By Dr Samir Talati
The Assam Government’s decision to allot 3,000 bighas of land to a corporate house for a cement factory in Dima Hasao District has ignited a debate on the robustness of the Sixth Schedule provisions as a guarantor of scheduled tribes’ socio-cultural, economic, and political safeguards. In a multicultural context, a state’s respect for the diversity of its population fosters a sense of belonging and inclusion among its ethnic minorities and provides equal opportunity for their development. In contrast, a state’s denial or suppression of the existence of ethnic differences can lead to a feeling of alienation and marginalization among them. Overall, the state’s policies and practices towards ethnic communities have significant implications for their sense of belonging, cultural preservation, social integration, lifestyle, and socioeconomic advancement. The legal status given by the state to an ethnic group also shapes its self-perception and its relationship with other communities.
The immense ethnic diversity has given India a unique multicultural character and made it an outstanding case for multiculturalism. The Indian State has fairly successfully accommodated the aspirations of its diverse populations for development and ethnic identity in its federal structure by adopting the welfare trajectory regarding its vulnerable ‘minority’ populations through constitutional measures and state policies, making the Indian Constitution, what Rochana Bajpai describes as “a prescient model of multicultural accommodation for its recognition of a range of group-differentiated rights within a broadly liberal democratic framework.” India’s welfare policies affirm Will Kymlicka’s assertion that there is no general or inherent tendency for multiculturalism to erode the welfare state and that there is a greater recognition of indigenous rights, often in the form of land claims, recognition of customary law, and self-government rights, and of non-immigrant sub-state national groups, often in the form of regional autonomy and official language status.
The Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, seen as an example of multiculturalism in action, recognizes and respects the diversity of the tribal populations and offers them a degree of autonomy or self-determination. It provides a policy framework that not only facilitates socio-economic development of the tribes in the Northeast but also offers safeguards to their ethnic identity and avenues of expression. In this way, the Indian State was able to integrate the diverse ethnic groups in the Northeast into the national mainstream while allowing them to retain their own ethnic identity and modes of land and resource management as a state policy. Such integration has fostered multiculturalism in which diversity maintenance and equitable participation are widely accepted features of our society.
Under the Sixth Schedule, District and Regional Councils are empowered with exclusive legislative power over land tenure, management of community resources, and customary law. As per Paragraphs 3 and 19 of the Sixth Schedule, any transfer of tribal or community land to outsiders requires the explicit sanction of the autonomous council and, in certain cases, the Governor’s approval. The Assam government’s direct grant of 3,000 bighas (990 acres) in Dima Hasao district to Mahabal Cements flouts Sixth Schedule norms in multiple ways. Firstly, it bypasses the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council’s authority to approve large land transfers to non-tribal entities. There is no evidence of any policy record or council resolution sanctioning such an allotment, as the Gauhati High Court has demanded. This action has sidelined the collective decision-making that underpins tribal self-rule. It has also undermined generations of customary land rights, by treating community-held land as state-controlled surplus. This poses a threat of severing the link between the tribal people and their ancestral territories. Finally, there is the issue of imbalanced power dynamics. Granting large tracts of land to an external corporation reinforces a hierarchy where corporate and state interests trump the rights of a historically marginalized tribal community. Land is central to indigenous identity, sustenance, and cultural survival. The Sixth Schedule acts as a legal barrier against land alienation, both to outsider individuals and to non-tribal corporate interests. Community land ownership remains a dominant practice across many Sixth Schedule areas, particularly among the Dimasa, Garo, Khasi, Jaintia, Mizo, and Tripuri.
Sixth Schedule provisions strictly prohibit the transfer, lease, mortgage, or sale of tribal land to non-tribals, without the explicit approval of the autonomous district council concerned. By usurping the District Council’s law-making and land-management prerogatives, the state government has eroded the political autonomy designed to protect indigenous decision-making on land use. The court expressed shock at the scale of transfer and demanded the policy basis for such allotment from the North Cachar Hills ADC and state authorities, noting both the extraordinary size and the inadequate safeguarding of tribal rights and environmental sensitivities. Such a massive land transfer also threatens to displace local families who hold ancestral rights over the land they inhabit. Above all, such an action also sets a precedent that financial heft and capitalist moorings can override entrenched constitutional safeguards. Beyond Dima Hasao, similar Sixth Schedule jurisdictions in Meghalaya and Mizoram can also come under threat from the intrusion of the state and the capitalist forces. The land allotment in Dima Hasao signals that tribal communities’ consent and cultural integrity are subordinate to unilateral economic decision-making. Most importantly, it undermines the spirit of multiculturalism by disenfranchising the vulnerable tribal population and privileging corporate interests over collective heritage. This case illustrates the fragility of safeguards when economic and political pressures collide with traditional rights.
Multiculturalism in India rests on recognizing and protecting the distinct identities, customs, and governance systems of its diverse communities. It ensures that tribal, linguistic, religious, and regional groups can preserve their heritage while participating equally in the country’s political and economic life. When constitutional safeguards of one group are weakened, the delicate balance of India’s plural fabric comes under strain. When one community’s autonomy is compromised, a message is sent across the country that constitutional guarantees can be overridden for economic expediency. This not only weakens trust between tribal groups and the state but also emboldens similar encroachment elsewhere and erodes India’s promise of equal respect for all its cultures, magnifying risks to tribal autonomy, environmental conservation, and pluralistic promise.
Multiculturalism in Northeast India can be protected by reinforcing constitutional safeguards under the Sixth Schedule, especially by ensuring that the district councils follow procedures, giving primacy to tribal land rights, and rejecting any allotment that overrides communal ownership. Safeguarding India’s multiculturalism in the wake of the Assam government’s allotment of land to a private company requires embedding free, prior, and informed consent into law, reinforcing tribal autonomy under the Sixth Schedule, and mandating transparent cultural assessment. Only by upholding these principles can India ensure that growth never comes at the expense of its rich, pluralistic heritage that includes preserving every community’s right to thrive and keeping the country’s diverse fabric intact.
(The writer is with North Eastern Social Research Centre, Guwahati. Email : [email protected])