By Bhogtoram Mawroh
There’s never a dull moment with politics in Meghalaya. The year ended with the highly irregular move of the KHADC appointing Mynjurlang Majaw, a Myntri, as the acting Syiem of Hima Sohra instead of a Marremdor Syiem, as mandated by customary norms. This raises an important question: is the KHADC meant to protect Khasi traditional institutions and norms, or can it distort and twist norms to suit those in power at the moment? Is this not a hollowing out of the provisions of the Sixth Schedule, which gave autonomy to indigenous communities in the North East to protect their land, customs, and culture? Even the British, who considered the Khasi to be savages and kept them away from their places of residence (European Ward), decided to allow them to govern themselves and, to a great extent, maintained a policy of non-interference, giving rise to the arrangement now enshrined in the Constitution as the Sixth Schedule. So, why is it that the KHADC has decided to violate the norms and weaken the constitutional protection provided to the Khasi?
There are some who have argued that the move has been forced due to issues related to corruption within the Hima Sohra, and therefore a diversion from norms has occurred. Does this mean that Marremdor Syiem is involved in illegal activities? And if so, why have charges not been filed against him so that legal proceedings can be initiated against him? Among the many virtues on the basis of which a Syiem is elected, unblemished moral character is one of them. So, if this is true, this means that Marremdor can no longer qualify to be a Syiem and a new heir has to be elected. There are provisions to ensure that an heir of dubious character does not occupy the chieftainship. Clear instructions are available on how a new heir is to be chosen, and failing any eligible male, a woman can be appointed as Syiem. So, why are customary norms being violated?
As of now, there have been no legal proceedings against Marremdor Syiem, which suggests that the move of disregarding tradition has nothing to do with corruption by the heir-apparent. It is simply to do with power and how it is to be exercised. By ignoring tradition, a message is being sent to the other Himas that if they do not want a similar violation of their rights, they must fall in line with what the KHADC wants. I expect that this year we will be seeing similar pressures being applied on the other Himas on the pretext of reforming governance. The appointment of Mynjurlang Majaw, a Myntri thought to be close to the VPP, which is now controlling the KHADC, is the strengthening of the client–patron relationship, where if one is close to those in power, they will be rewarded with important positions. This is similar to how politics has been practiced in the state.
Once they win an election, politicians will make sure that their supporters are able to monopolize schemes and other development initiatives, which include awarding of contracts as well. A few years ago, one of my friends working in the state government tried to distribute the schemes and benefits to those who had been ignored for a long time. These were the ones who did not support the politician. He was promptly transferred in order to protect the client–patron relationship that was essential for the local politician. Then, as elections come close, a lot of money will be spent on the non-core voters to persuade them to cast their ballot for the candidate. On most occasions, this proves to be the winning formula. So, it does appear that a client–patron relationship is being created at Hima Sohra, sending a signal to Myntris of other Himas who might also be interested in the same kind of relationship as well. So, in the end, all the talk of clean politics was just a ruse in order to recreate the same model as practiced by the other political parties.
In fact, if one were to look back at some of the issues that were raised last year, the focus on rhetoric was clearly apparent. Connected to the weakening of the traditional institutions and the Sixth Schedule was the demand for Article 371 for Meghalaya, especially 371A as is applicable to Nagaland. According to it, 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. So, the argument for Article 371 is for protecting local customs, traditions, land, and its resources from outside interference. However, is that not already the case with the Sixth Schedule as well?
Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) like the KHADC have been given the power to make laws on social customs and land, with the Sixth Schedule clearly stating that non-indigenous communities cannot own land in territories within their jurisdiction. The Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971 provides another layer of protection. Land alienation is happening in Meghalaya, but it is driven by elites belonging to the indigenous community and not by outsiders. Local communities have been exploiting resources like timber, coal, and limestone for a very long time. There is an argument made that these activities will be protected from outside interference if the state is brought under Article 371. This is not correct.
When the 1996 timber ban was imposed by the Supreme Court, even Nagaland had to comply with it. Complaints against rat-hole mining operations in Meghalaya were brought before the Supreme Court because the effluent from the mines was making the Kopili acidic, destroying paddy fields, prompting the Dimasa Students’ Union to take up the issue. Special provisions like Article 371 and the Sixth Schedule are part of the constitutional framework, and they cannot interfere with the basic structure of the Constitution. As long as the issues of governance, i.e., customary norms or management of natural resources, do not violate constitutional norms (right to life, livelihood, freedom from discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, etc.), either of the two special provisions is sufficient to protect the local indigenous community. But if they are violated, notwithstanding the special provisions, they will be dealt with according to the overarching constitutional provisions. Those who say otherwise are lying.
One complaint about the Sixth Schedule is Section 12A, which states that in instances of a clash between legislation made by the ADC and the State Legislature, the latter will prevail. This gives primacy to laws made by the state legislature, compromising the autonomy of the ADCs. Those making this argument forget that we are no longer living under Assam but in our own state, where an overwhelming majority of the legislators belong to the indigenous communities. I don’t recall any legislation that has been passed by the ADCs to protect the local indigenous community that has been in conflict with laws made by the State Government, controlled by the indigenous communities, thus weakening the provisions meant for protecting them. If there are any, I would very much like to learn about such legislation, and I am sure the public will also like to learn about them to understand how the Sixth Schedule has failed to protect the indigenous communities.
The move of the KHADC to break away from tradition was done with the intention of establishing a client–patron relationship within Hima Sohra. It also sent a signal to the other Himas to fall in line lest they should also be made an example of on the pretext of reform in governance. There is also the shadow of the demand for Article 371, citing the inability of the Sixth Schedule to protect the interests of the indigenous communities. Ironically, those demanding extra protection are the ones who have just violated traditional norms which are supposed to become more secure under Article 371. The year 2026 is, therefore, going to be a year full of the same drama over rhetoric and continuation of the same client–patron model of governance. I guess things will never change in Meghalaya.
(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)
