By Fabian Lyngdoh
Discussion on the Instrument of Accession signed by the Indian native States for joining the modern Indian Democratic Republic has always been an interesting engagement. For a proper understanding of this complex issue, we need to go into the historical and constitutional implications of this Instrument. The British ruled India through two administrative systems: The British Provinces which were directly administered by the colonial Government of British India; and the Princely States which were ruled by native rulers, but were tied through a system of subsidiary alliances to the British Crown. There were 565 Princely States in India during the period of British rule. About 60 per cent of the territory of India was under British India, and 40 per cent under the Princely States.
In the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, the British misunderstood the Khasi Syiems as Kings or Rajas with supreme territorial authority. Hence, the Syiems were addressed as ‘Rajas’ in all agreements, formerly signed with the British. But from 1867 onwards the Syiems ceased to be classed as Rajas and the title ‘Syiem’ was officially recognized. In Khasi traditions, the real authority in a Khasi State was the Dorbar (council) of the heads of the clans called the Lyngdohs or Bakhraws of independent villages or Raids, who established the Hima. The Syiem was installed by the Bakhraws to function as a figurehead and a rallying moral centre. But through agreements and administrative actions, the colonial rulers drastically reduced the authority and status of the Bakhraws, and raised the authority and status of the Syiems unprecedentedly for their own colonial interests. Moreover, the authority and power of the Syiems over the people in the Khasi States were strongly protected by the British Government. There are documentary evidences to show that all efforts had been used by the colonial rulers to put down people’s resistance to the increasing power and authority of the Syiems. As seen from available documents, the British colonial officers had provided the Syiems of the major Khasi States with royal attires, guns, swords, Mauser Rifles, Mauser Automatic Pistols, Double-Barrel Breech Loading combined guns and rifles. These arms were evidently not for fighting against external enemies, but to impress the authority of the Syiem in relation to the people.
The Indian Independence Act, 1947,proclaiming the Paramountcy of the British Crown over the Princely States stood automatically terminated with effect from August 15th 1947.All rights surrendered by the States to the Paramount power would go back to them, and that Paramountcy could not be transferred to the Indian Union. This implicitly meant that the Princely States would be completely free to become sovereign States or to join with India or Pakistan. But the Congress under Nehru’s leadership clearly expressed that Independent India would not accept the Divine Right of Kings, and that any Princely State which refused to join the Constituent Assembly would be treated as an enemy State. He also made it known that no Princely State could prevail militarily against the army of Independent India.
The Interim Government set up a Ministry to deal with the problem of Indian States, with Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel as the Minister in charge along with V. P. Menon as the Secretary. With the exception of Hyderabad, Junagarh, and Jammu and Kashmir, Sardar Patel was able to persuade all the 562 Indian States to sign the Instrument of Accession. But by force of circumstances or by coercion all the States ultimately signed the Instrument of Accession.
Coming to the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, available documents show that the process of integration of the Khasi States to the Indian Union was coloured by a nasty tug-of-war between two parties with opposing ideologies. On one side, the Federation of Khasi States led by the traditional rulers argued that from time immemorial, the land has been ruled by indigenous democratic Syiems, Lyngdohs, and Sirdars who are not hereditary, but elected by the people (?).Moreover, they expressed that the traditional rulers, who they claimed to be fully democratic in nature, had for so long been enjoying all the rights and privileges under the British rule.It was argued that the Sixth Schedule does not guarantee the traditional rights and privileges of the Khasi people.Hence, they fought for the continuance of these traditional hereditary institutions as well as the protection of their sacred rights and special privileges. From December 15, 1947 onwards all the Khasi Chiefs signed the Instrument of Accession on behalf of their own respective States.On the other side, the United Khasi Jaintia Federated National Conference, led by Rev. J J M Nichols Roy advocated for the union of the Khasi States and the British Areas into one United Khasi Jaintia State through a popularly elected democratic structure, and vied for a separate United Khasi Jaintia State under the Constitution of India.
