Abstract

States have adopted different mechanisms in order to deal with growing ethnic uprisings and accommodate cultural diversities. As relevant mechanism, granting autonomy on ethnic grounds in the form of territorial and non-territorial has become significant in dealing with such challenges since the last twentieth century. For example, Swedish-speaking region of Aland in Finland, Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua, Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh etc. can be identified as territorial autonomy. The system of autonomy granted to German, Russian, Swedish and Jewish communities in Estonia, Sami indigenous community in Finland, Italian and Hungarian communities in Slovenia etc. can be mentioned as non-territorial autonomy. Likewise, India has also adopted the idea of granting autonomy to the ethnic minorities as relevant device to tackle growing ethnic movements and to protect their political and cultural rights. As a result, a number of autonomous councils has been constituted under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Indian Constitution in different parts of the states in India. Many of those councils are partly inclusive, partly exclusive, territorial and non-territorial in nature and many of those are malfunctional and unconstitutional in practice making their autonomy a contested one. In this context, the paper tries to analyse the nature and functioning of the autonomous councils in Assam and seeks to discuss autonomy related conflict in Assam with special reference to the Rabha Hasong autonomous council (RHAC) of Assam.

Jagmohan Boro is Assistant Professor, S.P.P. College, Namti, Dist: Sivasagar, Assam, and can be reached at borojagmohan473@gmail.co

Introduction:

The term ‘autonomy’ derives from two Greek words ‘auto’ meaning self and ‘nomos’ meaning law or rule (Benedikter, 2009, p. 18). It appears that to make one’s own laws or self rule is the basic meaning of autonomy. More precisely, autonomy implies certain degree of independence that a specific entity enjoys within a sovereign state relating to the matters of self-rule over special affairs concerned to them (Ghai, 2000, p. 8). However, granting autonomy on ethnic grounds varies from context to context. Depending on the context, autonomy granted to the ethnic or national minorities for protecting their political and cultural rights are found as territorial in some countries and as non-territorial in some other countries. Territorial autonomy provides to a territorial unit a special status of administrative powers of local bodies, elected assembly independent from central state institutions with a minimum power to legislate in some basic domains and elected executive who implements this legislation in a given autonomous area (Benedikter, 2009, p. 38). Non-territorial autonomy is concerned with decentralization of decision making power to cultural council constituted by linguistic, cultural or religious minorities with legislative powers, executive status and functions relating to the matters of maintenance and advancement of socio-cultural affairs of the groups. Jurisdiction of such autonomy is applied to every member of the groups even such groups are dispersed throughout the state (Villiers, 2012).

The history of pursuing the idea of territorial and non-territorial autonomy to accommodate diversity goes back to 13 th century as the Millet system, a form of non-territorial autonomy, was developed granting public authority to religious groups living as dispersed minorities among the Sunni Muslim population of Turkey. Accordingly, since 16 th century some forms of autonomy had been sanctioned in Europe for different religious minorities such as Protestants in Catholic region, Jews in various countries, Muslims in Christian areas, Catholic and Orthodox Christians as well as Jews in the Ottoman-Muslim areas. Nevertheless, a general trend regarding the issue of self-determination and autonomy has been traced since 20 th century. After the First World War, the League of Nations gave attention to autonomy issue that resulted in the formation of territorial autonomy of colonies including the Free City of Danzig, the Saarland and Memel-Klaipeda territory which were belonged to the defeated powers (Benedikter, 2009, p. 28). However, the role of League of Nations was considered failure in this regard. Yet, different countries of Europe, America, Asia and Africa continents have found their way to a politics of recognition and protection of minorities through constitutional arrangements and special national laws that has led to the formation of territorial and non-territorial autonomy in many countries during the post World War II era. For example, Faroe Island and Greenland of Denmark, South Tyrol of Italy, Catalonia and Galicia of Spain, Scotland, Wales and Ireland of United Kingdom of Great Britain, autonomy of Flemish, Wallons and Germans in Belgium, Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao of Philippines, Aceh of Indonesia, Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh, Nunavut of Canada etc. can be identified as territorial autonomy. Autonomy to German, Russian, Swedish and Jewish communities in Estonia, Sami indigenous community in Finland, Italian and Hungarian communities in Slovenia etc. can be mentioned as non-territorial autonomy (Benedikter, 2009, pp. 67-171). Likewise, India has also been applying the idea of autonomy as an important approach in dealing with ethnic problems since the early period of post-independence.

