Abstract

The indigenous tribes in Meghalaya- the Khasis, the Jaintias and the Garos have been facing the problem posed by the migration of the non-tribals which has threatened their economic and political interest, ethnic and cultural identity. Consequentially, since 1970s the state has been witnessing a number of upheavals and anti-foreigners movements. Since 1980s that there has been growing demands for the implementation of the Inner Line Permit (ILP). Nonetheless the mechanism is yet to be implemented due to lack of political will by the ruling class that happens to be in cahoots with other societal elements who stand oppose to the implementation of the ILP, considering such instruments an impediment to economic growth particularly in the age of globalization. The subject of globalization as a developmental path on the other hand, remains a controversial subject among the tribes across the world for its socio-structural ramifications, and in the context of Meghalaya has proved to be non- beneficial to date. Within these contextual realities and overarching frames of reference, this paper charts out a different trajectory on the issue. It argues that the indigenous tribals can instead adopt localization as the strategy for development, being both ecologically sustainable and very much in consonance with ILP’s objective of protection, promotion and preservation of indigenous communities’ diminishing spaces and their treasured identity.

The paper was presented in an International Seminar “Indian State and Indigenous/Tribal Peoples: Revisiting Philosophical Foundations of Constitutional Guarantees”, organized by Bodoland University & Centre for Social Justice and Governance, Tata Institute of Social Sciences at Kokrajhar on 28-29th March 2014. The seminar was supported by the Tribal Intellectual Collective India.

Batskhem Myrboh, is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Synod College Shillong. He can be reached bmyrboh07@gmail.com

Introduction

The indigenous tribals in the state of Meghalaya; the Khasis, the Jaintias and the Garos like any other tribal groups across India as argued by Virginius Xaxa (2009, p. 31) are at the cross roads. They face a dilemma, being confronted with two complex binary processes of ethnicity and economic interests as advocated by the neo-liberals who put emphasis on liberalization and globalization. They are mired in confusion on these alternatives, whether to choose ethnicity over economic needs or vice versa, or whether these conflicting processes could be conceived as being intertwined and, thus, having the ability to co-exist. Ethnic collectivities guides the indigenous tribals to struggle and find ways and means to protect, preserve and promote their ethnic identity and one such measure as seen in North East India, is by way of implementing the Inner Line Permit (ILP) as per the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation Act, 1873. On the other hand, the organic urge for development requires that the process of globalization be welcomed. There is no unanimity in the state on the subject, especially in current times. This has led to an insidious and persistent conflict of interests between those who see the preservation of a collective ethnic identity as a pre-condition to any meaningful development process and those who position themselves around neoliberal conceptions of ‘development sans ethnic identity at any cost’. These contestations both at the realm of ideas and practice has affected normalcy in the socio-economic and political life of the state in more than one occasions. In these prevailing circumstances, this paper seeks to analyze the prevailing concrete conditions formulated around these contested ideas, envisaging to amplify the complex positions towards better comprehension of the same in the light of tremendous changes superimposed by the winds of liberalization and globalization. .

Status of Tribes in India

India has a large number of tribals inhabiting the different parts of the country. According to 2011 census, India’s tribal population stands at 104,281,034 accounting for about 8.6% of the total population. Of the 28 states and 7 union territories, it is only in four North Eastern States and one Union Territory that the tribal population is more than 50% of the total population. These include Mizoram (94.4%), Nagaland (86.5%), Meghalaya (86.1%), Arunachal Pradesh (68.8%) and Lakshadweep (94.8%). The other states that have a relatively higher concentration of tribal population are Manipur (35.1%), Sikkim (33.8%), Tripura (31.8%), Chhattisgarh (30.6%), Jharkhand (26.2%), Odisha (22.8%) and Madhya Pradesh (21.1%). Therefore, the distribution of the tribals is far from being even across the country (Xaxa, 2010, p. 328).

