Mukul alleges MDA govt of becoming a ‘victim of manipulation’ by signing the border agreement

Syllad | The Rising MeghalayaApril 13, 2022

The opposition All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) has alleged the NPP-led MDA government of becoming a “victim of manipulation” by signing the Memorandum of Understanding signed with Assam in respect of the 6 of 12 areas of difference.

“Now this government has been a victim of manipulation because of complete ignorance, because of lack of commitment, because of their lack of commitment to protect the interest of our tribal people, our ‘jaidbynriew’,” Leader of Opposition Mukul Sangma told reporters on Wednesday.

This came a day after the Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma claimed that 21 out of 23 villages have come to Meghalaya following the signing of the border agreement with Assam.

Mukul alleged, “My analysis is that Assam has prepared a list of villages which should go to Meghalaya and which should go to Assam and they (Meghalaya) have just signed,” and asked “Have you got any copy or any presentation from the Meghalaya government to indicate that they have done their job?”

“What has been prepared by the counterpart under the leadership of smart aggressive Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma, who understands the whole background of these areas of difference, I have said they have interest to resolve while these people are in power.”

The former chief minister also recalled how Assam counterpart was delaying after the Meghalaya government under his leadership had submitted its claim over the 12 areas of difference in 2011.

“Why, because they (Assam) knew fully well that time our government wouldn’t have succumbed to this surrender nor could we have been gullible to such maneuver, such manipulation,” he said.

Stating that there are two things to this issue, Mukul said that either there is a malafide predetermined intention from the government to arrive at a solution which goes against the interest of the state of Meghalaya and its people but benefits the Assam counterpart or otherwise the only other interpretation is that the incumbent government and the leadership thereof have not understood the complexity of the problem.

“There are two things – the incumbent government and the leadership has not tried to understand the complexities associated with this contentious issue. Another possible interpretation is that there was already a predetermined decision taken at the level of the two chief ministers to allow some of our places to go to Assam,” he said.

The Leader of Opposition further questioned the decision of the state government to go beyond the areas of difference and alleged “areas which are not part and parcel of areas of difference have also been listed and given to Assam.”

Referring to the CM’s claim that only 2 out of 23 villages have gone to Assam, Mukul however alleged that the chief minister had also given Meghalaya’s Joypur to Assam.

“Please understand there are villages having the same name in Assam and Meghalaya. Joypur forms the integral part of Meghalaya, it is Meghalaya Joypur and there is another Assam Joypur. Therefore, in the census you will see Joypur appearing in the list of general census 2011 in Meghalaya as well as in Assam but he (CM) is giving Meghalaya Joypur to Assam.”

He also alleged that Malchapara, which is well documented within Meghalaya, was also given to Assam. “Salbari which is an integral part of Malchapara, it is an extended locality well within Meghalaya was also given to Assam.”

He added that Gizang reserve forest (8.7 sq km) was also given to Assam. “You have to understand the forest has two parts  – one which has been tagged with Kamrup district at the time when the notification in the pretext of administrative convenience the land of the Nonglang Sirdarship was divided, as I have referred to the alienation of tribal land which already taken place prior to independence, so the part which remains within the jurisdiction of the United Khasi-Jaintia District Council is the one we are talking about Gizang forest is given to Assam,” he said.

When asked about the action to be taken by the AITC to ensure the MoU, which is awaiting the final stamp of the parliament, is revoked, the Leader of Opposition said they will intensify their protest.

“We will keep on protesting to ensure that all the signatories of this MoU take cognizance of the sentiments of the people, what we are speaking, what we are sharing through media and also people who are affected and people who have the collective ownership over the land – all the stakeholders,” he said.

Mukul also quoted the chief minister saying that he understood the villagers were being emotional but pointed out that theirs were not on the list of disputed villages in the 2011 report submitted to Assam and said, “It is self-explanatory. You are talking about the villages which have been clearly indicated that they are disputed and the rest are not disputed. why are you unnecessarily dragging the areas which are not disputed at all.”

“You are not supposed to engage in discussion with Assam on the areas which are disputed or are in dispute. Is it because by feigning ignorance he (CM) wanted to fulfill the overall demand of the counterpart for whatever reasons best known to him? Therefore lots of questions are required to be answered by the government,” he stated.

Meanwhile, Mukul also slammed the chief minister for allegedly refusing to meet a delegation of headmen from the border area on Tuesday.

“I was wondering why the chief minister did not give an audience to these people during this crisis moment. At least it is important to meet them, listen to them to try to know what exactly has happened but he refused to meet. Maybe he was trying to study in order to enable himself to reply to them. What is the reply he is going to give them? Will he say in respect of Khanapara this map is drawn by Mukul Sangma and that is why I have decided to give it to Assam. What is the purpose of measuring to indicate this is the area of difference and we are supplementing our claims with valid documents and various notifications. The purpose of the claim is to ensure what we claim they agree with and what is under adverse possession and what is ours to be given,” he said.