By Collin Wanñiang
Thanks to the various articles and diverse views on the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) that appeared in the Shillong Times. As an opinion, I maintain that the introduction of the ADCs in the Sixth Schedule is a mechanism which the Indian State manoeuvres to accommodate the tribals with their distinct traditional institutions with the rest of India. In other words, it was not yet an opportune moment then to declare the semi-democratic and hereditary traditional institutions incompatible with modern day democracy with universal adult franchise. Doing away with the traditional governance mechanisms at that point of time would have alienated the tribals further. So, the ADCs appear to have been born from this need for reconciliation. Today, after many decades of their existence, it has been reviewed that they have not borne the desired fruits of expectation. C.J.Thomas and L.S.Gassah in “Status of the Panchayats in Meghalaya” mention of a workshop conducted by the NERC-ICSSR during 12-14 October, 1995 to initiate a debate and ascertain people’s opinion about the relevance of the 73rd Amendment Act, 1992 in the areas covered under the Sixth Schedule. Two decades ago, in that workshop there were no well defined and clear cut recommendations on the issue of applicability of the 73rd Amendment Act to Meghalaya. View points were mainly concerned with the continuation of the provisions of the Sixth Schedule and that traditional tribal Institutions and customary laws must not be disturbed no matter what new structures are brought into being.
Commenting on the formation of the ADCs for the hill tribal areas, Thomas and Gassah contend that “the formation of the ADCs under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution was essentially a statutory innovation that emanated from the historicity of the situation created by the topographical features of the region and historical experiences of the people. Initially, the people responded enthusiastically to this arrangement as constitutional recognition was given to the specificities of socio-economic and politics of the region. But the far-reaching changes have now taken place in the area since 1952 when ADCs were formed. The role, functions and workings of the ADCs have been studied and reviewed through several empirical studies by the scholars of the region itself. While the relevance of the Council has been questioned after creation of full-fledged states where District Councils were in operation, the ADCs on their part have been demanding more autonomy and direct funding from the Centre.”
If this is the case, then what has gone wrong here? Stating that the traditional Institutions need to change or risk becoming set, rigid and moribund, D.R.Syiemlieh in “Traditional Institutions of Governance in the Hills of North East India: The Khasi Experience” observes, ‘In part, the hardening of the traditional leaders at the Hima level to the changes they face comes as a reaction to the unsympathetic, if not unconcerned attitude of the Indian State over the past five decades. The Indian State has lost sight of the role traditional institutions could have played in the administration of the tribal people in a more effective manner. It has not learnt any lessons from the British, who had used the chiefs and their councils as useful instruments in what has been called ‘indirect administration’. Rather than utilise the experience of their leadership, a new institution was introduced under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution in the form of the Autonomous Councils, comprising elected representatives of the tribal population to oversee, as part of their functions, the working of the age-old traditional forms of government. With the introduction of the Councils the situation has actually deteriorated to mistrust of one institution by the other; a misuse of power by the newer form of administration, which has in most cases failed miserably. It is no surprise therefore that we are witnessing in our own time a resurgence of the rights, powers and privileges of the traditional institutions and their leaders.”
However, in the succeeding paragraph, Syiemlieh urges that caution should be the watchword of the traditional institutions as they seek constitutional recognition since times have changed. He says there are strong reservations to the continuation of the traditional institutions when there are newer, but by now time-tested, forms of governance that guarantee equality before the law; give women their rights; and stand for accountability.
Moreover, if the Indian State were to give constitutional recognition to the semi-democratic and hereditary institutions, it would have appeared self-contradictory. How could a Nation that adopts universal adult franchise promote simultaneously institutions based on hereditary practices? It seems absurd for today’s generation to actually comprehend the corporeality of the traditional institutions such as “Syiemship” whose electoral college comprises only particular clans (ki Kur Longsyiem), while all the other clans are under its governance. Perhaps, it was less unintelligible in auld lang syne, in the days of yore when such practices might have been substantiated by legendary tales on the emergences of extra mundane clans through wedlock with the mysterious “ka Pahsyntiew or ka Li-dohkha”.
Thus the demands for conferring constitutional recognition to the Hima and other traditional institutions in their present format will only perpetuate an oligarchy. Even though it is said that the relationship between the traditional authorities and the district councils have not been smooth because the former are treated as subordinate officials of the latter, however, with the present function of the traditional institutions there seems to be no better arrangement than maintaining the usual state of affairs. In the present scenario the ADCs cannot be termed as semi-democratic or hereditary, as para.2(1) states that their members are to be elected on the basis of adult suffrage. As such, they are the modern institutions with an aim to integrate the traditional authorities. In other words, the ADCs are testifying to their way of being “traditional” with accountability to the people who elected their MDCs. So, a better description is that the ADCs are meant to transform (pynthymmai) and not to stifle (pynsahdien) or to preserve (pynneh-pynsah) the traditional institutions in their obsolete state. There are many archaic conventions which do not deserve the name “traditions”. Is it not the duty of the ADCs to follow them up with corrective measures? The need of the hour for the ADCs to wisely exploit their own constitutional powers (para.3). Among the many, the urgent need of the hour is that they should initiate Reforms in Land Holdings (Rukom bate khyndew). Codifying the existing ones which are no longer the original traditions will only exacerbate the existing wide gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ as more and more land is concentrated in the hands of the few elite tribals. Moreover, the so-called traditional practices which governed the once upon a time matrilocal set-up are no longer the same from Rongdi to Kupli, from Bhoi to Maram, from Lyngngam to War, from Khynriam to Pnar, etc. Reforms on land holdings should be regarded as urgent and accordingly dealt with as the top priority of the ADCs. If this is ignored, then the State Government may have to fully utilize para.12(A) which will in turn validly corroborate the popular claim on the irrelevance of the ADCs.
One of the Khasi metaphors describing the sad state of affairs is about how the indigenous people (trai muluk trai jaka) became slaves (Ki Nongtong-um Ki Nongthoh-dieng) in their own land. A day will come, in fact, there are already auguries in the air that a more tragic, a more despicable, a more distasteful, and a more catastrophic ‘sad state of affairs’ is taking place amidst ‘Ka Jaitbynriew’ because the taskmasters who reduce the ‘trai muluk trai jaka’ into ‘Ki Nongtong-um Ki Nongthoh-dieng’ are none other than fellow ‘trai muluk trai jaka’ themselves.