According to Samedha (2007, p. 15), “The term tribe is used to denote people living in primitive conditions under a head or a chief.” A more comprehensive definition is given by D.N. Majumdar who defines a tribe as “a social group with territorial affiliation, endogamous, with no specialization of functions, ruled by tribal officers, hereditary or otherwise, united in language or dialect, recognizing social distance with other tribes or castes, without any social obloquy attaching to them, as it does in the caste structure, followed tribal traditions, beliefs and customs, illiberal of naturalization of ideas from alien sources, above all conscious of homogeneity of ethnic and territorial integration.” There are a number of such social groups that have been recognized and classified by the Constitution of India as the scheduled tribes. Article 366 (25) of the Constitution of India refers to scheduled tribes as those communities who are scheduled in accordance with Article 342 of the Constitution. According to Article 342 of the Indian Constitution, the scheduled tribes are the tribes or tribal communities or part of or groups within these tribes and tribal communities which have been declared as such by the President of India through a public notification. Therefore, a tribe is basically a social group where as scheduled tribe is a legal and constitutional terminology which is used by the state to distinguish them from other social groups. The term tribe is wider than scheduled tribe in the sense that there may be tribes that are not officially recognized and notified as scheduled tribes in accordance with Article 342 of the Constitution though they very much possess the features of the tribal people.

The Law Ministry, Government of India, acknowledges that the scheduled tribes like the scheduled castes have been, for centuries, the most neglected, marginalized and exploited people in the country. They have been exploited and discriminated in all aspects of life particularly socially and economically. The Asian Human Rights Commission remarked that the discrimination and exclusion based on prejudice escalate poverty and malnutrition deaths in the tribal communities. Other scholars have also noted that the tribals are the exploited section of society (Sikligar, 2002, p. 4; Thakur and Thakur, 1994, pp. 114-15, p. 125, p. 142, p, 155). The tribal communities are also extremely backward and poverty stricken (Thakur and Thakur, 1994, Vol 1, 31, p. 155).

In view of the precarious conditions that the tribal people live in, the Indian state has provided certain constitutional and legal mechanisms to protect and promote their rights and interests and to free them from subjection to discrimination and exploitation. These include, inter alia, Article 46 (promotion of special care for the educational need and protection from injustice and exploitation), Article 15(4) (empowering the state to make any special provision for the social and educational advancement), Article 330 (reservation of seats for SCs/STs in the LokSabha), Article 332 (reservation of seats for SCs/STs in the State Vidhan Sabhas or Legislative Assemblies), the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and many other such measures which deal either directly or indirectly with the issues relating to the scheduled tribes.

Influx: A Threat to the Tribals in Meghalaya

As noted earlier, the tribal communities are the under-privileged, marginalized and in most of the states in India are the minorities. Unless special mechanisms are in place to protect them from mass movements of people into their habitat, they are under the threat of being overwhelmed by the majority communities demographically, culturally and economically. The fate of the tribals in Chotanagpur region, Tripura and Assam are a case in point. The incursion of the non-tribals into the tribal region of Chotanagpur following British colonialism reduced the demographic strength of the tribals, adversely affecting their economic and socio-cultural life (Bandhyopadhay, 1999, p. 33, p. 11). Similarly, Tripura before the large scale influx of the Bengalis migrants from erstwhile East Pakistan was essentially a tribal state but due to increased influx of the Bengalis during partition, the tribal population was reduced from 53.16% of the total population in 1941 to only 37.50% in 1951 (Chadha, 2005, p.360). The indigenous tribals in Tripura have, therefore, been reduced to a minority status in their own land. Similarly, the long period of influx from erstwhile Pakistan and present day Bangladesh has reduced the Bodos into a minority in their own land in Assam (Mukhim, 2013).

The danger of being over swamped and reduced to a minority in their own land and consequently affecting their cultural as well as the economic and political life due to unabated influx of the non-tribals from across international borders as well as from the other states of mainland India has stirred up the indigenous tribals in Meghalaya particularly the Khasis to protect themselves. The fate of other indigenous tribals and other indigenous communities particularly that of Assam and Tripura sounded as an alarm bell for tribals in Meghalaya. Therefore, anti-foreigner movements were launched against the non-tribals first in 1979, then in 1987, 1992 and 1997. It may be noted that the non-tribals had already been migrating to the Khasi-Jaintia Hills and the Garo Hills since during the British period and their population was enumerated in 1901 census of which the Bengalis, Nepalis, Assamese and Hindi speaking communities were the larger groups though other non-tribal communities were also present. The non-tribal population constituted about 19.52% in 1971 and it decreased to 19.42% in 1981. However, following a series of anti-foreigner movements and also due to increased population growth rate among the tribals, their percentage further declined to 14.47% in 1991, 14.06% in 2001 and13.77 % in 2011.

