By Dushyant Wadhwan
The Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council’s (KHADC) recent decision to prohibit issuing new trade licenses to non-tribal traders in Meghalaya has sparked intense controversy. Ostensibly designed to enhance economic opportunities for the indigenous population, this edict flagrantly violates the Indian Constitution’s principles of equality and fairness. It also lays bare the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) as outdated, discriminatory bodies that undermine national unity and warrant abolition in Meghalaya. This article explains how the ban breaches constitutional norms and argues for dismantling the ADCs.
India’s Constitution holds equality as inviolable. Article 14 ensures parity before the law, prohibiting arbitrary discrimination. Article 15 forbids bias based on religion, race, caste, sex, or birthplace, while Article 19 guarantees every citizen’s right to pursue any trade or vocation. The KHADC’s decree defies these principles by targeting non-tribals, denying them livelihoods solely due to their ethnic identity. This exclusionary measure contradicts the Constitution’s commitment to an equitable society.
Additionally, Article 21, which secures the right t life and liberty, includes the right to earn a living with dignity. By curbing non-tribals’ ability to trade, the KHADC jeopardizes their sustenance, stripping them of economic independence. This policy does not merely limit commerce; it assaults the dignity of non-tribal residents, rendering their constitutional rights meaningless.
The Sixth Schedule, under which ADCs function, grants them authority to regulate land, forests, and local customs in tribal areas. Yet, this power is not unbounded. Paragraph 12A asserts that state laws prevail over ADC regulations in conflicts. The Meghalaya government’s failure to challenge this ban, instead of upholding constitutional supremacy, betrays its obligation to ensure justice. The KHADC’s overreach thus lacks legitimacy, setting a dangerous precedent where parochial interests override national law.
Beyond legal violations, the ban threatens severe economic and social fallout. Nontribal traders, long vital to Meghalaya’s markets, bolster its fiscal health. Restricting their role risks fuelling benami transactions—covert arrangements where non-tribals operate through tribal proxies—undermining transparency and revenue. Anecdotal evidence suggests such practices are already widespread, fostering corruption and weakening the ADCs’ fiscal credibility.
Socially, the policy widens the tribal-non-tribal divide. Meghalaya’s diverse fabric, once a testament to coexistence, unravels as non-tribals face exclusion. Historically, non-tribals accounted for 20% of the state’s population in 1972; today, they constitute just 9%. Such measures accelerate their departure, eroding inclusivity and contradicting India’s unity-in-diversity ethos, turning Meghalaya into a fortress of insularity.
The ADCs, created under the Sixth Schedule to protect tribal autonomy, have devolved into tools of oppression. Intended as pillars of self-governance, they now wield unbridled power, often clashing with constitutional norms. The KHADC’s trade ban epitomizes this tyranny, favouring ethnic chauvinism over equitable progress.
First, ADCs lack accountability. Their legislative and judicial authority, exercised without robust oversight, breeds arbitrariness. The trade ban, imposed without wide consultation, exemplifies this autocracy. Second, their relevance diminishes in a modernizing India. Tribal communities, increasingly skilled across diverse sectors, no longer need such insular protections. The ADCs’ protectionism stifles innovation, tethering Meghalaya to outdated frameworks. Third, ADCs entrench inequality. By prioritizing tribals exclusively, they marginalize non-tribals, flouting the Constitution’s egalitarian spirit. This disparity fuels resentment, threatening social harmony. Abolishing the ADCs would align Meghalaya with national governance standards, ensuring equal rights and duties for all citizens.
Meghalaya must reject this regressive policy and the ADCs that enable it. The state government should invoke Paragraph 12A to nullify the ban, reaffirming constitutional integrity. Simultaneously, a legislative effort to dismantle ADCs and replace them with inclusive local bodies would modernize governance. Such institutions could preserve tribal heritage while upholding universal rights, fostering a united, thriving Meghalaya
In conclusion, the KHADC’s trade license ban affronts India’s constitutional foundation, subverting equality, liberty, and livelihood. Far from protecting tribal interests, the ADCs have become relics of division and inequity. Abolishing them would free Meghalaya from parochial constraints, ushering in an era of unity and justice for all its residents.