Shillong, Nov. 3: Meghalaya principal secretary (political department) Kuljit Singh Kropha presented the pros and cons of inner-line permit (ILP) during a public meeting here last week.
While presenting the “perceived benefits” of the ILP during the launch of the public consultation on the draft Meghalaya Regulation of Landlords and Tenants Verification Bill, Kropha highlighted the reasons why the permit regime cannot be implemented in the state.
According to the presentation, the perceived benefits if ILP is introduced include protection against influx, prevention of land alienation, employment and trade opportunities.
Kropha enlisted the following as “adverse” perceptions about the state if ILP is implemented. They include an impact on tourism, investment and economy, reverse migration, and reaction from other states. He said the experience of other states with ILP was “not encouraging”.
However, pro-ILP groups are maintaining that even without the ILP, Meghalaya has “not progressed”.
On why the ILP cannot be implemented in the state, Kropha said the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation 1873, from where the permit regime owes its origin, was applicable to the districts of Kamrup, Darrang, Nagaon, Sivasagar, Lakhimpur, Garo hills, Khasi and Jaintia hills, Naga hills, Cachar, Sadiya Frontier Track, and Lushai Hills District in its original form.
“Subsequently, the Regulation was repealed in its application to the Garo Hills by the Repealing Act of 1897 (V of 1897),” he said adding that if the ILP is implemented now only in the Khasi-Jaintia hills, then people from the Garo hills would need a “permit” to enter Khasi-Jaintia hills.
“For extension to the whole state, a new law has to be made by the Union government as the subject matter falls under the Union List,” he added.
While tabling a resolution in the Assembly last month, HSPDP legislator Ardent Miller Basaiawmoit said, “Yes, the Garo hills district of the erstwhile province of Assam was removed from the ILP ambit by a Repealing Act of 1897. However, it must be understood here that the resolution on the repeal by the then Province of Assam had not been produced. This fact has also been admitted by the state government at the high-level committee on influx.”
