By Morning Star Sumer

In a panel discussion convened by the NEHU unit of KSU on 28th September, 2012, on the question of implementing the ILP in Meghalaya, I was astonished to hear RG Lyngdoh, former Home Minister in Meghalaya saying that the ILP was devised for the protection of outsiders, not of the indigenous people in the area! The senior citizens who were present were aghast at his apparently outlandish interpretation of the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873. When challenged by one of them, his arrogant explanation was an insult to the intelligence of those who were forced to listen to his shameful gobbledygook, trivializing the issue. He was not even ready to produce a copy of the Regulation to satisfy those who wished to hear what the law says! The senior citizen commented to me that it shows lack of preparation. They said that in their times panelists would come prepared and ready to produce their materials; but here, panelists nonchalantly dismissed the call for producing a copy of the Regulation without a care in the world. They also commented that if this ex-Minister is a sample of what we have in the state to govern us then truly we have been betrayed and are still being betrayed!

The time allowed was not sufficient to enable the panelists to express their individual views on the subject. However, I still could manage to express my view that the ILP is not a law by itself. It is merely a mechanism like any Permit, Licence or Pass, for implementing the provision of a law: that law is the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873.

It was the recognition of just one incontrovertible fact that had induced the erstwhile British Colonial power in Bengal to enact the Regulation, not for controlling us, as some say, but to protect us from exploitation and invasion of our land by hordes of people from across our borders, internal as well as external. That incontrovertible fact is that, influx by non-indigenous persons would inevitably lead to demographic imbalance at the expense of the indigenous. Under the authority of that Regulation, a state government may notify an area by drawing a line, to be known as “The Inner Line”, which a non-indigenous person may not cross without the permission of the authorities administering the area. Who were and, are, the authorities administering the area? The answer is, the government having jurisdiction to govern the area. Obviously, the answer to cover the period since then till now is, initially, the Secretary of State for India in Council through his officers in India – the Governor General in Council, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal through their officers in the Province of Assam – and, after the Reform of 1935, till now, when, it is the state governments of the North Eastern States, including Assam and Meghalaya. So, a state has all the authority under the law to invoke the Regulation of 1873 without seeking central consent.

Commenting on a private members’ bill introducing the Inner Line Permit ( ILP ) in Manipur, and passed by the State Assembly, the Union Home Minister, Sushil Kumar Shinde, reportedly stated , ” Our Constitution will not allow such things”, while his ministry is reported to have intimated the Manipur Government of the Centre’s opposition to the ILP as, “there is no provision for the introduction of ILP in Manipur”. Mr Shinde’s statement is intentionally vague while the Home Ministry’s statement is clear. We can understand Mr. Shinde’s intentional vagueness to intimidate us and also the Ministry’s reason which, however, should not prevent the Centre extending the provisions of the Regulation of 1873 to the State. Manipur was not covered by the Regulation of 1873 because, before 26th January, 1950, it was being administered as if it were a Chief Commissioner’s Province, and had its own passport system which continued till the end of 1949. After 1949, the State could have opted for being covered by the provisions of the Regulation of 1873 by simply seeking the approval of the Centre which, then, would have the option of doing what would be necessary to enable the State Government to use the provisions of the Regulation of 1873. So, we see the Home Ministry’s expression of its reason for opposing the ILP in Manipur as a case of hedging because we know of no Constitutional objection to the Manipuris’ aspiration to keep maintaining their state as an indigenous people’s state within the Union. In fact, every state should be able to protect itself from being encroached upon by non-indigenous people including Indian citizens from other Indian states, despite the fact that the Constitution had failed to provide for it, by simply extending the Regulation of 1873 to each state as maybe required by the states themselves. The metropolis of Mumbai and the surrounding state of Maharashtra are just some of the current examples of where the need for such a provision ought to have been realized and seriously debated.

Since we now still have the Regulation of 1873 to empower us to issue ILPs, why have successive state governments been dallying in taking steps to arrest and reverse the influx? All it has to do is, notify the invocation and issue ILPs in which the terms and conditions are set down according to law. The law states, “It shall not be lawful for any person, not being a Native of the districts to acquire any interest in land or the product of land beyond the said ‘Inner Line’ without the sanction of the State Government or such officer as the state Government shall appoint in this behalf”. The important caution the authority issuing the ILPs should observe, is, to ensure that the spirit of the law is not violated thereby/in the process.

In spite of the explicit provisions in the Regulation against non-indigenous persons’ acquiring “interest in land or the product of land”, non-indigenous and traitorous/disloyal indigenous persons unashamedly misinterpret the law, even to the extent of reversing the unequivocal intent of the law, to suit their diabolical schemes. Their insidious motive is unveiled when they say that the ILP is an obstacle to globalization! The ILP is concerned solely with ownership, possession and alienation of land and trading in products of the land: everything else is beyond its ambit. Globalization may be acceptable, but we should hasten slowly, lest we get engulfed by it. If, in the spirit of globalization we pitch a Shillong football team against global football giants like Manchester United or Real Madrid, our Shillong team may get drummed out of contention. We are not yet ready for globalization. However, the ILP has nothing to do with it. The argument that ILP would strangle/stifle trade and activities in various fields of progress and development is a specious one at best. All development projects will prosper or fail, in spite of, not, because of, ILP, FPP et al. In the light of these arguments, it seems to me that only a body of perverse and bullheaded legislators holding the reins of government would seek to block invocation of the ILP. Such people seem to be in cahoots to enable non-indigenous persons to own land and exploit its resources at the expense of the indigenous citizens.

