Editor,
The recent demand by several organisations in the Garo Hills to create an exclusive tribal voter list for the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) elections raises serious constitutional and democratic concerns that cannot be brushed aside in the name of identity protection.
There is no denying that the anxieties expressed by these groups stem from real and complex ground realities. Issues such as demographic change, land encroachment, and the growing political assertion of certain non-tribal groups—particularly Bengali-speaking Muslims in the plains belt—have contributed to tensions in the region. These concerns deserve attention and thoughtful policy responses. However, the proposed solution—restricting voting rights solely to Scheduled Tribes—ventures into legally and morally contentious territory.
At the heart of the issue lies a fundamental contradiction. The district council laws framed under the Sixth Schedule are not selectively applicable; they extend to all residents within the jurisdiction, including non-tribals. Land regulations, administrative decisions, taxation, and local governance measures enacted by bodies like the GHADC affect tribal and non-tribal populations alike. If that is the case, how can it be justified that a section of the population—who are governed by these very laws—be denied the right to vote in electing that authority?
This strikes at the core of democratic principles, that is, no taxation or governance without representation. Denying voting rights while continuing to impose legal authority creates an imbalance that is not only ethically questionable but also constitutionally vulnerable.
While much of the current discourse appears to focus on specific demographic concerns, particularly regarding Bengali-speaking Muslims, it is equally important to recognise that not all non-tribals fall into this category. There exists a significant population of genuine non-tribal residents who have lived in Meghalaya for generations—long before statehood, contributing to its economy, culture, and social fabric. To place all non-tribals under a single lens of suspicion or exclusion would be both unjust and historically inaccurate.
If, hypothetically, such an exclusive tribal voter list were to be introduced through legislative amendment, it would open a far more complex legal dilemma. Can a district council continue to exercise authority over individuals who have no say in its composition? If non-tribals are to be excluded from voting and contesting elections, then logically, the applicability of district council laws on them would also need to be reconsidered. Otherwise, the arrangement risks being struck down in a court of law for violating constitutional guarantees of equality and representation, observed citizens.
In essence, a governance structure that excludes a section of its subjects from participation while retaining control over them is inherently unsustainable. It invites legal challenges and deepens social divisions rather than resolving them.
The existing legal framework itself does not support the idea of an exclusive tribal voter list. As per Rule 128 under Chapter II (Franchise—Electoral Rolls), “every person who is a citizen of India and an ordinary resident in a constituency… shall be entitled to vote at any election to the District Council of an autonomous district,” provided they meet basic conditions such as age and sound mind. Crucially, the proviso only restricts non-tribals unless they are permanent residents within the territorial limits of the autonomous district, thereby clearly recognizing voting rights of non-tribals who have long-standing residence. Further, the rules define a “permanently resident” person as one who has made the district their fixed home and resided continuously for not less than twelve years. This explicitly establishes that citizenship and residency—not ethnicity alone—form the basis of electoral rights in District Council elections, making any blanket exclusion of non-tribals not only controversial but legally untenable.
The concerns of tribal communities regarding identity, land, and political representation are legitimate and must be addressed through stronger enforcement of existing land laws, better administrative vigilance, and inclusive dialogue. However, solutions must remain within the framework of the Constitution and democratic fairness.
Creating an exclusive tribal voter list may appear, at first glance, as a protective measure—but in reality, it risks undermining the very legal and democratic foundations that ensure long-term stability and justice for all communities in the region.
Ranjit Bose
Bivar Road, Shillong
