SHILLONG: The emergency State Cabinet meeting held on Friday night recommended administrator’s rule in the GHADC.
The GHADC plunged into a crisis after its Chief Executive Member Denang Sangma resigned before facing the no-confidence motion brought by the Congress-led opposition.
The sudden passing of the controversial Garo Customary Bill is cited as the reason for the collapse of the NPP-led EC.
However, District Council Affairs Minister Prestone Tynsong told The Shillong Times on Saturday that since the GHADC could not pass the budget, there was a constitutional crisis and hence there was no other option for the Cabinet than to recommend administrator’s rule. Administrator’s rule ensures that the West Garo Hills District Administration will now look after the affairs of GHADC and the rule may extend at least for six months.
Before the elections to GHADC in October 2015, on three occasions the Cabinet had extended the administrator’s rule for six months each. “Though we had sent the necessary reports to the Governor on Thursday apprising him of the developments in GHADC, the emergency Cabinet meeting held last night felt it necessary to impose administrator’s rule,” Tynsong said.
According to Tynsong, since GHADC could not pass the budget before March 31, there is a constitutional crisis. “The Cabinet recommended administrator’s rule with immediate effect and the decision has been communicated to the Governor,” Tynsong said.
The minister said though the maximum duration of the administrator’s rule is six months, the matter can be reviewed by the Cabinet whenever necessary. The NPP had said the sudden passing of the Garo Customary Bill was the reason for the Congress, at the behest of Chief Minister Mukul Sangma, to topple the NPP-led executive committee.
The Garo Customary Bill defines who is a Garo and asserts that “Garo is a person born of real Garo parents”.
However, those who are close to the Congress see that the Customary Bill was aimed at targeting the chief minister whose ST status case is still pending in the Supreme Court.
The petitioners who filed the case against the chief minister had claimed that he was not from Garo tribe since his mother was not a Garo.
Moreover, a section of the Garo community is opposing the Customary Bill stating that it will be against the concept of modern society where mixed marriage is a reality.
Among those who are opposing the Bill also include persons from mixed marriages.
However, another section is in favour of the Bill as it feels that influx and mixed marriages have alienated the Garo tribe.
