Shillong, Jan 28: The President of the Hynñiewtrep Integrated Territorial Organisation (HITO) Mr. Donbok Dkhar and legal secretary Shaniah Nongrum today sent letter to the Chief secretary Government of Meghalaya Mr. Shakil Ahamed as follow up on Implementation of Instrument of Agreement.
In the letter HITO refer to the letter of the Joint Secretary MHA(NE) sent to the to Chief Secretary Meghalaya, Dated November 27, 2014, Chairperson NCST DO letter NCST D.0. No.CP/NCST/Meghalaya/MHA/2014/08 Dated 6 January 2014, to Shri. Sushil Kumar Shinde, former Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt of India
The Chairperson NCST DO letter NCST Letter No. D.O.No.CP NCST/Meghalaya/MHA/2014/292 Dated 27th Aug 2014, to Shri. Rajnath Singh, Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs, advising and recommending that the IOA and AA should be concluded and its mandate be incorporated within the constitution of India and HITO is writing to respectfully inquire about the details and current status of the letter dated November 27, 2014, which was sent by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to the Government of Meghalaya.
This correspondence addresses the representation and implementation of the Instrument of Agreement concerning the Khasi state. As you are aware that one of important issues of the HITO is seeking fulfillment of the national solemn commitments accepted as per the Instrument of Accession and Annexed Agreement by the Government of India with the Khasi States on 17th August 1948.
It has now come to light from our educational cell and research committee after their indept study that important documents some of which are public information reveals that in the past the Chairman of The Grand Council of Chiefs of Meghalaya and Adviser Spokesperson, of Federation of Khasi States, led by Bah John F Kharshiing, and his team along with a number of Khasi Chiefs had widely advocated and initiated numerous representations to both Central and State Authorities which led to the above response from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to the Government of Meghalya.
Inthis context the HITO is deeply committed and concerned as to the delay in the fulfillment of the National solemn commitments and to as this is a matter of national importance to the Hynniewtrep People we are following up to seek copies of the response to above mentioned letter from the Meghalaya Government to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt of India.
The organisation also refer to the above important communications listed below from the constitutional statutory body under Article 338 A National Commission for Schedule Tribes, Government of India with the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt of India and Chief Secretary, Govt of Meghalaya vide i) Deputy Secretary MHA (NE Division) letter No. 9/15/2013-NE.1 to Chief Secretary Meghalaya, Dated November 27, 2014 ii) Chairperson NCST DO letter NCST D.0. No.CP/NCST/ Meghalaya/ MHA/2014/08 Dated 6 January 2014, to Shri. Sushil Kumar Shinde, former Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt of India.
Chairperson NCST DO letter NCST Letter D.O.No.CP NCST/ Meghalaya /MHA/2014/292 Dated 27th Aug 2014, to Shri. Rajnath Singh, Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs, advising and recommending that the IOA & AA should be concluded and its mandate be incorporated within the constitution of India.
In this connection, the education wing has also informed us that on there is communication from NHRC vide letter case No.14/15/2/2012 dated 16th June 2012, from National Human rights Commission (Law Division), New Delhi, on the same issue stating that quote “The Commission has examined the petition carefully and we find that the matter within the Legislative competence of Parliament.
The petitioner may approach the Government for redressal of their grievance.”
No. Various political parties have also made there stand known on this issue. A copy of the Policy Statement of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for Meghalaya statesquote “24. On old Agreement nad Instrument: The party shall pay full respect to any or all the old agreements or Instruments solemnly entered in between the tribal rulers and the then Dominion of India Immediately after India’s independence and shall take appropriate steps in confirmation and fulfillment of the sprit enshrined therein”. unquote.
It was also found that a delegation of 30 Chiefs on 13 October 2013, personally handed over similar memorandum to Hon’ble Shri. Pranab Mukherjee, President of India, during his visit to Shillong. Similar memorandums have also been submitted to former President of India.
The Chiefs in their Memorandum, stated that the Khasi, Jaintia and Garo people are in conflict with a number of Central Acts due to non-fulfillment of these treaties, some of the major conflicts going on presently, due to Constitutional Anomalies have resulted in conflict with the customary Indigenous land tenure system in Meghalaya, the Seventh Schedule, the Sixth Schedule, the MMDR Act, the Coal Mines Act, the Forest Conservation Act, Land Acquisition Act, Right to information Act (no logistical office support to the traditional institutions) and many other Central Legislation which are in conflict and in contradiction to our social and customary rights as enshrined within the treaties agreed and accepted by the Government of India and the Khasi States.