India has been culturally, linguistically, religiously diverse and ethnically plural country since prehistoric period (Brass, 1991, p. 19). The question of self-determination originating from such diversity and other historical, political, economic and regional consequences has been facilitating ethnic uprising in India since pre-independence. Growing ethnic unrest in different parts of India has posed serious threats to Indian nation building process and national integration. Such development during the British rule may be regarded to have deep consequences over the architects of Indian Constitution in incorporating the provisions of Fifth and Sixth Schedules in the Constitution. The Fifth Schedule provides limited democratic platform to protect the interest of the smaller tribal groups through the formation of ‘Tribe Advisory Councils’ which is concerned with welfare and social advancement of the communities. The council does not enjoy executive, legislative or judicial power in administering justice within the schedule areas. The Legislative power is vested with the Governor, and the council has the duty to advise him on his desire. The Sixth Schedule contains detail provisions for ‘Autonomous District Council’ and ‘Regional Council’ in districts dominated by the tribal people providing territorial autonomy to the areas under its jurisdiction. These councils under the Sixth Schedule enjoy legislative and executive powers on various vital areas (Basu, 1960, pp. 293-294). Under the provision of Sixth Schedule, the Government of India has been forming autonomous councils since 1952 in the form of ‘Autonomous District Council’ and ‘Regional Council’ as constitutional device to deal with ethnic problems (Chaube, 1973, p. 105). As a result of this initiative, a number of autonomous councils have been formed in different states of India which can be shown in the following table.

Table: 1. Existing Autonomous Councils of India under the Sixth Schedule (Benedikter, 2009, p. 184)

Autonomous Council	State	Year of Constitution	Ethnic Composition
North Cachar Hill District	Assam	1952	Dimasa, Kuki, Hmar & Zemei tribes
Jaintia Hill District	Meghalaya	1952	Pnar, Jaintia & Khasi tribes
Khasi Hill District	Meghalaya	1952	Khasi tribes
Karbi Anglong Autonomous District	Assam	1952	Karbi tribes & SC
Garo Hill District	Meghalaya	1952	Garo, Rabha & Hajong
Tripura Tribal Area Autonomous District	Tripura	1985	ST
Chakma Autonomous District Council	Mizoram	1987	Chakma tribes
Lai Autonomous District Council	Mizoram	1987	Lai tribes
Mara Autonomous Council	Mizoram	1987	Mara tribes
Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council	West Bengal	1988	Nepalis
Autonomous Hill District Council, Leh	Kashmir	1995	ST- Ladakhi
Autonomous Hill District Council, Kargil	Kashmir	2003	ST- Purigba, Balti & Brokpa
Bodoland Territorial Council	Assam	2003	Bodo, Rabha, Garo, Hajong tribes & SC

SC- Schedule Caste and ST- Schedule Tribe

Besides these, the Government of Assam has formed a few autonomous councils to address aspirations of some smaller tribal communities of the state which do not fulfil the criteria of Sixth and Fifth Schedules. Such autonomous councils like the Mising Autonomous Council, Tiwa Autonomous Council and Rabha Hasong Autonomous Council are formed in 1995 (Hazarika, 2005, pp. 78-110) and the Sonowal Kachari Autonomous Council, Thengal Kachari Autonomous Council and Deuri Autonomous Council are formed in 2005 (Sarmah, 2010, p. 80) Many of these are partly exclusive and partly inclusive and neither territorial nor non-territorial completely. Complexity of such nature has made many councils of Assam as unconstitutional and malfunctional. In fact, the issue of autonomy is contested in Assam. Moreover, these autonomous councils failed to stop emerging ethnic unrest and creation of such councils is seemed to have provoked further ethnic clashes in different parts of Assam. In this background, the paper attempts to analyse the nature and functioning of autonomous councils in Assam and seeks to discuss autonomy related ethnic clashes in Assam with special reference to the Rabha Hasong Autonomous Council.

The Rabhas and the Rabha Hasong Autonomous Council (RHAC):

The Rabhas are one of the aboriginal tribes of Assam. They are categorized as plain Schedule tribe in the state. They are identified as a sub-tribe of the Bodo-Kachari family who belong to the Indo-Mongoloid racial stock. They are believed to have originated from the Tibetan region and it is estimated that several hundred years ago, they migrated to Garo Hills, now in Meghalaya and spread to the plains of Assam (B.N. Bordoloi, 1987, p. 128). At present, they are widely scattered in the plains districts of Goalpara, Kamrup, Darrang, Dhubri, Nalbari, Kokrajhar etc. but their main concentration is found in the undivided districts of Goalpara, Kamrup and Darrang of Assam. Besides Assam, their distribution spreads over the Garo Hills of Meghalaya, Jalpaiguri and Cooch Bihar districts of West Bengal, Manipur, Nepal and Bangladesh. As per 2001 Population Census, the total Rabha population of Assam is 2, 77,517 and it is 8.4% of the total Schedule tribe population of Assam (Chakrabarty, 2012, p. 356)

