Proceedings of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly assembled after the first General Election under Sovereign Democratic Republican of India.

        The Assembly met at 10 A.M. on Thursday, the 6th April, 1972 in the Assembly chamber at Shillong with the Speaker in the Chair.

Mr. Speaker :- Before starting with the first item in today's list of business may I announced the Members of the various Committees. I appoint the personnel of the Committee as below :-

Announcement of the names of the members of Legislature Committee

RULES COMMITTEE

(Under Rule 259)

1.

Mr. B.B. Lyngdoh, Minister for Parliamentary Affairs.

2.

Mr. Hoover Hynniewta, M.L.A.

3.

Mr. Humphrey Hadem, M.L.A.

4.

Mr. Grohonsing Marak, M.L.A.

This Committee will function under the chairmanship of the Speaker.

Committee on Government Assurances

(Under Rule 257)

1.

Mr. Ripple Kyndiah, M.L.A.

2.

Mr. D.D. Lapang, M.L.A.

3.

Mr. Stanlington D. Khongwir, M.L.A.

4.

Prof. Peter G. Marbaniang, M.L.A.

Mr. P. Ripple Kyndiah will be the Chairman of this Committee.

Committee on Subordinate Legislation

(Under Rule 251)

1.

Mr. Jormanik Syiem, M.L.A.

2.

Mr. Maham Singh, M.L.A.

3.

Mr. Winstone Syiemiong, M.L.A.

4.

Mr. Plansing Marak, M.L.A.

5.

Mr. Reidson Momin, M.L.A.

Mr. Jormanik Syiem will be the Chairman.

Privileges Committee

(Under Rule 246)

1.

Mr. D.D. Pugh, M.L.A.

2.

Mr. Sibendra N. Koch, M.L.A.

3.

Mr. Upstar Kharbuli, M.L.A.

4.

Mr. Nimosh Sangma, M.L.A.

5.

Mr. Brojendra Sangma, M.L.A.

Mr. Darwin D. Pugh will be the Chairman.

Committee on Petitions

1.

Prof. Alexander Warjri, M.L.A.

2.

Mr. Akramozzaman, M.L.A.

3.

Mr. B.B. Shallam, M.L.A.

4.

Mr. D.N. Joshi, M.L.A.

5.

Miss Percylina Marak, M.L.A

Prof Alexander Warjri will be the Chairman.

        Let us now come to the next item in today's list of business.

Shri Hoover Hynniewta :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, you have read out just now the names of the members of the privileges committee. But I have not heard the names of the Deputy Speaker. It is customary for the Deputy Speaker to be in the Privileges Committee. As a matter of fact, in the Lok Sabha, the Deputy Speaker is the chairman of the Privilege Committee.

Mr. Speaker :- I am very grateful that Mr. Hoover Hynniewta has pointed out the omission and I will certainly include the Deputy Speaker in the Privileges Committee.


Call Attention

        So, let us come to item No. 1 - Calling Attention notice by Mr. Lapang. Because the Chief Minister is not well, he has authorised the Minister, Finance to reply.

Shri D. Dethwelson Lapang :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to call the attention of the Chief Minister under Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business to a news item published in the Hindustan Standard of the 29th March, 1972 under the caption "Army empowered to exercise special powers in North-Eastern Region.

        Mr. Speaker, Sir, the North-Eastern region is declared as disturbed area  to enable the Armed Forces to exercise special powers in the region including Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, Tripura, Arunachal and Mizoram. It is stated that though the situation in the region is more peaceful now than in the past, yet the Bill is brought forward to give special powers to the Army. So, Mr. Speaker, Sir, we have seen many objection raised by the Opposition members in the Lok Sabha though we fail to see our own representative in the Parliamentary or even by the Government raising this point. I would be grateful if the Hon'ble Minister would give us a clarification on the point.

Mr. Speaker :- Will the Finance Minister make a statement ?

*Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958 was passed by the Parliamentary empowering the Governor of Assam or the Chief Commissioner of the then Union Territory of Manipur to declare, by notification in the official gazette, the whole or any part of the State or the then Union Territory to be a disturbed area, if he is satisfied that the area is in such a dangerous or disturbed condition that the use of armed forces in aid of the civil power is necessary. On such a declaration, any Commissioned Officer, Warrant Officer, Non-Commissioned Officer or any other person of equivalent rank in the Armed Forces would have certain special powers for the maintenance of public order, arresting suspects, searching certain premises, etc.

        On receipt of the Calling Attention Notice and on perusal of the news-paper report to which the hon. Member has referred, this Government has requested the Ministry of Home Affairs to furnish us with full particulars about the amendment to the Act as all relevant materials in this regard are readily available with the Government. Our Chief Secretary has also spoken to the concerned officer in the Ministry of Home Affairs regarding this matter on telephone and requested him to send the materials immediately. On receipt of the relevant materials the Government would study the same and take appropriate action.

        According to the officer of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the amendment does not withdraw any powers from the State Government and that the Central Government has only assumed concurrent powers to declare a region as disturbed and that such powers would not normally be exercised without consulting the concerned State Government. According to him, this is only an enabling measure and it has become necessary in the public interest, in view of the fact that the entire north eastern region in the country is still a sensitive area but that the actual exercise of powers by the Central Government would only be under exceptional circumstances.

        As mentioned earlier, the State Government would study the matter further on getting the relevant materials.

Prof. Martin N. Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, may I make an observation to ask for a clarification whether the Government of Meghalaya was consulted prior to the framing or introduction of the Bill.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister Finance) : Meghalaya did not exist at that time, in 1958. 

Prof. Martin N. Majaw : I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, Sir, prior to the introduction of the Amendment.

Shri B.B. Lyngdoh (Minister Finance) : No.

Mr. Speaker : So, now let us come to item No.2. 

Shri Sandford K. Marak (Minister, R. & R. etc.) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I give a clarification of the figures in the budget estimate? The figures that I have given the other day were correct and the figure given by the hon. Member was also correct. Both are correct. Mr. Narayan Majaw pointed our Rs. 10 cores - it was also correct but it was no included in 30 - Public Health and 29.- Medical. The total comes to  Rs. 10 crores.   

*Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : I still regret, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that the Hon'ble Minister has not coke to the point at issue. The point at issue was whether the budget estimates were 10 crores for displaced persons or Rs. 9.7 crores. It is clear here even on the admission of the Medical Minister that it is still 10 crores because if we look into the other grants the total comes to 10 crores. Even in this grant it is specifically stated "expenditure on water supply schemes for supply of water in camps for displaced persons drawn up in 1971".

Shri Sandford K. Marak (Minister, R. & R., etc) : This is what I have pointed out just now. This amount was not included. Under 30 - Public Health and 29.- Medical only 8.7 crores and 2 crores respectively, so the total tallies.

*Shri Hoover Hynniewta : Mr. Speaker,  Sir, the hon. Member, from Mawhati is right when he said that the Minister at the time when he gave out the figures did not include all the expenditure and for the sake of clarity he had decided the budget figures into a number of items. So, I would request the hon. Member from Mawhati not to press this point further. 

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : I accept the explanation. 


Privilege Motion. 

Mr. Speaker : Now, Prof. Majaw to raise the privilege issue against the local Khasi paper, " Ka Pyrta U Riewlum". Mr. Majaw. 

*Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : Mr. Speaker, rise to bring to the notice of the House, under the provision of  Rules 158, 159, 160 and 161 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, the following very serious breach of the privileges of the hon. Members of the House, in the form of  a news report in a local news- paper, "Ka Pyrta U Riewlum", of the 29th March, 1972, page 1 :- The relevant portion reads as follows in Khasi : ' Ha ka por ba shim ia ka bynta ba nyngkong da u Acting Speaker, Bah Jor Manik Syiem ban jied ia u Speaker, la don ka jingkaw-kaw bad pynwit da u Bah D.D. Lapang, Bah H. Hynniewta bad Bah M.N. Majaw kiba long ki Opposition." Sir, I consider this to be a great insult not only to the Members who have been selected for the accusation by the Editor of " Ka Pyrta U Riewlum" but also to the other Members of the Opposition who are equally being besmeared by this accusation. 

Mr. SPEAKER : Does not the hon. Member give an English translation?

Prof. M. N. Majaw : The English translation was prepared by the staff of the Assembly Secretariat and it reads as follows :"At the time when the Acting Speaker, Mr. Jor Manik Syiem, took the first part of the business in selecting the Speaker, there was undignified, unjustified and useless chatter, and obstruction of the House from Mr. D. D. Lapang, Mr. H. Hynniewta and Mr. M. N. Majaw, who are the members of the Opposition."

Mr. Speaker : Who did the translation work because in that word 'selecting' and 'electing' the meaning is quite different ? You have translated 'selecting' instead of 'electing'. From here it appears that it was you yourself who has translated because the meaning is very wrong. You may seek the assistance of this Secretariat while making the translation but you must take the full responsibility. 

*Prof. M.N. Majaw : I have accept the translation. The words 'selecting' and 'electing' may have the same meaning in Khasi. Therefore, our Khasi 'Jingkaw - kaw and ' Jingpynwit' correspond to the words "undignified" and "unjustified chatter", and obstruction of the House. 

Mr.  Speaker : From whose authority did you translate 'Jingkaw - kaw' and 'Jingpynwit' as undignified, unjustified and useless chatter? There must be some authority wherefrom the House will be given the exact meaning of the word. 

Shri P.  Ripple Kyndiah : Sir, in so far as the translation is concerned, the words 'undignified, unjustified' did not come in.  I quite agree with the hon. Member from Mawhati that the word "chatter and obstruction" should come in. But certainly not 'undignified and unjustified'.

*Prof. M. N. Majaw : Sir, translation is a matter of opinion because there are two types of translation, one is the giving of exact sense of the word and the other is the literal meaning. Even in the English language there are synonyms which do not have the identical translation. So, this is a matter of opinion. It is my considered and definite opinion that the words "Ka Jingkaw- kaw" not only carry the meaning of the words "useless chatter"' but is a connotation of the words "undignified" and "unjustified" and the word "Jingpynwit" carries the meaning of 'obstruction'. My hon. friend from Jaiaw has gallantly accepted that the words 'undignified' and 'unjustified' are included in the word 'Jingkaw- kaw'.

Shri P. R. Kyndiah : Sir, I feel that before we proceed with the discussion, I would like to get a ruling from you as to whether the words 'undignified' and 'unjustified' are to be accepted. 

Mr. Speaker : That is exactly not the point that the hon. Member has raised that I should give a ruling. My question to the hon. Member is that before he proceeds to establish that there is a prima facie case of a breach of privilege he smut also reply to my question whether he has consulted any authority on the subject regarding the translation. 

*Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : Mr. Speaker, Sir, being a Khasi and having been elected as a scheduled tribe representative, I do not think it necessary to search any authority on the meaning of a single word "Jingkaw- kaw".

Mr. Speaker : Even an Englishman has to consult the Chamber's Dictionary. 

*Shri Hoover Hynniewta : Sir, may I make  submission in this regard? If you in all your wisdom think that the translation is not correct then you may give a ruling on that point that the hon. Member had given his own translation. According to me unless these words 'undignified' and 'unjustified' are included the word 'Jingkaw- kaw' will not have the same meaning in English as it has in Khasi. Therefore, before the hon. Member can establish a prima facie case of breach of privilege, it is necessary to determine in advance as to what is the exact English translation of the word 'Jingkaw- kaw'. Now, all the other members of this House who do not have Khasi  as their own mother tongue will be in a position to say as to whether the use of this word amounts or a breach of privilege of this House and of the Members thereof. So, I think Mr. Speaker,  Sir, in order that we can take one point at a time, I feel you should give a ruling as to whether it is a correct translation, if not, what is the correct translation.

*Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister for Parliamentary Affairs) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to have a word. The word 'Jingkaw- kaw' is a simple word and it is not as what the hon. Member has said because that would be a deliberate misguidance of the House for interpolation of the words which are not here. The simple word 'Jingpynwit' means obstruction and the simple word 'Jingkaw- kaw' means noisy. I have two dictionaries before me- the dictionary written by Mr. A.S. Shylla, retired Assistant Inspector of Schools and also quoting from the dictionary written by late Mr. Nissor Singh. Therefore there is no need to interpolate the word as 'unjustified' and 'undignified'.  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would submit that the hon. Member from Mawhati has committed another breach of privilege and misguided the House by his deliberate interpolation of the words. 

*Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am happy that the Minister has also used the word clamorously in giving the translation of the word "Jingkaw- kaw".

Mr. Speaker : He quoted the word. 

*Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : I mean quoted. Mr. Speaker, Sir, one should be clamorous. In this House we are really acting in a dignified manner and also the connotation of the word 'Jingkaw- kaw" is also clamorously. 

*Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister for Parliamentary) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I cannot accept the translation. This is a complete misguidance of the House. 

Mr. Speaker : Before we come to the discussion, I think we have to hear the submission of the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs who is also Minister, Law and I would allow Prof. Majaw to vive this submission if he does not agree with the words 'clamorously' and 'noisy'. Now if we are to base the meaning of this word "Ka Jingkaw- kaw" on the dictionary of Mr. A.S. Shylla and also on the dictionary of late Nissor Singh, I would call upon Prof. Majaw to establish a prima facie case. 

*Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : Mr. Speaker, Sir, the prima facie case refers to what has happened on the first day when the Acting Speaker took up the matter of the election of the Speaker. At that time we raised a Point of order and that we did in exercise of our rights as the elected Members of the Assembly. We have every right to raise the point of order whether that point of order is ruled our or admitted. We were not clamorously insisting on the point of order or noisily insisting on the point of order nor to a less degree obstructing the proceedings of the House. The point of order is not an obstruction to the proceedings of the House rather it is part of the proceedings of the House and even laughter becomes a part of the proceedings of the House if it is recorded by the reporter. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I submit that using of these words to describe our action on that day and at that time under all circumstances amounts to a breach of privilege and there is a prima facie case. 

*Shri Maham Singh : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I feel that the word "Jingkaw- kaw" is not the proper word. Many of us here understand Khasi language and that the word "Jingkaw-kaw" does not mean making noises in an undignified manner. It is dignified. The word "Jingpynwit" carries the meaning of obstruction. But as far as the Members are concerned, during the proceedings of the House that day, we did not make this undignified way of making noises. We were making noises slowly. The point of order was raised in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the House and in a right manner. No shouting was there on that particular day. I believe the  use of such words by the newspaper is very unfair. This is my submission, Mr. Speaker, Sir. 

*Shri Hoover Hynniewta : This statement, Sir, may amount to a serious bread of privilege. On that day certain points of order were raised and this is the right that has been conferred on the members by the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business. This right is the right conferred by Rule 300 which says like this : "A point of order shall relate to the interpretation or enforcement of these rules or such Articles of the Constitution as regulate the business of the House and shall raise a question which is within the cognizance of the Speaker". Sir, you  were part of the proceedings of the House on that day. We were allowed the opportunity  to raise a point of order on that day by the Speaker. So it was the legitimate right exercised by the Members duly recognised by the Speaker of the House at that time. 

        There is no "JINGKAW KAW" on that day no noise, undignified and unless making of noises on that day's The House was conducted in a most dignified manner by the Speaker, and also by the Members who took part in the deliberation on the day. And if by nature like Mr. Majaw and myself have been equipped with a loud voice and you have allowed us to speak, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that cannot be said as having made a noise. If it is otherwise, then a clause should be make in the Peoples' Representation Act that people or a Meghalaya with a loud voice should not be allowed to contest in the elections. (Laughter). Certainly, Mr. Speaker, Sir, we did so in a very dignified manner. There was no "KAW KAW" to carry a connotation of unless and undignified voice. So, Sir, it is very wrong on the part of the editor to say that there was "JINGKAW KAW" on that day. If it is obstruction, there was no obstruction on that day. Of course the hon. Member from Mawprem used the word "JINGPYNWIT' to mean obstruction.

        Again, the Speaker, might not have allowed the election of the Speaker, and we might have occupied the Speaker's chair and resorted to other physical actions. Obstruction may also imply physical obstruction. But there was no such physical obstruction on that day and after the Speaker has allowed us to raise a point or order he might have ruled out that point of order, that was a different matter. In fact, it was conducted in almost dignified manner and that too with the permission of the Speaker. So, Sir, there was no obstruction whatsoever, and the statement of the paper is false.

        Secondly, Sir, the statement was meant to cast aspersion on the persons who raised the point of order and the Speaker, Sir, who was conducting the proceedings of the House on that day. Members were accused of having made unless and undignified noise and the Speaker, in allowing the noise if he had ever allowed the making of that noise, or to obstruct the proceeding of the House, that is a different matter. But since the Speaker, did not allow any obstruction it was no more than casting an aspiration on the Speaker of the House who conducted the proceedings on that day. Therefore, I submit that by bringing out this comment in his newspaper, the editor and reporter had committee and serious breach of privilege and brought the House into disrepute and along with it the Speaker who conducted the proceedings on that day.

