The Sixth Schedule which gave birth to the autonomous district councils was essentially a form of self governance by tribals in the tribal areas of the north eastern states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram. The primary aim is to protect tribal land and resources and prohibit the transfer of such resources to non-tribal individuals or communities. It was also to ensure that the tribal communities are not exploited or marginalized by non-tribal populations and that their cultural and social identities are preserved and promoted. The dichotomy lies in the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils), Rules 1951 which says that any person who is a permanent resident of a district is eligible to vote and contest elections to the District Council. Interestingly for the longest time this aspect was ignored because in the two councils of Khasi and Jaintia Hills, non-tribals never asserted their right to vote in the Council elections, much less to contest the elections. Even the seats reserved for non-tribals in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly in the Khasi Hills have now gone to tribal MLAs.
Considering that the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution was enacted primarily to safeguard tribal customary practices, their traditions and more particularly their land holding system it would have been appropriate that the District Councils be run by tribals themselves for themselves. That is the reason why they are called “autonomous” meaning that they would be free to run their affairs largely based on their customary practices. Having non-tribals as Councillors would upset this arrangement which was created for minority tribes of this nation. Unfortunately those elected to the Councils from the time of their creation never bothered to read the fine print and to bring in the necessary amendments to Rules 128 (1) and 128(3) both of which define who can be a voter and who can contest elections to the District Councils. Hence the tribal leaders themselves have been remiss. The law has been correctly interpreted as defined in the 1951 Rules. The contention of the people of Garo Hills that their contestation comes from the fact that there has been substantial demographic change within the Council areas is also a serious matter, especially in the light of consistent illegal migration from across the porous borders of Bangladesh. Land is a scarce commodity and is linked to the very identity of tribals and when people migrate to a place they need land to settle on. And since land is a finite resource there are constant fears of being overwhelmed by aggressive non-tribal settlers who are largely migrants.
Meghalaya’s problem has been the absence of pragmatic, visionary leaders who should have addressed these issues at the time they were included in the Rules, through proper procedural methods which is that any change in the rules must first be approved by the District Council and then receive the consent of the Governor under Rule 72 before it can come into force. That the non-tribals have been voting and contesting in the GHADC elections for decades without any glitch is not their fault but the lack of foresight of the tribal leaders.
