By Wankitbok Pohshna
This caption of my article is also the question which always lingers my mind. Are we indigenous? What characterizes an indigenous race and culture? As per the United Nations Department of Economic & Social Affairs, State of the World’s Indigenous People’s concept ‘Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems. This historical continuity may continue for an extended period reaching into the presence of one or more of the following factors:
a. Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them
b. Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands
c. Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.)
d. Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language)
e. Residence in certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world
f. Other relevant factors
On an individual basis, an indigenous person is one who belongs to these indigenous populations through self-identification as indigenous (group consciousness) and are recognized and accepted by these populations as one of its members (acceptance by the group)’
Based on the above concept and observations, we the Khasi, Jaintia & Garo peoples are indeed indigenous tribes in this great nation of India, as we categorically have in history our unique system of occupation of ancestral lands, unique system of self-governance etc. However with the advent of globalization and invasion of modernization, this uniqueness has been a disturbing factor in recent years. There is a state conflict on the issues which determines us to be Indigenous communities. We are at war with the state machineries on varied issues.
The recent tussles between the Autonomous District Councils, the constitutional bodies under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution to protect the rights of the indigenous people and the State Government of Meghalaya, (also a democratically elected state created on the lines to protect the uniqueness of the indigenous inhabitants of Meghalaya), has left us dumbstruck to ascertain who is right and who is wrong. They have both failed to elaborate the issues of existence. Their failure to protect the unique system of self-governance of the indigenous tribes has resulted in the intervention of the Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya to question the derivative powers of traditional institutions – the Dorbar Shnong. The ruling wasn’t necessary if our forefathers had codified our practices way back in 1952 or in 1972. Their shortsightedness has resulted in a conflict which seems to be never ending. Yet before we deliberate on this point of conflict, let us understand our uniqueness as an Indigenous tribe(s).
The resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 September 2007 has clearly defined the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 3 of the UN declaration states that ‘Indigenous peoples, have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development’. Article 4 states that ‘Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions’. Article 5 states ‘Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State’. Article 8.1 states that ‘Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture’. Article 10 states that ‘Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.
In the same vein Article 18 states that ‘Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision making institutions. Article 19 says, ‘States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. Article 20.1 states that ‘Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities.
Subsequently, Article 27 says, ‘States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process, giving due recognition to indigenous peoples laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems, to recognize and adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands, territories and resources, including those which were traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. Indigenous peoples shall have the right to participate in this process.
When the Panchayati Raj system was introduced in India in 1992, Meghalaya was specifically not included into the Act, since the system of Dorbar Shnong was already in place, which was prevalent since time immemorial here. Even late Prime Minister Late Rajiv Gandhi had stated that since the States of Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland already have their traditional institutions, they could be exempted from the 73rd and 74th Amendment Acts. Such institutions are time tested and have evolved with the times. No doubt the existing practice has its own demerits, which can be corrected if warranted. Yet with all such provisions in place, why are we the Indigenous tribes of Meghalaya always in conflict always about our very own existence. This is a question we all need to ponder upon. Do we feel alienated in our own land? Is our system flawed? How and in which way do we correct it and in whose interest do we do so. Who then is to correct such faults?
When the Sixth Schedule was framed (1947-1949), it was done so after an informed debate by the then constituent assembly which allowed the ADC’s to function in their present form except within Municipal Areas. However, Part 1 then and now, which is in the Mylliem state should be subjected to Municipal laws only, while for other purposes for which the District Council is constituted it should remain subject to the Councils. But what went wrong in 1969 -1972 was the inclusion of Para12A in the Sixth Schedule which has led to total chaos. What is Para12A and what relevance does it have for the indigenous community here?
In layman’s term para12A would have not been problematic if we had accepted the Hill State of Meghalaya created on 21 January 1972 in letter and spirit, keeping the interests of the indigenous community uppermost. Para12A has rather become a bone of contention between the ADCs and the State Government since then, and now it has created confusion among the indigenous community. We have almost forgotten that we are indigenous and that we are protected by our rights. The movement of Synjuk ki Nongsynshar Shnong ka Bri u Hynniewtrep (SKNSBH) or the Federation of Tribal Dorbar (FTD) should remember that we represent an indigenous community and our very own existence is protected under the UN declaration of 2007 to which India is also a signatory. Therefore the modus of bringing a permanent solution to this conflict should be with the state machinery. If, however such definitions aren’t clear enough for the stakeholders of our times to understand, then the Centre or any independent institution should help to clear the air instead of endangering our unique indigenous system. We need to find an effective and permanent solution to the foreboding question of our identity.
(The writer is Executive Member Laitumkhrah Dorbar Shnong Pyllun)