Shillong, August 09: Social activist Shri Cherian G Momin “I place on record my objection to the reported demand of the Regional Council Demand Committee (RCDC) seeking the support of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) for the creation of a Regional Council for minority Scheduled Tribe communities within the Garo Hills”.
Shri. Cherian said that the demand, reportedly concerning the Hajong, Koch, Rabha, Boro-Kachari and Mann communities, requires the most careful constitutional, territorial, customary, administrative and legal examination before any political or institutional support is extended.
This objection is not directed against any Scheduled Tribe community or against the legitimate constitutional rights of any citizen. The Hajong, Koch, Rabha, Boro-Kachari, Mann and other tribal communities residing in Meghalaya are entitled to dignity, constitutional protection, equitable development, cultural preservation and appropriate representation in accordance with law.
However, the legitimate demand for representation must not be confused with an automatic constitutional entitlement to territorial autonomy or the creation of a separate Regional Council within an existing Sixth Schedule Autonomous areas.
The present demand has reportedly been justified primarily with reference to Paragraph 1(2) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. A careful reading of that provision, however, does not support the proposition that the mere existence of different Scheduled Tribes within an Autonomous District automatically creates a right to a Regional Council.
Paragraph 1(2) provides that where there are different Scheduled Tribes in an Autonomous District, the Governor may, by public notification, divide the area or areas inhabited by them into autonomous regions.
The use of the expression “may” is constitutionally significant. It confers an enabling power upon the Governor; it does not constitute a mandatory command that every minority Scheduled Tribe residing within an Autonomous District must be granted a separate autonomous territory or Regional Council.
Therefore, Paragraph 1(2) cannot be treated as a constitutional blank cheque for territorial reorganisation. Any proposal relying upon this provision must be examined in the context of the entire Sixth Schedule and must satisfy the constitutional, territorial, demographic, administrative and institutional requirements applicable to the creation of an autonomous region and any consequential Regional Council.
There is also a fundamental distinction between Scheduled Tribe recognition, minority or “unrepresented tribe” status, autonomous region and Regional Council. These concepts cannot constitutionally be treated as interchangeable.
The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, issued under Article 342, specifies
the communities recognised as Scheduled Tribes for constitutional purposes. Recognition as a Scheduled Tribe is an important constitutional status and must be fully respected. However, ST recognition does not, by itself, create an automatic right to territorial autonomy.
The constitutional recognition of a community under Article 342 and the constitutional mechanism of autonomous administration under the Sixth Schedule operate in different fields.
Consequently, the fact that Hajong, Koch, Rabha, Boro-Kachari or Mann communities are recognised as Scheduled Tribes cannot, by itself, establish an automatic constitutional right to carve out a Regional Council from the existing Garo Hills Autonomous District.
The historical description of certain smaller tribal communities as “unrepresented tribes” also requires careful interpretation. Hajong, Koch, Rabha, Boro-Kachari and Mann communities have historically been referred to in Meghalaya’s political and administrative discourse as unrepresented or minor tribes, particularly in relation to representation within the Autonomous District Council system.
The three principal Autonomous District Councils of Meghalaya are historically associated with the Khasi, Jaintia and Garo tribal areas, and the smaller tribal communities did not have separate Autonomous District Councils constituted in their respective names.
However, the historical issue of representation of smaller tribal communities cannot automatically be converted into a claim for territorial autonomy. Representation and territorial reorganisation are two separate constitutional questions.
If minority tribal communities have legitimate concerns regarding political representation, cultural preservation, development or institutional participation, those concerns should be addressed through appropriate constitutional and democratic mechanisms. Territorial fragmentation of an existing Autonomous District cannot be presumed to be the only or necessary remedy.
The constitutional position becomes particularly important in relation to the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council. The GHADC is not an ordinary local authority created solely under State legislation. It forms part of the constitutional system of tribal administration under Article 244(2) read with the Sixth Schedule. Its territorial jurisdiction, institutional powers and relationship with the customary institutions of the Garo people have constitutional significance.