Mr. Speaker :- This particular matter involves both academic discussion as Prof. Majaw himself admitted the doubts whether the connotation of the two words "JINGKAW KAW" and "PYNWIT" and whether by using these two words till  tantamount to the fact that the dignity of the Members of the whole House has been derogated or not. It is really very difficult to be determined just not. I therefore, decide that the matter be referred to the Privilege Committee.

        I have reconstituted the Privileges Committee with the following Members :-

1. Mr. Singjan Sangma,  Deputy Speaker, as Chairman. 
2. Mr. D. D. Pugh - Member.
3. Mr. Upstar Kharbuli - Member. 
4. Mr. Nimosh Sangma - Member. 
5. Mr. Brojendra Sangma - Member.

        The Privileges Committee will submit its report on or before the 15th of June, 1972. 

        So we now pass on to the next item, i.e., Resolution relating to establishment of Indira Gandhi Hill University for the North Eastern Region of India. I now request the Chief Minister to move the Resolution. 

Capt. Williamson A. Sangma (Chief Minister) : Mr.  Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that whereas in response to the demand of the Representatives in Parliament of the Hill Areas of North East India, the Government of India have decided to set up a Central University to cater to the needs of the people of the Hill Areas of North Eastern India; and it is expedient that necessary legislation in this regard is passed by Parliament and;

        Whereas the subject "Education including Universities" falls within Entry 11 of List II- State List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and, as such a resolution is necessary by Legislatures of two or more States as provided in Clause (i) of Article 252 of the Constitution of India to empower Parliament to legislate on this subject, and ; 

        Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Assam has already passed such a resolution ;

        Now, therefore, this Assembly hereby resolves that for setting up of a Central University for the North Region of India, the Parliament may pass the requisite legislation."

Mr. Speaker : Motion moved. 

Shri Hoover Hynniewta : Mr. Speaker, Sir, may we request the Chief Minister to give a background behind this Resolution and as to the reason why such a Resolution has been put before the House?

Capt. Williamson A. Sangma (Chief Minister) : Mr.  Speaker, Sir, as I am not well, I would request my colleague Mr. Nichols Roy to give the background. 

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister, Industries, etc.) :Mr. Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to read from the background statement, as prepared. 

        1. "As far back as 1963, the tribal communities of Assam, Nagaland and N.E.F.A. (Arunachal Pradesh) had pressed for the setting up of a University in the North Eastern Region of India. The M.Ps. of the area had pointed out in September, 1963, to the Prime Minister, the late Shri Jawaharlal Nehru that Gauhati University was unable to meet the educational requirements of the Hills people ; and they, therefore, under lined the need for a separate Central University for the Hills Areas of North East India. 

        2. The representation of the M.Ps was forwarded by the Prime Minister to the University Grants Commission. The University Grants Commission, in consultation with the Ministry of Education, set up a Committee under the Chairmanship of Prof. A.R. Wadia to study the problem. The Committee expressed the view that for a variety of reasons, there was a strong case for the provision of special facilities for higher education in the North Eastern Region of India comprising Nagaland, NEFA, Manipur and the Hill areas of Assam. The Committee also recommended the setting up of a federal type of University (Central University) with a constituent college at each important Centre, and Shillong was considered the most suitable site for this University. The Committee further suggested that the Union Government should take appropriate steps to establish such University in the hill areas. The matter was also considered by the Planning Commission in a meeting held in September, 1964, in pursuance of which the matter was referred to the Ministries of Home Affairs and External Affairs. Both Ministries favoured the proposal to set up a Central University of the North Eastern Region but it was pointed out that, because 'Education' including 'Universities' was a State subject, the Central Government could introduce appropriate legislation to establish a Central University only under Article 252 (i) of the Constitution which requires that the Legislatures of at least two States should, through suitable resolutions on the subject, authorise the Union Parliament to do so. The Government of Assam passed the enabling resolution on 16th December , 1965 but the Government of Nagaland continued to have serious reservations on the subject. Hence no progress could be made in regard to the proposal. 

Shri Hoover Hynniewta : On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, Sir. The Minister was saying  that the government of Assam is opposing the  resolution or the Assam Legislative Assembly?

Shri S.D. D. Nichols Roy (Minister, Industries) : Mr. Speaker,  Sir, I am sorry this statement is nor a correct statement. It is the Assam Legislative Assembly and not the Government of Assam for which I am grateful to the hon. Member for pointing it out. Now, with the emergence of Meghalaya as an Autonomous State in 1970, the enabling resolution was adopted in the First Session of the Legislative Assembly on 21st April 1970. There was therefore, no further constitutional or legal hindrance to the setting up of the proposed Central University. Copy of the Resolution was also sent to the Planning Commission in May, 1970. As explained by the Chief Minister earlier, the latest decision is that on 18th February, 1972 the Ministry of Education informed the Government of Meghalaya that after coming into force of the North Eastern Areas (Re-organisation) Act, 1971 the Resolution passed by the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly at its meeting held on 21st April, 1970 cease to have effect since it is not covered under Clause 77 of the North Eastern Areas (Re- organisation) Act, 1971, according to which, only the law in force before the appointed date, would extend and apply an any fresh resolution mist, therefore, be passed by the State Legislature of Meghalaya to enable the Parliament to legislate under Article 252(i) of the Constitution. This is the background Mr. Speaker, Sir. 

*Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : Mr. Speaker, Sir, at the outset, I would like to observe that in the matter of education we are dealing with the youths and the children all over the State and also in the neighbouring States of the Hills areas. In respect of education we should not look at this subject with a political idea only, even when the Resolution is put before the House. So, Sir, I would like to plead with the hon. Members here to kindly divert their mind from the political, concept or thinking. Because Sir, there has been too much of politics in education. Since we are going to shape the future of our state and the future generation that will guide the students of our State, it is most essential that we totally take or shrink away from our minds any idea of political leaning or prejudice. In this respect, I should say that we should try our best we can. 

Mr. Speaker : Well, while you should keep yourself confined to the subject- matter, do you think we are not entitled to any political thought?

*Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : Mr. Speaker, Sir, in this Resolution, there should be no political though or political prejudice and that is my humble submission. You know, Sir, we are trying our level best as we have already discussed the subject today, on the floor of this House. If we could sit together in a real Durbar, in any place in the Khasi Hills, to find our a good and real meeting place, to bring out different ideas, to bring out concrete suggestions that will really  help our youths tomorrow. First of all, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I will add also some background to his. This is as our Hon'ble Minister has read out the backgrounds to the entire proposal. There is still a little bit to be added by way of an unofficial amendment in the sense that when the demand was made several years, ago, for our separate University, there was at that time no separate State for us and besides that at that time, there was no definite hope, no concrete hope to have a State of our own in the near future. at the same time, there was a real danger that "Assamese" is going to be introduced as the medium of instruction in the Gauhati University and therefore, suddenly, many of us, feel that our University would surely come and  would cater to the needs of the hills people, to meet the aspiration for a University of their own. As a matter of course, there are some parts in this North Eastern Region, that could bring the Central University for a thorough consideration and discussion in this Assembly of our own. Then again, Sir, we are proposing to submit the memorandum that the Central University be brought into being  in our State, in order to cater to the needs and to the special distinctive needs of the hills people. Because, Mr. Speaker, Sir, if we have achieved today this great dream into a reality, then we are standing here on the floor of this august House, which is capable in its own free will, to bring into existence or to create or to set up this University of our own. We have got all powers to do so and pass this Bill to that effect in this House. So these are also the background, Mr. Speaker, Sir. We are aware of the fact that we have such powers to shape our won destiny and adopt the form of education in our State that requires to be accomplished in the near future. 

Mr. Speaker : You are discussing education in general or a University?

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : Education in general, Sir, which will be protected, nurtured and cultured by the proposed University. Now, Mr. Speaker, Sir, here it must be admitted that one of the reasons for which we fought in order to get a separate State for our people was primarily because we have distinctive genius of our own, a distinctive character, a distinctive social structure which is uncommon, that was the main reason for which we demanded a separate State and we got it. 

Mr. Speaker : A political goal. 

*Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : Mr. Speaker, Sir, we now have these persons within the State which was created upon this basis, upon this foundation and these persons are likewise distinctive in region, culture and language in most respects except the commonness of humanity. Therefore the type of education that will be evolved in which we will have this University must be such as will cater to the special needs, special genius and varsity must  be such as will cater to the special needs, special genius and the character that the hills people have. Now when we come down to the practical terms, it becomes quite a problem. Mr. Speaker, Sir, for one thing there are so many aspects or our tribal life which today are not looked after by other Universities. So many aspects even from the weaving side, or musical side or artistic side or form social or special psychological side. In addition to language also there is certainly a need by which we can educate our youth along with those very lines and not created what we might call cocktail product, a mixture of this and that, a conglomeration of various things which are not distinctive. When we look around, we see failure of educational system today. I myself am supposed to be an educated man but I humbly submit I am not supposed to be an educated man but I humbly submit I am not an educated Khasi because in the true sense of the term, when I passed the B.A. (Hons.) in History securing first position in the Gauhati University I knew nothing about the history of the Khasis nor of the Garos nor of the Jaintias. It never was a part of the syllabus and further, though we have got a degree in Arts, I am not at all qualified to speak on Arts with authority on the arts of the tribal people because when I was being educated I was not educated as I should have been. I think that is the case with some of us as we sit here because our educational system is different. 

Mr. Speaker : May I remind that the idea behind this resolution is to have a University which will cater to the needs of the Youths of our State. 

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : I am coming to that, Mr. Speaker, Sir. 

Mr. Speaker : You have not intimated to me how many minutes more you will take?

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : Another 4 or 5 minutes, Sir. It is now clear that we shall have a type of university which will cater to those needs. Now Mr. Speaker, Sir, a Central University to be set up by an Act of Parliament and the Vice -Chancellor to be sent here under certain amount of control of Central Government poses quite a problem. For one thing, Mr. Speaker, Sir, though they say that a University is an autonomous body that its appointment  will be done freely and without constraint or persuasion from New Delhi or elsewhere, but as a matter of fact it does happen that those who exercise powers should influence the appointment of Vice -Chancellor and are also able to influence the appointment of professors and Heads of Departments and even the selection of syllabi. That is one argument against the basic principle of having a Central University. I was told by the Chief Minister that the present Minister of State for Education had a desire to create a type of university which would not be like any other Central Universities but would be of a new nature and which would look after our interest and certain amount of autonomy of its own. But if it is not going to be the case, we would like to have an assurance from the Chief Minister that our hills people would have the lest say in the affairs of such University; in the formulation of syllabi and in the appointment of Heads of Departments, in the running of the University or otherwise. It will not bring that special talent to cater to the special needs of our hills people. It will not bring that desired effect for which we are now sitting and labouring our minds over. Now, Mr. Speaker, Sir, let us leave this matter to the educationists who have been actually in the field of teaching day and night, even at night they give tuition. They have met together and submitted a Memorandum to the Education Minister and also to the Central Government laying down certain conditions. If these conditions are fulfilled, they would agree to the proposal to have a Central University and in their proposal, I may be allowed to read out one or two lines from the Memorandum on the proposed University submitted by Syngkhong Kyntiew Ri to the Education Minister of Meghalaya. Here after the preamble they have suggested, having taken some more for granted, that ultimately this University will cater more to the needs of our State than to the needs of other States because though they are included in the proposal they have not shown keen interest as participants of this University and so they have suggested that there should be a governing body as small as practicable with a maximum of 12 Members divided into the following groups with 3 literary personages to be nominated by the Government and it will be confined only to this State and if it is confined to other neighbouring Stases, I am sure it will be open to further suggestions that the Governments of those States also would nominate one literary person from the Hills tribal in that State. Then 5 teachers will be selected by the recognised Colleges 2 of whom must be tribal and one must be from each of the tribes and then 2 principals of affiliated colleges to be nominated by the principal of all affiliated colleges and one representative to be nominated by the  Government without any condition laid down. Now, I do not know whether this case will be acceptable by the treasury Bench but they are the conditions laid down by educationists and I would humbly submit that they are the people precisely who are aware of the needs and difficulties of our tribal people. 

Mr. Speaker : But you have not suggested any nomination from men of science and technology. 

*Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : I am coming to that in the later part but I don't want to take more time Mr. Speaker, Sir. If Khasi language is to be enriched and raised to the highest possible level certain subjects like music, fine arts and handicrafts should be incorporated in the present system of education. In this respect, there should be two types or two kinds of principles to be laid down; one is that it should have a job oriented syllabus and the other is on certain other suggestions which would take time to read but the basic fact is that education should be very strongly pressed. If we have a Central University in which all these conditions are fulfilled, I am sure even our Opposition friends here would give the whole - hearted support to this resolution even of course, after one grammatical mistake. 

Shri Hoover Hynniewta : Why don't you say it here now? (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker : What is that grammatical mistake?

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : That is parliamentary instead of Parliament may pass any legislation. So Mr. Speaker, Sir, may I humbly ask the Hon. Minister incharge of Industries and Education or the chief Minster to give us some assurance as to whether the hill people will have nay definite and controlling influence over the affairs of this University. 

Mr. Speaker : What do you mean, the  hill people of Meghalaya or of other neighbouring States also?

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : Well I mean for the hill people of Meghalaya and I am not speaking or I am not a person to speak on behalf of  the hill people of other States. 

Prof.  Alexander Warjri (Mawkhar S.T.) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to support the resolution moved by the Chief Minister relating to the establishment of the Indira Gandhi Hill University in the North Eastern region of India. In 1963, the tribal communities of Shillong gathered together at Seng Jingtip Hall and after long deliberations all of them came to a unanimous decision that the hill people, e. i., the tribal people of the hills need a University and accordingly, sent a memorandum copies of which were sent to the M.Ps. of this region. This memorandum was taken up by all the M.Ps. who also sent a representation to the Prime Minister, late Jawaharlal Nehru who forwarded the said representation to the U.G.C. As we have heard just now from the Chief Minister, the Wadia Commission came in December. In 1965 December the Assam Legislative Assembly passed the enabling resolution but unfortunately, the Nagaland Government reserved its opinion and did not pass any resolution otherwise by now, we would have had that Central Hill University. Prof. Narayan Majaw has just now said that at that time the Hills people moved for a Central University because there was no hope for the achievement of the Hill State. 

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : I said no concrete hope, there is no concrete hope and no hope. 

Prof. Alexander Warjri : It means all the same (Voice : No, no).

Mr.  Speaker : Hope is there. 

Prof. Alexander Warjri : Mr. Speaker, Sir, all of us who had taken part in the movement for a University were part and parcel in fighting for a Hill State including our friends in the Opposition and all of us had concrete hope for we fought vigorously for achieving a State. We were united at that time and Prof. Narayan Majaw was very much in the fore-front. 

Shri Hoover Hynniewta : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I may draw your kind attention to Rule 279 (ii) which says that : "it is desirable that as far as practicable the Member should not refer to by name but in some other suitable way'. For the Member who has just last spoken I think the words 'hon. Member from Mawhati' are enough, if it is unavoidable. The name should not be used to make safeguards for any intervention. And if the constituency is known , it should be described as 'the hon. Member from that constituency'.

Mr. Speaker : Sometimes the hon. Member also forgets and it is not undignified to refer by name. But it is better to avoid. 

Prof. Alexander Warjri : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I will try to avoid that. In October, 1971, when  the Education Minister of India announced the establishment of a Central University at Shillong I remember that myself and some other Professors, including our hon. Member from Mawlai attended the meeting at the St. Edmunds College, at which a statement was made by the Education Minister. No such protest was made against the establishment of the Hills University or against its nature. Then on 21st January 1972, the Chief Minister of Meghalaya announced that the Hill University. Then again, I come towards the end of 1972. A  big group of College Professors also approached Prof. G.G. Swell, Deputy Speaker, Lok Sabha, and the question centred round the proposed University and there that group of Professors expressed the fear that in this Central University in Meghalaya - for example, they  would not have any hand in the affairs of that University especially in the matter of control ; that the Central University actually will not serve the interests of the Hill people and cater to their needs and also in the mater of appointment especially the outsiders would have more chance. These were known pertinent questions put before the Hon'ble Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha. The Professors also said that they would also like that the tribals should have representations in the University Courts and in the Senate. Another fear expressed by them was especially that representatives from Nagaland, Tripura, NEFA and other States would have a majority over such Courts and Senate. They also gave arguments for and against the State University. Many of the arguments were also put forward i.e., control of appointments by the State and appointment of local talents and so on. Now, to have a State University is a welcomed thing but we have to consider this from the side especially that of finance. 