The Rabhas’ perceived injustice done on the community by the so-called high caste Hindu society in the fields of socio-cultural system, political and economic avenues had led them to mobilize on ethnic line and to develop identity consciousness since pre-independence period. Such development among the Rabhas involved them in organizing movement for asserting a variety of demands as their constitutional rights. As a result of which the Government of Assam had to pass the Rabha Hasong Autonomous Council Act as an option of solving the Rabha problems which received assent of the Governor of Assam on 5 th July, 1995 (RHAC Act, 1995). Consequently, the Memorandum of Settlement was done by signing the Rabha Accord on 10 th March, 1995 (Accord, 1995) through which the Rabha Hasong Autonomous Council (RHAC) came into existence. The council includes 779 villages of Goalpara and Kamrup districts of Assam (Notification, 2005) and its headquarter is in Dudhnoi. Thus, it may be stated that the RHAC is the result of Rabha ethnic identity consciousness and assertion whose nature, power and function are necessitated to be analyzed.

Nature of the RHAC

According to the Rabha Hasong Autonomous Council Amendment Act, 2005, the RHAC consists of ‘Core Areas’ and ‘Satellite Areas’ of villages. The ‘Core Areas’ means the compact and contiguous areas predominantly inhabited by the Schedule Tribes population having 50% and above as a whole in the area and not necessarily in the individual villages. The ‘Satellite Areas’ means the areas consisting of non-contiguous clusters of villages predominately inhabited by Schedule Tribes population having 50% and above as a whole in the cluster and not necessarily in the individual villages (Amendment Act, 2005). This shows that the RHAC is constituted by the tribal communities. As tribal communities the Rabha, Bodo, Kachari, Garo, Hajong etc. form the council. Besides them, other non-tribal communities are also found living in the council area. Thus, the council includes the tribal and non-tribal communities within its jurisdiction. In regard to this point, ethnic composition of the council can be shown in the following table as per 2001 Population Census.

Table: 2. Population of RHAC as per the Population Census, 2001 (Statement of ST/ SC and Total Population of RHAC, 2001) .

Name of the communities	Number of population	Percentage of S.T. population
Rabha, Bodo, Kachari	2,49,305
Garo	76568	59.49%
Hajong	3080
Total S.T. population	3,28,953
Schedule Caste	15,695
Others	2,08,385
Total population	5,52,997

In view of the above table, it may be observed that although the council is named after the Rabhas, the composition of other tribal and non-tribal population of the area is no less significant. On this ground, the council may be observed as inclusive in nature. However, the objective of the council appears to be exclusive in terms of representing the interest of other non-tribals living in the area. In this regard, we may refer to the objective of the council: “whereas it is expedient to provide for the establishment of a Rabha Hasong Autonomous Council within the State of Assam with maximum autonomy within the framework of the Constitution, comprising of the Satellite Areas and Core Areas, for social, economic, educational, ethnic and cultural advancement of the Rabha and other Schedule Tribes Communities residing therein” (RHAC Act, 1995, p. 890). So, the council may be observed as exclusive since the objective does not reflect about the interests of other non-tribals in spite of having a large number of aforesaid communities in the area. Moreover, the objective tells about socio-economic and cultural advancement of the Rabhas of only the council area excluding the aspirations of the Rabhas of other parts of Assam. In this regard, the council may also be observed as exclusive. Such exclusive nature of the council becomes more evident on ground that it includes the Rabhas of 779 villages of Goalpara and Kamrup districts excluding the Rabhas of Darrang, Dhubri, Nalbari etc. districts of Assam although the council came out as a result of the movement for assertion of Rabha ethnic identity. Thus, the council may be observed as both inclusive and exclusive. However, for further understanding the nature of the council, it is necessary to analyse the accommodative structure of the council. For the purpose, the constitution of the council may be discussed.

