By Fabian Lyngdoh
This article is in continuation to my various other published articles dealing with the same issue. There is an unhealthy relationship between the State Government and the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) which I have observed at least since the time I was a member of the KHADC in 2009. There is a groundless cry of lamentation, even by some senior professors, that the legislative and administrative functions of the District Councils have been badly curtailed by the Government of Meghalaya through the provisions of Paragraph 12A. Hence, they opined that Paragraph 12A of the Sixth Schedule should be scrapped. Spurred by such a lamentation, a narrative arose in the recent past that led to an antagonistic relationship between the State Government and the District Councils. The emerging narrative seems to suggest that the Government of Meghalaya is some sort of a foreign authority that is antagonistic to the District Councils which on the other hand, they believe is a part and parcel of Khasi tradition! The also claim that the District Council should always take a stance in opposition to the State Government. That is a tear-inducing emotion indeed!
So who created this emotional narrative? In my analysis, this kind of narrative was created by leaders in the KHADC who had been members in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly, but failed to make their mark at the State level, or were ousted from the Assembly by the people’s mandate. Based on this false narrative and also the false hope that the Central Government shall bypass the State Government and provide Direct Funding to the District Councils for all development projects in the Sixth Schedule areas (practically, the whole territory of Meghalaya!), these District Council members began to make laws after laws at frenetic speed to counteract the authority and functions of the State Government, in an attempt to show that the District Council is a constitutional authority at par with the State Government. Take for example, “The Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Village and Town Development Council) Act, 2021” which is full of flaws. I will point out some of these flaws. Section 4(8) says “After the formation of the Village Development Council or Town Development Council, the Dorbar Shnong shall seek the approval from the Executive Committee of the District Council through the Chief of the Hima.” Section 5(6) says, “The annual account of the Village Development Council or Town Development Council shall be audited by the Auditor appointed by the Chief and Dorbar of the Hima or by the Dorbar Raid as the case may be. The Executive Council of the Village Development Council shall report and place the audit annually in the Village General Council and to the Chief and Dorbar of the Hima.” Section 24(1),
Further the Act says, the Executive Committee shall constitute a Local Area Planning Council in every constituency to be headed by the MDC representing the constituency to consolidate the plans prepared by the Village Development Council and Town Development Council and to prepare a draft development plan for the Constituency as a whole. Section 25 (1), “…All grants, funds, and other financial assistance received from the Central Government, State Government and/or any other agency for the purpose of socio-economic development and poverty alleviation shall be spent only in accordance with and to achieve the purpose of this Act.”
All the functions that the dorbars of the villages and towns have so far been doing directly with the departments of the State Government are enlisted in this Act of the District Council. The question is: are the village and town development councils meant only for implementing the schemes that come through the District Council, or also with all other schemes that the villages and towns receive directly from the State Government and Central Government? Does this Act cover the MNREGS scheme besides other schemes that the people usually receive directly from the departments of the State Government and which are implemented by the District Rural Development Agency, and the Block Development Office? If that is the case, won’t there be an overlapping or a clash of authority and functions with the State Government? Is the Chief of the Hima/Elaka equipped enough to deal with the projects and accounts of the many villages and towns within his jurisdiction? There are many other flaws in this Act and in other Acts of the KHADC; I leave that for others to study and analyse.
This unhealthy contest for authority between the State Government and the District Council would only create disputes and confusions among the people. Our farsighted leaders in the past have found that the authority of the District Council within the State of Assam was miserably limited. Hence, they fought for a full-fledged Hill State, and through an arduous “No Hill State, No Rest” movement, they celebrated the achievement of their objective with great joy. It is said that the leaders discussed whether to retain the District Councils or not, and they arrived at the conclusion that they should be retained as training grounds for future MLAs. Paragraph 12A was inserted in the Sixth Schedule by the North-Eastern Areas (Re-organisation) Act, 1971 when the full-fledged State of Meghalaya was formed to regulate the proper functioning of the District Councils.
That was the perception and vision of our leaders in the past. But today, some self-styled leaders of the Jaidbynriew, are yearning for the golden age of autonomy that the District Council had within the State of Assam. The youth of today should realise that before the full-fledged State of Meghalaya was formed, the capital of Assam was in Shillong. If Meghalaya had not come into being, Dr. Himanta Biswa Sarma, the present Chief Minister of Assam would be sitting in the Secretariat in Shillong. In the Assam Legislative Assembly in Shillong, there would have been hardly 8 (eight) MLAs representing the people of Khasi Hills, Jaintia Hills, and Garo Hills in the 134 member, Assam Legislative Assembly; and definitely, Assamese would be the official language, and the District Councils would have had no power or authority to do anything about it.
We hope that the present leadership in the KHADC would not make the District Council to function as an Opposition Party, or a pressure group against the State Government (whatever party is leading it), but would work in tandem with it, for the order and progress of the State as a whole. If there is a serious thing to be opposed, the opposition leaders in the Legislative Assembly, along with the people at large would do the needful because that would be a people’s problem, and not only a District Council’s problem. As ADC’s in Meghalaya do not concern with the affairs of minority or micro minority populations, but with the majority tribal populations in the State, the ADCs should not compete with the authority of the State Government because the State Government too was constituted to see to the affairs of the majority population in the State. Para 12A of the Sixth Schedule should in no way be a hindrance to the healthy coordination between the District Council and the State Government. This constitutional provision has a rationale to exist for facilitating public interests and as a safeguard against infringement of fundamental human rights of citizens. The currently popular narrative that the State Government has no jurisdiction in the Sixth Schedule areas, or that the State Legislature has no mandate to make laws on the subjects of the Sixth Schedule is a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the constitutional provisions.
The ADCs in Meghalaya cannot dream to be Autonomous Territorial Councils like the Bodoland Territorial Council, and the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Territorial Councils because the autonomous districts in Meghalaya are not serving a minority population within a larger State, but they are with the State, making up the whole. The Assam Government has delegated a considerable number of the State’s executive subjects to these Territorial Councils. But the same cannot be done in Meghalaya
People who have a personal grudge with the State Government, or who have some personal political vengeance to carry out against some other political leaders, should not be given the opportunity to lead the District Council. The District Council is not the platform for some disgruntled politicians to avenge the wrongs they presume to have been put into at the State level. Mr Ardent Miller Basaiawmoit, President of the Voice of the People Party (VPP) has rightly said that the KHADC under the leadership of the VPP will, as far as possible, work in coordination with the State Government for the betterment of the people at large. He was criticised on social media for saying this by people who do not understand the ground realities of things beyond party-politics.
The Meghalaya State Government is supposed to work for the interests of the majority tribal populations in the State within the provisions of the Constitution, and the District Councils are not supposed to take a stance as a counterforce against the State Government. There should be a healthy relationship between the State Government and the District Councils, whichever parties are in the ruling in their respective domains. Let us hope for the best.