        Mr. Speaker, Sir, the question arises as to who will finance this State University? In our State, even administration is mainly financed by the Centre. Of course, there was a suggestion that the Centre can still do it and it would only  be a transfer of books of accounts. However you must remember that the University is not a department - not like the Public Works Department., the Education Department or the Health Department - it is something that goes on for a long time. If we are going to have a State University supported solely by the Centre, can we deny any say from the Centre.  This may go on from time to time perhaps for all time to come, as our State is financially backward.  Then also the question arises for the other newly created State in the North -eastern region. They also would demand the same thing and that would be a difficulty not only to the University but to the Centre as well. As the Deputy  Speaker of the Lok Sabha has pointed out on that day, many of these State Universities would welcome the taking over by the Centre, many of them are running into deficits- the Gauhati - Rs. 23 lakhs, Dibrugarh University, which has started just a few years back, Rs.13,000/- deficit and they have asked from the State for Rs. 20 lakhs as a  Reserve Fund. So Mr. Speaker, Sir, these Universities, especially our State University, would be a losing concern. Now, for the Central University, first of all, finance is there. But there are other things like buildings, ensured salary to those employed in the University. Any faculty could be opened at any time whenever necessary at once and the beset talents are available from all over the country and new lines of studies to cater to the needs of the people and according to their genius. These could be done only by a strongly financed Central University., We should not have a State University like other State University which are run according to the old system, which can produce only clerks and babus as the previous speakers had mentioned, but if we are to introduce new lines of studies, we have to have a Central University, If we are to do justice to our present generation and the future generations our University should be built on a strong footing and that also implies that it should have a strong financial back- up. 

        Just now it was mentioned about development of Fine Arts, Music, etc, which should be provided for the people. I quite agree to that but we need qualified experts and talented persons nor only for among us but especially from  outside even from a broad. Now, one thing we have to remember is this, that this University would have to be a special one not like other Universities all over India. Actually the University is meant for the people of Meghalaya and in view of the fact that a resolution is necessary to be passed by the Meghalaya Assembly, and that it is the concern specially for the people of Meghalaya, we can at once, take that the University is meant for us and that it is specially meant for the Hills people of Meghalaya. 

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : On a point of information, Mr. Speaker, Sir. This is being referred to this Assembly because it is required that the resolution is to be passed by the two State legislatures.

Shri Hoover Hynniewta : That is his conclusion. 

Prof. A. Warjri : In spite of a Central University being set  up I see that later on there will be no bar for the  State to set up its own State University. As I have said ours is a special problem, ours is a special case which needs special consideration and therefore, there should be special safeguards. So, I would request the Government of Meghalaya to instruct some persons who are going to Delhi as its representatives to attend in the drafting of the Bill to see that some safeguards should be provided. For example, the adequate representation should be given in the University courts and senate for the people of Meghalaya. If qualified persons are not available, even if we take them from outside it should be on  contract basis. So far as administrative and ministerial level is concerned we should give to the local people especially the people of Meghalaya. They will have a big say in this matter. I would give another suggestion that after a period of 5 or 7 years the major control of that University should go to the State of Meghalaya and even more than that, after 5 or 7 years this Indira  Gandhi Hill University should be considered as a major University,  a State University and therefore, there should be no difficulty of a major University being a State University. Lastly, the Government of Meghalaya should send promising young boys and girls to prepare themselves to take over from persons who had been appointed in this University on contract basis so that these boys and girls will qualify themselves and take the place of those persons who had completed their term by that time. 

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : I support the Resolution. 

        (At this stage the Speaker left the Chamber and the Deputy  Speaker took the Chair).

Prof. A.  Warjri : So, this is my request to the Government. 

Shri B. B.  Shallam (Jowai S.T.) : I would like to give my unqualified support to the Resolution moved by the Chief Minister. As Prof. Warjri had said we would like to have a State University. But considering our economic condition, it will be difficult for us to have our own State University. So, I feel that we should welcome a Central University as decided by the Government of India. As far as my knowledge goes, there is no bar for a State to have its own University. In some other States of India there are Central Universities and as the same time they have State Universities. Therefore, my humble appeal to all hon. members is to support the Resolution as moved by the Chief Minister. With these few words I resume my seat. 

Prof. Peter G. Marbaniang (Laitumkhrah) : Mr. Deputy  Speaker, Sir, while supporting the Resolution moved by the Hon. Chief Minister, I feel I must agree with Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw when he said that we should divorce all political considerations on this issue. At the same time I should say that this consideration must be adopted to the needs of the dynamic modern age in  which we live. It must look to the future rather than the past. I feel it is a big task before us. It is true that a State University would be welcome by all of us. But considering that our State is in  great financial difficulties as pointed out by Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw because it is a new State- hardly a few months old. To establish a State University we will have to get finance- a big amount of it. Therefore, taking this point into consideration, we must admit that a Central University will be the best University for us at the present stage. Also, Sir, we have many other facilities by accepting the Central University - facilities like visiting Professors from other Universities not only here in India but also outside our country. Just like Universities in Delhi or the Hindu Banaras University they have every year visiting Professors and these Professors help very much in the advancement of learning.  Also, Sir, when we talk about a University, we have to talk about the University which will not only look after our distinctive features but also help our boys and girls to meet the challenge of the present age. We should develop not only Arts, not only music but we should also see that our young boys and girls get the best teaching in Science. I feel that the Central University will be very much helpful to us because we will have at the command of the University personnel from  all over India good in Science, Technology and in other facilities. I agree, of course, that we must have safeguards- safeguards in the drafting of the Bill.  This should be very special for our University, not a Central University like those in the rest of India. After all our State has come in a unique way. Though we have a small population only about 10 lakhs, we have a State of our own. I feel, therefore, that in the drafting of the Bill of this University, we should see that there are special safeguards to help our people, to help us to be able to participate, to be able to have control in the affairs of the University and also what we should do is that we should immediately chalk our programmes to train the few Professors that we have now in our Colleges.  We should see that (At this stage the Deputy Speaker vacated the Chair for the Speaker) facilities are offered to train them up so that when the University comes they will be some of the persons to run the University. I do not think that, as it is no, we have anybody among us in the State of Meghalaya, who is fit enough to hold any post in this University. Sir, therefore, I request the Government that this plan of this programme should be followed up immediately so that we will have our own people while starting the Central University. I feel I must express here that, if we have a State University at this stage, we may not be able to run it properly. We can see the signs in different States where they have State Universities and where there are students' unrests and also different problems and demands by the students and also State politics creeping inside the management of the University. All these, I feel, we will be able to eliminate if we have a Central University at the present. But in future with special safeguards given, we will be able to take over or to have as major say in the management of this University. 

        With these few words, Sir, I resume my seat. 

Mr. Speaker : Mr. Jormanick Syiem. 

Shri Jormanick Syiem : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I also stand to support the resolution moved by the Hon'ble Chief Minister in the House today. As we have been blessed with the full State of Meghalaya we are fortunate that we are also going to have a University in this State which will be a real boon to our men and women promising scholars and researchers in future. It is a great boon to Meghalaya because the University is going to be located near about Shillong. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I hope that Meghalaya will have a very big say in the administration of that University. It is true that we would like to have a University of our own. But with the meagre resources that we have I do not think we are in a position to run our own University and besides that the Central University has other advantages It will provide the necessary paraphernalia, equipments and the staff. We can also have the advantage of getting the best teachers and scholars even from outside We may also expect educationists because that University is not going to be just for Meghalaya but it will be for most of the North- Eastern region of India. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I think we should not be over ambitious at the moment ; we should be prepared to accept what the Central Government is going to give us by starting a Central University for this region. As my previous speaker said, this University has got its own advantages over the State Universities which are at present in deficit. In so far as the proposed University is concerned the Central Government will see that the University functions in a proper way. There will be no dearth of funds, there will be no difficulty in getting the money required for the equipments and the members of the staff. I agree with the previous speaker that the Government should see that the interests of the people of Meghalaya are safeguarded if possible in the Bill itself. In any case their interests should also be safeguarded in giving them a proper place in the Senate and the University Court and in the administrative machinery of that University. As we are going to have the University in our own State. Mr. Speaker, Sir, in time we can get ready to take over the University which I believe the Central Government also will be prepared to hand over to the State when we are in a position to take it over. Till then, I feel we should be satisfied with what the Central Government is going to give us and let us train our young men and women, boys and girls to be prepared to take over the responsibility of running the University when we reach that stage when our State will be able to take over or start its own University. So, Mr. Speaker, Sir, this House should pass a resolution for enabling the setting up of the Central University and the Parliament should be allowed to pass the Bills for the establishment of this Central University by whatever name we may call it. To have of this Central University by whatever name we may call it. To have a University in our own areas. I do not see any objection whether it is the Indira  Gandhi University or any other name. Mr. Speaker, Sir, as I said before, I think the Central University which is going to be established in our areas will be a great boon to our people and I appeal to all hon. Member of this House to be unanimous on this question as the hon. Member from Mawhati said so as to enable the proposed Central University to function early probably from next July. with these few words Mr. Speaker, Sir, I support the resolution. 

Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh (Pariong S.T.) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to participate in the discussion on the subject matter of today's business of the House. i.e., the  Central University. I for one and many of the hon. Members have taken part some time during the movement to get a Central University  in this eastern region of the country and today the resolution is before the House placed by the Chief Minister. It is necessary to have a Central University in our State. In fact, other States in India also have their own University which has been established for giving education and also to shape the type of education for the people of the State. There are also Central Universities in other States of  India, for example, in West Bengal and U.P. and these Universities have grown up there because of the fact that the advancement in education has been very high and the concentration of population is much greater in comparison with  this corner part of the country. Our State is a newly born State and the need to get a University of our own as somebody had said is very difficult because of financial position of the State. This Central University will be entirely maintained or financed by the Central Government; so it is really very helpful to our State and also to the other States in this north-eastern region. As some Members have expressed we, the hill people, have got our own language, customs, genius and a way of life and so on and so forth. So if at all we  are to march ahead with the entire nation and the entire people of India we have to shape our standard of education  by means of having our won Central University  which will be sponsored and financed by the Central  Government. I hope that the management or the Court of the University itself or the Senate of the University will prepare the curriculum of the University by taking all these factor into consideration to suit the general interest o our hill people. But one thing which I would like to say before I give my support to the resolution is that the Government should see that the Central Government will take into account the interest of our people before bringing a legislation  on the establishment of the University. Government should have to give more weight to the people of the State so that our men also should be there in the matter of drafting of the bill. We consider that provisions for representation in the management from the States of this N.E. Region should be included in the proposed bill. The prospect and prosperity of that University depend much on the proper planning and organising of the structure and framework of the whole institution. 

        Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to get a clarification of some kind of assurance from the Chief Minister or the Government that at least things should be for out favour and to the interest of the people of the State in the matter of appointment of professors, in selection and framing of the syllabus for the University and at least adequate representation should be made for our  State and from the neighbouring States like Manipur, Tripura, Arunachal and so on. If we will be able to get adequate representation in the management of  the University, I hope that the University will be run according to our needs and to the interest of the people of the State as a whole. So, Mr. Speaker, Sir,  I support the resolution moved by the  Chief Minister before the House.  

Shri P.R. Kyndiah (Jaiaw S.T.) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am happy to stand up today to support this resolution which I think is long over due. The question of having a University in the Hill areas has had a long history. In fact, it has taken almost a decade to come to such a stage. But there is a blessing in disguise because it had  taken 9 years, and these 9 years have two or three factors to be considered. Firstly, we are here to discuss as a full- fledged State Assembly. Secondly, in the passage of time for the last 9 years there has been tremendous change in technology and science in the whole world today. For, whatever University we can have or establish has to be in tune with the present age. Nine years time today is not a small time, it is a big gap of achievement having brought about a big change in the country today. 

        Now, Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the hon. Member from Mawhati has pleased that this is a common issue or rather has a common objective and should not be viewed from the political eye. I think I quire agree with him in that.  Therefore, I would like to be as dispassionate as possible in approaching this question.  The main question before us today is whether we are to give clearance to Parliament to bring forward a bill for the creation of the University. This matter has become to simple that we cannot have ay string attached to it and whatever we can observe or whatever suggestion that we can think of, has to be in the form of a request or suggestion and observations. Therefore, as I have said today since this question of having a University is long over due, we have to give our clearance in a spirit of unanimity as far as possible. Therefore, I was much encouraged  by what the hon. Member from Pariong had stated that it is very necessary to have a State University of our own. I realise that a State University of our own is important but as someone has suggested there is no bar for us to establish a State  University in course of time.  

Mr. Speaker : Definitely, there is no bar. 

Shri P. Ripple Kyndiah : The need for a Central University is very much pertinent and I would like to make suggestion in this matter, as I am fully aware that whatever discussions we have today will also go  in the form of proceedings to the Parliament. In that context I feel that the Central University has to be technology- bias, it  has also to be science -bias. We are today confronted with the problem of agricultural backwardness, and so whatever type of University education that we contemplate has to be in tune with the needs of today. The need today is to produce students who will be able to grapple with the problem of daily life.   

Mr. Speaker : Before the hon. Member would proceed further, may I give some guide- lines. In the first instance, nobody from amongst the hon. Members is against the Central University and the majority of them have said, provided in so far as policy matter is concerned that in running the University, the State will  have great say. This is a point which will have to be discussed and secondly to confine to the University Education only in the field of literature, in the field of Arts, and also in the field of humanity.  Thus the need of the University is always dynamic, in tune with the ages. We should not go into the details of it because this is the spirit of the University itself, as one of the hon. Members had just spoken that the proceedings of this House will be sent to the Members of the Parliament and also to the Ministry of Education for their scrutiny and thorough study.

Shri P. Ripple Kyndiah : Mr. Speaker, Sir, with due regard to your observation on the role of the University, I would like to disagree on your particular observation that the spirit of University is dynamic. No less than the great teacher and the great educationist Dr. Radhakrishnan had the occasions to ay that the universities in India today, tend to be and ivory tower rather than service centre that is my concern. It is in that context Mr. Speaker, Sir, that I was trying to make the observation to the effect that the role of the University has to be dynamically changed. Also because of the fact that it will not be the concern of only Meghalaya alone but other neighbouring States. Therefore, I feel that the type of University that we would like to have is to be discussed in this House, and as you said, the proceedings of  this House will be examined by the Education Ministry had also by the Members in the Parliament. My personal feeling, Mr. Speaker, Sir, in this respect, is only that the concept of education needs to be changed an din that changed the subject of technology has to be a living force and a dynamic force. This Central University is to be equipped with all sorts of the facilities to get our boys, young men and women to go for the technical lines. We cannot live in this static manner. We have to go ahead. Secondly Sir, it is my firm conviction that the present system of education should be re-organised and will have to be equipped with all the essential facilities like importing up- to date technical knowledge to the students. Mr. Speaker, Sir, in this connection, I also feel that the Central University is to be more or less biased with the technology and Science studies. So far as study of History, Arts and Humanity is concerned, I feel that these subjects should also be taken up. The State University which is going to be established is due course may specialise in Arts subjects. Then again, Sir. we should also have our own syllabus for many languages of the State and also the study of the tribal culture should be given an emphasis in our own University. In this regard, I would like to recollect what Dr. Radhakrishna  had said and which has struck me so greatly when he said the about Universities in India. That they should be opened to all scholars, researchers from all over the world and they should be properly and modernly equipped. These are my few observations, Mr.  Speaker, Sir. A part from that I would also like to say that since this Central University is to be located at Shillong it is very much important and also necessary for us to have a big say in the management and control of the affairs of the University. With these few words, I resume my seat. 

*Shri Hoover Hynniewta (Nongkhlaw S.T.) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I make no pretension of being an educationist. So,  Sir, I feel very much indebted to the hon. member from Mawhati who has made masterly exposition of the causes of the University education in the hill areas and to what the Member from Mawkhar has contributed towards this understanding of the various issues at stake. My humble way of thinking Sir, is about the crux of the matter as to whether this University will be managed by the Hill Representatives. If we are satisfied with what Prof. Majaw has said that for high academic qualifications we could send our children to Gauhati or to Calcutta Universities or to other universities in this country. But as I said earlier by virtue  of my humble way of thinking, we have to get a university of our own which would cater to the needs of our people ant to our cultural interest. The University, if I may use the words of our great Prime Minister when she said, "Universities should have deep roots in the very way of life, in the very way of culture and in they very language of the State". Therefore, to m y mind, the most fundamental question is that whether the hills people be they form the State of Meghalaya, be they form  the State of Meghalaya, be they from Mikir Hills, be they from Mizo Hills or from Arunachal Pradesh, must have a say as to the shape of the University education, that our State of Meghalaya will take over the control and supervision from the Central Government, within a very short span of time. But since it is admitted to accept the line of approach on humility, I am drawing your kind attention to Article 252 clause, (2) which says like this 'Any Act so passed by Parliament may  be amended or repealed by an Act of Parliament passed or adopted in like  manner but shall not as respects any State to which if applies be amended or repealed by an act of the Legislature of that State. So, in my humble  way of understanding, there is the possibility of our State Government's taking over the Central University but at the same time, I must congratulate the drafter of this Resolution because in handing over this legislative item to the Parliament, they have put certain limits within which the Parliament makes laws allowing us also at the same time to start a University of our own. Therefore, this Assembly, here resolved to have set ups the Central University for the North Eastern Region of India. 