The power and strength of the ILP is in the crucial element of land possession and ownership as stated above. Once the letter and spirit of the element is incorporated in the ILP, it is done; so land would remain in the possession of the indigenous tribals always. But, that is now nullified before hand by the present state of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971. It is interesting to note that the indigenous tribals in government have disfigured and nullified the original principal Act viz The Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971 by amendments in 1991and 2010 et al. At the outset the original Principal Act was flawed only by omission of the most crucial word “indigenous” before the word “Scheduled” in the statement of intent for introducing the relative Bill of the Act. As a result, Section 2, Definitions of term in the Act was incomplete. Were it not for these omissions, the Act was perfect to prevent invasion of our state by immigrants internal as well as external, provided, of course, that the State governments do their job honestly. Since 1990, I had labored , in vain, to draw the attention of those who have been holding the reins of government till now, to those facts as expressed in my booklets, write-ups and articles, in the newspapers; but the powers that be have been showing themselves as being obdurate, obstinate, intransigent, deaf, dumb and blind, all at once. If they have not been and, are still not, aware of these, even now, the DIPR may be to blame.

By J. D. Sethi

The performance of the Indian economy in 2011- 12 was so disappointing that it makes us wonder whether India’s growth story has come to an inglorious end. But look at the current euphoria about the prospects of India’s growth. There have been dramatic developments in policy making during say a week beginning September 14. First, the government increased the price of diesel by Rs. 5 per litre from September 14. This measure is designed to cut down the fiscal deficit which is threatening to reach or even exceed 6 per cent of GDP. The original target of 5.1 per cent is simply not feasible. Second, there is the package of policy reform permitting FDI in multi-brand retail and civil aviation. Optimists expect around $ 16 billion of FDI would flow into retail in the next three years.

The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government drew criticism from all quarters for its failure on economic reforms. In its attempt to please all the constituents and supporting political parties, the Congress was literally forced to put all reforms on a back burner. In addition to economic slowdown, the atmosphere was filled with scams, kickback and corruption. Prime minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh received flak from industry circles for being a silent spectator presiding over a drowning economy. The foreign media too did not spare Dr. Singh for staying inactive with mouth closed and eyes shut to the reality.

It is against this background that the Congress government finally got up from its long laziness and sleep. As a first step, the government hiked the prices of petrol and recently of diesel. I feel there is no other alternative, other than hike in prices considering the economic reality. These items are already heavily subsidised in our country and the public exchequer cannot afford to bear additional burden of subsidy. This was followed by opening the Indian economy to foreign domestic investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail. India has already allowed FDI in single brand retailing. Multi-brand means retail outlets in all consumer goods that is, electronics to fruits and vegetables. These are not big game-changers for the economy. However, even for these marginal kinds of reforms, UPA had to wait for four years for a consensus, finally without any success.

Corporate India was expecting this liberalisation of retail markets long back. After India moved into the era of economic liberalisation starting from 1984, I feel there is absolutely no point in holding back reforms in retail sector. I know that FDI in retail has also negative side to it. But, the gains in terms of investment, employment generation, empowerment of the producers including farmers and competitive prices to consumers would outweigh any negative effect. Investments at the back-end and front-end of the retail sector would provide sunshine days to producers and competitive choices to consumers. The perceived threat to small store owners and Kiranawallahs is actually blown out of proportion. The Indian market is too big and nobody will be thrown out by the big retailers. The Marts, the Big Bazars, the multinational retail chains, the malls can never be at war with the Kirana market segment. The consumer segment for everybody is different. The kiranawala will continue to dominate the neighbourhood customers. The kiranas in rural India are totally safe from multi-brand retail competition as it is economic suicide for such corporates to establish their shops in villages. At the most, there could be some setback for the middlemen, that is, those who are into pure trading. These are those who neither add value to the producer or to the consumer. They exploit producers and farmers by offering low prices and sometimes even starvation rates for their produce. They also exploit the consumers with high prices. Indian markets are traditionally known for the middlemen taking the major slice of the cake, as high as 45 per cent share of the price of Fast Moving Consumer goods (FMCG) and food products keeping producers poor and consumers unhappy.

We should also read the warning signals depending on the experience of multinational players in retail markets. In the beginning, the foreign investors and big retail chains encourage producers by eliminating the hold of middlemen. The traders i.e. the “bania” would still be there to provide services to the big and small retailers. They would compete with the multi-brand retail corporates. The multi-brand retail chains find it profitable to establish direct relationships with the producers. This improves the productivity of farmers, puts more purchasing power in their hands and improves their quality of life. It is really a big multiplier effect in terms of employment and self-employment. But, after a lapse of years, the business strategy of the multinational retail operators is bound to change. Once the producers are dependent on these big corporates in retail markets, there is a danger that these corporates take the place of the middlemen and could behave like the Indian traditional “banias”. The probable problems of the future should not stop us from FDI in retail. Even as the situation stands today, the producers stand exploited and they do not get the fair return for their effort. It is only initiatives like Amul in Gujarat will stand as monuments of empowerment of dairy farmers which later are replicated in other parts of the country. FDI in retail does not mean that foreign capital will dominate our retail markets. We also have purely domestic players with retail chains which would grow due to the growing new segment of consumers for multi-brand retail shops.

With FDI in retail, things can only shine for the Indian economy. They cannot be gloomy. How far they can shine would depend on the response from the producers and farmers. In addition to the initiatives from the retail industrialists, the state governments should also have an agenda to orient and assist the rural producers in terms of their capacity building to take the advantage of liberalised retail markets.

There is news from the BJP for the 2014 elections. BJP has announced that they would scrap FDI in retail if returned to power. The political opposition of BJP to the Congress is natural and should always exist. But, our national political parties should consider economic reforms as a continuous process. There is need for all political parties to accept a common minimum economic agenda. Talk of reversal looks good for the ear but may not be sound for the health of our economy. It should not so happen that politicians and political parties win and the people lose. INAV

(The writer is a former member of the Planning Commission)