The Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) elections are almost upon us. While there has been a great deal of mudslinging and rhetoric used by the political parties against their opponents, it is important that whichever party were to win; they do not distort the mandate of the Sixth Schedule. The Sixth schedule is a constitutional provision whose design was very much inspired by Rev. James Joy Mohan Nichols Roy, a Khasi who along with Jaipal Singh Munda fought for it against attempts made to incorporate the indigenous communities within the mainstream. There were remarks made in the Constituent Assembly for allowing non-indigenous individuals to buy land in indigenous territories as part of the process of assimilation. Fortunately, the arguments made by Rev. JJM Nichols Roy and JP Singh could convince BR Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian Constitution, who supported autonomy and self-governance for the indigenous communities.
Similar protection for indigenous peoples also exists in other constitutional provisions like 371 A of Nagaland, which was the outcome of the 16 Framework agreement signed between the Naga People’s Convention and the Government of India in 1960. This agreement laid the foundation for the creation of the state of Nagaland, granting it special status under Article 371A of the Indian Constitution. This special constitutional provision reads: (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, (a) No Act of Parliament in respect of (i) religious or social practices of the Nagas, (ii) Naga customary law and procedure, (iii) administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Naga customary law, (iv) ownership and transfer of land and its resources, shall apply to the State of Nagaland unless the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland by a resolution so decides. The focus here, again, is on the supremacy of customary law and its independence from any external intervention. Does it mean that Nagaland can make laws under the Union list and Concurrent list and the Union Government cannot question them? No, it only provides it independence in matters of customary law, nothing more. These special rights protect only customary practices, the foundation of the Naga identity. However, in areas such as defence, foreign affairs, atomic energy, currency (Union List), criminal law, criminal procedure, economic and social planning, and legal, medical, and other professions (Concurrent List), the Union government maintains supremacy. So, the exceptionalism does not extend beyond customary laws. This mirrors the Sixth Schedule’s provisions.
The Sixth Schedule empowers Autonomous District Councils to make laws on certain specified matters including land, forests, canal water, shifting cultivation, village administration, inheritance of property, marriage and divorce, and social customs. Here again, customary laws are prioritised, except that paragraph 12A grants the state legislature ultimate lawmaking authority. In case of a clash between laws made by the ADC and the State Legislature of Meghalaya, the state law shall prevail. The question is whether there is any case the state government has struck a law based on customary practises made by the Autonomous District Councils down? I don’t know of any and it is likely that it has never happened. The explanation is very simple. Meghalaya is an indigenous ST majority state and legislators have overwhelmingly come from among the indigenous Khasi and Garo communities. The same parties that are part of the state legislature are also present in the ADCs. Also, because most of the state’s population is indigenous, attempts to dilute customary laws will face electoral consequences. So, I am waiting to find instances of when there has been an attempt by the state legislature to bring provisions to dilute the customary laws of the Khasi and Garo, which necessitates a change in the governance framework? If not, is the demand of 371 simply an attempt to agitate people unnecessarily to gain political advantage? After all, managing headlines and maintaining constant agitation can serve as convenient excuses for concealing an inability to truly govern. If people are always distracted, they wouldn’t really ask hard questions on issues of governance. They will just create imaginary enemies and blame them for all the problems, while business as usual continues.
What about the Union Government? Has it ever brought legislations and imposed on the indigenous communities of the state in contravention to the customary laws? Recent experience reveals that the Union Government (whichever party was in power) has been mindful of diluting the rights of the indigenous communities. The government excluded the Sixth Schedule areas from the CAA’s ambit upon its introduction. The recent UCC debate proposes to exclude indigenous ST communities. Uttarakhand implemented the UCC, but it excludes ST communities. The government of Meghalaya has already expressed its disapproval of adopting UCC. The Chief Minister Conrad Sangma stated that they will only accept such a legislation if the aim is to make everyone in the country follow matrilineal customs, which is the bedrock of Khasi and Garo identity. I completely agree with him. Why should others force us to follow non-Khasi customs when, for thousands of years, we have not only strongly held onto our matrilineal traditions but have also always tried to make others adopt them?
