The Hynñiewtrep Youths Council (HYC) has expressed concern that Meghalaya will lose out on several villages in the second phase of the border negotiations with Assam.
The first phase, covering six ‘less contentious’ areas, was finalised in March, though villagers, traditional leaders, political opposition and pressure groups were angry that several villages whose populations wanted to go to Meghalaya had their land allotted to Assam instead.
While defending the deal, the state government blamed the previous administration for not listing these villages under Meghalaya’s claim in 2011.
The second phase has now begun, with more high-profile areas, such as Langpih, to be discussed.
Unlike in the first phase, the district councils have been included in the process to hammer out an agreement. For this, the HYC is grateful. However, it is concerned that if the 2011 list is used again, Meghalaya will lose out on more villages.
HYC president Robertjune Kharjahrin was apprehensive regarding Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma’s statement in the Assembly recently wherein he said that the state government will not go beyond the report submitted in 2011. Villages included in the 2011 report will be discussed but those villages which have not been listed will be left out.
According to the pressure group’s research, the villages claimed by Meghalaya in 2011 and now vary. For example, under the disputed Block 1 area, there are 36 villages that Meghalaya would stake a claim to today but only 13 of these were listed in 2011. The same is the case for the village under Langpih – 53 villages claimed in 2011 but 90-plus today.
“What if there are more villages not listed in 2011?” Kharjahrin asked. “We had written to the state government that the terms of reference should be slightly modified to include words like ‘in case the regional committee finds that there are other villages not listed, those villages should also be discussed’.”
Just going by the 2011 report alone will fall foul of the five guiding self-proclaimed principles of the government, namely historical facts, ethnicity of the local population, administrative convenience, contiguity and the will of the people.
