ILP is not a tribal mechanism: Bernard

Syllad | The Rising MeghalayaJanuary 12, 2020

SHILLONG: Former leader of the disbanded Achik National Volunteer Council-Breakaway (ANVC.B) Bernard N Marak has said that demanding implementation of the Inner Line Permit in the Sixth Schedule area is like demanding a general law over the land of the hill tribals.

Marak also asserted that the hill tribals should chose Sixth Schedule over ILP because ILP is not a tribal mechanism but a general mechanism of the state.

His statement also came at a time when there is growing demand for ILP in the State.

In response to this, the state government had on December 19, last year also passed a resolution urging the Centre to implement ILP in Meghalaya.

He said Meghalaya is a general state which should not be asked to make law over the lands of the Hill tribals as the land belongs not to the state but to the people.

“There is a constitutional barrier through which our lands are protected from general laws and we should not ask state to dilute our rights,” he said.

Marak said when the Hill District was given to the Garos, the Khasi and the Jaintias, complete autonomy was given to the people over Land which stands valid till today.

“If we demand ILP over our own land, it’s like demanding the general law to be imposed over our own autonomous rights. We should understand the Constitutional reservations before demanding ILP as it will dilute our rights,” he said.

Moreover, he pointed out that ILP can check only those who enter our state legally but those who are sneaking through the porous gateways will remain untouched.

“Instead we should strengthen our traditional system, the ‘Law of the land’ and exercise our Autonomous authority over land in a more stringent way than ILP, which is to be implemented by our traditional bodies through the Autonomous District Councils which stands as our guardian. Land management in our state, is a Council subject hence State cannot frame law as it is not under it’s jurisdiction,” he said

Maintaining that he is not against the demand for ILP, the former militant leader however said, “l felt it necessary to highlight the facts as tribal laws stand supreme in the tribal areas of Meghalaya. The law of the land is the tribal laws which has been practiced since time immemorial so our aim should be to preserve that tribal law without diluting tribal rights which is recognised and protected under the the Constitution, as it stands supreme law in the tribal lands of our state. If given a choice, I being tribal would chose Sixth Schedule over ILP as ILP is a general mechanism of the state.”