Concerned with the impending threat to their respective communities, the indigenous tribals in Meghalaya formed various organizations with strong ethnic pronouncement such as the Khasi Students’ Union (KSU), Garo Students’ Union (GSU), the Federation of Khasi Jaintia and Garo People (FKJGP).These organizations are the major pressure groups in the state. While KSU and GSU are more specially connected with the ethnic interests of the Khasis and the Garos respectively, FKJGP was formed on the basis of “the unity of the three main ethnic groups of the state, viz., the Khasis, the Jaintias and the Garos” (Nongkhlaw, 2011, p. 51). The KSU and the FKJGP are more explicit in taking cognizance of the threat of influx and the need to tackle the problem (ibid, pp. 33-34, p. 51). Besides, there are a number of other organizations that take the problem of influx as one of their agenda of their struggles. During the current movement in the state for the implementation of ILP to check influx into the state, thirteen NGOs collaborated as a cohesive unit for the cause of the tribal interests in the state. Some political parties also, whether regional or national except the Communist Party of India, played their role in politicizing the issue and from time to time stress on the danger that face the indigenous tribals who are under threat from mass influx of illegal immigrants calling for an urgent need to tackle it (Sengupta: 2005, p. 207).

Demand for Inner Line Permit

It was in the year 1873 that the British Government of India enforced the Eastern Bengal Frontier Regulation with the rationale to ensure peace and governance of certain districts on the Eastern Frontier of Bengal. These districts originally included Cachar, Darrang, Kamrup, Khasi and Jaintia Hills, Lakhimpur, Garo Hills, Naga Hills, Nowgong and Sibsagar. However, Garo Hills was removed from the purview of this regulation in 1897. Section 2 of the Regulation provides for the implementation of the Inner Line Permit in the above mentioned Districts. Its para 1 states, “It shall be lawful for the [State Government] * * * * to prescribe, and from time to time to alter by notification in the [official Gazette], a line to be called “The Inner Line” in each or any of the above named districts.” Further under Section 2 para 2, it is provided that the “[State Government]may, by notification in the [official Gazette], prohibit all [citizens of India or any class of such citizens] or any persons residing in or passing through such districts from going from beyond such line without a pass under the hand and seal of the chief executive officer of such district or of such other officer as he may authorize to grant such pass; and the [State Government] may, from time to time, cancel or vary such prohibition.”

There is a lot of debate pertaining to the real intention of the British colonialists about the introduction and operationalization of the ILP mechanism. A reading of the above provision would reveal that the initial purpose of the British was meant to prevent the warring tribes from crossing the imaginary drawn line to raid the plain areas. Nevertheless, ILP was continued by the British throughout their colonial period as a mechanism to protect tribal culture and identity. The administrator V.S. Jafa, proposed that,

“The Inner Line was first defined in 1873 to stop hill tribal raids into the plains. However, within a few years of the British occupation of these hills, restrictions ceased on the movement of hill tribes, and they were allowed to fish, hunt and attend markets freely on both sides of the Line. But the plainsmen were never allowed to enter the hills without a pass. The hill tribals, whose activities had prompted the creation of the Inner Line Regulation, were thus exempted from the application of its provisions. Ironically, the restrictions applied only to the people of the neighbouring plains districts of Bengal and Assam for whose protection the Line was initially defined. In the long run, therefore, the Inner Line was neither designed nor enforced to serve its original purpose. Then what purpose did it serve? If the Lushai and Naga raids had ceased by 1897, why was the Inner Line continued as long as the British rule lasted in India?”(Mukhim, 2012, p.6).

