The Article 371 Debate
By Bijoy A. Sangma
The demand for special constitutional provisions under Article 371 for Meghalaya has sparked heated debates in political and academic circles. Proponents argue that such provisions would safeguard tribal rights and protect indigenous land ownership, while opponents warn of unintended consequences, such as economic stagnation and administrative overlap. With several northeastern states, including Nagaland and Mizoram, already enjoying special protections under Article 371A and 371G, Meghalaya’s exclusion raises important questions. Would the inclusion of Meghalaya under Article 371 be a step toward greater autonomy, or would it create more governance challenges than it seeks to solve?
The debate is not just political but deeply constitutional. Should Meghalaya follow the path of Nagaland and Mizoram, which enjoy special provisions under Article 371A and 371G? Or should the state strengthen the existing Sixth Schedule to address governance challenges while maintaining its unique status? With the issue being a key topic in recent Autonomous District Council (ADC) elections, the time has come for Meghalaya to decide its future course.
Two Laws, One Goal: Autonomy
The Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, introduced in 1949, was designed to protect the rights and governance of indigenous tribal communities in select northeastern states, including Meghalaya. It created ADC), which exercise legislative, judicial, and executive powers over matters such as land, forests, taxation, and tribal customs. ADCs can make their own laws, ensuring that traditional institutions like Dorbar Shnongs, Nokmas, Dollois continue to function.
On the other hand, Article 371 provides special provisions to various states, each tailored to their historical and political context. For example, Article 371A in Nagaland ensures that no national law concerning land ownership, customary practices, or social traditions applies unless the Nagaland Legislative Assembly consents. Similarly, Article 371G in Mizoram grants the state similar exemptions in matters related to Mizo customary laws and land. These provisions limit the central government’s legislative reach over these states and are seen as a stronger guarantee of autonomy.
The 2019 debate: The defeated resolution and its aftermath
In September 2019, a resolution was introduced in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly by the then Congress MLA Ampareen Lyngdoh, seeking the extension of Article 371 to Meghalaya. The proposal, however, was defeated by voice vote, reflecting a lack of political consensus on the matter. Chief Minister Conrad Sangma, in response to the resolution, stated that a government-appointed committee was already examining the issue and that an informed decision should be based on careful study rather than immediate legislative action.
Those supporting the move argue that Meghalaya faces increasing challenges in land ownership, migration, and cultural preservation. The fear that tribal lands could be taken over by outsiders is not unfounded. The prevalent communal land ownership underscores the importance of robust legal frameworks and vigilant monitoring to prevent exploitative land transfers. Strengthening land tenure systems and ensuring accurate, accessible land records are essential steps in protecting the rights and heritage of Meghalaya’s indigenous communities. The supporters of Article 371 believe that an additional constitutional safeguard would empower the state legislature to reject any national law that may threaten indigenous rights.
On the other hand, critics argue that Meghalaya already enjoys significant autonomy under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which provides for Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) in the Khasi, Jaintia, and Garo Hills. These councils have the power to regulate land use, impose taxes, and govern local customs and traditions, making additional provisions under Article 371 unnecessary. Former Chief Minister (i/c Law) Dr. Mukul Sangma, opposing the resolution, remarked that “enhancing the existing Sixth Schedule provisions is a more practical approach than creating overlapping legal structures under Article 371.”
Despite this setback, the debate resurfaced for the upcoming ADC elections to the Khasi Hills and Jaintia Hills by candidates using the Article 371 debate as a campaign issue, with promises of securing greater autonomy if elected. Traditional chiefs, student organizations, and political parties have expressed concerns about the potential dilution of tribal governance, pushing for constitutional changes.
From Oilfields to Urban Clashes: The Challenges of Special Provisions
The experience of states like Nagaland and Mizoram with Article 371 offers valuable lessons for Meghalaya. In Nagaland, despite Article 371A granting extensive autonomy over land and resource ownership, legal disputes between the state and the central government have stalled key economic projects. A prime example is the Nagaland Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulations, 2012, which sought to regulate oil and gas exploration within the state. However, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas challenged the move, arguing that mineral rights fall under Entry 53 of the Union List, leading to a legal deadlock. The Supreme Court, in State of Nagaland v. Union of India (2010), ruled that the state’s autonomy under Article 371A does not override national laws governing natural resources.
Mizoram, too, has faced complications under Article 371G. The Mizoram High Court, in Mizoram Tribal Council v. State of Mizoram (2018), ruled that while Article 371G provides autonomy in traditional governance, it cannot override constitutional mandates for modern administration, such as urban municipal governance. This has created conflicts between traditional village councils and municipal bodies, leading to governance inefficiencies.
These examples indicate that while Article 371 provides a sense of security and autonomy, it also introduces legal ambiguities that often lead to economic and administrative delays. Meghalaya must assess whether such complications outweigh the potential benefits.
A Smarter Path: Modernizing Tribal Governance
Several legal experts and political leaders believe that instead of introducing Article 371, Meghalaya should focus on strengthening its existing governance under the Sixth Schedule. This approach would provide the same level of protection as Article 371 while avoiding the complications seen in Nagaland and Mizoram.
1. Enhancing the Power and Functioning of ADCs : ADCs in Meghalaya already have legislative and executive authority over land, forests, and tribal governance. However, their effectiveness is often hampered by financial constraints and political interference. Strengthening the financial autonomy of ADCs would ensure that they can function independently without relying on state government funds.
2. Strengthening Tribal Land Protection Laws: If land ownership is the primary concern, Meghalaya can amend its existing land laws within the Sixth Schedule to provide stronger legal safeguards against land alienation. This would be more effective than a broad constitutional amendment like Article 371, which could take years to implement and may still face legal challenges.
3. Modernizing Traditional Institutions: The Dorbar Shnongs and Nokmas are deeply respected governance bodies, but they need legal recognition and administrative support to function effectively. Instead of introducing parallel structures under Article 371, Meghalaya can work on integrating these traditional systems with modern governance practices, ensuring that tribal communities retain their self-rule while benefiting from state resources and development schemes.
Beyond Article 371: Smarter Solutions: The demand for Article 371 in Meghalaya stems from genuine concerns about protecting tribal identity and land rights. However, history suggests that broad constitutional amendments often create more administrative complexity than solutions. Meghalaya’s best path forward is to enhance and modernize the Sixth Schedule, ensuring that autonomy is preserved while allowing for sustainable development. However, based on historical experiences in Nagaland and Mizoram, it is clear that Article 371 does not guarantee absolute autonomy and may introduce administrative challenges.
The debate over Article 371 in Meghalaya is not just about legal provisions; it is about the state’s future governance. Will it follow the path of Nagaland and Mizoram, where autonomy has led to legal disputes and economic challenges? Or will it choose to strengthen its existing institutions under the Sixth Schedule, ensuring that traditional governance thrives alongside modern development? Tribal rights, development & governance – can Meghalaya have it all?
The choice is crucial and the debate over Article 371 is far from over, but one thing is clear: real autonomy is not just about constitutional provisions – it is about effective governance, financial empowerment, and a legal framework that works for the people.
(The author is a Lawyer, Former Executive Director [ILC] of the BMS World Mission, United Kingdom, Former National Executive Director [India] of Haggai Institute of Advanced Leadership, and Former Asst. Programme Coordinator of North East Region Community Resources Management Project [IFAD-GOI], and a PhD Scholar in Management studies.)