In a scathing critique of the Meghalaya government, Leader of the Opposition and former Chief Minister Dr. Mukul Sangma on Tuesday lambasted the state’s leadership for failing to implement the Inner Line Permit (ILP) despite the Assembly’s unanimous resolution. Expressing his deep disappointment, Sangma accused Chief Minister Conrad Sangma of reneging on his assurance to the House and the people of Meghalaya.
The former Chief Minister reminded the government of its categorical promise that passing the ILP resolution would be sufficient to convince the Centre, yet years have passed with no substantial progress. “The assurance that the honourable Chief Minister gave to the house was that let us just take the resolution, and the moment we are able to take the resolution, we will be able to get it done (it easily). That is the assurance, and based on that responsibility which he has taken. I think we trusted, and we also expected that probably many more works which are required before an assurance is given must have already been completed. Based on that, we all came together,” Sangma stated, emphasizing that the Assembly placed its trust in the Chief Minister based on the presumption that due diligence had already been carried out before making such a commitment.
Recounting the historic moment when the Assembly unanimously adopted the resolution urging the Government of India to implement ILP, Sangma underscored the collective faith placed in the state’s leadership. He castigated the government for its inaction and questioned its sincerity in pursuing the matter. “You will recall that every political party, every member of this August House, came together, and the resolution that was adopted was unanimous. Therefore, this assurance is there, and the fulfilment of the assurance is vested upon him. He should try. He should try. Has he tried? Is he trying? He should tell, he should be frank. But there is no reference to the endeavour and effort, except sometimes when they are confronted by media—it is more of a reactionary approach. If something is being done with utmost sincerity and commitment to achieve the objective, then it must be proactive, it can’t be reactive.”
“So, therefore, I don’t blame him for not being able to get the ILP introduced, but then he should pursue. He already has the mandate of the House through that resolution, which was adopted unanimously. So, there is the mandate, there is the power that has been vested upon him on behalf of the people of the state, based on the situation, based on the circumstances,” he asserted, making it clear that the responsibility of securing ILP squarely rests on the Chief Minister.
Addressing criticisms regarding his previous opposition to ILP, Sangma clarified that his stance had always been guided by the need for a practical and legally viable framework to regulate the entry of outsiders into Meghalaya. He elaborated on how his government had sought alternative mechanisms within the state’s legislative domain, resulting in the enactment of the Meghalaya Residents Safety and Security Act (MRSSA), 2016. “Many asked me why I initially opposed ILP but now support it. My response is that we had an alternative within our legislative command. The Meghalaya Residents Safety and Security Act, 2016, was designed to regulate the entry and stay of outsiders while empowering local traditional institutions to oversee implementation. The Act provides a much more effective mechanism to prevent illegal influx, ensuring security without solely relying on government authorities, which are often susceptible to political influence,” he explained, arguing that MRSSA offers a more comprehensive safeguard than ILP alone.
“The much more effective weapon for the authorities, Rongbah Shnongs are empowered by this to regulate the stay in their own respective neighborhoods. It is not just for the whole state; it is not a law which empowers only the authorities under the government, but it also empowers our traditional institutions. Because sometimes, when you depend on the authorities under the various departments of the government, you never know—political influence may have some ramifications on the overall commitment of the concerned officers and authorities under the government, leading to compromises in certain cases. We have seen it, we continue to see it. Otherwise, why is it that in many countries with stringent immigration laws, they are still suffering from illegal immigration? Because there has been a compromise. How else can people with illegal backgrounds, who have entered third countries illegally, still be at large? It is because sometimes authorities who are supposed to enforce these provisions of law do end up compromising. Therefore, today, MRSSA is such an Act, which ensures legal participation of our traditional institutions, including the power vested upon them. So personally, I am happy with the Act.”
“These concerns must be addressed, and they must be addressed in such a manner not confined to lip service. This cannot happen with no railway—this is what is happening. Therefore, we engaged with all the concerned civil society organizations, and we tried to understand the complexity associated with this whole movement of people, which involves migration from other parts of the country to our state and the potential for their eventual settlement, ultimately impacting our demographic structure. We had to look at this issue from that perspective and took cognizance of the gravity of the matter. Then we tried to find out what the possible solutions were. One of the demands was to introduce ILP in the state of Meghalaya so that through this regulation of movement, we would be able to check and balance and ensure that people can’t just enter at will. But obviously, we wanted to be more practical. So, I wanted to know whether it was possible for us to implement ILP. It is not a subject that can be dealt with by the state government within the legislative jurisdiction of the state legislature. Therefore, we had to depend on the Government of India. But when I tried to gauge the mindset of the people in the Union government, I knew that we had an uphill task. Therefore, rather than promising people something I could not implement, I engaged very frankly with our people, with our distinguished citizens representing various civil society organizations, to explore other options and also to understand whether ILP would actually be an effective instrument to achieve our goal of controlling unregulated migration and preserving our demographic integrity. That is how the whole engagement started.”
“If this is the concern, can we address it? Then we tried to put our cards on the table. We started discussions, exploring whether we could do something within our legislative power, within the legislative jurisdiction of our state. Around that time, there was also a judgment from the Honourable High Court by Justice S.R. Sen, which raised concerns about the recognition of headmen in Meghalaya, particularly in Khasi Hills and Shillong. So, we examined the legislative jurisdiction of our state and tried to frame a legal solution within our own domain. That is how we came up with the Meghalaya Residents Safety and Security Act, 2016. If you look at the mandate of the Act, it was considered an effective piece of legislation addressing concerns regarding unchecked migration, illegal immigration, and the safety and security of citizens. If you do not know your neighborhood, you should be concerned about your safety. We must know who resides in our neighborhoods—whether they are law-abiding citizens or elements that could threaten peace. This is a global concern. Even the USA, which has one of the most stringent immigration laws, continues to struggle with demographic shifts. This law was designed to address those concerns effectively.”
Sangma went on to allege that after 2018, the present government cast doubt on MRSSA’s effectiveness for political reasons, causing a loss of public trust in the Act. “After 2018, the present government tried to tell the people that they needed to amend it. Amend which section? Which part? That means you are indirectly indicating that this law is not good enough. That’s why the trust and confidence in this Act’s ability to address our concerns came into question. I believe this was all done for political reasons, but now we are facing the consequences.”
He stressed that with the introduction of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), concerns over migration had intensified, making it imperative for the government to engage all stakeholders, including civil society organizations, in a meaningful discussion. “Earlier, civil society organizations maintained that they were not against developmental agendas, but until their concerns were addressed, it would be difficult for them to agree. Our apprehensions must be addressed, and this is something that requires collective responsibility. We need to take everyone on board and find a solution,” he concluded