Khasis have always been zealous about conserving their matrilineal identity despite the very changes that have been taking place both within and around them. A very important event in Khasi history was the annexation of Jaintiapur by Hima Sutnga, which then became Hima Jaintiapur and was a powerful kingdom in the pre-colonial period. The founding of the new kingdom also brought the War-Amwi (who later became Pnar as the language evolved) in contact with the patrilineal Hindu communities of the plains. In his 2014 book ‘People of the Margins,’ Philippe Ramirez discusses how, although influenced by Brahmanical culture, Jaintia rulers still followed Pnar society’s typical inheritance principles: kingship passed to the sister’s son. And perhaps as an adaptation of the Pnar mode of residence in which married men do not live with their wives, most Jaintia rajas (Syiems) did not marry at all; an unthinkable practice in Brahmanical society” (page 154). The Khasi (Pnar being a subgroup of the Khasi) not only clung to their matrilineal traditions despite their contact with a more pervasive patrilineal culture; they actively sought to impose matrilineal traditions on others as well.
It is an accepted fact corroborated by the Karbi themselves that a section of the Karbi who were staying within the domain of Hima Jaintiapur left for the Ahom because they were being forced by the Khasi to adopt matrilineal customs. This narrative is found in the 1908 book ‘The Mikir’ by Edward Stack. Among the Karbis that stayed back was Bisokoida, from the Rongphar clan, who ruled over a domain which most probably fell under the Hima Jaintiapur until the mid-nineteenth century. He is supposed to have married the daughter of the Jaintia Syiem and had a son and two daughters. After a personal tragedy Bisokoida gave his domain to “the Ronghangs” (i.e. Sar Ronghang’s clan) and goes to settle among the Jaintias, who having lost their Syiem adopted him as their ruler. Later Bisokoida appointed Harpokang, Sar Ronghang’s son, to establish a capital in Socheng and named him the first Recho (Raja/Syiem), or Lindok. This version found in ‘People of the Margins’, is about the foundation of Rongkhang, the eldest of the traditional polities recognised by Karbi-speaking communities. In the first two generations, the Recho did not pass succession to his son, but to his son-in-law. It was only from the third generation onward that patrilineal traditions prevailed. Matrilineal principles were thus followed for a time before patrilineal principles took over. This was very much because of the influence of the Khasis, which was also felt by the Tiwa as well. Along the Meghalaya Assam border lies the traditional polity called Ghoba, whose current royal family describes itself as Tiwa, claiming that it originated from the Tiwa-speaking villages of Umswai (a Khasi name) valley, 20 km to the South. According to the Gobha rajas’ foundation myth, Khungri (princess), or Hari Kunwari, who performs the worship along with the raja’s paternal uncle, was the apical ancestress of the Maloi, the Rajas’ matriclan. Successions, like the Khasi, followed the female line.
So, when we are talking about Article 371 or the Sixth Schedule, it is about the primacy of the customary laws which for the Khasis are the basis of their political institutions (Hima and Raid). Article 371 can help with that, but the Sixth Schedule has also been doing the same job. The question is not about which constitutional provision is better suited, but whether we are going to allow any dilution to our matrilineal traditions. Jeopardizing those traditions threatens our entire identity as a community and severs our connection to our ancestors who fought to maintain them. In that case, Article 371 or the Sixth Schedule will also lose its relevance. If there’s a discussion to protect customary laws, it has to be about protecting our matrilineal traditions, not which constitutional provisions are better suited. Or is it an attempt to dilute our traditions while also obscuring the problems of governance which have plagued our ADCs? If we are always fighting, we wouldn’t know who is fooling us. I hope that is not the case. So, let’s talk about actual issues of governance and not fool the people for political gains.
(The views expressed in the article are those of the author and do not reflect in any way his affiliation to any organisation or institution)