        It is not a wholesale transfer of the right or legislation with regard to University education to Parliament.  Therefore, enough safeguard has been made. But I may remind also the members of this House,  Sir, that it is not a matter of joke to have a University of our own. If mere wishing can fetch us a University, I think I wish as hard as anybody in this House that we should have a  State University at this very moment. But Sir, it is the question of finance, the most dangerous rock at which most of our hopes and ambitions used to be shipwrecked. So I do not know how long it would take before the financial resources of the State will allow us to embark upon the most desirable course of having a University of our own. But I do not see any hope in the foreseeable future when we shall have that financial strength which will be in tune with or determination and wish. Therefore, at the very outset when we are thinking of the Central University, it is our bounded duty to demand the  Central Government that we should have not only technology and science biased education but we must have also a hillman biased education. As I said Sir, at the very beginning I do not make any pretension of being an educationists but by birth, I have a fundamental pretension of being a tribal. So the question of being a tribal is  not so much of blood but it is more of thinking. Although, I think myself a tribal and I have also some blood to back up my thinking but then I will always be a hillman. For being a hillman, I am not ashamed of my culture, as I am not ashamed of my language, of my origin and I will always be happy as a hillman. I hope, as I have said yesterday, and I earnestly and fervently pray that this University will re- enforce this feeling of a hillman in our boys and girls for generations to come. I believe, Sir, everyone in this House will realise the danger that poses now- a -days is very much influenced by what is happening in Hollywood, America and Europe and if they are  very honest with us if wee ask them- suppose you are the victim of the law of Karma, where would you like to be  born? I am afraid Sir, that a majority of them would like to be born in Hollywood. (Laughter). So Sir, I feel with all the emphasis I have at y command that we have a right to expect of the Central University to cater to the basis fundamental requirements of the hillman and since the Central Government have given political and constitutional recognition of our rights of existence as a political unit in  India, may I hope Sir, that through this Central University they will given us the right to function to exist as hillman. I will continue to play the role of adding diversity to the great unity of our country.

Mr. Speaker : Mr. Maham Singh. 

Shri Maham Singh (Mawprem) : Mr. Speaker,  Sir, I also want to support this Resolution. I want to add, while supporting the Resolution, that we have to take into consideration the time factor. Time factor of starting a University as soon as possible is very important at present. We have got a State of our own, and as I have earlier said, it ye be very difficult for us to obtain admission for all our students in the Universities outside our State. A part from that we find at present all the other Universities in India as far as practicable are switching over to their own regional languages which becomes a great handicap for our  students to study in those Universities. Sir, in this resolution, we find that this University is contemplated because it had been the demand of the representatives of the hill areas of the North- Eastern India. Actually, according to the Resolution, it is in response to their demand that the Government of India have decided to set up this University. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am very happy that this University primarily is meant for all the hills people of the North - Eastern India. We want to have a closer understanding, with the other people of the hill areas of our region, we want to live together with them, we want to know each other's problems and difficulties, we want to help each other in order to be able to bring about a rapid development in the hill areas in the eastern frontier of India. Mr. Speaker, Sir, apart from having a closer understanding with these people by having this University, I feel that it is good for us because we will be able to have a broader outlook. This University will also have a wider sphere to operate and in education, I think we must have a broad outlook.

        Now it is also contained in the Resolution that the Central University will be set up to cater to the needs of the people of the hill areas of the North Eastern India. Many suggestion have been put forward by the hon. m embers as to who will have the say in this University and suggestions have been made that this University should look first to the interests of the hill people of the North- Eastern India. Now, Sir, according to the Resolution this University is to cater to the needs of the hills people of these areas. I have no doubt that the Government of India which has always been sympathetic to the minorities and especially the hills people that it will not go against the spirit of the Resolution and I am fully convinced that  in setting up the University of this areas, it will surely and primarily look into the interests of  these people and will also try as much as possible to cater first to the needs of the hills people of these areas. So, Mr. Speaker, Sir, as I have said earlier the time factor is very essential because we and the other hill people of our region are suffering at present under the same difficulties, in going to he other Universities of India.  The most important difficulty is the language because as far as practicable the other Universities are trying to switch over to their own regional languages. So Mr. Speaker, Sir, I will again lay stress that this University should be set up as soon as possible. If Government finds that  it will take time for setting up of this University, then Government should take steps to set up a University of its own as soon as possible. With regard to the site I believe that the site will be in Shillong or at least within Meghalaya State. 

Mr. Speaker : May I request the Chief Minister to reply to some points raised by the hon. Members?

*Capt. A. Williamson  A. Sangma (Chief Minister) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, though I am not feeling well yet since some of the hon. Members have raised some important points while supporting this resolution and as suggested by you, Sir, I am giving some indications with regard to the setting up of the Hill University for catering to the needs of the North- Eastern India.  As my colleague has already informed the House in regard to this resolution, I am not going  to read any more while supporting the resolution. In having a University of our own, the people of this State or the North Eastern Region as a whole should have as say  in this subject and I entirely agree with them. In course of the discussion in this House, information has been given that we will be a partner in all matters with regard to the factors to be introduced to this University and we will have to discuss bin detail the various suggestions given by the hon. Members and all their suggestions will be taken into account. In fact, even in drafting the Bill for setting up of this University we have been asked by the Government of India to send a representative to the meeting which will be held at the end of this month but the nominee of our Government, that is, as I may inform the House, the Principal of St. Anthony's  College, Fr A. Joseph, has been nominated to represent the  Government of Meghalaya and Fr. Joseph has regretted his inability to attend the meeting. So I have request the Minister of State for Education to postpone it, but I have heard it will be held some time between 9th and 10th of this month. I am also going to Delhi at that time along with my colleague and it will be possible for us to discuss many things  relating to this University as we have already advised Fr. Joseph who is going to represent us in the drafting of the Bill. It is the desire of the House that the Government of Meghalaya will take adequate measures to look into this matter. Well, I am not an educationist to deal with whatever faculties that are to be introduced in this new University. My opinion is that it should meet specially the needs of all the hill people of this State. As such, the suggestions put forward by the hon. Members will have their place. Under this University, schools of technology and engineering should be there to concentrate on chemical engineering with special reference to forest products and paper. This is also the thinking of the Minister of  State for Education and also the students who read science may take up and study geology and mineralogy, etc. The schools having science subjects will enable students studying sconce to concentrate on horticulture, forestry and agriculture and the schools having subjects like social science may enable them to take up the subject of study in social anthropology and particularly dialogues including folk-lore. This particular thinking is exhaustive but the Government's intention is that in the first instance, they are going to go in for the Bill to enable the Government of India to go ahead with the task of setting up of a Hill University. The details will be worked out and there is a proposal that as early as possible, an officer should be appointed to be attached to the Ministry of Education, Government of India and I have been asked to find our a suitable man to fill up the post of Vice- Chancellor of this University and I must express that I have been trying to find out such a suitable man in consultation with my colleagues as to whom to recommend to fill up that post. I am grateful to my colleagues who are in the Education Department who have given me suggestions in this connection. The person to fill up this post may be from our country or from another part of the country, who has got knowledge of history. I will just give an indication that we will be taken into confidence in running this University and I am sure that is the desire of the House as a whole.          

Shri Maham Singh : Mr. Speaker,  Sir, if the Government of India has considered the need in this region for a separate Hill State for our hill people, I have no doubt they will share the responsibilities in the matter of running this University which will be valuable for us. 

Capt. Williamson A. Sangma (Chief Minister) : Mr.  Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member from Mawprem has said. 

Mr.  Speaker : May I know from the Chief Minister how many minutes more you require? May I have the opinion of the House that we will continue this morning till the Chief Minister finished his reply?

(Voices - 'yes')

Capt. Williamson A. Sangma (Chief Minister) : The hon. Member from Mawprem suggested that the time factor is essential for this University  to be set up and as hon. Members may recall the announcement of the then Minister of Education. Mr. S. Ray, who is now  Chief Minister of West Bengal, that this University will start functioning from the next academic year and that is from July and with regard to the location also Mr. Maham Singh has suggested that is should be in Meghalaya near Shillong, we will find out a suitable place for it. 

        In course of the discussion there is a suggestion that a small committee consisting of the  Secretary, University Grants Commission, the Adviser, University Education and the representatives from the Government of Meghalaya may be set up to work out details about setting up of this University. Therefore, I would like to impress upon all the Members of the House that there are enough indications that this particular State will have adequate say in all these matters and I would like to remove any apprehension that our State or Government will have no say in the matter. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am happy that all the hon. Members are supporting the resolution for setting up a University and, I am sure, this University will go a long way to meet the special requirements of the State of Meghalaya and those of other  States in the North -Eastern Region.

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw (Mawhati S.T.) : Mr. Speaker,  Sir, in view of the assurance given by the Chief Minister I would like to refer to the remarks made by Mr. Hynniewta. May I know from the Chief Minister whether any particular site has been selected?

Mr. Speaker : The site has yet to be selected. 

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : Mr. Speaker, Sir, in view of the assurance given by the Chief Minister on this and in view of the suggestions put forward by us, we of the United Independent Party are prepared to support the resolution. 

(Applause from all sides of the House)

Mr. Speaker : Even after the hon. Members have supported the resolution, yet I have to put the resolution in the form of a question.  The question is that whereas in response to the demand of the Representatives in Parliament of the Hill  areas of North East India, the Government of India have decided to set up a central University to cater to the needs of the people of thee Hills Areas of North - Eastern India; and it is expedient that necessary legislation in this regard is passed by Parliament and ; 

        Whereas the subject "Education including Universities" fall within Entry 11 of List II State List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and, as such a resolution is necessary by Legislatures of two or more states as provided in Clause (i) of Article 252 of the Constitution of India to empower Parliament to legislate on this subject, and 

        Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Assam has already passed such a resolution;

        Now, therefore, this Assembly hereby resolves that for setting up on a Central University for the North-Eastern Region of India the Parliament may pass the requisite legislation. 

(The resolution was adopted)

Mr. Speaker : The  House stands adjourned till 5 minutes past two in the afternoon. 

        The Assembly met at 2.05. p.m., with the Speaker in the Chair.

Prevention of Disqualification (Members of the Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya) Bill, 1972. 

Mr. Speaker : On behalf of the Chief Minister, may I request the Finance Minister to move that the Prevention of Disqualification (Members of the Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya) (Amendment Bill), 1972, be taken into consideration.

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) : I beg to move that the Prevention of Disqualification (Members of  the Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya) (Amendment) Bill, 1972, be taken into consideration. 

Mr. Speaker : Motion moved. But I have received the amendment on the schedule from the hon. Member Shri D. Dethwelson Lapang. May I request the hon. Member to move the amendment. 

*Shri D. Dethwelson Lapang (Nongpoh S.T.) : I beg to  move that in item 5 of the Schedule of the Bills, after the words "Educational Institutions" at the end the "full stop" shall be deleted and the words "and the office of a full time Professor, Lecturer, Instructor of Teacher in Government aided educational institutions" shall be added thereafter. 

        Mr. Speaker, Sir, in this regard we are grateful that the Bill is given privileges to the Professors, Lecturers, Instructors and Teachers serving in Government aided educational institutions; whereas I do not see any reason  why people serving in educational institutions should be deprived of the right of contesting in the elections. As it appears the Government are restricting the people serving in these institutions. Mr. Speaker,  Sir, in my opinion the insertion of the amendment is essential in the Bill. 

Mr. Speaker : Will Finance Minister reply ?

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) : This amendment is outside the scope of this Bill. We are only concerned with disqualifications of certain persons from standing in the elections. The amendment relates to full-time Professors, Lecturers, Instructors and Teachers serving in Government aided institutions. These persons are allowed by Article 191 of the  Constitution, only those otherwise disqualified by the Constitution. In fact, this Bills seeks to remove these disqualifications. These persons are not disqualified by the Constitution and by Parliament or Legislatures. the question of removal of these disqualifications does not arise and this amendment is outside the scope of this Bill. 

Shri D. Dethwelson Lapang : This amendment is moved on the practical field. That some teachers serving in the Government aided schools have to resign or give up their jobs for contesting the elections. 

Mr. Speaker : May I draw the attention of the hon. Member that the question raised by him is irrelevant in so far as full- time Professors, Instructors and Teachers in aided Colleges and High Schools are concerned.  They are not being disqualified by this Bill even if it is passed into an Act. Perhaps they have been prevented from contesting the elections  by departmental rules and not by the Act. I  do not understand whether the hon. Member understands that this particular amendment is irrelevant in so far as this Bill is concerned. Are you willing to withdraw your amendment, Mr. Lapang?

Shri Hoover Hynniewta (Nongkhlaw S.T.) : There is no more scope for a Member to withdraw. It is outside the scope of this Bill and logical steps are necessary to rule it out of order. 

Mr. Speaker : I asked the hon. Member to withdraw other wise every thing said in the amendment is out of order. 

        As there is no other amendment to this Bills I now put the question before the House. 

        The question is that Clause (2) and Clause (3) of the Prevention of Disqualification (Members of the Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya, Bill, 1972, do form part of the Bill. 

(After a pause) 

        The motion is adopted. Clauses (2) and (3) do form part of the Bill. 

        I now put the question before the House. That the Scheduled do form part of the Bill. 

(After a pause) 

        The motion is adopted. The Scheduled do form part of the Bill. 

        Now the third question is that Clause (1), the Enacting Formula the Preamble and the Title of the Bill do stand part of the Bill. 

        The motion is carried. Clause (1), he Enacting Formula the Preamble and the Title of the Bill do stand part of the Bill. 

        I now request the Chief Minister to move that the Prevention of  Disqualification (Members of the Legislative assembly of Meghalaya) Bill, 1972, be passed. 

Shri Williamson A. Sangma (Chief Minister) : My colleague will move it. 

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Prevention of Disqualification (Members of the Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya) Bill, 1972, as amended  be passed. The motion is carried.  The Bill is passed. 

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. I put the question before the House. The question is that the Prevention of Disqualification (Member of the Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya) Bill, 1972, as amended be passed. The motion is carried. The Bill is passed.

        Now let us come to item No.3. Before I request the Finance Minister to move that the Meghalaya (Ministers' Salaries and Allowances) Bill, 1972, be taken into consideration. Let me read a message from the Governor.

"RAJ BHAVAN,

Shillong.

The 4th March, 1972.

        In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (3) of Article 207 of the Constitution of India, I , Braj Kumar Nehru, Governor of Meghalaya, hereby recommend to the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly, the consideration of the Meghalaya (Ministers' Salaries and Allowances) Bill, 1972. 

B.K. NEHRU

Governor of Meghalaya".

The Meghalaya (Minister's Salaries and Allowances) Bill, 1972. 

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Finance Minister) : Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya (Ministers' Salaries and Allowances) Bill, 1972, be taken into consideration. 

Mr. Speaker : Motion moved. Now let me put the question before. The question is that the House, the Meghalaya (Minister's Salaries and Allowances) Bill, 1972, be taken into consideration.  The Motion is carried. 

        Now let us come to the consideration clause by clause. I have received only one amendment to Clause (2) from Mr. D.D. Lapang Mr. Lapang are you moving your amendment? 

Shri D. Dethwelson Lapang : Mr. Speaker, Sir with your kind permission, I beg to move that in item (b) of  Clause 2 of the Bill, for the words "rupees one thousand two hundred and fifty" the words "rupees one thousand one hundred and seventy- five" shall be substituted. Sir, in this regard, I would like to say that I do not grudge the Hon'ble Ministers getting a pay of  Rs. 1250 per mensem. But it is not clear to me and what I fail to understand is that whereas the pay of the Chief Minister's is Rs. 1,500 per mensem the ratio being Rs. 250 between the Chief Minister's pay and the Cabinet Minister's pay. Whereas the pay of the Minister of State is Rs. 850, the difference between the pay of the Minister of State and that of the  Cabinet Minister is Rs. 400. I do not understand on what basis such a difference took place while fixing the salaries of the chief Minister, the Cabinet Ministers and the Ministers of State. Mr. Speaker, Sir, in view of the fact that this Bill does not meet proper justice in regard to the ration between these three categories of pay, I do not see whey this amendment should not be inserted in the Bill.

*Shri P. Ripple Kyndiah : Mr. Speaker, Sir, while I rise to oppose the amendment moved by the hon. Member from Nongpoh, I would only like to say that it appears from his own remarks that it is not his intention to grudge the Ministers getting Rs.1250 per mensem. My point which I would like to put before the House is that the cut contemplated is only Rs. 75 from Rs. 1250 to Rs.1175 p.m which comes to about 6 per cent only. It is a very small percentage indeed. From the fact that the cut is only 75 rupees. It goes to how that the intention of the mover of the amendment is only a nominal cut and possibly as he has just said, it is only on the basis of ratio. But I must submit that the salaries that have been fixed for our Ministers  are more or less on the pattern that have been fixed in  Gujarat and Nagaland where the ration between the Minister, and the Speaker is the same. Therefore, if it is only on the ratio element, I do not think there is much justification to reduce the salary from Rs. 1250 to Rs. 1175. I would have agreed if the amount had been if a substantial nature. Then we would have gone into the full length of the discussion of the whole case. Therefore, to my mind, I feel that status quo is to be maintained. This is tune with what has been done in the previous Assembly and also in tune with what is being done in other States. Sir, these are my views which I have before the House. 