Any proposal that may alter, divide or otherwise affect the existing territorial jurisdiction of the GHADC must therefore be approached with the highest degree of constitutional caution.
The issue of A’king land makes the matter even more significant. A substantial portion of the traditional A’king lands of the Garo people falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the GHADC. The A’king system is closely associated with the customary landholding arrangements, Nokmaship, traditional institutions and historical organisation of Garo society.
A’king land cannot be treated as an incidental administrative matter in any proposed territorial reorganisation of Garo Hills. The extent, location and status of A’king lands within any proposed Regional Council area must be established through authenticated land, cadastral, customary and administrative records before any territorial restructuring is considered.
The competent authorities must also examine the jurisdiction of the concerned Nokmaships, the existing customary institutions, the relationship between A’king land and the GHADC, and the potential consequences of any proposed change in territorial administration.
It is therefore not sufficient for proponents of the Regional Council demand to state that the proposed institution would not affect the traditional rights of the Garo people. A political assurance cannot substitute for a legally defined constitutional and administrative framework. The consequences of any proposed territorial arrangement must be determined objectively on the basis of authenticated records and constitutional law.
The question must consequently be asked in clear administrative terms, what exact territory is proposed to constitute the Regional Council? Which villages would fall within its jurisdiction? What portion of the existing GHADC territory would be affected? What is the status of A’king lands within that territory? What would be the relationship between the proposed Regional Council and the GHADC? What legislative, executive, financial and land-related powers would the proposed institution exercise? Unless these questions are answered comprehensively, no responsible constitutional authority should be expected to provide unconditional support.
The demographic presence of a Scheduled Tribe within a particular area is relevant but cannot, by itself, determine the question of territorial autonomy. Autonomous administration under the Sixth Schedule has a territorial character. The proposed territory must therefore be examined with regard to geographical contiguity, demographic concentration, historical settlement, landholding arrangements, customary institutions, administrative viability, financial sustainability and the rights of all communities residing in the proposed area.
The RCDC’s demand should therefore not be evaluated merely on the basis of whether the concerned communities constitute a numerical minority. Minority status does not automatically create territorial autonomy.
At the same time, the legitimate concerns of the concerned communities must not be dismissed. The Hajong, Koch, Rabha, Boro-Kachari and Mann communities have their own histories, cultural identities and social institutions, and their legitimate constitutional rights must be protected.
The Government of Meghalaya and the GHADC should continue to promote inclusive governance, equitable development, cultural preservation and appropriate representation for all tribal communities within their respective constitutional jurisdictions.
However, inclusive governance should not automatically be converted into territorial
fragmentation. The historical controversy surrounding the term “unrepresented tribes” further demonstrates the importance of maintaining this distinction. The debate concerning special representation of smaller tribal communities within the Autonomous District Council system was fundamentally a question of political participation and institutional safeguards. It cannot subsequently be interpreted as establishing an automatic constitutional right to a separate territorial council.
If the RCDC believes that minority Scheduled Tribes are inadequately represented within the existing institutional structure, the appropriate constitutional question is how such representation can be strengthened. It is not constitutionally sufficient to move directly from the proposition of under-representation to the conclusion that a separate territorial Regional Council must be established.
The Government of Meghalaya and the GHADC should therefore approach the matter objectively and without political pressure. The complete RCDC proposal should be obtained, including the precise geographical boundaries, village-wise details, demographic data, proposed institutional structure, proposed powers, financial requirements, land implications and constitutional justification.
The matter should thereafter be subjected to a comprehensive examination by the competent authorities with reference to the Constitution, the Sixth Schedule, Article 342, the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as amended, applicable State laws, land records, customary institutions and the existing constitutional jurisdiction of the GHADC.
Until such examination is completed, the GHADC should not provide blanket or unconditional “in-principle support” to the proposed Regional Council. Mr. Cherian stated that “I also strongly object to any attempt to portray opposition to the proposed Regional Council as opposition to minority Scheduled Tribe communities. That would be an inaccurate characterisation of the constitutional issue”.
