Author: Ranjeet Luitel
The Meghalaya State Investment Promotion and Facilitation Act (MSIPFA) 2024 has led to a protest by the Khasi Students’ Union (KSU) and various stakeholders. Their primary concern revolves around the Act’s potential to undermine indigenous land rights, facilitate land alienation, and prioritize investor interests over local communities. Additionally, the proposed introduction of railway lines without effective anti-influx measures has further heightened fears of demographic changes.
The strongest opposition to MSIPFA 2024 comes from the Khasi Students’ Union (KSU) and opposition leader Mukul Sangma, who argue that the Act undermines the Meghalaya Land Transfer Act, which has long protected indigenous land ownership.
KSU General Secretary Donald Thabah called the Act “draconian and anti-tribal,” emphasizing that “tribals without land are as good as death.” Questioning the government’s intent behind the new law, Mukul Sangma expressed concerns that the Act would override the Land Transfer Act.
The Act grants the Meghalaya Investment Promotion Authority (MIPA) significant power in land transactions, which could lead to the bypassing of existing land protection laws. The provision allowing the government to purchase and allocate land for investment raises alarms about large-scale land alienation.
The Act introduces “…creating land banks by direct purchase of land or by other means,” raising concerns about transparency. Sangma questioned the vague language in the Act, asking, “What is that ‘other means’ of land acquisition?”
The KSU argues that this provision allows land to be transferred to outside investors, leading to irreversible consequences for indigenous communities. They demanded a complete repeal or major restructuring to ensure that land protection remains intact.
The government indeed has introduced amendments, but the protestors believe they are superficial and do not address the fundamental concerns. The KSU dismissed the amendments as mere “eyewash,” stating that the principal Act remains unchanged.
Economic development should not come at the cost of indigenous land rights. However, the Act prioritizes investors over the people of Meghalaya. The KSU states, “This Act should be repealed if it is only investor-friendly and not people-friendly.”
The Government’s Stand and the Trust Deficit
The Meghalaya government has attempted to allay fears by promising that the Act will not override existing land protection laws, but these assurances have failed to convince critics. The government claims that further amendments will be introduced in the winter session after consulting stakeholders.
Talks between the KSU and Chief Minister Conrad Sangma ended without a resolution. The KSU remains skeptical, stating, “Verbal assurance cannot be accepted.”
One of the biggest criticisms is the perceived lack of consultation before passing the Act. In fact, the legislative changes affecting tribal land should have involved extensive consultations with local communities.
While investment-friendly policies are essential for economic growth, they must not come at the cost of displacing local communities. The government needs to ensure that development policies do not alienate indigenous populations. Stronger legal safeguards should be put in place to prevent potential land alienation.
Railway Expansion and the Fear of Influx
The proposed introduction of railways in Meghalaya has added another layer of concern. The KSU opposes railway expansion without strict mechanisms to regulate the entry of outsiders.
The KSU secretary warned, “If railways come, the influx of outsiders will increase drastically.” He pointed to Nagaland’s Dimapur, where the indigenous Naga population has allegedly become a minority due to unchecked migration. It is indeed a valid concern because the risks of demographic changes outweigh the economic benefits.
The general notion is that railway connectivity is essential for economic growth, but the KSU challenges this notion. The KSU pointed out that Manipur, despite lacking railways, has lower prices for essential commodities than Meghalaya.
The KSU insists that the Inner Line Permit (ILP) system must be implemented before any railway expansion takes place. The ILP is a protective mechanism used in other northeastern states to regulate the entry of non-residents. The absence of ILP in Meghalaya remains a major source of anxiety among indigenous groups.
Escalating Protests and Political Pressure
The KSU staged a protest march towards the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly on March 11th to voice their opposition to the MSIPFA and the railway project. The KSU demanded the repeal of MSIPFA 2024 and stricter controls on migration.
Protesters carried banners and chanted slogans against the Act and railway expansion. The police intercepted the march before it reached the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.
With both sides standing firm on their positions, Meghalaya faces a potential political standoff. If the government fails to address concerns, the protests could intensify, leading to further unrest.
A middle ground must be found where investment policies do not compromise indigenous land rights. While economic development is crucial, it must not come at the cost of alienating indigenous communities.
The government must:
- Ensure that land laws protecting indigenous ownership remain intact.
- Engage in open and transparent consultations with all stakeholders.
- Consider a more balanced investment policy that benefits both investors and local communities.
If these concerns are not addressed, Meghalaya risks deepening the trust deficit between its people and the government, leading to prolonged social and political unrest.