*Shri Blooming Shallam (Jowai S.T.) : Sir, I rises to oppose the amendment because I do  not see any reason whatsoever in moving this amendment.  So, my humble request to the hon. Member who has moved the amendment to please withdraw it because it does not give much sense to make such an amendment. 

*Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : Sir, I rise to support the amendment in view of the fact that what the hon. Member, Mr. Lapang is intending to do is to rationalise the scale and he had reason for rationalise the scale and he had reason  for rationalisation of the scale. The difference between the salary of the  Chief Minister and that of the Minister of State is Rs. 650 per mensem. Mr. Lapang gave Rs. 325 in both the gaps so that between the Chief Minister's salary and that of the Cabinet Minister the difference would be Rs.325 and the difference between that of the Cabinet Minister and the Minister of State in respect of salary would also be Rs. 325. These are the reasons for rationalisation moved by the hon. Member from Nongpoh.

Mr. Speaker : Will Minister, Finance reply ?

*Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh, (Minister,  Finance) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendment, whatever may be the reason, is not enough for acceptance by this House. If the hon. Member will look to the scales of pay of Ministers, Ministers of State,  Speaker,  Deputy Speaker, and Members and so on in other States  and also officers of various departments, he will find that there is no such thing or that sort of rationalisation. at the same  time, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would submit that as the  two Members have suggested that we maintain the status quo because any modification in any way will have its effect, we will have to delete almost in every part. Therefore, I would request and appeal to the hon. Member not to insist on this amendment. Let us wait till we have more experience of our difficulties, our duties and our functions and our rights. Perhaps at some other time this House may have an occasion to modify, if necessity arises. For the present I would request that we be allowed to maintain the status quo as promulgated more than two  months ago. 

Shri D. Dethwelson Lapang : Of course, we do not mind. That little amount is negligible. This should not be done now. The Finance Minister has given the clarification that the status quo will be maintained and that should be done for a few months. I see that it is rather reasonable. So I withdraw the amendment proposed by me. 

Mr. Speaker : Has the hon. Member leave of the House to withdraw the amendment?

(Voices... yes, yes)

        The amendment is with leave of the House withdrawn. 

        So I put the question

        The question is that  Clause 2 do form part of the Bill. 

(The motion was adopted).

        Clause 2 do form part of the Bill. 

        There are no amendments to Clauses 3 and 4.  So I put the question before the House. The question is  that Clauses 3 and 4 do form part of the Bill.

    (The motion was adopted).

        Clauses 3 and 4 do form part of the Bill. 

        Now, in Clause 5, there is one amendment which I have received from Prof. Majaw. Will the hon. Member move the amendment ?

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : Mr.  Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the following amendment. That in Clause 5 in place of the words "The Government may provide" appearing in the first line, the words "The Government shall provide" shall be substituted. Now my reason for justifying this substitution is to remove a very humorous contradiction which I will try to explain as briefly as possible. If you kindly look to Clause 5, which reads as follows - "The Government may provide for the use of the Chief Minister, other Ministers or Ministers of State a suitable conveyance etc." Now the word "may provide". Let us take  the cases of Government not providing, since the work used is "may". It may provide or may not provide. Suppose, we take a case of Government not providing a vehicle to the  Chief Minister and then the  Chief Minister resigns. He did not get the car from the Government. But now, according to Clause 7, I hope the Hon'ble Ministers are listening to my argument. According to Clause 5, suppose we take a case of a car having been provided to the Chief Minister and then the Chief Minister resigns and he is no longer in officer for a certain period, then he did not get a car from the Government. But in Clause 7, the Chief Minister, other Ministers or Ministers of State shall continue to be entitled to the privilege of the use of the free furnished residence to be entitled to the privilege of the use of the free furnished residence and Government conveyance on ceasing to hold the office for a period not exceeding one month. Although he did not get a car, he can immediately demand a car for one month and the Chief Minister shall continue to be entitled to the privilege of a free furnished residence and the same will apply to other Ministers as well. If they have not been given a car, the moment they resign, they can demand a car. So, to remove this inconsistency, I have suggested an amendment. On the other hand, suppose, there is an objection to my amendment that "The Government shall provide" in Clause 5, it will be in contradiction to the proviso. The proviso governs that clause " The Government shall provide" etc. But if the word "shall" is inserted, there will be no contradiction between the main clause and the proviso and this is the reason why I have suggested substitution by the word "shall".

Mr. Speaker : Minister, Finance to reply. 

*Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) : Sir, the hon. Member had suggested this amendment, as he said to avoid a humorous anomaly. As hills people are said to have a sense of good humour, if it is just a humorous anomaly, perhaps we will not deny this humour for a period of one month. However, as the language goes, the proposed amendment is nor warranted here. The word "may" should be there because there is likely and eventuality that the Chief Minister or a Minister may choose to maintain his own car. So the word "shall" will be anomalous. In case the Minster does not choose to maintain his own car, then it becomes incumbent of the Government to provide a car. Then under clause 7, the chief Minister, other Ministers or Ministers of State shall continue to be entitled to the privilege of the use of the free furnished residence and Government conveyance on ceasing to hold office on such and such period nor exceeding one month subject to the condition prescribed. So the word "shall" here is mandatory that is, it should be there and it should not leave any distinction, to deny or give the privilege of using a furnished house. The Government car is being provided under the provision of clause 5.  This word "continue" means after he has been given a car. Under clause 5, when the Minister has been given or provided  with a car, he shall continue to be entitled for its use. It refers that a particular Minister has his own choice whether he should be provided with furnished residence or a conveyances by the Government. Therefore the words "shall continue" mean that he has already got a car and shall continue to use it and not that he shall have it. Therefore, I would request the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment which is not very necessary and at the same time that will create more confusion.  

*Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : Mr. Speaker, Sir, both the arguments of the Minister do not hold good for certain reasons. In the first case probably he failed to listen to the arguments I had given. For the use of the word "shall" the Government shall provide a mandatory clause. There is no contradiction if the word "shall" is used there if the proviso governs "shall" also. In clause 7, the word "continue" carries two meanings. It means "shall continue" to entitle in the choice of right to have and it means also the choice to continue to have physically in possession of the car. I submit that the meaning of the word "continue" here is to continue to entitle to a right. 

*Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, the word "shall" that the hon. Member from Mawhati proposed to introduce there relates more or less to the relevant proviso provided of the Minister chooses and again the word "may" has to be put in the proviso,  Therefore if we use the word "shall" this proviso will become meaningless and the Minister will have the option to use his own car. It is only because of that proviso the word "may" is used to give room for the Minister to use his own car. It directly relates to the proviso of clause 5. In any case the word "may" should not be changed to the word "shall" and I request the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.  

*Shri Hoover Hynniewta : Mr. Speaker,  Sir, I entirely agree with the Finance Minister that regardless of the existence of the word "shall" or the word "may", the meaning will be more or less the same. But what I fail to understand Mr. Speaker, Sir, is the argument  put forward by the Finance Minister that if the word "shall" is included in the clause then it will be inconsistent with the proviso. This "to my mind" is a queer argument and in order to illustrate substantially my point Mr. Speaker, Sir, you may go to Articles of the Constitution when the word "shall" has been used in substantive clause and subsequent proviso has caused restriction to the right or provision of the main clause. Now I draw your attention Mr. Speaker,  Sir, to Article 148 clause (3) which says "the salary and other condition" of service of the Comptroller and Auditor General  shall be such as may be determined shall be as specified in the Second Schedule. Provided that neither the salary of the Comptroller and  Auditor General nor his rights in respect of leave of absence, pension or age of retirement shall be varied to his advantage after his appointment". Here the word "shall" is being limited by the proviso. So it is not very relevant point at issue. Therefore the vital question is that when the word "shall " is used the proviso cannot be incorporated in that clause and it will be a sad commentary on the legislative ability of the Members of this House. 

*Shri Edwinson Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) : It is there in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business that even after the Minister has given a reply we can make a discussion. 

Shri Hoover Hynniewta (Nongkhlaw S.T.) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is too late now. 

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member from Nongkhlaw has quoted Article 148, clause 3. "The salary and other conditions of service of the Comptroller and Auditor General shall be such as  may be determined by Parliament by Law and until they are so determined shall be as specified in the Second Schedule". The word "shall" be determined by law of the proviso is independent of the word "shall" there. "Provided that neither the salary of the Comptroller and  Auditor General nor his rights in respect of leave of absence, pension or age of retirement shall be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. The word "shall" here is independent of the word "shall" there. It is not linked with the proviso. Here in clause 5 of the proviso the relevant word "may" relates directly to the proviso that a Minister may use Government car. The word "shall relates directly to the proviso that it should be determined according to law or according to schedule that his pay will be Rs.1,000 or shall be varied to his advantage, from Rs.1,000 may be increased to Rs. 2,000. 

        But it is mandatory that no variation should be to his disadvantage. So the word "shall" is quite independent of the word "shall" in the general  clause. In any case again to put the word "shall" there then the proviso shall have to introduce the word "shall" provided if a Minister chooses to maintain his own car, shall not be entitled, but shall be entitled to a conveyance allowances of rupees three hundred per mensem." Otherwise he will use both the car and the allowance. Therefore, it is not necessary to introduce the word "shall" here, as the word may be left to the discretion of the Government and the good sense of the Ministers and the persons concerned. I, therefore request the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment. 

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : Mr. Speaker, Sir, in view of the explanation and the most earnest plea made by the Finance Minister that every one should show good sense, but as both good sense and humour go together, I withdraw my amendment. 

Mr. Speaker : Has the hon. Member leave of the House to withdraw his amendment?

(Voices- yes, yes)

        The amendment is by leave of the House withdrawn, I put the question before the House. The question is that clause 5 do form part of the Bill. 

        The motion is adopted, clause 5 do form part of the Bill. 

        There are no amendments to clauses 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. I put the question before the House that clauses 6 to 11 do form part of the Bill. 

        The question is carried. Clauses 6 to 11 do form part of the Bill. 

        I put another question that Clauses 1, the Enacting Formula, Preamble and the Title of the Bill do form part of the Bill.

        The motion is adopted. Clauses I , the Enacting Formula, the Preamble and the Title do form part of the Bill. 

        May I request the Finance Minister to move that the Meghalaya (Ministers' Salaries and Allowances) Bill, 1972, be passed?

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya (Ministers' Salaries and Allowances) Bill, 1972 be passed. 

Mr. Speaker : Motion moved.  The question is that the Meghalaya (Ministers' Salaries and Allowances) Bill, 1972, be passed. The motion is adopted and the Bill is passed. 

        Before we go to  the next item of today's list of business, I would like to explain to the House that is has been a convention that in order not to embarrass the Members present here and since the bill to be introduced relates both to the Speaker and  Deputy Speaker, I would request Mr. Kyndiah' Chairman to take the Chair. 

        (Mr. Chairman in the Chair) 

Mr. Chairman : Before we go to item 4, I would like to read a message from the Governor. 

RAJ BHAVAN 

Shillong

The 24th March, 1972. 

        In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (3) of Article 207 of the  Constitution of India, I, Braj Kumar Nehru, Governor of Meghalaya, herby recommend to the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly the consideration of the Meghalaya (Speaker's and Deputy Speaker' Salaries and Allowances) Bill, 1972. 

Sd/- BRAJ KUMAR NEHRU 

Governor of Meghalaya."

        I now request the Finance Minister to move that the Meghalaya (Speaker's and Deputy Speaker' Salaries and Allowances) Bill, 1972, by taken into consideration. 

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) : Mr. Chairman,  Sir, I beg leave to move that the Meghalaya (Speaker's and Deputy Speaker' Salaries and Allowances) Bill, 1972 be taken  into consideration. 

Mr.  Chairman : Motion moved. 

        Now I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya (Speaker's and Deputy Speaker' Salaries and Allowances) Bill, 1972, be taken into consideration. 

        There is an amendment to clause 2 to be moved by Mr. D. Dethwelson Lapang.

*Shri D. Dethwelson Lapang : Mr. Chairman, Sir, with your kind permission, I beg to  move that in clause 2 of the Bill for the words "rupees one thousand two hundred and fifty" appearing in the third line, the words "rupees eight hundred and fifty" appearing  in the fourth and the fifth line, the words "one thousand" shall be substituted. In this regard, Mr. Chairman, Sir, in my opinion, the office of the Speaker is the highest authority in the House and he commands the respect and upholds the dignity of the whole House. Therefore, I feel that there should be a differential treatment to him by not leveling him with the Ministers of the  State, as far as salary is concerned. As far as salary of the Speaker is concerned, his salary should not be made equal to that of the Ministers at Rs. 1250 and the Deputy  Speaker, equal to that of the Minister of State at Rs. 850. To be in consonance with the dignity and authority of the House, the salary of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker should be revised and made higher than that of the Ministers and Ministers of  State respectively. I, therefore do not see any reason why this amendment should not be inserted in the Bill. 

*Prof Martin Narayan Majaw : Mr. Chairman, Sir, I rise to support the amendment and I would make one or two observations. First of all although the Speaker has been given the status or salary of a Cabinet Minister with some allowances, he is unable to utilise this allowance as the Minister can. For example, when a Minister has to tour a great deal and go around a lot, the Speaker may not of course, tour a lot because the exigencies of his duties do not carry more places of his touring like that of the Minister. But here in this House, the  Speaker is a person even higher than the Chief Minister and he has the power to name anybody : he has the power to throw out even the Chief Minister (laughter) according to the Rules of Procedure and  Conduct of Business here in the House and so in keeping with the dignity of his very high office, I would support this amendment that the salary of the Speaker should be Rs. 1,500 p.m. and if that is accepted, then proportionately the salary of the Deputy Speaker should be realised also to Rs. 1,000 p.m.

*Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) : Mr. Chairman, Sir, I would like to enter into a liberal reasoning that has been advanced by the hon. Member from Nongpoh and Mawhati. I think it will be sufficient to make the mover withdraw on this simple plea that it has been a pattern adopted though out this country in respect of pay and allowances for the Speaker of the House either in Assembly or Parliament. So far as the salary of the Minister is concerned, it cannot be changed here as I have said and so we are not to wait this and when occasion arises the rules should be modified altogether so that we will fall in line with other States in the country as a whole. So in this plea of establishing a pattern it is not possible for our States which is two months old only without having any experience to bring in this change that is really to be introduced all over the country. I would plead again that the mover may kindly withdraw his amendment for the present. Now that we have got more time to discuss whether this State should take a lead in this or that aspect, we are very much dependent on the normal expenditures, which are very much dependent on the Centre and as our resources are very limited, are we to take the lead in the direction of increasing our expenditure rather than increasing our income? This may not look good at all at this stage so soon and so I would suggest that we should fall in line with the established pattern for some time. if the hon. Members are very serious after considering all these aspects that we should take a lead in this direction or other, we may have more consultation before we bring it to this House. I would, therefore, request again at this juncture that we should accept this pattern for the present.

Mr. Chairman : In this very important matter it is expected of us that we should come to a certain conclusion unanimously and without much controversy that is befitting to legislators. The suggestions given by the Finance Minister to have consultations before taking this matter to this House are valuable. How can we discuss unless we are getting the opinion of the mover who just likes to make his observation with out taking into consideration the importance of keeping the dignity of the House. So I just like to pass this observation. 

Shri D. Dethwelson Lapang (Nongpoh S.T.) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, in view of these assurances given by the Hon'ble Finance Minister, I withdraw my amendment. 

        The amendment is with leave of the House withdrawn. 

Mr. Chairman : Has the mover leave of the House to withdraw the amendment? (Voices : yes, yes) Now I take Clauses 2, 3, and 4 and I put the question before the House. The question is that Clauses 2, 3 and 4 do form part of the Bill. 

         The motion is adopted, Clauses 2,3 and 4 do form part of the Bill. 

         I Now request Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw to move his amendment to Clause 5. 

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : Mr. Chairman, Sir, it was with a depth of earnestness that the Finance Minister's request has stretched to this particular Bill also that I, on he same ground, withdraw my amendment. (Laughter).

        The amendment is with leave of the House withdrawn. 

Mr. Chairman : Has the mover the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment? (Voices : yes) Now I take Clauses 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and I put the question before the House. The question is that Clauses 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, do form part of the Bill.

        (The motion was adopted)

        So Clauses 5,6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 do now form part of the Bill. 

Mr. Chairman : I put the question that Clause I, the Enacting Formula, the Preamble and the Title do form part of the Bill. 

        The motion is adopted. So Clauses I, the Enacting Formula, the Preamble and the Title do form part of the Bill. 

        Now I request the Finance Minister to move that the Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya (Speaker's and Deputy Speaker's Salaries and Allowances) Bill 19723, be passed. 

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) : Mr.  Chairman, Sir, I beg to move that the Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya (Speaker's and Deputy Speaker's Salaries and Allowances) Bill 19723, be passed. 