The position is clear. the rights of minority Scheduled Tribes must be protected, but the constitutional, customary and territorial rights of the Garo people must also be protected. The Garo people have a legitimate interest in preserving the constitutional integrity of the Garo Hills Autonomous District, their customary institutions, their traditional A’king land system and the institutional authority established under the Sixth Schedule.
The proposed Regional Council, if it involves any territory presently falling within the GHADC, has the potential to affect these matters. It must therefore be treated as a matter of serious constitutional significance rather than merely as a demand for additional political representation.
“I therefore place on record my objection to any attempt to create, endorse or politically advance a Regional Council within the Garo Hills without first establishing its complete constitutional, territorial, demographic, customary, land, administrative and financial implications”. Said Shri. Cherian.
The constitutional integrity of the Garo Hills cannot be treated as a matter of political bargaining. The A’king land system cannot be treated as an administrative afterthought. The customary authority of Nokmaships cannot be overlooked.
The constitutional jurisdiction of the GHADC cannot be altered merely through a political memorandum or an “in-principle” resolution. And the historical classification of certain communities as “unrepresented tribes” cannot be converted into an automatic constitutional entitlement to territorial autonomy. The Constitution must be applied as a whole and not selectively.
The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 establishes the constitutional recognition of Scheduled Tribes. The Sixth Schedule establishes the constitutional framework for autonomous administration in the tribal areas of Meghalaya.
Paragraph 1(2) provides an enabling constitutional mechanism concerning autonomous regions. None of these provisions, individually or collectively, can reasonably be interpreted to mean that Scheduled Tribe recognition or historical under-representation automatically requires the creation of a Regional Council.
The legitimate aspirations of minority tribal communities should be addressed through constitutional representation, inclusive governance, equitable development and appropriate institutional safeguards. At the same time, the constitutional and customary foundations of the Garo Hills must be preserved.
The issue is therefore not Garo versus Hajong, Koch, Rabha, Boro-Kachari or Mann. The issue is constitutional governance versus an unsupported assumption of automatic territorial entitlement.
The issue is whether the rights of all communities can be protected without unnecessarily altering the existing constitutional structure of the Garo Hills. The answer should be a firm commitment to constitutional due process, inclusive representation, protection of customary and land rights, administrative prudence and respect for the Sixth Schedule.
The Garo people should not be expected to accept any territorial or institute restructuring that may affect their customary lands, traditional institutions or constitutional administration without a complete, transparent and legally sustainable examination.
“One community’s constitutional protection must not become another comm The Government of Meghalaya, the Governor of Meghalaya and the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council must therefore ensure that any future consideration of the RCDC demand is undertaken strictly within the Constitutionrights and interests of all tribal communities while safeguarding the constitutional integrity, customary institutions, A’king lands and territorial identity of the Garo Hills.
The Garo people should not be expected to accept any territorial or institute restructuring that may affect their customary lands, traditional institutions or constitutional administration without a complete, transparent and legally sustainable examination. One community’s constitutional protection must not become another comm constitutional displacement.
The Government of Meghalaya, the Governor of Meghalaya and the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council must therefore ensure that any future consideration of the RCDC demand is undertaken strictly within the Constitution and in a manner that protects the legitimate all tribal communities while safeguarding the constitutional integrity, customary institutions, A’king lands and territorial identity of the Garo Hills.
The Garo people should not be expected to accept any territorial or institutional restructuring that may affect their customary lands, traditional institutions or constitutional administration without a complete, transparent and legally sustainable examination.
One community’s constitutional protection must not become another community’s The Government of Meghalaya, the Governor of Meghalaya and the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council must therefore ensure that any future consideration of the RCDC and in a manner that protects the legitimate all tribal communities while safeguarding the constitutional integrity, customary institutions, A’king lands and territorial identity of the Garo Hills.
