Editor,
The much-talked-about KHADC’s decision to restrict trading licences to non-tribals raises concerns about economic fairness and inclusivity. While empowering local Khasi youth is important, outright restrictions could discourage investment, limit competition, and harm the broader economy. Addressing irregularities in licensing should focus on transparency rather than exclusion.
Similarly, proposed land ownership and voting rights changes must respect constitutional principles and ensure equal opportunities for all residents. Economic growth should be fostered through fair competition, skill development, and transparent governance rather than restrictive policies that could marginalize non-tribal businessmen.
Today, a non-tribal wishing to do business in Meghalaya must obtain nearly a dozen legal papers from state authorities and autonomous district councils before they can even open a shop. Where else in the country does such a cumbersome system exist?
At a time when most states are streamlining administrative processes to facilitate trade, Meghalaya stands as an ironic exception, burdening entrepreneurs with excessive red tape. Instead of constantly seeking funds from New Delhi, the state should take inspiration from neighbouring Assam’s developmental initiatives and strive for self-reliance.
How long can a state that relies on taxpayers’ money, yet remains ungrateful, continue to function in this manner? Given the tribesmen’s innate nerve for business and entrepreneurial ventures in the state; it is quite unlikely that such a protective move can create more tribal entrepreneurs.
Now, this brings us to the uncomfortable question of the existence of the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) in Meghalaya and other northeastern states under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which has long been a subject of debate.
Activist Michael Syiem’s stance against these councils, of late, is not only justified but also necessary in the interest of administrative efficiency, transparency and true democratic governance.
The primary argument against ADCs is their redundancy. As Syiem, who had filed a PIL in the High Court of Meghalaya to do away with district councils, rightly pointed out that Para 12A of the Sixth Schedule clearly states that state legislature laws take precedence over district council laws. This renders the legislative power of ADCs meaningless. In reality, they operate as a parallel government without actual accountability, leading to bureaucratic inefficiencies and a misuse of public funds.
Moreover, the role of district councils in matters such as marriage, inheritance, land, and education has created a system riddled with inconsistencies. Instead of empowering the people, they have become breeding grounds for corruption and nepotism, often serving the interests of a few powerful individuals rather than the community at large. Their existence weakens state governance by creating unnecessary administrative hurdles and diluting the implementation of welfare schemes.
Meghalaya became a full-fledged state in 1972, and since then, it has had its government, elected by the people and responsible for making laws that govern the state. The continuation of ADCs not only undermines this democratic structure but also causes division and confusion in governance. Instead of ensuring autonomy and self-governance for tribal populations, ADCs have turned into obsolete institutions that delay progress and foster political opportunism.
The way forward is clear—district councils must either be abolished or significantly reformed to prevent overlapping jurisdictions. A constitutional amendment, if required, should be pursued to integrate their functions fully within the state government. The people of Meghalaya deserve a single, efficient government that truly represents their interests without parallel power centers that only serve to obstruct progress.
Michael Syiem’s fight against this archaic system is commendable, and, unfortunately, financial constraints have prevented him from taking the battle to the Supreme Court. However, his arguments remain strong, and public discourse on the relevance of ADCs must continue until genuine democratic reforms are implemented.
Yours etc.
A concerned citizen