        (At this stage, Shri P. Ripple Kyndiah vacated the Chair for the Speaker).

Mr. Speaker : Motion moved. The question is that the Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya (Speaker's and Deputy Speaker's Salaries and Allowances) Bill 19723, be passed. The motion is adopted.  The Bill is passed. 

        Let us come to item No. 5 of today's List of Business. Before I request the Finance Minister to move that the Bill be taken into consideration, let me read the message from the Governor :

        "In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (3) of Article 207 of the Constitution of India, I , Braj Kumar Nehru, Governor of Meghalaya, hereby recommend to the Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya the consideration of the Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya (Members Salaries and  Allowances) Bill, 1972. 

RAJ BHAVAN , 

BRAJ KUMAR NEHRU, 

Shillong :

Governor of Meghalaya."

The 24th March, 1972. 

        Now let me request the Finance Minister to move that the Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya (Members Salaries and Allowances) Bill, 1972, be taken into consideration. 

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya (Members Salaries and  Allowances) Bill, 1972, be taken into consideration. 

Mr. Speaker : Motion moved. As there is no amendment to clause 2, may I put the question before the House that Clause 2 will form part of the Bill. The question is that Clause 2 do form part of the Bill.  The motion is adopted. Clause 2 do form part of the Bill. 

        Now Clause 3.  There is one amendment  to be move by Prof. Majaw. Will the hon. Member move the amendment?

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : Mr. Speaker, Sir, we do not know if it will be possible for us to take part in this Bill in view of what you have graciously done while discussing your salary......(Laughter).

Mr. Speaker : The only difference is that you can very well participate but the Speaker cannot participate. 

*Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I fully realise that. I beg to move that in Clause 3 of the Bill, for the words, "rupees three hundred and fifty" appearing in the third line, the words 'rupees five hundred" shall be substituted. Mr. Speaker,  Sir, I have got two or three arguments in favour of this amendment. Although it may seem that we are trying to appropriate or misappropriate the financial resources of the country but since all of us have been elected to this House with a solemn promise given to the public that we shall work very hard of each one of them, the poorest, the most naked, the most illiterate of them and so on.  This is a new State where somewhere a beginning must take place. I have thought it wise to propose a slight increase of Rs. 150 in the salary of Rs. 350 is not in keeping with the dignity of the Members of the Legislative Assembly and if we are to look from a pecuniary point of view and since none of us has come to this House in order to make profit, a change of profession from other professions to of M.L.A. would be a dead loss. But none of us has come to this very high dignity with any profit making motive, but with a sole intention of working hard for the people. This State has got special problems of its own. In the beginning State of Assam they have railways, steamer service, best roads and also air- ways but here in our State there are no railways, no steamer, though railways may come later to hill areas, even the state- transport service is limited. In most of the areas we have to travel by cars and jeeps or some other means of transport. The most expensive being walking which threatens the health and wears off the mind. The price of leather, Mr. Speaker, Sir, is higher in this State than in many other parts of India - for resoling and buying new shoes (Laughter). This is because of the amount of walking which is sincerely done by the M.L.As. Of course it has been complained by the public that Members of this House rarely visited their Constituencies. I am sure those of us who are here today are wiling to visit the Constituency if not once a month, at least once in two or three months and  thereby ensure that we will gather here again as happy folks after the next five years. I am sure the public will forgive us for giving self- indulgence to appropriate or re- appropriate to ourselves from the public exchequer a slight increase of Rs. 150 provided we promise to give 150 times of devotion to the public. - (Laughter).

Shri Blooming Shallam (Jowai S.T.) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to clarify the hon. Member. A slight increase of Rs. 150 when it is calculated will work out to 43 per cent increase.

*Shri Darwin D. Pugh (Nongshken S.T.) : I rise to oppose the proposed amendment and before I do that, would like to read out the relevant Clause. In Clause 3, it is stated that "there shall be paid to mensem" and the amount proposed seeks to enhance the salary of the M.L.As. by Rs. 150 per mensem and since I am not as good in arithmetic as some of the Members here might be I have not been able to calculate how much by this increase of Rs. 150 per mensem it will amount to in five years' time. On account of the majority of the Members of this august House, because there are only four Ministers, one Chief Minister, one Speaker and one Deputy Speaker, barring these 7 and the rest are said to be benefited by this proposed amendment and at the rate of Rs. 150 per mensem, it will work out to a certain sum at the end of 5 years. I oppose the amendment, Mr. Speaker,  Sir, on  ground No.1. We are an infant State, we are not yet able to develop, I may say we are a deficit State, Mr. Speaker, Sir. I have not seen any budget estimate in the current financial year, 1972-73. But one does not have to go into the details of the budget estimates. One is only to have a general knowledge of the conditions existing in our State, which, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I for one, claim to have and I believe every single hon. Member of this august House has the general knowledge about the conditions of this infant State. This is an infant and deficit State. Now, I will come to ground No.2, Mr. Speaker, Sir, by which I want to oppose the proposed amendment. That the very nature of the argument put forward in this House during  the last 5 or 7 days, the very nature of speeches made in this august House was such that the proposed amendment will not be in keeping with these sentiments expressed in those arguments and speeches, which every Member, Mr. Speaker, Sir, who has or has not participated vocally in the deliberations of this august House, during the past few days, has expressed grave concern. With the concern expressed by them, I presume we have to do something for the poorer section of the people of the State. We have heard the speeches from all hon. Members aiming at improving the standard of living and the need to make Meghalaya a State free from three groups of enemies of mankind, poverty, ignorance and disease which were really the great enemies and as the Chief Minister in his speech, has said we should fight against the three enemies, i.e., poverty, ignorance and disease. That statement in itself is a form of indication that each and every one of us present in this House is aware of the fact that there is yet plenty of room to do something or the people who are poverty striken. Therefore, it is my humble contention that the proposed amendment will not be in consistence with the sentiment expressed in this House. The second reason on which I would like to oppose this amendment is that the M.L.A. As of most of the States in this country, States which are far better developed, States which have far greater financial resources than that of any other States, received same or similar remunerations as we the Members of this august House receive and therefore, it would be quite unreasonable and unrealistic and out of proportion even to consider for any single M.L.A. to raise the salary of the M.L.As from Rs.350 to Rs.500 in one single jump. Also, Mr. Speaker, Sir, personally, I consider that any such move of amendment, before us, in the manner proposed by the hon. Member who is moving the amendment will be the most unwise thing.  Finally, Mr. Speaker, Sir, this is my humble contention that our State is depending much on the remuneration received and also my friend the hon. Member Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw,  has mentioned about his good intention to tour, to revisit own Constituency and even stated that it may be necessary for you to undertake a tour on foot. I happen to be one of those humble servants of the people who have toured not only in my own Constituency of Nongshken but also have the fortune to tour during the last few years to other Constituencies as well. And I have toured them on foot ant it is from practical experience that I could say that touring on foot is the cheapest mode of travelling. In this case, I agree with the hon. Member when he said that because of the poverty of our District and our State, touring on foot causes wear and tear of the shoes. It will look more than a pity whether to have another sole for Rs. 150 or to pay for a new pair of shoes. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Sir, with these few words, I oppose the amendment, and I would fervently and earnestly request Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw to withdraw his amendment. 

*Shri Hoover Hynniewta : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I also rise to join with the hon. Member from Nongshken. I think it shall not augur well in the future of our State that in the first session of the Assembly, it comes to our patriotic minds that we should increase the remuneration of the hon. Members. I may well appreciate the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Member from Mawhati. They are more real than can be imagined perhaps but I do not think that would be a very good ground on the basis of which we the Members of this august House should rest our view. The hon. Member from Nongshken has spoken very eloquently and very convincingly also about the inadvisability of adopting this amendment. But Sir, it is said that the example is more convincing than precept. The Members of the Treasury Benches, our Ministers, have never thought about the scope of reducing their travelling expenses and if I may request them through you,  Sir, to show an example not only to the hon. Members of this House but also to the public. Of course, there are political meetings and our Ministers have had to journey in their ministerial cars. They are real and unhidden political meetings. So Sir, let them adopt the example shown by our great great Prime Minister that when she has to attend public meetings she goes there in her own hired helicopters, aero planes or motors cars. A good example, such as hers introduces a true and dedicated and self -less service before the people whom we represent. So, Sir, believing that the spirit to which the hon. Member from Nongshken has given a very graphic illustration will not only be applied to the hon. Members on this side of the House but also to the hon. Members on the other side of the House, I humbly appeal to the Mover to withdraw his amendment. 

Mr. Speaker : Is the hon. Member willing to withdraw the amendment?

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : No.

Shri Parasvanath Choudhury (Laban) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I fully endorse the views of the Member, Mr. Pugh, and I would like to point our that our State is very poor and backward one. We have no resources worth the name to develop this infant State of ours. Only the other day, the while participating in the debate on the Governor's Address, we have passed for so many things for solving problems especially the poverty of the people and unemployment we need more and these problems should get priority. Moreover, Sir, we need have not also been able to do full justice to the low-paid Government servants. They also need more relief. In the face of all these things, I think, it is not appropriate for us to demand in the first sitting of this august House enhancement of our own salaries and allowances and I for one feel that we are here to serve the people and have come here with the solemn pledge to serve them. before doing anything for the people,, if we go on demanding increase of our own salaries, there may be adverse reaction among the people whom we are representing. So, Sir, I do not feel that it is appropriate for us to make such demand. Sir I would therefore, appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment. 

*Mr. Speaker :- may I remind the hon. Member that when-ever they want to take part in the discussion, they should speak from their own seat and not from anybody else's seat.

        May I now request the Finance Minister to reply.

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have got more to add than what the hon. members from Nongshken and Nongkhlaw have said and I would simply join with them in earnestly appealing and requesting the hon. Member from Mawhati, to withdraw his amendment.

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I only want to point out., on a point of information, that is a fact that no Member can live on 350 rupees a month and the amount paid has been according to the revised estimates, at least for 1970-71.

        State- Rs.5,34,200 - and the Budget Estimates for 1971-72 - Rs.7,13,500 and for the 2 months 11 days upto 31st March, 1972 - Rs. 2,30,000, multiplied all these with the ratio , it come to Rs.12,30,000.

        Let us not try to de-cloud our reasons with all these to political motives and other factors. it is an establishment fact that unless an M.L.A . has some other means of income, he just cannot go on with Rs.350 per month. But in view of the arguments put by certain Members,. Mr, Speaker, Sir, with these I humbly submit to their observations, I know they are being recorded, and I withdraw my amendment.

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- The observations regarding expenditure of the Ministers are quite irrelevant because, so far as the Members are concerned, this is not meant to be full payment for the whole month. They are entitled or expected to have their own independent source of income or to work out their own livelihood while the Minister' works are full time they are not expected to have another source of income. So, Sir, here there is no comparison  between the fulltime Ministers of the Government and the hon. members who are expected to have their own source of income.

Mr. Speaker :- Has the hon. Member leave of the House to withdraw his amendment ? (Voices - Yes) The amendment stand withdrawn with leave of the House. I put the question before the House. The question is that clause 3 do form part of the Bill. The motion is adopted. Clause 3 do form part of the Bill.

        As there are no other amendments to clauses 4 to 8, I now put the question before the House. The question is that Clauses 4 to 8 do form part of the Bill. Now I pout another question with regard to Clause 1. The question is that Clause 1 do form part of the bill. The motion is adopted, Clause 1 do form part of the Bill.

        I put the question that Clause 1, the Enacting Formula, the Preamble and the title do form part of the Bill. The Motion is adopted. So clause I, the Enacting Formula, the Preamble and the Title do form part of the Bill. Now I request the Finance Minister to move the motion for passing. 

Shri .B. Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that he Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya (Members' Salaries and Allowances) Bill, 1972 be passed.

Mr. Speaker :- The Motion is n\moved. The question is that the Bill be passed. (The motion was adopted)

The Constituency fund of Meghalaya Bill, 1972

        Before I ask the Minister, Finance to move that the Constituency Fund of Meghalaya Bill 1972, be taken into consideration I am reading here the message from the Governor of Assam.

"RAJ KHAVAN,

Shillong

The 27th March, 1972

        In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (3) of Articles 207 of the Constitution of India, I Braj Kumar Nehru, Governor of Meghalaya hereby recommend to the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly the consideration of the Contingency Fund of Meghalaya Bill, 1972.

B.K. NEHRU,

Governor of Assam and Meghalaya

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- I beg to move that the Constituency Fund of Meghalaya Bill, 1972, be taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. The question is that the Constituency Fund of Meghalaya Bill, 1972 be taken into consideration.

(The motion was adopted)

 Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- Sir, I beg to move that the Contingency Fund of Meghalaya Bill, 1973, be passed.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. I put the question before the House. The question is that the Contingency Fund of Meghalaya Bill, 1972 be passed. The emption is adopted. The Bill is passed.

The Meghalaya Interpretation and General Clauses Bill, 1972

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) :- I beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya Interpretation and General Clauses Bill, 1972. 

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. As there is no amendment to Clause 2, I put the question. The question is that clause 2 do form part of the Bill. The motion is carried, Clause 2 do form part of the Bill.

        So far as Clause 3 is concerned there is one amendment 

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : I want to move that for the words "Governor of Meghalaya" the words "Government of Meghalaya" shall be substituted. 

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Law) : As suggested by the hon. Member there are some printing mistakes.  That in place of the word "Governor" we may put the word "Government". 

Mr. Speaker : Mr. Majaw said that his amendment may be accepted. But it is not in the form of an amendment. It is only a correction of mistakes. So let us that this is only a printing mistakes. So I put the question before the House. The question is that the Clause, as corrected, do now form part of the Bill. The motion is adopted, Clause 3 do form part of the Bill. 

        As there is no amendment to Clauses 4 to 14 may I put the question before the House. The question is that Clauses 4 to 14 do form part of the Bill. The motion is adopted. Clauses 4 to 14 do form part of the Bill. In Clause 15 there is one amendment to be moved by Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw. 

*Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw (Mawhati  S.T.) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that in Clause 15 of the Bill, after the words "Greenwich Meantime" appearing at the end, the words "during Summer, and five hours ahead of Greenwich Mean Time during Winter" shall be added. This is because, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether the standard time remains the same. If the clause had indeed any connection with Indian Standard Time there would be even no end for its amendment.

        I rang up the Station Director of the All India Radio and also connected the Indian Airlines Corporation to strengthen  my general knowledge that the difference between the Indian Standard Time and the Greenwich Mean Time varies in winter and difference is five hours and in summer the difference is 5 hours. Station Director here who is a very old and experienced man of the All India Radio said that this is a fact that the difference in summer is 5 hours and in winter it is 5 hours. So, I have added this amending clause amending the phrase "during Summer and five hours ahead of Greenwich Mean Time during Winter".

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Law) : Mr. Speaker, may I speak?

Mr. Speaker : Yes. 

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Law) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am afraid we cannot accept this proposed amendment because we have here a reference to the Indian Standard Time and a reference to the Greenwich Mean Time, which never change. What I understand from the hon. Member is that the  Greenwich Mean Time changes and if is is a fact that we have a British time, in summer and in winter, then there are British summers and British winters. But the Greenwich Mean Time is a geographical time fixed at a certain longitude of the world and this Greenwich Mean Time never changes just like the Indian Standard Time. The Greenwich Mean Time is fixed. In any case, to avoid this confusion of 5 hours, whatever it is, if the hon. member will compromise with me, we will omit the words "and five hours ahead of Greenwich Mean Time". We will only stick to the Indian Standard Time. If the hon. Member will agree, we will stick to the Indian Standard Time and omit the words "five hours ahead of the Greenwich Mean Time".

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : I accept the compromise formally put forward by the Hon'ble Minister and, therefore, I withdraw my amendment.

Shri Humphrey Hadem (Mynso - Raliang S.T.) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to have some enlightment from the Chair whether this, will be the right procedure at this stage. At the consideration stage whether verbal consideration can be allowed?

*Mr. Speaker : In so far as this kind of amendment is concerned, it relates more to the technicalities of the times rather than to the technicality of law- making and so far as the amendment  which has been withdrawn by Prof. Majaw is concerned, his intention is that the time, according to this clause, would be more correct and more perfect and from the point of view of the Minister, Finance also he wants that the time should always be fixed and since there is practically no change in the Indian Standard Time and I do not know whether the Greenwich Mean Time changes during summer and winter, let us depend on our own Indian Standard Time which we know, never changes in four seasons of the year. In so far as the suggestions made by Mr. Hadem is concerned, this is in order, that when the amendment is withdrawn, the other amendment may also be accepted. Even at this stage we can do so. 

*Shri Humphrey Hadem : Mr. Speaker,  Sir, I want only a clarification whether at the second reading of the Bill ever bal amendment can be accepted. That is the  only clarification I want. It seems that it does not come either in the form of a corrigendum or in the form of a regular amendment but only in the form of a suggestion by the mover of the Bill himself. 

