By Kyrsoibor Pyrtuh
The ongoing peace talks between the Government of India and various armed insurgent groups in the Northeast, like the NSCN (IM), ULFA and especially the Hynñiewtrep National Liberation Council (HNLC), warrant a public discourse. Apparently, the insurgent groups have concurred to negotiate within the framework of the Indian Constitution and on the eve of Republic Day we delve into the constitutional and political aspects pertaining to the land of Hynñiewtrep.
The Constitution of India was not handed down from heaven, but is rather the result of a democratic and participatory process. Since its inauguration on 9 December 1946, the Constituent Assembly met over a period of three years from 1946 to 1949 and engaged in extensive debates and deliberations to shape the contents of the Constitution. The members of the Constituent Assembly drew upon their knowledge, experiences and perspectives to address the aspirations of cross sections of society, including those of minorities and indigenous tribes. The Constitution of India, which was adopted on November 26, 1949, followed by the declaration of India as Republic on January 26, 1950, embodied the values of democracy, justice, liberty, equality, fraternity, plurality and secularism. While the Constitution of India is a landmark document, it is not without fissures, gaps and anomalies. Moreover, in the present context of emerging majoritarian rule, we ought to defend the values embedded in the Constitution and not to allow its dilution.
The Constitution of India is not just a legal document, but a political agreement whereby the Indian Union had entered with diverse political/socio-ethnic entities across the sub-continent. In between December 1947 and March 1948, when the Khasi States acceded to the Indian Union, via the Instrument of Accession, the Hynñiewtrep people were granted the desired dream of self-rule and autonomy as prescribed in the Annexed Agreement. The Indian Union is expected to respect and fulfill the aspirations of the Hynñiewtrep people within the time frame period. But it did not materialize and the then Independent Khasi States were included within the territory of Assam as defined in the First Schedule to the Constitution thus- “The territory of Assam shall comprise the territories which before the commencement of this Constitution were comprised of the Province of Assam, the Khasi States and Assam Tribal Areas”. Professor S. K Chaube called this the Act of State and against their wishes, the Khasi Siemships were put within Assam by the promulgation of the Constitution.
Until 1949 the Khasi States under the Federation continued to fight collectively for the unification of all Khasi Territory amidst political wrangling and sharp divisions among the major political groups, namely, the Federation of Khasi States and the Khasi-Jaiñtia Federated State National Conference. The latter which espoused the formulation of Sixth Schedule and whose leader Rev J.J.M Nichols Roy, a member of the Constituent Assembly from Assam, prevailed upon the Assembly to relegate the Khasi States to the Sixth Schedule in contravention to the resolution passed by the Khasi States Constitution Making Durbar held from April to July 1949.
As quoted in the book, Ka Ri Hynñiewtrep Shuwa bad Hadien Ka “Independence Day” (Ri Hynñiewtrep Before and After Independence Day) the root of political dissent could be traced to 1948 when Rev J.J.M Nichols Roy moved for the insertion of the following proviso to Article 190, “Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in article 225 the Governor of Assam may by public notification direct that any Khasi State area may be administered as if they were part of the autonomous district of the Khasi and Jaintia Hills mentioned in Part I of the table appended to paragraph 19 of the said Schedule…” On the other hand, Article 225 of the Draft Constitution provided that the power of Parliament to make laws for a State or group of States for the time being specified in Part III of the First Schedule are subjected to the terms of any agreements entered between the State or group of States with the Government of India.
The Federation of Khasi States resolved to oppose the motion and immediately dispatched the letter to New Delhi to inform about its stand and urged upon Mr Guha, who was the representative of the Khasi States, to object and place before the Constituent Assembly its resolution. Later, Professor G.G Swell explained the well-founded position of Khasi States in these words, “It was on this score that we opposed the coming of the Khasi States under the District Council which would be then under the aegis of Government of Assam and therefore would mean their automatic merger with Assam. We thought by keeping these States as a separate entity it would quickly facilitate the creation of a separate State. Our efforts collapsed even though we had a majority in the Constitution Making Durbar of the Khasi States…and the Durbar itself was soon wound up under somewhat mysterious circumstances.”
The sudden announcement by the HNLC to withdraw from the peace talks has thus provoked the reopening of these historical debates and political contexts. There can be no workable resolution that can be arrived at by disregarding history. However, there is limited material regarding the HNLC vis a vis its structures, ideology and demands. In the academic exercise conducted twenty years ago it was found that 40% of the unemployed youths and 25% of the students respectively supported the idea of secession from the Indian Union, whereas the overwhelming majority across different categories opted for a special constitutional and political status for the Khasi States. It must be noted that, “In 1992, the Khasi Students’ Union revived this issue and included in its demand the restoration of the Khasi States to their original position…” by way of Special Provision in the Constitution.
This issue is also being championed by the HNLC, a liberation group which demanded for the secession of the land of Hynñiewtrep from the Indian Union. The HNLC was of the view that an armed struggle was necessary for the political settlement and in its efforts to sustain the liberation movement it was alleged to have committed serious criminal acts and is charged with the killings of police personnel, informants, innocents, kidnappings and extortion. Subsequently, in 2000 the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India, declared HNLC as a banned Organization under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) 1967. The ban is renewed several times and again in 2019 the MHA has notified the ban as the group continued to pose a threat to national security and law and order in the region. Several top functionaries and cadres of HNLC have been charged under various sections of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and UAPA. Therefore, summons have been issued to them to appear before authorities for questioning and investigation.
Since 2004, efforts have been made to bring the HNLC to the negotiating table. Several organizations, including successive governments, religious and civil society groups have come forward to appeal and reach the leaders of the HNLC to engage in the peace process and find a final settlement of its varied demands. The same year, Rev P.B.M Basaïawmoit was engaged by the Ministry of Home Affairs as an emissary to the HNLC and unfortunately subsequent attempts to bring the HNLC leadership to the table did not fructify. It was until 2022 when the HNLC agreed to send five of its functionaries led by the Vice Chairman to kick off the peace negotiations.
It is understood that when HNLC agreed to come to the peace talks they had stressed for general amnesty and safe passage of their leaders as a prerequisite to the peace talks. Perhaps these demands can be construed as confidence-building measures amongst the parties involved in the talks. However, the same might face contestations outside the negotiating room and the HNLC may also have questions to answer to the public, especially the victims of its alleged violence.
Be that as it may, the State and society need peace and a final settlement must be reached sooner than we later. As a member of the Hynñiewtrep community I earnestly appeal to the HNLC to reconsider their decision to withdraw from the Tripartite peace talks. At the same time, I want to make the following submission: – (i) the HNLC to share with the public their proposed political framework and call for participatory and wider consultations with the people/society (ii) to provide for Truth and Reconciliation process to be led by elders (both men and women) of society. Such a platform will allow the victims of violence and killings to express themselves and enable them to heal the wounds and come to terms with what happened. It will also facilitate the HNLC to reach out to the community, especially the victims, and reconcile with them. (iii) Seemingly, the numerical strength of HNLC cadres has dwindled, but there can be many factors which may cause the resurgence of armed conflict. The State/society should be wary and make sincere efforts to find a final settlement to this vexed political problem.