By Bhogtoram Mawroh
The tensions that eventually erupted into violence in the Garo Hills had been simmering since a member of ACHIK (Achik Conscious Holistically Integrated Krima) was killed while inspecting illegal quarrying activities in Rajabala. The area where Dilseng M. Sangma was killed is part of the Rajabala constituency, which since the 1978 elections has, except on three occasions, always elected a non-indigenous person as its representative. The adjoining constituency of Phulbari, another unreserved seat in the Garo Hills, has always elected a non-indigenous person as its representative. This can be explained by the fact that, while Meghalaya is an indigenous tribal–dominated state, it has always had a significant non-indigenous population residing in the state. Therefore, certain seats were kept unreserved where members of the resident non-indigenous population are allowed to contest elections. Rajabala and Phulbari in the Garo Hills are such constituencies.
In the Khasi Hills (former United Khasi-Jaintia Hills), there are three constituencies where candidates from the non-indigenous community are allowed to contest elections, viz., Pynthorumkhrah, West Shillong, and South Shillong. However, in the last few terms, these constituencies have always been represented by members belonging to the indigenous community. Thus, while the Khasi Hills region has more seats where the non-indigenous population can theoretically win elections, only Khasi candidates are elected, and this trend is unlikely to change anymore. This has to do with the fact that the non-indigenous population has been consistently declining in the state, from around 20% to less than 14% now. But upon closer analysis, it appears that the decline is not uniform throughout the state, and this is where the genesis of the present conflict lies.
Since the start of the conflict, there has been a debate regarding the effectiveness of the Sixth Schedule in protecting indigenous autonomy, considering that non-indigenous members are allowed to contest elections. However, this is not an unexceptional situation. In the areas under the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC), out of the 46 members, five seats are reserved for the non-indigenous non-tribal communities while five are open to all communities. This is due to the fact that while the Bodo are the largest community in the Bodoland Territorial Region (BTR), they constitute just a little over 30% of the total population. However, under the 2003 Bodo Accord, signed between the Government of India, the Government of Assam, and the Bodo Liberation Tigers (BLT), the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) was created granting greater autonomy to the Bodo-dominated areas of Assam. It was under this agreement that, despite the Bodo not forming the majority of the population in the BTR, they were given the maximum number of seats. The greater autonomy given to the Bodo, despite their lack of numerical superiority, is the result of a constitutional amendment made to the Sixth Schedule and is therefore perfectly legal. However, the demand that the non-indigenous population be prevented from contesting elections in the GHADC cannot be supported by law. This is due to the fact that Rules 128(1) and 128(3) of the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951, allow non-indigenous members to vote as long as they can prove permanent residence within the territory of the district council. Thus, as long as there is no amendment made to the Sixth Schedule, the non-indigenous community has the right to contest elections not just in the Garo Hills but also in the Khasi Hills.
However, despite the fact that the non-indigenous community can vote and contest elections in the KHADC and JHADC, they stay away from these elections. Although threats and intimidation have played a role in discouraging them from participating in the governance of the district council, the decline in their population is also an important factor. This decline is perfectly illustrated by the demographic pattern of Shillong. In 1971, barring the Cantonment, the non-indigenous population was around 60%; but by 2011 it had gone down to less than 50%. Whenever the new Census is conducted, I expect the number to fall to 40% or less. However, this is not the case in the Garo Hills.
In the 1951 Census, the indigenous tribal population of the Garo Hills was 210,829 persons, which was about 87% of the total population. Apart from the Garo, this also included groups like the Kachari, Mech, Boro, Mao, Koch, Rabha, Banai, Hajong, Khasi, Dahi, Karbi/Mikir, and Naga. The non-tribal population included indigenous non-tribal communities such as the Assamese and Manipuri/Meitei, but the majority consisted of non-indigenous Bengalis and Nepalis. There were even some Belgians, Spaniards, and Germans as well. In the case of the United Khasi–Jaintia Hills (i.e., the Khasi Hills), the indigenous tribal population was around 84%, which was less than that of the Garo Hills. This is understandable considering Shillong was an important urban centre where the majority of the non-indigenous populations were working in different professions. Sixty years later, the picture has drastically changed.
In the 2011 Census, the indigenous tribal population in the Khasi Hills had increased to 88%. However, in the Garo Hills, the indigenous tribal population had gone down to 82%, a decrease of five percentage points over the last 60 years. Thus, the overall decline in the non-indigenous population in the state has been driven primarily by the out-migration of the non-indigenous population from the Khasi Hills. On the other hand, the Garo Hills have seen an increased influx of non-indigenous population over the last few decades. This can be deduced from the fact that the indigenous tribal population was 84% in 2001, which declined by two percentage points over a period of ten years.
The contestation over the exercise of autonomy by indigenous tribal groups in their territory has become a very contentious issue in recent times. As the law stands at the moment, unless barred by a constitutional amendment, the non-indigenous population can vote and contest in district council elections. As such, in Karbi Anglong, Pawan Kumar, a non-indigenous person, was elected as a member of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (KAAC). He belongs to the Hindi-speaking migrant community, which is being accused of having illegally encroached on Professional Grazing Land (PGR)/Village Grazing Land (VGR) areas. The issue led to sustained violence, during which the ancestral house of the incumbent KAAC CEM, Tuliram Ronghang, was burned down. Conrad Sangma, the Chief Minister, has also claimed that his house was the target of arson during the violence. What should concern him, however, is the potential change in the political landscape that this issue could bring about.
Conrad Sangma’s claim of using the “One North East” (ONE) initiative to unite regional parties and leaders across Northeast India to create a single, strong voice for indigenous rights, land protection, and regional identity will come under suspicion if he is seen to be working in the interest of his own indigenous community. And if the issue snowballs into a major election issue in 2028, this could cost him seats in the Garo Hills. With the Khasi Hills predicted to deliver a fractured mandate, failing to perform well in the Garo Hills could mean that the NPP may not be able to form the government. If that happens, the “One North East” will also die a premature death.
Personally, I am concerned about the increase in the non-indigenous population in the Garo Hills. But unless one can prove that these are illegal immigrants, they are legitimate Indian citizens. Therefore, I am not sure that they can be barred from voting and contesting elections. However, in the manner of the BTR, there could be a provision made whereby only one or two seats are kept as general seats, where everyone can vote and contest, while the rest are reserved for the local indigenous community. Over time, especially with the new proposal prohibiting the new ownership of land by the non-indigenous community in areas under the district council—which I think will stand in a court of law—the non-indigenous population will also see a decrease. With limited opportunities, they will have little choice but to migrate and sell their land to the local indigenous community. This is the blueprint that has worked in the Khasi Hills and could be repeated in the Garo Hills as well.
Therefore, there is no need for violence, as there are already laws in place (existing ones or new ones that can be proposed) to protect the interests of the indigenous community. What is required is political will. And that will ultimately decide the future of the Garo Hills and Meghalaya.
(The views expressed in the article are those of the author’s and do not reflect in any way his affiliation to any organisation or institution)
