By Fabian Lyngdoh
It is a unique phenomenon among the states of India that Meghalaya, has a State Government as well as Autonomous District Councils serving the needs and interests of almost the same territorial area and the same people. Some critics feel that this has brought about what is called ‘institutional dissonance,’ resulting from layering of incongruent institutional structures. Such dissonance arises because of conflicting interests and means adopted by different institutions to achieve the overall goals of resources management. This view suggests that simultaneous existence of traditional and modern institutions of governance and administration has created a complicated situation today. They are of the view that the state suffers from this multiplicity of governance institutions where each tier asserts its own authority and those who suffer are the governed.
Why did the framers of the Constitution of India insert the Sixth Schedule for the special protection of the hills tribes of erstwhile Assam? There was an expressed need for special protection of tribal people in the modern day political and economic system of India, but for what reason? Debating in the Constituent Assembly Rev. J.J.M.Nichols Roy said, “The Sub-Committee for the Tribal areas in Assam recommended that these districts mentioned in the Sixth Schedule should have a sort of self-government to rule themselves according to their own culture and genius. In the same Constituent Assembly debate, Dr. Ambedkar said, “The position of the tribals of Assam, whatever may be the reason for it, is somewhat analogous to the position of the Red Indians in the United States, as against the white emigrants there…what they did was to create what are called ‘Reservation of Boundaries’ within which the Red Indians lived. They are a republic by themselves…by law they are citizens of the United States, factually they are a separate independent people”. This suggests that the idea of constitutionally protected traditional political institutions is based on what academics call a ‘distinctive ethnicity factor’ with ‘minority consciousness’. This seems to be the opinion among the leaders of the Khasi society.
J.J.M.Nichols Roy in his note prepared in 1928 for the Indian Statutory Commission, wrote, “Whatever may be the decision in regard to the other hill districts, the district of Khasi and Jaintia Hills stands on a different footing from all the other hill districts. It is not right to class this district among the backward tracts”. This suggests that constitutional protection is not on the basis of backwardness but on distinctive ethnicity factor; and that seems to be the general concept the tribal people of North East India have in their minds today. Other members of the Constituent Assembly opposed this constitutional protection of the tribal political institutions on the basis of ethnic identity. They felt that the scheduled tribes indeed are a weaker section of society and that efforts should be made to bring about socio-economic change under special constitutional provisions to improve their lives. Hence they expressed that protection should be provided on grounds of socio-economic backwardness and with a time frame up to a certain period when they catch up with the majority of Indians and then they would be absorbed and assimilated with the general population. Whatever the case may be, this special protection was given because the tribals in the erstwhile state of Assam were considered not only as backward but also as minorities.
In this way, autonomous district councils were constituted in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills and the Garo Hills in 1952. The Khasi-Jaintia people and the Garos were a minority in the state of Assam. In the year 1972, the state of Meghalaya was created covering the areas inhabited by the Khasi- Jaintia people and the Garos. The Khasi-Jaintia people and the Garos were minorities in the state of Assam, so they felt that autonomous district councils (then existent) could not meet their aspirations as minority tribals without a full-fledged state and a state government. Though they may still feel as minority communities in national terms, but they have become a majority in their own state carved out of erstwhile Assam. Today the scheduled tribes of Meghalaya with a state government constitute about 80 per cent of the population. If the three autonomous district councils of Meghalaya are constitutionally in charge of this 80 per cent of the population of the state, the Meghalaya state government must be in charge of the 20 percent of the population; and this constitutes non-tribals scattered all over the state and the bulk of non-tribals in Shillong. Territorially, the three ADC’s are in charge of the whole state. The ADC’s are constitutionally in charge of 94 per cent of the state’s forests. Territorially, the state government has authority only over the three wards of the Municipality of Shillong and some areas which it has purchased and which are scattered all over the state. The state government is not the owner of the land. The land is owned by the people in various ways under the supervision of traditional authorities and the ADC’s. This is the limited state government which has no authority over land and no authority over grass roots administration. Grass roots governance institutions are under the control of the traditional institutions and the ADC’s and the state government has to request the cooperation of such grass roots institutions even for implementing its own developmental schemes such as the NREGS and the BRGF or even in running the ordinary business of civil administration. It would have been a shame in other states of India if a Deputy Commissioner of a district should humbly request the headman of a village of fifty households to cooperate for census enumeration, polio immunization, law and order, and what not.
The limitation of the Meghalaya state government is reflected in its inability to push the Meghalaya Community Participation Bill, 2010 drafted by the Urban Affairs Department, Government of Meghalaya. It also reflected in its helplessness to carry through the “Draft Meghalaya Village Council Act, 2011” prepared by the Ministry of Pancahayati Raj, Government of India for preparing the way for the implementation of the provisions of the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments in Meghalaya. Now again its limitations glaringly reflect in utter embarrassment in its attempt to pass the state’s Tenancy Act, where it has no control over 80 per cent of the population and 99.9 percent of the land. People of Meghalaya should now think whether the Autonomous District Councils in a full-fledged tribal state are still relevant, or whether the state government in ADC administered areas are superfluous.
Mizoram was formerly a Union Territory. On 14th July 1986 Mizoram got its statehood and the areas inhabited by the Lais, Maras, and Chakma tribes got their own autonomous district councils. Today the population of the three ADC’s, Lai, Mara, and Chakma constitute only about 15 per cent of the total population of the state of Mizoram. All other tribes of Mizoram constituting 85 per cent of the population are not under the autonomous district councils but are directly under the state government; Also about 70 percent of the land is under the authority of the state government.
Tripura is inhabited by non-tribals in the majority and it is only in April 1985 that the tribals of Tripura were brought into the provisions of the Sixth Schedule from the Seventh Schedule. The reason is because the Tripuris and the other original inhabitants have become minorities within their own land. There are 19 tribal communities in Tripura constituting only about one third of the total population of the state.
In the state of Assam the population of tribals under autonomous tribal councils in Karbi Anglong, Dima Hasao (North Cachar) and Bodo Territorial Council are about 13 to 14 per cent of the population of the state. We need not go into details but it proves everywhere that the state government is concerned for the majority and the ADC’s for the minority in every state except in Meghalaya. In Meghalaya a new trend is about to emerge due to the incompetence of the state cabinet or the dictatorial leadership of the Chief Minister. Acting on political expediency, retired bureaucrats politically appointed as governors seem to display more executive powers singly rather than the usual parliamentary practice of acting on the advice of the cabinet. This is another new feature of the limited state government of Meghalaya.
( Author can be contacted at [email protected])