The Opposition on Wednesday relentlessly grilled Education Minister Rakkam Sangma in the Assembly, sensing his struggle to provide satisfactory answers.
The absence of Chief Minister Conrad Sangma, who often steps in to rescue ministers during tough questioning, left Rakkam to fend on his own, leading to a series of unclear responses that frustrated the opposition.
A volley of questions was hurled by the opposition MLAs on the status of the Eklavya Model Residential Schools (EMRS) and the Centre of Excellence for Sports (CES) in the state.
Rakkam informed the House that the proposal for the CES had not yet been approved by the Government of India, while a total of 38 EMRS and CES institutions were planned. He said the government was actively pursuing the re-approval of the CES project.
VPP MLA Heavingstone Kharpran wanted to know if the Detailed Project Report (DPR) was ready, Sangma gave a vague response, stating that many EMRS had been approved, were at different stages—some under construction, others in the tendering process—and that several DPRs had been completed.
Mawlai MLA Brightstarwell Marbaniang sought clarity on the different components of the EMRS. Sangma vaguely mentioned academic buildings, hostels, playgrounds, and boundary walls but admitted he lacked detailed information.
Marbaniang then pointed out that the Ministry of Tribal Affairs had specified three components—EMRS, CES, and EM Day Boarding Schools (EMDBS). He asked for a breakdown of the 38 institutions. The minister replied that only the EMRS had been sanctioned so far, with CES and EMDBS still awaiting approval. He added that for an EMRS to be sanctioned, eight acres of land must be made available free of cost but could not provide further details on other requirements.
Marbaniang cited the Ministry’s guidelines, which state that every block with at least 50 per cent Scheduled Tribe population or 20,000 tribal residents is entitled to an EMRS, while blocks with over 90 per cent ST population qualify for an EMDBS. He asked if the government had sent proposals for EMDBS, to which Sangma responded that almost all blocks in Meghalaya qualified for an EMRS. He added that 38 had been sanctioned but hinted at the possibility of proposing more once these projects were completed.
Leader of Opposition Dr. Mukul Sangma raised a point of order, arguing that the minister’s responses lacked clarity, making it difficult for members to pose supplementary questions. He demanded a precise answer on the total number of EMRS and CES institutions being set up.
Dr. Mukul also pressed for details on when the 38 EMRS had been sanctioned. Sangma admitted he did not have the exact date but said the DPR was approved in 2023. Dr. Mukul stressed the importance of knowing the timeline, pointing out that funds allocated under Article 275(1) of the Constitution must be utilized promptly, or the state risks losing future funding. He questioned why there was a delay in implementation.
When asked about the number of EMRS currently under implementation, the minister stated that two had been completed, while nine were in progress at different stages, though none had surpassed 20 per cent completion. He provided specific updates on four projects being handled by WAPCOS: Nongstoiñ (46%), Tikrikilla (8%), Mawkyrwat (under DPR process), and Amlarem (42%).
Dr. Mukul recalled that 16 projects had yet to take off since 2019-20 and asked how many had finalized land acquisition. Sangma responded that out of 23 projects handled by the state government, 16 were in the tendering process, seven were in the DPR stage, and five faced land issues. Dr. Mukul urged the minister to share this information with local MLAs so they could assist in resolving land-related challenges.
Sangma disclosed that land issues persisted in Laitkor, Mawryngkneng, Mylliem, Umsning, and Laskein blocks.
Dr. Mukul asked if Garo Hills faced similar problems, but Sangma fumbled for 13 seconds before stating he would lay the details on the table of the House. The Opposition leader suggested that the minister write to MLAs for cooperation in resolving land matters. Sangma said discussions were ongoing with some MLAs and assured that he would consider the suggestion.
Nongkrem MLA Ardent Basaiawmoit questioned why construction was already underway for some CES projects when approval had not yet been granted. Sangma, appearing confused, explained that CES was a different component and that while approval for the DPR and sanctioning were separate matters, land acquisition was a prerequisite for the project.
Basaiawmoit also wanted to know how many EMRS had been fully set up. The minister stated that while all 38 were in various stages of construction or DPR finalization, only two—Samanda and Paham Syiem—were completed and awaiting the Ministry’s approval to become operational.
Mawryngkneng MLA Heavingstone Kharpran contested the minister’s claim that there was a land issue in his constituency. He clarified that land had already been identified in Sohryngkham, and the local dorbar shnong had even provided a No Objection Certificate (NOC). He added that officials from the education department had inspected the site.
Sangma responded that they were waiting for the final report from the Deputy Commissioner.