*Mr. Speaker : The consideration stage is considered to be in between the second and the third reading. Which is the first reading and which is the second reading, in actual law- making we have forgotten about them, though in the study of Political Science we have a theoretical knowledge of it. So, this particular consideration stage also is a part of the third reading unless we refer it to the Select Committee. 

        Is that the leave of the House that the amendment moved by Prof. Majaw be withdrawn?

(Voices ...........Yes, yes.)

        So the amendment moved by Prof. Majaw is withdrawn with leave of the House and do we have the leave of the House that all the words 'five hours a head of the "Greenwich Mean Time" be deleted from this Clause?

(Voices ...........Yes, yes.)

        So, the words "five hours a head of the Greenwich Mean Time" are deleted with leave of House. 

        Now I put the question  before the House. The question is that Clause, 15, as amended, do form part of the Bill. The motion is adopted. Clauses 15, as amended do form part of the Bill. 

        Now, as there is no amendment in any of the clauses from 16 upto 25, I put the question before the House.  The question is that  Clauses 16 to 25 do form part of the Bill. 

        The motion is adopted. Clauses 16 to 25 do form part of the Bill. 

        In Clause 26, there is one amendment to be moved by Prof.  Martin Narayan Majaw. 

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, may I intervene. This should not be taken up as it is of mere correction of the printing mistake and therefore we should accept that it is just a correction of a printing mistake. 

Shri Hoover Hynniewta : Mr. Speaker, Sir, my submission in this regard is that, this its the second occasion when your Secretariat has committed another printing mistake. But I would like to know  Sir, whether this printing mistake has actually been committed at your  Secretariat level or at some other levels.

Mr. Speaker : When I say printing mistake I do not mean to say that is it is a proof reading mistake. Printing mistake can occur only in the press. 

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : Mr. Speaker,  Sir, whether it is a printing mistake or whether it is there when the Bill was submitted by the Government. 

Mr. Speaker : It is a printing mistake. Printing mistake in the press can occur even after the proof reading is done. 

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : It is a sad reflection  on the efficiency of the Law Department. The Law Department did not look at the draft properly before it was sent to the press, or it was not sent in a proper form. 

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) : Before we sent the draft for printing, we have looked at it properly and it was sent in a proper form. So the printing mistake is in the press itself. 

Mr. Speaker : In this regard whom shall we blame, the Law Department, the Press or the compositors, I cannot understand. But of course from now onwards both the people working in the press and at my Secretariat should be more careful at the final stage of printing the Bill. So since it is only a mere mistake of printing, let us not go for the amendment. 

        So now I put the question before the House.  The question is that clause 26 do form a part of the Bill. The motion is adopted. Clause 26 as corrected do form part of the Bill. 

        Now as there is no amendment to Clauses 27-42, I put the question before the House. The question is that Clauses from 27-42 do form part of the Bill. The motion is adopted. Clauses 27-42 do form part of the Bill. 

        Now Clause 43. In this Clause there is one amendment to be moved by Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw.

*Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the amendment. In Clause 43 of the Bill the words "shall deem to be effected" shall be substituted by the words "deem to have been effected" because Mr. Speaker, Sir, if we look carefully at the entire Clause, we will notice that the operating words there are of different intention. The service, if it is to be affected, would mean posting of address taking place and the service to be affected is in the proper tense. This must be in the past perfect tense and it will be accordingly corrected. In the English Grammar "shall deem" is very effected for addressing, pasting and posting of the registered letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is roved to have been affected. Here the subordinate Clause is hot bilaterally to be effected and the subordinate clause should have been  used. 

*Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Finance) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, the words that we have used in this Clause 43 are there actual words used as standard language in all the Acts of the Central and State Legislatures and they have stood the test of time and the test of the courts for so many years. If, therefore, we introduce any change in the language the courts will have to search our hearts as to what our intention is. So I would request the hon. Member, let us forget grammar and let us see to the legality of the words used here in this Clause, and as such, I would request him to withdraw the amendment. 

*Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw : Mr. Speaker, Sir, there is only one English language and that is the Queen's language. There is no Indian, Punjabi, Khasi or Bengalee English. If, as it is stated, that the words in use have stood the test of time and the test of courts why should we continue to repeat the same grammatical blunder?

Shri Jormanick Syiem (Mylliem S.T.) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, we are not Englishmen, we have tried to study English language in our school and college career and on reading this Clause, to my mind, it appears that it is going to be effected. 

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw (Mawhati S.T.) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, on a point of information. 

Mr. Speaker : It is only for clarification. 

Shri Hoover Hynniewta : Mr. Speaker, Sir, when the mover of an amendment has replied to the debate we should give scope for any other Member to intervene. 

Mr. Speaker : I think it is only a battle of grammar and it is better that we should close the discussion. 

        You want to clarify on the correctness or incorrectness and connotation of the Clause. But I think the Law Minister will have the right to do that because you did not take it up in the first instance.

*Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (Minister, Law) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, we on this side of the House are very cautious that whatever enactment or law is introduced it should be legally effective and legally perfect as far as practicable. For example let me refer to Clause 27 of the General Clauses Act. The exact language used is :

        "Where any (Central Act) or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorities or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or either of the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intension appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

        This language is used in the Central Act and also in the State Act. For example, I may use the act of our nearest State, Assam.

        "Where any Act authorities or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or either of the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used then unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be affected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post a letter containing the document and,  unless, the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post"

        Here "to have been effected" after the service is complete, but here you will have "to be effected" by the first stage is addressing, posting and so on, it is to be effected by that process "to have been effected" is to have been completed after the delivery of the letter by the messenger. In any case it is really correct. So we understand as law makers not so much as an English Class Room. On that account I would request that we need not go to the process but we will go gracefully and adopt this Bill. 

*Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- I beg to submit Mr. Speaker, Sir, that the grammatical explanation given by the Hon'ble Minister is not acceptable because there are two actions here.- One is putting that service into effect and the other is how it is put into effect. How it is put into effect, that means by properly addressing, and posting of these things. These things have to take place before hand, before you can say that the service is effected. Since that action is prior to the final conclusion, therefore, that action has to be put in the earlier tense and so it is clear from the next Clause which comes in after the words "a letter containing the document and unless the contrary is proved to have been effected". These are only parenthesis i.e., 'to have been elected at the time at which the letter would be delivered". There is also a subordinate Clause running parallel to the earlier one. Because both those actions have taken place in the past and the action of the service "not to have been effected" comes after it. 

Mr. Speaker :- So the hon. Member does not want to withdraw the amendment.

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- Totally not as Prof. of English.

Mr. Speaker :- So now I put the amendment before the House. The question is that in Clause 43 of the Bill, the words "shall deem to be effected" shall be substituted by the words "deem to have been effected".

The motion is negatived. The amendment is lost. 

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- Ungrammatical. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker :- Now I put the main question before the House. The question is that Clause 43 do form part of the Bill.         

        The motion is adopted. Clause 43 do form part of the Bill. 

        The question is that Clause I, the Enacting Formula, Preamble and the Title of the Bill do form part of the Bill. 

        The motion is adopted. Clause I, the Enacting Formula, Preamble and the Title do form part of the Bill. 

        May I request the law Minister to move that the Meghalaya Interpretation and General Clauses Bill, 1972 be passed?

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh, (Minister, Law) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya Interpretation and General Clauses Bill, 1972, as amended, be pleased?

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. 

        I put the main question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya Interpretation and General clauses Bill, 1972, as amended, be passed. 

The motion is carried and the Bill is passed.

        Let us go to item 8 of today's list of business. Before I request the Minister of Law to move for consideration of the Meghalaya Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 1972, may I now read a message from the Governor?

"RAJ BHAVAN

Shillong

The 24th March, 1972.

        In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (3) of Article 207 of the Constitution of India, I, Braj Kumar Nehru, Governor of Meghalaya, hereby recommend to the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly the consideration of the Meghalaya Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 1972.

SD/- BRAJ KUMAR NEHRU,

Governor of Meghalaya".

* Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh, (Minister, Law) :-Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 1972, be taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. The question is that the Meghalaya Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 1972, be taken into consideration.

(The motion was adopted).

        As there is no amendment to any of the clauses of the Bill may I request the Minister, Law to move that the Meghalaya Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 1972, be passed?

Shri Brington Buhai Lyngdoh, (Minister, Law) :-Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 1972 be passed.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved and now I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 1972, be passed.

( After a pause)

The motion is adopted. The Bill is passed.

MISCELLANEOUS

* Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I just want to make a small request to you. Since tomorrow is the last day, we have been making many efforts to get secured facilities of zero hour and there will be no zero hour unless there is question hour and since we have already submitted questions to which answers have not yet been coming may I request to these questions at least from their Secretariat so that we can have our zero hour tomorrow? The second request Mr. Speaker, Sir, is just to place on the Table of the House these original papers. (The hon. Member handed over the papers to the Hon'ble Speaker).

Mr. Speaker :- So I may inform the hon. Member that the duty of the Speaker is not to compel the Minister or any other hon. Member to do this thing or that thing. It is up to the sense of understanding on the part of each and everyone to understand his own responsibility. 


ADJOURNMENT

        As there is no business for the day, the House stands adjourned till 9 a.m. on Friday the 7th April, 1972.

N.C. HANDIQUE,

Dated Shillong:

Secretary,

The 6th April, 1972.

Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.

 

 

Proceedings of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly held at 9. a.m. on Friday, the 7th April, 1972 in the Assembly Chamber, Shillong, with the Hon'ble Speaker in the Chair.

 ********

SHORT NOTICE QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker :- Before taking up the first item in today's list of business, I would like to inform the House that only 15 minutes ago I received the reply of the Minister, Relief and rehabilitation to a short notice question asked by Prof Majaw. Since we do not have the time to circulate the questions to all the hon. Members, may I seek the permission of the House that these questions will be circulated to all the hon. Members at some later date. 

Prof Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, what about giving it in the Budget Session.

Mr. Speaker :- I am asking the permission of the House whether it shall be circulated to all the hon. Members at a later date at any time, may be tomorrow.

Shri Stanley D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Industries) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, can question asked in one Session be repeated in another Session ? In case a Member wants to be supplementaries then he would be prevented from doing it.

Mr. Speaker :- He can very well repeat the questions in the text Session. But if he desires to ask supplementaries he can repeat the same in the next Session.

Shri Williamson A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the convention is that if the questions have been admitted and the replies have been made available to the hon. Members but there was no time, then the replies to the questions are supposed to be sent to the hon. Members. That is the convention and the practice in the Assam Assembly also.

Shri Stanley D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Industries) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would suggest that it will be proper to follow that same practice rather than making it a new procedure when the questions and answers are not circulated before-hand.

Mr. Speaker :- Do you mean that the answers should be sent to the hon. Members and when the questions and answers are sent to the hon. Members, will they form part of the last day's proceedings ?

Mr. Humphrey Hadem :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I think this is a special case, when your office had received it very late this morning, the question could not be circulated to each and every Member to be considered during the Session at this first hour. But since you have received it, it should be taken as part of the proceedings of today.

Mr. Speaker :- When I received the questions, the House is still in Session. So I am asking the permission of the House whether these questions and answers are to be circulated to all the hon. Members at a later date. But as you have stated correctly, this should not be taken as a precedent but as a special case.

Shri Williamson A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would make an appeal to you to follow the usual convention. When there is no more time for tabling the questions during the Session, the practice is that answers are sent to the hon. Members and the hon. questioner after getting the reply, if he is not satisfied, he can take advantage of the next Session to repeat the questions in the same way or in a different way. That is the practice.

Mr. Speaker :- If we receive the questions and answers after the Session is over, that is a different matter altogether. Here is a different case. We receive these questions and answers when the Session is still going on and this is a new situation altogether which I would like to know from the House and if the House agrees, we can take it and if the House does not agree then I am helpless. 

Shri Edwingson  Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, Rule 47 says like this "Replies to any starred questions which remains unanswered on the last day of the session shall be circulated to the members and such replies shall form part of the proceedings of the last day."

Mr. Speaker :- I think that is a separate mater altogether. This is a short notice question.

Shri Humphrey Hadem :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, as I have already mentioned, this is regarding the procedure in a special case that never occurred before and as such, I would refer to Rule 315 which may be applied to this particular case because other rules do not at all provide for this particular case. As such Mr. Speaker, Sir, we now submit to your ruling and that will solve the problem.

Shri Stanley D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Industries) :-Mr. Speaker, Sir, there is no ruling as yet. The Hon'ble Speaker, was asking the sense of the House.

Shri Williamson A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- The convention which is usually followed have already mentioned.

Shri Humphrey Hadem :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, what I am speaking now is that since you have not given your ruling and since there is difference of opinion and since the rule provides for your ruling, I would request that in such a particular case where the rule does not provide a procedure, your ruling will better solve the problem and ease the situation so that matter ends there.

Mr. Speaker :- Before giving my ruling on this point, since the House is not of the same opinion, may I get the opinion of some other Members.

Prof Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I think during this time that we are discussing the matter, the questions could have been cyclostyled and circulated to the Members. In that case, Mr. Speaker, Sir, we will have the facility of asking supplementary questions provided the answers are not satisfactory to the hon. Members and they can form part of today's proceedings.

Shri Williamson A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Sir, if this question is to form part of the proceedings of this particular session the supplementary questions cannot be put by the hon. Member in the next session. With the reply which we have received from the Department concerned, the hon. Member will have another opportunity in the next session to put the same question and ask for supplementaries.

Shri Stanley D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Industries) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, Rule 48 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business lays down that "if the Speaker is of opinion that the question is of an urgent character he may, in consultation with the Minister concerned fix a day for the reply to such a question." It presumably means circulating the notice and fixing the  time for the reply to that question. And since these has not been done in this case, I cannot see how this question can form part of the proceedings. Under Rule 48 again it says that " In other respects, the procedure for short notice questions shall be the same as for ordinary questions ...". So, if it is to form part of the business of the day, then the normal procedure is that the Member concerned should give notice of his question and that would be sent to the Government for the reply. So this question can be taken up in the next session and supplementaries can be put then. I think that would serve the purpose of the questioner concerned and at the same time this short notice question cannot form part of the proceedings of the House.

Mr. Speaker :- In fact, we have already informed the Minister concerned that 7th April is the date that this question should be replied to and at the same time it appears that the hon. Member who asked the question is as anxious as the Minister who wants to reply. But the difficulty is from the practical side. Had I received these replies last night,  things would have been alright. But I received them only 15 minutes before the House met today, and this, as I said, is a very peculiar situation altogether. If I receive after the House  is prorogued, it is quite a different thing. There is a convention for that. But when I received when the House is still sitting, I have to seek the permission of the House as to what shall we do.

Prof Martin Narayan Majaw :- Sir, I am a bit surprised that only yesterday when I rang up the Minister concerned, he assured me that he  would sent the reply yesterday and today also I rang him up half an hour before the House meets.

Mr. Speaker :- I think I would inform the hon. Member concerned that he should not bring in private conversation on the floor of the House. I am stating the facts that I received these replies exactly at 8.45 hours this morning.

Shri Stanley D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Industries) :-Mr. Speaker, Sir, in the list of the business for Friday the 7th April, 1972 in the notice circulated to all the hon. Members there is nothing regarding questions, short notice or otherwise.

Mr. Speaker :- The general procedure is that for the first hour of the sitting of the House the questions are taken up. So, I have to bring this matter during the question hour.

Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) :- Sir, I think for the benefit of the hon. Member who asked the question, it would be good if these questions are not taken up now so that he can repeat them in the next session and the Government can also come prepared with the replies.

*Shri Humphrey Hadem :- The question of repeating it in the next session does not arise. It is a right  of the hon. Member concerned either to repeat it or not. He has got every right to ask any question in the next session. What we are now concerned is with the peculiar position of the case as it stands at present. As such, all the provisions of the rules have been fulfilled and since the Minister concerned has agreed to furnish the replies as directed by you in today's business and, at the same time, these replies were received very late this morning that you could not circulate them to all the hon. Members and this being a special case which gives you the same power under Rule 315, I think the best way to do is that your honour will please give a ruling that we can proceed with other matters in the agenda.

Mr. Speaker :- As I told the House I had already fixed today that the Minister should give a reply and the Hon'ble Minister has already sent the reply to me this morning. Though the reply  has come and the Minister has also agreed to reply, but then there is some difficulty in the time factor, as we have not been able to circulate the question to all the hon. Members. This is a peculiar case altogether, and we must also remember that we have received these replies when the House is still in session. Of course, as pointed out by the hon. Member from Mynso-Raliang, if the hon. Member concerned would like to put the same question in some other form, it is up to him and it is not for me to say. He may like or may not like to put the question. That is a different thing altogether. So, I rule that since the questions have not been circulated and replies not made, the questions will not form part of the proceedings of today.


ZERO HOUR

Shri D. Dethwelson Lapang :- Sir, may we have the privilege of bringing a matter of urgent public importance during the 'Zero Hour' ?

Mr. Speaker :- Yes, what is that?