Even after 78 years the non-fulfillment of the solemn agreed and accepted treaties is causing conflict today wherein we find the unanimous important resolutions of the State in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly relating to extension of ILP, Language issue, resolving Meghalaya – Assam and India – Bangladesh Boundary, amendment of Schedule Tribe Order 1950 and 1976 for Meghalaya, Restoration of the Khasi States Constitutional Assembly of the Khasi States constituted and inaugurated by the Governor of Assam in 1949 and many others.
The ‘party less’ Tribal Chiefs and Rulers of the Khasi States twenty five in number, including the Khasi, Jaintia and Garo tribes of Meghalaya, urged the Chairperson, NCST to forward a special report to the office of the Hon’ble President of India, Hon’ble Prime Minister, Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Union Home Minister, to fulfill the National Commitments solemnly made on 17th August 1948, and to conclude these important issues of the Khasi, Jaintia and Garo Tribes of Meghalaya.
As the terms of the IOA and AA are yet to be fulfilled by the Govt of India the Hima were left in limbo and effective 26 Jan 1950 were unconstitutionally described in the First Schedule within Assam and since the Khasi States were notified as Schedule Tribes were also brought under the new administration of the provisions of the Sixth Schedule.
This anomaly exist till today. In Garo Hills the Nokma does not take any SANAD from the GHADC and hence have less conflict. In fact the former Vice President of Council of Nokma was also elected MDC and EM in the GHADC.
The crux of the matter is while the rest of grassroots local bodies in the country have been defined through the 73rd Amendment Act 1992 which added a new Part IX to the constitution titled “The Panchayats” covering provisions from Article 243 to 243(O); and a new Eleventh Schedule covering 29 subjects within the functions of the Panchayats.
The 73rd Amendment Act 1992 consists of a three-tier system: Gram Panchayat (village), Panchayat Samiti (block), and Zila Parishad (district) Advocated by Mahatma Gandhi as Gram Swaraj (village self-governance), the modern, formalized system was introduced to empower local decision-making. The 73rd Amendment Act, 1992, gave constitutional recognition to Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs), making them mandatory across India.
Their responsibilities are for local planning, development, and social justice, such as education, health, and sanitation At the same time Article 243 ZC excluded these provisions from the Schedule Areas including the Khasi States as three tire traditional institutions were already existing in Meghalaya including the Autonomous District Councils.
As on date Government of India is yet to figure out how to synergise formalise or include the Khasi States (as per IOA & AA –18 Dolloi in Jaintia Hills) and the Nokmas into the Constitutional framework and is testing and assuming that the interim stopgap ADCs or the provisions of the Sixth Schedule would meet the aspirations of the traditional institutions, however after 78 years it is yet to be settled. Hence the constitutional limbo which requires to be resolved.
One could also ask as to why to date non of the political parties have come up with a united solution the answer lies in the fact the political parties have a different idealogy agenda and priorities which are in contradiction of the political system of the traditional institutions.
The responsibilities of the Hima includes Legislative, executive judiciary and religious customary functions however, the delayed absence of an Assembly for them has resulted in the past and present representatives such as MLAs and MDCs of the Khasi and Jaintia Hills representing the 54 hima in total in Khasi Hills (25 Khasi States and 29 Elaka’s and 18 +2 Elaka’s in Jaintia Hills ) not having in-depth knowledge and importantly commitment to legislate proper effective specific act and rules since inception of the UK andJHADC in 1952 and since inception of Meghalaya state in 1972, in fact the existing Acts and Rules are very basic and relate just to Appointment and Succession of the chief and Headmen.
The political structure democracy and system of India is represented by ideologies of the political parties and are based on first past the post whereas the political structure of the Khasi States is based on consensus and referendum MDCs have been paid to legislate however in the past all MDCs spend time to get elected as MLA hence they are “more obliged to party politics” rather than “party less politics”.
As the ADC’s are an interim arrangement the representation should have been strictly from the Khasi States Constitution Making Dorbar and the recognised political parties need to be barred from setting up candidates in the ADCs in Meghalaya so that the administration can focus on its actual role.
The Meghalaya legislative Assembly including the various political parties are yet to have a matured indept debate on the continuance of the ADC and why their actual stakeholders are not part of the council. If at all this interim arrangement is to continue how is it that the stakeholders particularly the Dorbar Shnong, Dorbar Kur, Dorbar Raid and Dorbar Hima are not represented within the ADCs ?? where as the structure of the Khasi States Assembly constitute representatives from various Hima and Elaka based on population and even had four women as nominated members.
In view of the above facts as an organization committed to the welfare and recognition of the unique history and culture of the Khasi community, we are keenly interested in understanding the progress made on this long-pending issue. We would appreciate any insights you could provide regarding whether your office has submitted a report to the MHA regarding this matter, as this would be of significant importance to our community. The Organisation look forward to your prompt response and guidance on this crucial issue.
