By Airpeace W. Rani
Of late the Sixth Schedule, traditional institutions and the working of Autonomous District Councils (hereafter ADCs) in North-East India have been an area of interest among researchers, constitutional experts and academicians both from within and outside the region and even for foreign scholars. In some Universities in the North-East, the topic related to ADCs has been considered overdone since there had been a number of research works already carried out in the area. Many more publications in the form of journalistic write-ups have been published through various newspapers and journals. Besides, there have been seminars, talks, panel discussions et al to deliberate on the role and functions of district councils as envisaged in the Sixth Schedule. Having surveyed some of the literatures on ADCs with special reference to Meghalaya and after a critical examination on the issue of relevance, I am convinced about the caption of this article. In fact the question of relevance of the ADCs in Meghalaya had been conceived right from the time when Meghalaya was born. This question still lingers and will perhaps meet its own destiny one fine day.
The current debate on the issue of relevance of ADCs in Meghalaya has three school of thoughts: One, those who advocate that ADCs have been playing a crucial role in nurturing and promoting the cultural practices of the people of Meghalaya and express fear that if the Sixth Schedule is removed then traditional institutions in the state would be at stake and that even non-tribal people will one day be at the helm of local governance here. Second, those who advocate that the Sixth Schedule is irrelevant after the formation of the State of Meghalaya since the state can play a better role than the councils to preserve the traditional institutions. They also believe that ADCs have failed in every front and thus is a redundant body. Third is the school comprising those who believe that there are problems in the functioning of ADCs but those can be corrected if appropriate amendments/reforms are brought forth and if the provisions are implemented in the right spirit.
All these schools of thought have one thing in common – that traditional institutions are still relevant and play an important role in local governance and administration in Meghalaya. Though they hold different views about the efficacy of the councils yet they cling to the point that traditions need to be preserved. To many the ADCs too have become our traditional institutions to the extent that some look at the Sixth Schedule as a heritage. In this regard PA Sangma’s view on the issue merits discussion. He says that after the implementation of the Constitution of India, the ADCs have become a traditional institution to which people have a sentimental attachment because after independence, the traditional institutions of the tribal people in the North-East were repressed. Sangma suggests that the role of the ADCs has to be redefined especially in the context of Panchayati Raj system not being made applicable in Meghalaya or in tribal areas with the exception of Arunachal Pradesh. Sangma goes on to say, “The initial concept of having an autonomous body was because we were a minority within Assam. Now we have our own State, hence it is reasonable to say that the District Council is no longer relevant. However, I feel that total abolition will hurt the sentiments of the people and therefore the role of the District Council should just be redefined.”
To better understand the relevance of ADCs in Meghalaya one may analyse the subject from two dimensions – the theoretical and practical aspects. Theoretically, the meaning and significance of the ADCs can be gauged from the provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. The Sixth Schedule has very noble aims and objectives which were appropriate for the special protection of the indigenous tribals under Assam. The aims and objectives of the Sixth Schedule will remain relevant as long as the tribes in Meghalaya want to maintain their traditional customs and practices. But in practice the ADCs in Meghalaya suffer from internal dissensions and failures. In actual practice the ADCs seem to interfere rather than manage and maintain the traditional institutions. The Sixth Schedule has relegated the traditional heads to a subordinate position, turning them into agents of the Councils. The fundamental cause of conflict is that the Councils which are modern institutions based on western democracy are being implanted to preserve the traditional institutions in Meghalaya. If the traditional institutions in Meghalaya merit to be preserved then why can’t they be given a Constitutional status? Why to constitute an unnecessary ‘dalal’ like the ADCs. Various studies have pointed out that practically ADCs in Meghalaya have failed to live up to the expectations as visualized in the Sixth Schedule. Toki Blah in his article “The Sixth Schedule and I” reiterated that “the Biblical quote Mene, Mene,Tekel, Upharsin (Daniel 5:25) can best describe the public image of the District Councils of Meghalaya.” For over sixty years they have stood the test of time but the measure of the output clearly indicates that they are found wanting. How have the hundred and thousands of crores of money incurred on administration of ADCs in the state improved us in any way? I fear the Councils that have been designed as Noah’s ark to preserve our traditions will someday meet Titanic like catastrophe.
The system of governance and administration of the ADCs is not based on customary practices of the people. It is based on the modern lines of public administration and justice along with the presence of democratic electoral politics contested on party lines. This led to the politicization of traditional institutions and ultimately all the evils of the democratic system have crept into Meghalaya’s traditions. Professor L.S. Gassah argues that the people of Meghalaya, from 1952 onwards till date have not been able to either accept modern political institutions in toto or discard the traditional institutions completely. This led to the tradition-modernity dichotomy among our people. This dichotomy has led to the clash between traditional practices and the rules of ADCs in Meghalaya. For instance, Khasi women are never allowed to be the members of the local dorbar or that of the Council of the Syiem but they are allowed to be the members in ADCs. In this way they can indirectly intervene into the matters of traditional institutions. Political affiliations of the traditional chiefs with the Councils have led to the tussle for power among themselves. It’s time to realize that all tradition is not necessarily good because tradition too is man-made to serve his needs in a particular context. Tradition is meant for us and not vice versa. We should preserve them so long as they serve our needs and interests otherwise we should be bold enough to change, modify or do away with them depending upon the requirements of time and based on public consensus.
It is intriguing why our forefathers confined syiemship and bakhrawship to some particular clans only, while the issue of governance concerns all. More intriguing is why we continue with the system. If we apply the Marxist theory of state formation, this is nothing less than a tactic to wield political power by a few clans. With the passage of time the concept of syiemship seems to have regressed to that of 15th and 16th century Europe. A time will come when our younger generation will raise questions about the hereditary character of these traditional chiefs who control the land, resources and markets. If women cannot be part of the local dorbar then why allow them to be in the ADCs dorbar? However, we cannot deny that there might have been a number of women chiefs or members in our traditional governance in the past but as of today women are debarred from holding public office in the traditional institutions. At the same time we should also remember that all that is modern is not necessarily good for us. There is need to balance traditions and modernity. The objectives of the Sixth Schedule are still relevant for us today but the ADCs as channels of the Schedule remain questionable. In this regard I would agree with the idea of K.L. Tariang who propagated that if our ADCs are to continue under the present electoral representation system then why not create a Department in the State Government to look exclusively after the State’s tribal issues/traditional institutional affairs other than development and natural resources conservation. This, Tariang says may deliver better on the objectives which the District Councils profess to claim exclusively as theirs. But then even if we curtail the expenditure by replacing the ADCs with just a department of the state government, the purpose is still not served if such savings are not utilized for public interest. If the money is to be corrupted by few individuals then it is better paid as salaries and schemes among the workers of the ADCs because it would at least mean equitable distribution of corruption.