Is the House Committee formed yesterday to look into illegal migrants going to be a joke?

The prolonged crisis in our state, now extending over 15 months with no clear resolution in sight, finds its roots in a complex array of issues. Among them, the problem of illegal migration and the associated activities—such as the encroachment on forest lands and the widespread cultivation of poppy by clearing protected areas—stands out prominently. Government officials and members of the intellectual community alike have pointed to the need to address the issue of illegal immigration as a crucial step towards restoring peace in the state.
In this context, the recent decision by the state assembly to form a House committee to tackle this pressing issue could be seen as a positive move. This initiative has seen rare unanimity among the members, with both ruling and opposition parties coming together, barring the 10 MLAs who have been abstaining from assembly proceedings since May 3 of last year, in their demand for a separate administration. The silence of these 10 MLAs on the matter raises doubts about whether they would even support the formation of such a committee, given that their voices have remained unheard in this crucial discussion.
However, one aspect of the committee’s formation has stirred skepticism—the inclusion of Letpao Haokip, the Minister of Tribal Affairs & Hills, Horticulture, and Soil Conservation, who is also among the 10 MLAs demanding separate administration. This raises important questions about the committee’s effectiveness and the adherence to parliamentary procedures.
Rule 233(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business clearly states that “no member shall be appointed to a committee if he is not willing to serve on it.” Yet, it remains unclear whether Letpao Haokip has given his assent to serve on this committee. His willingness—or lack thereof—could have significant implications for the committee’s work and the perception of its legitimacy.
Further complicating the matter is Rule 234, which provides that if an objection is raised against the inclusion of a member in a committee due to personal, pecuniary, or direct interests that may prejudice the committee’s deliberations, the Speaker is required to allow the member in question to state their position. In this case, opposition MLA Lokeshwar has already objected to Letpao Haokip’s inclusion in the committee. The critical question here is whether the Speaker has given Haokip the opportunity to clarify his stance, and whether Haokip himself has expressed his willingness to be a part of the committee.
Moreover, Rule 246 stipulates that committee sittings must be held within the precincts of the House, and any change of venue must be approved by the Speaker. Given that Letpao Haokip has not attended any assembly sittings for the past 15 months, one must wonder whether he would attend committee meetings within the House precincts. If not, how often should the committee be expected to change its venue to accommodate him? This could pose significant logistical challenges and potentially undermine the committee’s efficiency.
Finally, there is the issue of whether the Kuki-Zo community, or other civil society organizations (CSOs), might object to Letpao Haokip’s membership in the committee. If such objections were raised, would Haokip be able to continue serving, or would he face the same fate as other MLAs and CSO leaders who have been sidelined for engaging with the Chief Minister?
These questions are not mere procedural formalities; they go to the heart of the committee’s ability to function effectively and to address the critical issues that are tearing our state apart. The success of this committee, and indeed the state’s path to peace, hinges on transparency, adherence to parliamentary norms, and the genuine willingness of its members to engage in the difficult work ahead. Without these, the committee risks becoming yet another empty gesture, incapable of delivering the much-needed solutions our state so desperately needs.