative measures, citing conflicts with existing central laws.
In response, Thabah emphasised that the KSU has consistently advocated for stronger legislative safeguards to protect Meghalaya’s indigenous communities from the adverse effects of illegal immigration. He said additional laws were necessary to protect land ownership, business interests, and educational rights of the Khasi, Jaintia, and Garo communities.
“If the MHA claims the amendment conflicts with national laws, then why did the Centre approve the ILP for Manipur in 2019?” Thabah asked. He added that the Centre has acknowledged India’s federal structure and the need for special protections for smaller indigenous communities that risk being overwhelmed by larger outside populations.
The KSU also objected to Tynsong’s remarks that the Bill might have been approved had Meghalaya not been a transit state. Tynsong suggested that Meghalaya’s status as a transit corridor, unlike Manipur, complicates the implementation of the MRSSA Amendment.
However, Thabah countered that Nagaland, which is also a transit state, has successfully implemented the ILP system, adapted to its specific needs. “There is no reason why Meghalaya cannot adopt a similar approach,” he said, pointing out that ILP frameworks vary from state to state. “Manipur’s ILP, for instance, is more stringent and includes different categories. Meghalaya should likewise have the flexibility to design its own version.”
Earlier, the Deputy Chief Minister had also pointed out that the previous government, led by Dr. Mukul Sangma, made an error by incorporating provisions for entry-exit points into the rules rather than the principal Act. Tynsong claimed this oversight rendered the MRSSA incomplete and legally vulnerable.
“The current MRSSA, passed in 2016, is not a complete law,” Tynsong said. “It may face legal hurdles if we attempt to formalise it as the ‘Tenants Bill.’ The Act addresses only residents’ issues and needs revision to plug the gaps left by the previous administration.”
Tynsong further clarified that once a Bill is rejected by the Governor, it is effectively dead. He reiterated that the existing MRSSA lacks provisions for entry-exit points and remains susceptible to legal challenges.
Despite these setbacks, the KSU said it would continue to press for stronger laws to address illegal immigration and safeguard the interests of Meghalaya’s indigenous communities. Thabah concluded by reiterating the union’s position that more legislation—rather than less—is required to protect the local population from increasing influx and illegal settlement.
“The more laws we have to protect our people, the better,” Thabah said, adding that the KSU would continue to fight for stronger protections for the indigenous communities of Meghalaya.