Rev. Nichols Roy had opined that the Federation of Khasi States did not have any legal cohesion. This is true because the Federation was only a voluntary association of the Chiefs of the States. The individual Rulers have not surrendered the political sovereignty of their States to the Federation, so to say. Hence, it is not a politically binding entity. Any State can opt out of the Federation any time; it all depends on the will of the incumbent Rulers of the component States. But Sardar Patel and his team took advantage of the Federation as an agency or instrument to facilitate the signing of the Instrument of Accession by all the heads of the 25 individual Khasi States. The signing of the Instrument of Accession by the President of the Federation of Khasi States has a moral value, but it has no legal value to the Government of India. That is why efforts were made by all means to get all the Chiefs of the Khasi States to sign the Instrument of Accession. It is the signing of the Chiefs individually on behalf of their own States that has a legal value.
The Instrument of Accession was a legal document first introduced by the Government of India Act, 1935, wherein it was provided that a Ruler of a Princely State could accede his kingdom into the ‘Federation of India’. The same instrument was used to get the native States accede to the Indian Union after Independence. A misinterpretation has been going around that even if a State had signed the Instrument of Accession; it does not become fully part of India if it had not signed the Instrument of Merger. But the reality is that the signing of the Instrument of Merger does not signify that a State has completely merged with India. The signing of the Instrument of Accession is in itself an act that signifies that a State has perpetually acceded into India unless otherwise, altered by subsequent revolutions or wars.
The Instrument of Merger was used for the merging of small States and for ending the princely status of the States, and the establishment of republican democracy. After signing the Instrument of Accession, the smaller States were merged either into neighbouring Provinces, or with other Princely States to create new Provinces, through the Instrument of Merger. This process involved the dissolution of the Princely States and the removal of the Rajas from authority. By the Instrument of Merger, full republican democracy was introduced, and the Rulers of the Princely States were no longer rulers, though the existence of such princely dynasties had been guaranteed in the Instruments of Accession – that has been a hard fact of the actual course of history! For Jammu and Kashmir, the Maharaja did not sign any instrument of merger. But in 1952–53, the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, which was elected by the people, framed a Constitution for the State that put the Maharaja out of the scene. After a lot of pressure, the Maharaja relented and stepped down in 1952, and the princely status of Jammu and Kashmir ended without the need for signing the Instrument of merger.
The aspirations of the Khasi leaders were not fully accommodated, but a conciliatory formula in the form of the Sixth Schedule to the Indian Constitution was constructed which guarantees the preservation and protection of traditional institutions and customs of the tribals of North East India. Hence, through the door of the Sixth Schedule the Khasi States and their traditional Rulers found a constitutional recognition, and they were placed under the supervision of a democratically elected constitutional and indigenous Autonomous District Council.
It is very interesting to note that the only native States in India that have not signed the Instrument of Merger or merged by any other means, are the Khasi States. The Khasi States had not been merged with the State of Assam. If they had been merged, then the hereditary Syiems and Lyngdohs of the States would have all been abolished and modern democratic republican structures like in Mizoram, would have been established all through the Khasi and Jaintia Hills. Within the State of Assam, the hereditary Syiems, Lyngdohs and Dalois had existed to exercise their traditional authority under the provisions of the Sixth Schedule and the supervision of the Autonomous District Council. Without this protective mechanism in the Sixth Schedule, the Khasi traditional hereditary institutions cannot exist. The Instrument of Accession had not been able to preserve and protect the existence of powerful Princely States and the dynasties of their Rajas in spite of all the flattering provisions therein. But the Sixth Schedule was able to preserve and protect the existence of the Khasi States, and the dynasties of their Rulers till today. Hence, there is no constitutional way by which the hereditary Syiems and Lyngdohs of the Khasi States can independently and directly exist without the protective provisions of the Sixth Schedule because the Constitution of the Indian Democratic Republic does not recognise the Divine Rights of Kings.
What is actually needed is honesty, sincerity and uprightness of character among the people.
(The writer can be contacted at [email protected])