Others like Mukhim (2013) opined that the “ only reason, perhaps, was because the British saw how, in terms of race, culture and worldview, the hill tribes were very different from mainland India. They were also aware that the spiritual and cultural identity of India was not manifest in its political unity. But they were far-sighted enough to recognize that the “Indian” culture was dominant and might permeate into the tribal culture and milieu, which was, until then, without a written script. The British in their wisdom felt that the tribes should be insulated from this dominant “Indian” culture and religion. Hence, the Inner Line Regulation kept the Indian culture and religion effectively on the other side of the fence while the Christian missionaries were inducted for proselytisation of the hill tribes”.

The above contention that ILP was meant only to prohibit the tribes from raiding the plains could be contested on grounds as laid down in Section 7 of the Regulation. According to this Section, it shall not be lawful for any person, not being a native of the districts comprised in the preamble of this Regulation, 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. It appears that this section tries to protect the indigenous people of North East India from being alienated from their own land due to influx of the non-indigenous peoples.

Whatever the reasons for the British to continue the application of ILP, yet there is little doubt that the mechanism had somewhat protected the tribals allowing them to maintain their ethnic identity and their hold over resources; though with reference to safeguarding culture, the same is debatable in the light of increased proselytization by Christian missionaries into their faith. Though culture and religion are not synonymous, yet there is a high degree of both being intertwined in practice. Therefore, the impact on tribal cultures particularly among the Khasis, the Jaintias and the Garos who follow the matrilineal system was bound to take place when their local indigenous religions were tampered upon by the British. It is important to note that the matrilineal system is somewhat opposed to the operationalized structure of the Christian faith and has proved to be antithetical with unpleasant ramifications in the domain of culture.

In the initial period of post independent India, there was no demand for ILP implementation from the tribals of Khasi-Jaintia Hills and Garo Hills. Instead, to protect their identity and culture the Khasis and the Garos together with other tribes of North Eastern region demanded for greater autonomy. However, the organic urge for tribal autonomy prevailed even before independence. In 1946 many tribal political organizations were formed to advance the political interests of the respective tribes. Among such organizations were the Garo National Council and the Khasi Jaintia Political Association (KJPA). The KJPA demanded for a federation of the Khasi areas within a Sovereign Assam with adequate cultural and political autonomy (Sen Gupta, 2005, p. 3; Syiemlieh, 1986, p. 192). 1n 1945-46, leaders of the Khasi Native States resolved for the creation of a Khasi States Federation and this idea was also supported by a party called the Khasi People’s Union. The Hill Union founded by Mac Donlad Kharkongor demanded for the creation of a Hill State outside Assam, while Rev JJM Nichols Roy, the then Minister, Government of Assam, stressed the need for preserving Khasi customs and traditions and proposed a Khasi-Jaintia Federated State. However, the Constitution of free India created the Sixth Schedule which led to the establishment of District Councils in 1952. But the functioning and role of the District Councils was severely criticized by the members of the council themselves as early as 1954 and demanded for amendments to the same. Along with this demand, the demand for a separate Hill State also continued. The leaders of Meghalaya along with the other tribes founded the Assam Tribal Union in 1952 which was later renamed as the East India Tribal Union to spearhead the movement for the creation of a separate Hill State. The demand for separate Hill State in Meghalaya gained momentum in the 1960s with the formation of the All Party Hill Leaders Conference (APHLC). The movement led to the creation of the Autonomous State of Meghalaya on April 2, 1970 which was upgraded into a fully fledged state on January 21, 1972 (Gassah, 1993, pp. 281-283).

Though the indigenous tribals are granted with constitutional safeguards vide the VI Schedule of the Constitution in which the Autonomous District Councils’ main purpose is to protect the hill and other tribal communities from the rampaging groups of the plains, on top of this they also have a state of their own. Demographically they outnumber non-tribes showing no indication of being numerically overwhelmed in the coming future within the confines of the state yet the fear, either real or perceived of massive influx into their lands have manifested itself in various movements and struggles. In response to these persistent demands, the Autonomous District Councils and the State Government have come up with a number of pro-tribal mechanisms such as The Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971which prohibits the transfer of tribal lands to the non-tribals and even from a non-tribal to a non-tribal, the trading license to regulate the trading of non-tribals and the work permit to regulate migrant labourers entering the state. From the standpoint of the tribes, these mechanisms are perceived as inadequate and insufficient to withstand the rampaging movements of people wanting to settle in legally protected tribal lands as mandated by the Indian constitution. The demands for the implementation of the ILP conceived as being within the framework of the Indian constitution, as a means of enhancing protection by tribal organizations articulating from within a tribal standpoint, such as the KSU and the FKJGP, should be read within these complex processes as they play out within themselves on the ground.

