While Assam recently hosted a high-profile investment conclave attracting investors from across India and abroad, securing commitments worth several crores, neighbouring Meghalaya has taken a more guarded approach. The state, which gained autonomy from Assam in 1971, has historically prioritised the protection of indigenous land rights over large-scale external investments, fearing that external investments could lead to large-scale land transfers.
This cautious stance was evident on March 11 as the Khasi Students’ Union (KSU), one of Meghalaya’s most influential pressure groups, staged a protest march against the Meghalaya State Investment Promotion Facilitation (MSIPF) Act of 2024. Demonstrators, who sought to reach the State Assembly, were stopped by police near the Garrison Ground. However, they remained defiant, raising slogans rejecting any investment model that could lead to amendments in the state’s land transfer laws.
At the heart of the controversy is the proposed Meghalaya State Investment Promotion & Facilitation (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which was tabled in the Assembly. The government removed Paragraph 34 of the original Act and added a clause stating that the legislation would not override the Meghalaya Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1971.
Despite this change, the KSU remains steadfast in its opposition, arguing that the Act undermines tribal land rights. KSU general secretary Donald Thabah voiced the union’s concerns, warning that the legislation could weaken protections for indigenous landowners. “Under the MSIPF Act, tribals will lose out on land, and without land, they are as good as dead,” he told local media, vowing that the union would fiercely resist any such move.
The protest also brought renewed focus to the concept of land banks, a proposal championed by Meghalaya’s Tourism Minister Paul Lyngdoh, a former KSU leader. The government has been encouraging local landowners to partner with the administration by contributing land for joint development projects, particularly in the tourism sector. Lyngdoh has framed the initiative as essential for expanding accommodation infrastructure in areas such as Dawki, which currently lack adequate facilities.
Earlier in December while responding to opposition to the Meghalaya Economics and Investment Promotion Policy Lyngdoh had said, “If there is a need to fine-tune the policy, that can always be done… The biggest room in the world is the room for improvement.” He had challenged critics to present a viable alternative. “If you say no to the government’s policy, then what is the alternative? Come forward and show us your draft. If it is much better than our policy, we may go with it,” he had said.
However, KSU president Thabah dismissed the land bank proposal as a “dangerous” move, cautioning that leasing large tracts of tribal land to private investors could lead to long-term dispossession. “We told the government to repeal the Act because giving land directly to private investors will go against the Land Transfer Act,” he asserted.
Following a lengthy meeting with Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma, the KSU reiterated its demand for the immediate repeal of the MSIPF Act. Thabah revealed that while the Chief Minister assured them that the legislation would not grant excessive powers to the government, the union remained unconvinced. According to local media report Chief Minister Sangma said, “We are giving verbal assurance to further amend the Act in the next session,” adding that future rules would be framed in consultation with all stakeholders, as demanded by the KSU.
Despite these assurances, the KSU remains sceptical. KSU president Thabah said a verbal assurance “cannot be accepted, and we are not 100% satisfied,” and urged tribal leaders to take a stand against the Act. The union plans to review its next steps at an upcoming executive committee meeting. “If the government is sincere, it should reject the principal Act and go for an amendment,” he added.
The KSU also used the occasion to reiterate its opposition to the proposed railway project in Meghalaya. While acknowledging the benefits of improved connectivity, Thabah pointed out that essential commodities in Manipur—a state located 300 km from Guwahati—are cheaper than in Meghalaya, despite the absence of railway links in many of its hilly areas. This, he argued, contradicts claims that rail connectivity alone would significantly reduce costs in Meghalaya.
