By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, March 11: The persistent failure of the three Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) in Meghalaya — KHADC, JHADC, and GHADC — to amend Rule 128 of the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951, is increasingly viewed as a key contributing factor to the ongoing conflict and unrest in Garo Hills.
This contentious Rule 128 allows non-tribals to participate as voters and candidates in District Council elections, a provision that tribal organisations argue undermines the protective intent of the Sixth Schedule for indigenous communities.
In February 2017, the three ADCs had jointly decided to seek legal opinion on the proposed amendment during the tenure of former chief executive members Pynshngain N. Syiem (KHADC) and Denang T. Sangma (GHADC).
Syiem had emphasised that the issue involved constitutional provisions requiring careful examination, and committees were to be formed across Khasi, Jaintia, and Garo Hills for expert legal input.
Despite this initial step, the councils failed to follow through, resulting in no collective decision or amendment, leaving Rule 128 unchanged to this day.
While three non-tribals— Bhaskar Choudhury, Kishore Kumar Deb and Aron Alley—have contested and won elections to the KHADC (1972-1978), a large number of non-tribal candidates have participated in the GHADC process, heightening sensitivities in Garo Hills.
During the same period, several Garo organisations wrote to the GHADC demanding a bill to end non-tribal participation in District Council affairs.
The issue evoked strong emotional response during the winter session of the KHADC on October 13, 2017, when former MDC from Jaiaw constituency Adelbert Nongrum (then representing KHNAM) broke down in tears while advocating for the deletion of Rule 128.
“Time and again, we talk about Rule 133 and not Rule 128,” Nongrum had remarked during the debate. He repeatedly pressed for the amendment throughout his tenure, arguing it was essential to protect indigenous communities and future generations.
Citing past instances in the GHADC where a few non-tribal MDCs were elected, Nongrum cautioned against similar developments in the KHADC: “It happened in Garo Hills. In the past, we have made mistakes. This present generation will be a lesson for all of us.”
He insisted the rule should explicitly limit voting rights in District Council elections to indigenous tribals only.
Meanwhile, KHNAM continues to actively pursue the demand for amendment of Rule 128 with the KHADC, recently submitting memorandums and draft proposals to restrict participation to indigenous tribal members, viewing the existing provision as contrary to the spirit of tribal autonomy.
The unresolved status of Rule 128 remains a core grievance, with recent events in Garo Hills underscoring how the delay in addressing it continues to stoke tensions over identity, representation, and governance in the autonomous districts.