It was in 1983 that the Meghalaya (Extension and Application of the Bengal Frontier Regulation 1873) Inner Line Bill was introduced in the State Assembly for the first time. Again in 1987 the same Bill was re-introduced. Interestingly, in both occasions the Bill was a response to the struggles of the Khasi under the banner of the KSU. However once the protest subsided the Bills also faded off into oblivion. Since 1993, the KSU resurrected the demand for the implementation of ILP (Malngiang, 2002, p. 178) and due to the persistent pressure for the implementation of ILP in the state, the then Chief Minister E.K. Mawlong constituted a fact finding team on ILP in 2000, to look into its implementation in other North Eastern states. The committee report however, contrary to common understanding went against demands of pressure groups and did not recommend the implementation of ILP in the State. The demand for ILP implementation received renewed impetus in 2012 as a fall out and natural repercussion of the communal clash between the ‘muslim immigrants’ and the indigenous Bodos of Assam. Thirteen organizations led by the KSU, FKJGP and HNYF vigorously raised the issue of ILP in Meghalaya all over again. Realizing that the ILP would be a crucial issue in the forthcoming state general elections scheduled for 2013, the Dr. Mukul Sangma government constituted in September 2012 two high level committees to examine various possible mechanisms to check influx while at the same time accepting the seriousness of the issue and the problematic dimensions it was taking. The first committee was headed by the then Deputy Chief Minister, B.M. Lanong and the other by the state Chief Secretary, W.M.S. Pariat. The terms of reference of the committee headed by B.M. Lanong were (i) to review the situation of influx in the state and suggest a multi-pronged strategy and approach to deal with the issue, (ii) to examine and outline the role of tradition institution and their empowerment in dealing with the problem of influx and (iii) to recommend a comprehensive institutionalized mechanism and (iv) any other matter incidental thereto as considered necessary by the committee. On the other hand, the terms of reference for the W.M.S. Pariat Committee was (i) to review and examine the relevant laws and practices relating to tenancy and their impact on influx, (ii) to suggest specific measures to regulate tenancy practices in the state in order to check illegal infiltration and influx into the state and (iii) any other matter incidental thereto as considered necessary by the committee.

After considering the two proposed mechanisms- ILP and a three tier card identity (ID) system, organizations the B.M. Lanong Committee on December 04, 2012, after several rounds of deliberations with pressure groups, took a unanimous decision to recommend to the state government the implementation of ILP. Parallel to the B.M. Lanong recommendation, , the W.M.S. Pariat Committee in October 2013 proposed the Meghalaya Regulation of Landlords and Verification of Tenants Bill, 2013 in consonance with its own terms of reference

After getting a fresh mandate from the electorate in the February 2013 Assembly elections, the Chief Minister, Mukul Sangma, decided to accept the W.M.S. Pariat Committee proposal while rejecting the B.M. Lanong Committee’s recommendation. This decision of the Government was met with stiff opposition from different quarters, forcing the government to shelve the Bill. The pro ILP Community Based Organizations (CBOs) contested the Government on its stand and began calling for protest to challenge the decision. Mediation towards talks was organized between the Government and the CBOs. Unfortunately with talks making no headways and the government vehement on its stand against ILP, outright confrontation was on the offing. In September 2013, the state witnessed different kinds of agitations launched by a conglomeration of organizations ranging from office picketing, night road blockade and bandhs. During the three months of ILP agitations, the state registered 121 cases of arson against 87 pro-ILP activists in which three were booked under the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act (MPDA). According to state government estimates, a total of 50 crores worth properties was loss due to burning of vehicles, official buildings and properties, without calculating the loss of working days into consideration. The state also witnessed the loss of two precious lives during the period due to ILP related incidents.

