By H H Mohrmen
The protest fast by HB Nonglang, the Chairman of Green Tech Foundation (GTF), raises the usual but very critical question of whether we have to choose development at the cost of the environment. Why has this issue come to such an impasse that a youth has to protest in order to protect the environment? This is a very pertinent question. The truth is that there is more than what meets the eye in this issue, and this essay will try to discuss a few matters relating to this problem.
Land in the Tribal Area
When the Constituent Assembly deliberated on the future governance of these regions, the North East Frontier Tribal and Excluded Areas Sub-Committee under the chairmanship of Gopinath Bordoloi played a crucial role. The committee recognized the need to protect tribal customs, safeguard land from external exploitation, and ensure that governance structures reflect indigenous ways of life. It must therefore be clearly understood that governance in these regions rests on the recommendations of the Bordoloi-led Committee to the Constituent Assembly, which led to the adoption of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution to protect the tribal communities of the North East.
The Autonomous District Councils derive their authority from the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India under Article 244(2). This Schedule allows autonomy of considerable magnitude, conferring legislative, executive, judicial, and financial powers upon District and Regional Councils. The question is: does this project safeguard our land from external exploitation?
The District Council vis-à-vis the Rivers and Water Bodies
Paragraph 3 of the Sixth Schedule empowers the District Councils to make laws regarding the protection and preservation of rivers and water bodies. The question is: what have the District Councils done to protect the rivers in their respective areas?
In the District Council in Jaiñtia Hills, the Daloi recommends the issue of Land Holding Certificates, but can he recommend issuing of land holdings on land situated on river banks? Are there any rules that ensure no construction takes place on the banks of rivers? Which Council was able to protect its rivers?
The Council and the Traditional Institutions
The District Councils have not only failed in the matter of protecting rivers and water bodies, but have not even made the best use of the Traditional Institutions under their purview. In Jaiñtia Hills, the two-layer traditional institutions, which include the Daloi or Sirdar and the Waheh Chnong, are now recognized by law after the Jaiñtia Hills Autonomous District (Establishment of Elaka and Village and Election, Appointment, Powers, Functions and Jurisdiction of Daloi/Sirdar and Waheh Chnong) Act of 2015 received the assent of the Governor. But what about the other ADCs?
The Councils have under their jurisdiction a huge army of staff in the form of Traditional Institutions, which include the Syiem, Daloi, Sirdar, and the village heads in every village. All these institutions operate and administer their villages based on the Sanad that they receive from the Syiem or Dalois, who are also under the District Council. The question is: what measures have the ADCs taken to empower these traditional institutions? Have they ever conducted capacity-building workshops to empower the traditional heads in their respective District Councils?
Lack of Convergence
Different government departments like Soil and Water Conservation, PHE, and Fisheries are engaged in matters related to protecting rivers and water bodies, but does the government even create a platform for these agencies to cooperate with the ADCs?
Not only is there no convergence between the different State Government departments, there is also no platform for these departments to interact with the ADCs. Questions can also be asked as to whether there is convergence even among the different departments within the Autonomous District Councils themselves.
When different State Government departments implement projects connected to rivers and water bodies, do they even inform the ADCs? Where is the autonomy of the District Councils when, in truth, the ADCs are now functioning at the mercy of the State Government?
The JHADC Is More Progressive and Proactive
To some extent, the JHADC is more proactive than the other District Councils by successfully adopting its Village Administration Act. The enactment of the JHADC (Establishment of Elaka and Village…) Act of 2015 marks a significant milestone in this regard. It represents a conscious effort by the Jaiñtia Hills Autonomous District Council to codify, strengthen, and empower traditional institutions within a legal framework. The Council is among the few to have enacted such a comprehensive law governing the appointment, powers, functions, and jurisdiction of the Daloi or Sirdar and the Waheh Chnong.
This Act also reinforces the continuity between customary authority and statutory recognition. The JHADC 2015 Act is also more gender inclusive, as it mandates that not less than one-third of the members of the Executive Committee of the Dorbar Chnong should be women. The Act did not bar women from contesting elections to become Waheh Chnong. The recent election for Waheh Chnong in Sohmynting village, where a woman candidate unsuccessfully contested, is a case in point.
Of particular relevance to this article are the provisions under Article 18 of the Act, which outline the powers and functions of the Daloi or Sirdar. Among the fifteen functions listed, four directly relate to environmental conservation. These powers and functions empower them to protect forests, rivers, and water bodies, and they are even empowered to arrest and fine those who violate the law. The pertinent question is: has the council been able to protect and preserve the environment?
Economic Development: The Example of Cement Industries
The argument given by business promoters and the government is that by encouraging industries, we will bring economic progress to the State, and that is why corporate houses were encouraged to invest in the tourism sector too. However, the question is: what development has the State achieved, and how much has the wealth of the community increased in return for selling their land and environment to companies? Let us take the case of the cement industries in the State.
Cement industries are mushrooming in the State, but the question is: who benefits from the presence of these industries? And how much revenue has the State earned from these cement plants? When the JHADC cannot even pay its staff regularly, the question that begs an answer is whether they have even received the royalty from both major and minor minerals used by the cement industries that is due to the Council.
What has the community benefited in return for allowing their land to be destroyed? The pertinent question is how many folds the wealth of the promoters of these companies has increased from when they first started their units till today. Compare the increase in the wealth of the promoters with that of the people who live in the area.
Star Cement now produces more cement outside Meghalaya than within the State. Meghalaya is only producing clinkers now. The company has three grinding units in Assam, two at Sonapur near Guwahati and another in Silchar, and one in Mohinagar near Jalpaiguri West Bengal.
One can even question the cement companies’ claim of providing employment to local people, which again needs to be examined from all angles. How many people does the company engage in Lumshnong, and how many does it engage in the four grinding units in Assam and West Bengal? How many staff does it employ in its corporate office in Kolkata?
The company is now even engaged in the transport business, which not only denies locals the benefit of participating in the transport of clinker to the grinding units, but also seeks to control the entire business chain to ensure monopoly. The undeniable truth is that wherever corporations are involved, the wealth of the promoters and the corporation increases many folds, while the people receive only crumbs or leftovers at the cost of the environment.
Community vs Corporate-led Tourism Model
Again, the question that begs an answer is what tourism model the government is planning to promote in the State. Is it trying to promote a corporate-led or grassroots-led tourism model? Or in short, is the government trying to promote the Sohra, Mawlynnong, and Shnongpdeng model, or the Marriott Vivanta model? In fact, the State already has plenty of community-led tourism examples, and these are just a few.
In the community-led model, ownership and operation remain with the community. It is economically beneficial for local residents and environmentally sustainable.
Corporate-led tourism will not only be unsustainable, it will also lead to destruction because corporations thrive on building infrastructure rather than empowering communities. Whenever infrastructure development is involved, it requires investment beyond the reach of communities, and they will be compelled to sell their land to the highest bidder. In such cases, they will not only lose their land but also their livelihood, which has sustained them for many generations. Is this the kind of development that the government wants to promote and at the cost of the environment?