Shri D. Dethwelson Lapang :- Sir, I have given notice of a matter which I would like to raise during the Zero Hour.

Mr. Speaker :- Of course immediately after question hour. But I will allow you to take the advantage of the Zero Hour only in one particular issue.

Prof. M. N. Majaw :- Sir, what about the point that I have submitted to you for Zero Hour ?

Mr. Speaker :- I have already given a chance to the hon. Member from Nongpoh.

Shri D. Dethwelson Lapang :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, at the outset, I would like to express my deep gratitude to you for giving me this privilege to explain some points. If this connection, I would refer to certain privileges existing in Medical Colleges of the Dibrugarh and Gauhati Universities. Here according to rules and procedure of these medical colleges, there is a course of 5 years duration for the students, one year in training and one year for house job course. Students reading in these colleges have to undergo a course of house-manship and they are also given an allowance of Rs.200 per month. But as you know, Sir, our tribal students have been deprived generally of having this privilege and as a result of this, most of the students or rather all the tribal students are not having a chance to undergo this one year course on houseman ship. So they are not eligible to get admission in the All India Institute of Medical Science. Now, we have already seen in the Assam Tribune of 23rd March 1972 that students who are interested to go for higher study should be the ones who have undergone a course of houseman ship. In this  respect, I understand that the All India Institute of Medical Science is the best for the students who are interested to undergo any higher studies after finishing their graduation from the Medical Colleges of Dibrugarh and Gauhati. But Sir, it is a sad thing to express on the floor of the House that our own tribal students not only that they were debarred for getting admission to the All India Institute of Medical Science but also they were deprived of the privilege for further studies in foreign countries. This year, there are 3 students from the Gauhati medical College, who have applied for getting themselves admitted for undergoing the course of houseman job but they were rejected.

Shri Stanley D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Industries) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, on a point of order, during the Zero hour the Member should not make any speech.

Shri D. Dethwelson Lapang :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, my point is that the Government should have some reservation of seats in these colleges for the tribal students who are deprived of this privilege in their studies in these colleges.

Mr. Speaker :- So the point is that you want that the Government should have some reservation of seats.

Shri D. Dethwelson Lapang :- Yes, Mr. Speaker, Sir. May I have your permission to quote from the advertisement made by the All India Institute of Medical Science that there are 50 total seats for all the students, 35 for general, 7 for the scheduled tribes, 3 for the scheduled castes and 5 others. Now, we fail to understand why the Government could not reserve more seats for the students from this State.

Mr. Speaker :- May I draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that there is 7 percent reservation of seats for the scheduled tribes of the whole country and it is up to the Minister, Health to try to see that our students from Meghalaya get also a share. From what the hon. Member has just now pointed out I understand that even amongst the students belonging to the scheduled tribes, there is a heavy demand and there is a very keen competition and if our students could compete they will be able to get admission in these colleges.

Shri Sandford K. Marak (minister, Health) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, these colleges as mentioned by the hon. Member, are still under the control of the Government of Assam. The matter will be taken up very soon for getting more seats in these colleges on mutual understanding with the Government of Assam.

Shri Stanley D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Industries) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, may I get a clarification from you that the Zero Hour does not mean that the hon. Member should make a speech while raising any point ? How is it possible that while raising the matter during the Zero Hour the Member should not adhere to the Rule of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the House ?

Mr. Speaker :- During the zero hour a Member may raise any matters of great importance but he must clarify also the points and he must not make a speech. He has every right to clarify his point as without clarification, it will also be difficult to make an observation.

Shri Humphrey Hadem :- But the speech means uttering of words Mr. Speaker, Sir.

Mr. Speaker :- For the practical purposes in this Assembly, the speech shall be just an exposition of views whether in this or any other matter. That subject matter which Mr. Lapang has just brought in is closed now.

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I want to raise one question about the insecurity of the services of the Government  servants under the Government of Meghalaya, because as we know Mr. Speaker, Sir, these people are still on deputation.

Mr. Speaker :- In so far as this particular point is concerned, you have sent a notice to me asking for permission to raise it during the zero hour but during all those past days, you did not get a chance to raise and only yesterday, you sent another notice under Rule 301 to bring to the notice of the House matters of insecurity of services of Government servants and conditions of service of the State Government employees. And in so far as this is concerned, the matter is rather very big and after consulting with the Chief Minister who is in-charge of the Department, the matter cannot be taken up now.

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, since the subject matter is o great importance, may I request the Chief Minister to look into this grievance because there is a great deal of dissatisfaction among the Government servants under the Government of Meghalaya.

Shri Stanley D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Industries) :- On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Sir, any matter to be raised during the zero hour can be raised only if it is a matter of great importance Others maters cannot be raised under the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business and this matter, as stated by you, has been raised under Rule 301 and therefore, it cannot be raised during the zero hour.

Prof Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise with a request to the Minister and other Members of the Treasury Bench to pay their attention to the fact that this is a very serious matter. I am also referring to another point to be raised in the Lalung Durbar. The Durbar started today at Jagi Road is still within the Government of Assam and I happen to be the representative from Mawhati, 8 miles away from Lalung. I am referring to the Lalung area which was published in the news item of the Assam Tribune on 3rd April, 1972. There is no information regarding the agenda of this Durbar. So far my knowledge goes, the Chief Minister of Assam and also Mr. Olim Singh, the Syiem of Khyrim have been the chief guests of the Durbar and also it was decided that hey are going to carve out a separate District for Lalung.

Mr. Speaker :- How can they carve out ?

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I do not know but I want to have a clarification.

Mr. Speaker :- There is no information regarding this demand of taking out some of the portions of the State of Meghalaya which is known as the Lalung area. This portion, I believe, is within the Mawhati Constituency adjoining the Nowgong District of  Assam. The subject is to be discussed in this Assembly as it relates to the territorial integrity of the State. I do not know if the Government have any information about this. I think there is some intention to bring all the Lalung area in one composite district. Perhaps, that is why proposals for invitation were made to the guests like Prof. G.G. Swell and the Syiem of Khyrim Mr. Olim Singh. May we have a reply on this from the Government?

Shri Williamson A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have no information about this matter which has been placed before the House by the hon. Member, Mr. Majaw. But I can simply say that the Government will not let even an inch of territory to be taken away.

(Applause from all sides of the House)

Mr. Speaker :- Now, let us pass on to Item No. 1 of the list of Business.


CALLING ATTENTION

Shri Edwingson Bareh (Minister, Agriculture) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I want to raise a point of order. I have seen there are two calling attention notices but according to the rules, only one can be allowed. I would like to draw the attention of the House to Rule 54 (3)- " Not more then one such matter shall be raised at the same sitting."

        (4) " In the event of more then one matter being presented for the same day, priority shall be given to the matter which is, in the opinion of the Speaker, more urgent and important. "

        Therefore, I would request the Speaker, to decide which is more urgent and more important so that we can take only one and not both of them.

Mr. Speaker :- The rule is very clear, but according to practice we have also to look into the directions of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha that each and every State Assembly must also follow. " Where several calling attention notices have been included in the order paper on the last day of a Session, Ministers may make brief statement in respect of the first notice. But in respect of the other notice statements may be laid on the Table by the Ministers concerned. A copy each of the statements so laid may be supplied to the Members tabling the notices. Also there is another direction. There is no bar to take up two calling attention notices on the same day. This is the direction of the Speaker of Lok Sabha and that is why I have included two calling attention notices that I have received.

Shri P. Ripple Kyndiah :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, on a point of information and guidance. It appears to me that he direction of the Lok Sabha Speaker is a must, it is mandatory. Now, I would like to know for my own information and guidance whether our Assembly rules are subordinate to the directions of Lok Sabha Speaker.

Mr. Speaker :- The direction of the Lok Sabha Speaker is not mandatory. But we must also remember that  there is always attempt to bring about unanimity in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Houses in the country and as you know very well perhaps that in all other State Legislatures they have brought the rules up-to date to be in line with the Rules of Procedure in the Lok Sabha. But so far as our State Assembly is concerned, we have no time to bring it up-to-date. For instance, in the Assam Assembly, 'Zero Hour' has been done away with to be in conformity with the spirit of the times, and in so far as this particular case is concerned our rule clearly says that we cannot take up more than one calling attention notice on the same day but it does not specially say about the last day and the direction of the Lok Sabha concerned only the last day.

Shri P. Ripple Kyndiah :- Do we take it as a convention ?

Mr. Speaker :- It is a healthy convention. So let us come to Item No.1. Professor Martin Narayan Majaw to call the attention of the Minister Power and Electricity, under Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Assam Legislative Assembly as adapted for the purpose of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Meghalaya to the failure of the Minister in charge to lay the audit accounts of the State Electricity Board on the Table of the House.

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to call the attention of the Minister in charge of Power and Electricity under Rule 54 of the Rules of procedure and Conduct of Business in  Assam Legislative Assembly as adapted for the purpose of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Meghalaya to the failure of the Minister in charge to lay the audit accounts of  the State Electricity Board on the Table of the House.

        Mr. Speaker, Sir, under Section 53 of the North Eastern Areas (Re-organisation) Act, 1969, the State Electricity Board is common to both the States of Assam and Meghalaya. Therefore since the audited accounts of the State Electricity Board were already laid on the Table of the Assam Legislative Assembly in this Session, we had also expected that the same would have been laid on the Table of this House as well as those of the State warehousing Corporation and the Assam Financial Corporation. But I want to draw the attention of the house and also of the Minister in  charge to the State Electricity Board in particular because this particular trouble is a terrible headache to the Assam Government itself. The State Electricity Board is the first Public Sector Undertaking of the Assam Government and it is a scandal to the entire country. It started with a budget provision of Rs. 12 crores but its own audited accounts has come to Rs. 18 crores; what should have been completed with Rs.12 crores now it has come to Rs.18 crores. If the hon. Members in this House are not prepared to have their ears shocked by the news of this State of affairs of the finances of this Board, Mr. Speaker, Sir, then the Members will be inclined to agree with me. Perhaps many do not know, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that according to the audited accounts the arrear of the State Electricity Board for the period upto 31st March, 1971 are to the tune of Rs.18 crores.

Shri Stanley D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Power and Electricity) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, on a point of order, the Hon. Member concerned has referred to the matter of urgent public importance and has made a speech on this matter dealing with a period of time before this particular has come into being. Is it proper for him to make a speech on a matter which does not concern this House ?

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- I have no attention of making a speech not concerning this House but I am simply trying to show that the House should know of the huge amount.

Shri Stanley D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Power and Electricity) :- The importance was made clear by the calling attention Motion itself

Mr. Speaker :- In fact, without making a speech the whole House perhaps understands the calling attention but the only point is that why the Minister in charge failed to lay copies of the audited accounts of the State Electricity Board on the Table of the House. This is the only point.

Shri Jormanik Syiem :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is not clear to me in this calling attention Motion as to which year this audited account refers and since specific years are not given I do not understand why the audited account is accepted. Secondly, Sir, I would like to know whether any  settlement has to be made between the Assam Government and Meghalaya Government about the sharing the assets and liabilities in the Assam State Electricity Board.

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, no doubt the audited accounts refer to the period of 1970-71 but, as we know the audited accounts of the previous years have been submitted in the current year 1972-73 for those earlier periods. Since there is continuity of existence of the life of the Electricity Board, these audited accounts from part of the present years of the audited report and since the Assam State Electricity Board is common to both the Government of Assam and Meghalaya, I thought it would be proper to call the attention of the Minister in charge to this especially when we have given loans to the Assam Electricity Board to the tune of Rs.7 lakhs up till now.

Shri Stanley D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Power and Electricity) :-Mr. Speaker, Sir, under section 69 of the Electricity Act the accounts of the Electricity Board as certified by  the Comptroller and Auditor General of India are forwarded annually to the State Government and that Government may issue such instructions to the Board in respect thereof as it deems fit and the Board shall comply with such instructions. It is also provided in the said section that the State Government shall cause the accounts of the Board together with the audit report thereon to be forwarded to it to be laid annually before the State Legislature. As the hon. Members know, we became a full-fledged State for the purpose of this section of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 on 21st, 1972. The accounts of the Board as certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for the period particularly from 21st January, 1972 to 31st March, 1972 as and when received from the State Electricity Board will be placed before the State Legislature.

Mr. Speaker :- Let us now come to item No.2 Shri D. Dethwelson Lapang to call the attention of the Minister in charge of Municipality Affairs under Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business.

Shri D. Dethwelson Lapang :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to call the attention of the Minister in charge of Municipal Affairs under Rule of 54 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in  Assam Legislative Assembly as  adapted for the purpose of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Meghalaya to the failure of the Shillong Municipality to supply sufficient drinking water in the Mawkhar Ward, Jaiaw-Mission Ward and at Pinewood Hotel on the 1st April, 1972. Mr. Speaker, Sir, with regard to these two wards in particular I would say they have been neglected.

Mr. Speaker :- I think we had enough discussion on this and I do not think we need any more clarification on this.

Shri D. Dethwelson Lapang :- This question is only a general discussion and so far as this calling attention notice is concerned, I would like to make a reference to these two wards and Pinewood Hotel in particular. So I may please be permitted to point out some points inn this regard. These wards have been neglected for some time and especially on the first day of this month there was no water supply for the whole day and it was a pitiable condition for those people standing on the road. They have also to resort to fighting and quarrel amongst themselves and at the same time, we do not understand why always such incidents occurred in this way and why the authority could not remove this trouble. I may now refer to Pinewood Hotel which is a Government Hotel and as far as the Hotel is concerned, it will reflect very much on the Government as well as the Members of this House especially when people staying there are of high and respectable position. So this will very much affect the prestige of Government. So Mr. Speaker, Sir, I want to know the reason why this failure occurred, whether it is unavoidable or they cannot rectify it or whether the authority concerned can assure the House that such incidents will not occur in  future.

Shri Sandford K. Marak (Minister, Municipality Affairs) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, on Friday the 31st March the Municipality authorities received information that a 9" gravity main pipe feeding the water supply of Mawkhar Ward, Jaiaw-Mission Ward, Pinewood Hotel and other areas of Shillong was found leaking very heavily by the side of Shillong-Cherra Road near the Military Hospital. They immediately sent one fitter with three mazdoors to repair the defect. But they could not do it effectively that day as it was  a major break-down at a depth of about 4" underground. On the next day, this is on the 1st of April they engaged 25 mazdoors to work with 4 fitters to repair the pipe. It was found that the patch repair would nit be able to hold the pressure effectively as the bursting of the pipe was lengthwise and had given way to a big gap. On the very day the Superintendent, Water Works went to the Executive Engineer, Public Health to request him for 9" (C.I.) 18" long, one 9" collar and 60 Ibs. of pig lead to replace the burst main. Early morning on the following day, that is, on the 2nd April, the fitters and mazdoors started the work again to replace the burst pipe and effect other necessary repairs. The work was completely at about 6 p.m. The distribution of water through the pipe was then resumed.


SPECIAL MOTION

Mr. Speaker :- Now let us come to item No.3 Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw to move a Special Motion under Rule 103 A of the Rules of the Procedures and Conduct of Business in Assam Legislative Assembly as adapted for the purpose of Legislative Assembly of the State of Meghalaya.

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, if I may be allowed to make a little explanation here in view of special reference to the capture or rather we would say rescue of certain person.

Mr. Speaker :- You are only to move the Motion.

Prof Martin Narayan Majaw :- Before I move the Motion, I would just like to explain that I am not prepared to move this Motion in view of the discussion held yesterday with the Leader of the House, Mr. Speaker, Sir, The fact is that since this subject is a very delicate matter affecting various names of our mothers and sisters and daughters in the State. I am prepared to request the House to allow me permission to drop this item from the agenda if the Chief Minister is willing to give his statement on what measures the Government intends to take to really try its best to eradicate this evil.

Shri Williamson A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the anxiety left by the hon. Member regarding this maker and I would assure the House that the Government are alive to this problem and are keen to take proper steps to ensure that this social offence is effectively tackled. I have had the occasion to discuss this matter with some responsible leaders who are also hon. Members of this House with a view to evolve concrete measures so that such social evils are curbed. I had also requested the leaders to suggest concrete steps to be taken in this regard. Government propose to constitute a committee in the nature of social defence committee consisting of responsible local leaders and also the official root cause of such anti-social activities.

        In view of what I have explained above, I would request the hon. Member to withdraw the Motion.

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, since the assurance has been given by the Chief Minister, I am not going to move the Motion.


PROROGATION

Mr. Speaker :- As there is no other business to be transacted to day let me now read the prorogation order from the Governor-

"RAJ  BHAVAN

The 5th April, 1972

SHILLONG

ORDER

        In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (2) (a) of Article 174 of the Constitution of India, I, Braj Kumar Nehru, Governor of Meghalaya hereby prorogue the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly at the conclusion of its sitting on the 7th April, 1972.

RAJ KUMAR NEHRU,

Governor of Meghalaya

The House is now prorogued.

Dated Shillong,

R.T. RYMBAI,

The 7th April, 1972.

Secretary,

Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.

******