Currently the struggle for the implementation of ILP is not associated only with the CBOs but even political parties are involved either directly or indirectly. While the Congress and NCP are not in favour of the implementation of ILP, other parties such as Hill State People’s Democratic Party (HSPDP), United Democratic Party (UDP), Khun Hynniewtrep National Awakening Movement (KHNAM) and National People’s Party (NPP) have expressed in no uncertain terms their support for the ILP demand. Ardent Basaiawmoit, the Vice-President of HSPDP and a former President of the FKJGP, together with other HSPDP leaders even organized public meetings at various places of Khasi and Jaintia Hills to sensitize the people about ILP and also to seek their support to the ongoing ILP movement in the state. Basaiawmoit brought the resolution for the implementation of ILP in the state Assembly during its autumn session in 2013, which was supported by the other opposition parties including UDP and NPP. The same, however, was defeated by a voice vote in the floor of the house. After being defeated in the Assembly, the pro-ILP parties took the ILP issue to the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) in which the Congress was leading the Executive Council. The ILP implementation resolution moved jointly by Adelbert Nongrum of KHNAM, Tistosstarwell Chyne of UDP and Carmel Sohtun (Independent), like the ILP resolution in the Assembly, suffered a setback and was defeated on the floor of the house. Taking the ILP resolution to the KHADC could either be read as a strategic move or an act of desperation on the part of those who demanded for ILP implementation, since KHADC does not have the mandate to deal with the matter. While it is difficult to verify whether such a move in the KHADC was a genuine concern of representatives or merely an act of political opportunism the HSPDP and KHNAM can stake a claim for being genuine in their intentions since ILP remains a fundamental demand cutting across any of their political agendas The UDP on the other hand while admitting that influx is a major concern, did not mentioned the ILP as a mechanism to tackle influx in their 2013 election manifesto to the State Assembly. However, it is not only the NGOs and political parties that support the demand for the implementation of ILP but a large number of people in the state have expressed their support. While it is difficult to empirically verify this claim, evidence of the same could be observed from the huge turnout of people numbering around 20,000 from across the state in the ILP rally held on 30 th November, 2013 which the state government should not casually ignore.

ILP and Globalization

The demand for the implementation of ILP in Meghalaya has been a long standing demand spanning over thirty odd years (in spite of the fact that the Khasi Jaintia Hills, like Mizoram, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh, are already in the ILP scheme that need only an official notification for its implementation). However, the state government has never shown to possess any political will to implement ILP in the state. Among the various justifications that the state government has given for its non-implementation has been the detrimental effects that protective mechanisms especially of the kind like the ILP has on the development process within the state especially in era of massive movements of global capital and structural reformism fueled by discourses on liberalization, privatization and globalization. It is a global myth that globalization is inevitable and once on course cannot be reverted. It is often put across as a fact, that such global economic forces will subsume realities with little or no space of withdrawing from such processes, and even if one attempts to contest or confront the same, such countries or communities stand to lose economically. Many eminent local columnists and writers in the state term ILP as an outdated mechanism constructed by British colonialists in a period when the reality was very different. They question the logic of such a demand in the era of globalization when production and consumption patterns have changed drastically and wealth creation is synonymous with growth and progress. The state of Meghalaya, they claim, is a resource deficient state and in order to usher in growth and development, the state needs to attract finance from both national and international sources which is a hallmark of the globalization era. Sectors like education, health and tourism have often been put across as being huge potential investment sectors that will play a major role in turning the state into being self sufficient.

