By Albert Thyrniang
The long overdue election to the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) is finally around the corner. The election will take place on October 12 next after unnecessary extension of its terms since February 2014. The explanation for the unreasonable extensions is centred round the demand of the ANVC and ANVC (B) to increase the seats of the GHADC. The increase of seats forms part of the “Agreed Text for Settlement” signed between the government and the twin ANVCs. The justification for the undue delay of the election was that Centre had given a green signal to increase the number of seats in the GHADC by amending the Sixth Schedule.
To me this is unconvincing because everyone knows that every amendment to the Constitution of India takes a long time. The Bill has to be introduced in one of the Houses of parliament and passed by a two- thirds majority separately before it goes to the President for his/her assent. To believe that the process of amending the Six Schedule could be completed in six months or one year would be naive and speaks of the ignorance of the rigid constitutional amendment procedure. Delhi will not consider such an ‘insignificant’ issue to urgently comply with the state’s wishful thinking.
Not surprisingly, the Centre conveyed to the State Government that the amendment to the relevant provisions of the Sixth Schedule requires time and firmly advised the state government to hold elections to the Autonomous Council that covers the five districts of Garo Hills. The promise of convincing the Central Government to bring about a constitutional amendment remained unfulfilled. One feared that the motives for extensions of the terms of the GHADC were hidden. The reasons given were camouflaged.
With no other option the government has to hold election to the District Council It ultimately imposed Administrator’s rule on the GHADC for a period of two months with effect from August 18 to enable the West Garo Hills Deputy Commissioner to complete the election process before the end of October. Now the preparations are in the final stages and the state is all set for the much anticipated and expected election.
The GHADC is a 30 member house. But only 29 are directly elected while one is nominated. 164 aspirants will fight it out for the 29 seats. This means that more than 82 per cent of the candidates will end up losing and less than 18 per cent will be winners. This is quite cruel! One would like the ideal scenario to happen – that the best 30 of 164 be elected. This is highly unlikely. This is probably the expectation of a realist rather than a pessimist. Sad to say but the question of money power and influence may be the deciding factor. The gun may also still play a strong role. The GNLA and other militant groups have openly lent their support to NGOs spearheading the non-inclusion of non-tribals in the District Council election. The spurt of abductions have been taking place in recent months in Garo Hills. The most recent incident is the kidnap of a central intelligent official. Fearing that the central government may take tough actions, the rebels are queuing up to deny their involvement in the daring hostage taking. The point is that gun men can enforce villagers to vote for a candidate of their choice. Even religion and family ties may eventually influence our final decision on the ballot day. Hope the voters are wise to cost their vote for the most meritorious candidates leaving aside all considerations.
Garo Hills needs able Councillors to protect the land, forests, trade and culture and traditions of the hills. The previous house has done precious little on the above fronts. There were charges of corruption and misappropriations of funds. The multi-crore scam in the Sixth Schedule institution in 2009-10 was only one case among many. Instead of unearthing the scam the government wasted another Rs 22 lakh (Rs 22, 41, 206) as the report of the one-man Judicial Inquiry Commission headed by Justice (retd) PG Agarwal was left to gather dust in the District Council Affairs Department. Financial mismanagement was the most visible failure of dissolved house. Employees were not paid their salary for three to five months. How they survived is a curious question!
On culture and tradition the institution, which is precisely meant for their preservation and promotion, has nothing much to boast about. The Congress led Executive Committee could not even introduce the Codification of Garo Customary Law, Bill, 2009 as it included a “contentious clause” on the definition of the Garo tribe. The controversial clause reads, “A person who is born of a non-Garo mother and a Garo father is recognized as member of the Garo tribe provided he follows the Garo customs and traditions”
The tabling of the highly controversial bill came at the time when Tennydard Marak was pursuing the tribal status issue of Chief Minister, Dr Mukul Sangma, in court. The bill, therefore, raised many an eyebrow. It was directly seen as legal protection to the Chief Minister who was born of non-Garo mother and a Garo father. Garo Hills based NGOs, therefore, stalled the introduction of the Bill.
Let us now come to the present controversy – contesting of non-tribal candidates and participation of non-tribal voters in the election. The law permits non-tribals to contest and vote in the GHADC election. However, when the Administrator made a statement to this effect, NGOs and pressure groups condemned it. Protests rallies were organized to disallow the non-indigenous people from taking part in the upcoming election on the plea that GHADC is exclusively meant for the Garos. Contrary to the demand of the NGOs, the Congress included two non-tribals in its list of candidates. The NPP followed suit by allotting one ticket to a non-tribal. This angered the agitating NGOs who threatened to boycott the election and asked all Garo candidates to withdraw their candidature or not to file their nomination papers. Disregarding the opposition, the former ANVC leader, Rimpu Marak filed nomination papers as an independent candidate.
One is not sure whether his decision toned down the pitch of the NGOs but it certainly makes matters more complex. Marak justified his decision by putting the blame of the GHADC’s failure to legislate a law barring non-tribal from contesting and voting in the council’s election. Probably he has a point. It adds to the total failure of the previous elected representatives to do their job. The Chief Minister, in the meantime, saw red. Talking tough, he threatened to initiate an inquiry into the protests claiming involvement of underground groups. He questioned the motive behind the protests while warning that forcefully and illegally excluding non-tribals would even lead to declaration of the results null and void should someone go to court. On his part, PA Sangma, made a fervent appeal to opposing groups to be gracious and keep the composite nature of the voters in the region in mind. Noting that there are only three non-tribal candidates, the veteran leader foresees an adverse ramification on the Garos living in other states if non-tribals are denied the right to contest and to exercise their franchise.
In a democratic country opposition is acceptable nut disruption or boycott of the belated forthcoming election would be unfortunate. Or else, as we know, GHADC was in controversy, is in controversy will be in controversy after the polls too.