Over 100 traditional heads attend UDP-called meet on HC ruling
SHILLONG: The consult-ative meeting convened by UDP to deliberate on the recent High Court ruling on traditional heads unanimously resolved to urge the two Autonomous District Councils — KHADC and JHADC — to prepare a legislation which would clearly specify the powers and functions of those heading the traditional bodies.
Declining to comment on the court ruling which questioned the role of traditional heads in the State, the gathering at Jaiaw Shyiap & Lum Pyllon community hall on Saturday only advocated the need to bind such heads with a proper legislation.
The consultative meeting was attended by over 100 traditional heads from various parts of Khasi and Jaintia Hills among others.
Speaking at the meeting UDP working president Bindo M Lanong said, “There is an urgent need to have a legislation which will specify the role and functions of the various traditional heads.”
He also stated that the meeting decided not to comment on the order passed by the High Court since there is no proper law at present which defines the powers and functions of the headmen clearly.
Referring to the High Court ruling which barred headmen from issuing NOCs, the UDP working president observed that the state government would be in a fix when “it comes to acting against the headmen who continue to do so since the government would need cooperation and support of the traditional heads for implementing the various State and Central schemes.”
“Not only this, the state is also going to face a lot of difficulties in terms of maintaining the law and order without the support of the headmen,” he added Meanwhile, during the meeting, the traditional heads along with the UDP also decided to demand the redrafting of the proposed Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Village Administration) Bill, 2014.
“The bill needs to be re-drafted since there are serious anomalies in it,” Lanong said adding that after the redrafting the bill, the KHADC will be given a month’s time to resubmit it to the state government for getting it approved.
The KHADC had passed and submitted the Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Village Administration) Bill, 2014 to the State government’s District Council Affairs (DCA) department in June last.
While pointing out the anomalies of the Bill, the UDP working president stated that Clause 6 of the Bill, which speaks about the ceremony of ‘tehrangbah’ wherein “the sons of a village are to be recognised by the Dorbar Shnong once they attain the age of 18, is an unnecessary inclusion.
Lanong was also opposed to the clause which calls for the need to have a village development council (VDC) which will function under the Dorbar Shnong for implementation of all the developmental schemes and programmes of the government.
The meeting also decided to constitute a five-member committee under Lanong to pursue the matter.
Chairman of Mawlai Town Dorbar, SD Khongwir, headman of Lumdiengjri, Robert Dkhar, secretary of Nongthymmai Dorbar Pyllun, Emlang Lytan, headman of Nongrah, Ban Pyngrope, and headman of Riatsamthiah, Baston S Lyngdoh will be the five members of the Committee.
“This committee will give its views and suggestions to the KHADC on redrafting the bill and other aspects related to the issue,” Lanong said while informing that the committee will meet the KHADC chief soon on the issue.
Meanwhile, speaking at the meeting another working president of UDP Paul Lyngdoh took exception to the High Court order which stated that “some of the headmen are mere drivers and peons”. The statement, according to him, has hurt the sentiments of the Khasi community.
“If the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi can proudly say that he was once a simple tea-seller before he became the PM, then what is the difficulty for drivers and peons to take up the responsibility of a headman,” he said.
Lyngdoh also suggested that name of KHD (Village Administration) Bill, 2014 be changed to ‘Administration in Shnongs’.
Stating that the bill is found to have some structural defects, he said the word village administration is misleading as the definition of a ‘village’ in the bill has already excluded those villages which fall under municipality areas.