Most of those antagonistic to the ILP perceive the instrument as an inward looking mechanism that actually exhibit a sense of collective fear and resistance to free market competition that they conjure is bound to take place in the era of global market capitalism. In a sense, the ILP is an anti-globalizing mechanism which is likely to put constraints on outside investments into the state. Therefore, these antagonists claim that if implemented, the state would fall trap by be giving in to these fears that actually need to be transcended and as a fallout would fail to attract investors. Consequentially people in general would stand to lose opportunities to develop and grow. It is interesting to note that a section of the NGO leaders representing HYNF, especially Sadon Blah, have harped on this very point arguing that the implementation of ILP would in no way hamper investment and that the present industrial policy of the state has provisions to ensure that the genuine investors are not subjected to undue harassment. On the other, a section of ILP protagonists considers the indigenous tribals as being unprepared for globalization at this juncture and even if ILP hampers the globalization process in the state, local tribals would be less affected. In fact, they argue, the tribals would be losing more if they accept globalization especially, if it is done as per the rules of free market capitalism. While there is empirical evidence to substantiate this argument as witnessed in the state over the years as Meghalaya seems to derived miniscule benefits from outside investments and at times even suffer with the coming of outside investments. According to Micheal Syiem, the Convener of Maitshaphrang Movement, a well known RTI activist; the state government suffered a loss due to subsidy provided to the various industries set up at Byrnihat and such industries provide little job opportunities for the local tribals of the state.

In the recent past there has been a spate of investment in lime stone mining and cement manufacturing industries by outside investors in the Lumshnong area, a limestone rich region of the state. Nearly a dozen of such cement companies have been found to be violating various forest conservation laws. About 50% of land under their operation has been found to be falling under the category of forests. However, like their counterparts in Byrnihat, the different cement manufacturing companies in the area though enjoying large amount of state subsidies, contributed minimally towards the state’s exchequer. It is stated, therefore, that the indigenous people of the state have not been benefitted from these companies. Instead, the state stand to lose hugely in term of environmental degradation caused to the natural caves that are found near limestone mining areas. This will have a long term adverse effect on the efforts of the state to develop eco-tourism which the state itself claims to be one such sector that would generate sustainable income to local people.

Similarly, due to much emphasis on the ideology of liberalization and globalization, many private universities were set up in the state exploiting the reputation of Shillong being the educational hub of North East India. But many of these universities lack even basic infrastructures and were caught up in a web of controversies. It would not be an exaggeration to argue that the infrastructure and the faculty of government aided colleges in Shillong are much better than any of these upcoming private universities. The case of CMJ University should be a wakeup call for the State Government of Meghalaya before they embark further on attracting outside investment in the field of education. Thousands of students from across India, believing that Shillong is the high quality educational destination as claimed by the State Education Department, became victims of deception by such Universities, tarnishing the image of the state. Therefore, Meghalaya has benefitted very little from such investments, experiencing instead detrimental effects on its environment and economy. The whole developmental framework has to be looked into critically so as to protect the indigenous tribals from being economically exploited in the name of development and alternative policy has to be put in place to protect their ethnic identity while attaining economic development of a different nature.

Conclusion

Globalization as an economic ideology is not inevitable and that it would be wrong to come to a conclusion that Meghalaya would stand to lose if it is not welcomed. On the contrary, it appears that outside investment brings little benefits, if any, to the indigenous tribals of the state who instead face myriad forms of exploitation in one way or the other due to this process. It has been experienced that the so called development that took place after independence did bring little or no benefit to the tribals as in the case of tribals in Orissa (Xaxa, 2010, p. 31) and, therefore, the developmental path offered by globalization is even more dangerous as it is operationally proved to benefit more the corporations and the urban middle class while sidelining the already marginalized sections of the society. Therefore, it is not only wrong but dangerous to take this developmental agenda without problematizing the same as this may prove counterproductive to the people for whom development is supposed to benefit. The complexities surrounding the globalization versus ILP debate can be summed up in the words of the current President of India, Pranab Mukherjee, who stated that “The marginal and highly fragile communities should not be disturbed in the name of development, lest they get destroyed as has happened in the past as a result of attempts to assimilate them”.

Dwelling on globalization and development to counter the demand for ILP in the state is quite erroneous in dimensions more than one. Helena Hodge contended that “globalisation is neither an inevitable nor an evolutionary process: it is occurring because governments actively promote it and continually subsidize the framework necessary to support it”. Development based on globalization brings ever-worsening crises that the world is trying to tackle such as global warming, species extinction, job insecurity, rising inequality of income and wealth, corruption and crime. Therefore, many of the countries in South America have shown their disfavour for globalization and even the leaders of those countries spearheading the agenda of neo-liberalism expressed their lack of genuine faith in the ideology and their shuddered their commitment to carry on the agenda further (Kaldor, Kumar, Seckinelgin, 2009, p.10). It is in this context that a rethinking on the course of development from globalization to localization becomes imperative and the recent global economic depression further proves a point of the vulnerability of the world economy based on globalization. On the other hand, localization is more organic and people friendly and is more in consonance with sustainable development as it moves away from crass consumerism to need-based consumption patterns, putting more emphasis on local production and consumption. It is also more democratic as it enables the individuals to participate more directly, taking control of events that affect their lives (Mohan: 2009, p. 126) compared with globalization where people’s lives are determined by a powerful few located at distant places. The necessity for the economic localization has been felt by many people around the world. In Canada, for example, Colin Hines (2000) offers critique against globalization and put forth the agenda of localization which is in consonant with democracy and sustainable development. The idea and propagation of “Slow Food” by Carlo Petrini which has the grassroots support in 150 countries around the world is in tune with the model of localization. It has been argued that if the problems created by the process of globalization were at all to be mitigated, the adoption of localization is essential. While globalization is regarded as bringing economic development without happiness, localization is considered as the “Economic Happiness”.

Dwelling on localization as a model of development, it is most likely to prove beneficial to the indigenous tribals of Meghalaya. However, localization as a model of development can be successful only when the people have the culture of contentment with low level consumerism. In this context one may argue that it is only when the people of the state adopt the policy of localization that the contradiction between ILP and economic interests can be reconciled and that their identity would not be overshadowed by the identity of larger communities in their own land.

References Books

• Gassah, L.S. (1993). “Regionalism and the HSPDP in Meghalaya: Some Basic Issues”. In B. Pakem (ed.), Regionalism in India: With Special Reference to North-East India, New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications, pp. 280-288.
• Hines, Colin. (2000). Localization: A Global Manifesto, London, Routledge.
• Kaldor, Mary, Kumar, Ashwani, Seckinelgin, Halkan (2009). “Introduction”. In Ashwani Kumar, Jan Aart Scholte, Mary Kaldor, Marlies Glasius, Hakan Seckinelgin, Helmut K Anheier (Eds), Global Civil Society 2009: Poverty and Activism, New Delhi, Sage Publications, pp. 1-25.
• Malngiang, Pascal (2002). “Students and Youth Organisations in Meghalaya”. In Apurba K. Baruah (Ed), Student Power in Northeast India, New Delhi: Regency Publications, pp.173-196
• Mander, Harsh, Xaxa, Virginius, Lingam, Lakshmi, Bhide Amita. (2009). “Poverty Discourses and Global Civil Society”. In Ashwani Kumar, Jan Aart Scholte, Mary Kaldor, Marlies Glasius, Hakan Seckinelgin, Helmut K Anheier (Eds), Global Civil Society 2009: Poverty and Activism, New Delhi, Sage Publications, pp. 26-41.
• Mohan, Suddha (2009). “Challenges to Globalisation in Urban and Local Governance”. In Hans Lofgren & Prakash Sarangi (Eds.), The Politics of Culture and Globalisation: India and Australia, New Delhi, Berghahn Books, pp. 119-137.
• Nongkhlaw, Sita. (2011). Politics of Pressure Groups: A Study of Student and Youth Organisation, Guwahati, DVS Publisher.
• Sengupta, Susmita. (2005). Regionalism in Meghalaya, New Delhi: South Asian Publishers.
  ———————. (2009). Radical Politics in Meghalaya, New Delhi: Gyan Publishing.
• Syiemlieh, D.R., “British Policy towards the Khasis”. (1986). In J.B. Bhattacharjee (Ed), Studies in the History of North East India, Shillong, North Eastern Hill University Publications, pp. 186-196.
• Xaxa, Virginius. (2010). “Tribal Identities and Cultural Changes: Aspects of Exclusion and Inclusion”. In Yogendra Sing (Ed), Social Sciences: Communication, Anthropology and Sociology, Delhi, Pearson Education India, pp. 327-350.

Have you like this article?