Constitution of the RHAC:

According to the RHAC Amendment Act, 2005, the RHAC is constituted by a General Council, an Executive Council and Village Councils. The General Council consists of 40 members of which 36 are directly elected and 4 members are nominated by the Government to give representation to those communities of the council which are not otherwise represented in it. Out of 40 seats 25 seats are reserved for the tribals and out of 25 reserved seats at least 6 seats are reserved for women of any community (Amendment Act, 2005). The rest of the seats may be understood as unreserved and open for all since the Act does not mention for whom these seats belong to. Through this provision, the non-tribal communities of the area have the opportunity of representation in the council. On this ground, it may be observed that the council is representative to some extent. However, rest of the seats may be contested not only by the non-tribals but by the tribals also as these seats are unreserved as result of which a large number of non-tribal community may have least representation in the council. In this regard, distribution of 40 seats into 25 for the tribals and 4 for the non-tribals through reservation system may also be observed as inadequate in terms of accommodating the political aspirations of a large section of existing non-tribal communities. On the other hand, the Act does not mention any scope of representation for the Rabhas whose villages do not fall within the council area.

According to the Rabha Hasong Autonomous Council Accord, 1995, the RHAC is an apex body consisting of Village Councils of Core and Satellite areas, called the Rabha Hasong Village Council (RHVC). The RHVC is constituted with the villages having more than 50% of the tribal population in the Rabha dominated areas with population of 6000-8000 in order to exercise grass root democracy in place of Village Panchayat in the RHAC area. However, the RHVC also includes the non-tribals since the Population Census shows the existence of a large number of said communities. According to the Accord, the RHVC is constituted with 10 elected members out of which five are from the Rabha tribes. Out of five reserved seats one is reserved for a woman member (Accord, 1995). If five out of ten seats are for the Rabhas then other five seats may be understood as unreserved and open for all. Through these unreserved seats other tribals and non-tribals have the chance of representation in the RHVC. However, it may be observed that the Accord has failed to make the RHVC a truly representative council. It is because the Accord does not mention about the reservation of seats for other tribal and non-tribal communities except reservation for women in the RHVC. On the other hand, the five unreserved seats may not be sufficient to represent the political aspirations of a good number of aforesaid communities in the RHVC. Therefore, it may be observed that although the council is inclusive by comprising other tribal and non-tribal communities within the area, it is incapable of accommodating adequately the political interests of all sections of the people of the area. For further understanding the nature of the council, its powers and functions may be discussed.

Powers and Functions of the RHAC and RHVC:

According to the RHAC Accord, 1995, the executive council of the RHAC is vested with the executive powers and functions on 34 subjects in relation to the council area. According to the Accord, the RHVC has the executive powers and functions on 29 subjects in relation to the village council area. This implies that both the councils are entrusted with the power of execution of development schemes within their respective jurisdiction which are essential for protection and development of the Rabha and other tribals of the area. Moreover, the RHAC has also the legislative power which is assigned to the general council. Regarding the legislative power of the general council, the RHAC Accord, 1995 mentions that “the apex council shall have the power to make bye-law/ rules and orders which shall apply to all the RHVC” (Accord, 1995, p. 2). This implies that the laws, rules and orders made by the general council to exercise control and administration over aforesaid subjects are applicable only within the area. Thus, both the executive and general councils can exercise powers and functions within the council area and on such ground the RHAC may be observed as territorial in nature.

Although the general council has power to make bye-laws/ rules or orders on aforesaid subjects, the general council has to exercise its power according to the norms prescribed by the State Government of Assam. Besides, all laws or rules made by the general council are subject to the approval of the State Government. Moreover, the Accord specifies that “Views of RHAC shall be given due regard before any law is enacted by the State Government on religious/ social practices, customary laws and procedures for ownership/ transfer of land in the council area.” This means that the real legislative power in terms of enacting laws on said affairs is in the hand of the Government of Assam. Regarding the judicial powers of the council, the Accord says that “the State Government shall take steps to set up Customary Courts in the Council areas to try and cases whenever both contesting parties prefer to approach such courts” (Accord, 1995, pp. 2-3). This implies that the council is not assigned the judicial power and moreover, the State Government shall take step to set up Customary Courts only when both the rival parties wish to settle their dispute in these courts. In regard to the legislative and judicial powers of the council, the State Government has full power to intervene. On such ground, it may be observed that the Rabhas of the council area do not enjoy substantial form of autonomy. Furthermore, the autonomy they are enjoying may be observed as partially non-territorial form of autonomy since the State Government has the power to interfere in the legislative and judicial affairs of the council.

The RHAC in Practice:

According to the RHAC Act, 1995, the State Government of Assam has the responsibility to conduct election to the general and village councils of the RHAC after every five years (RHAC Act, 1995). Immediately after the formation of RHAC, the State Government constituted an interim council on 20 th July, 1995 to run the council for time being which lasted till 1996. Instead of conducting election after the first interim council the State Government constituted second interim council which existed from 1996 to 2001. Moreover, the State Government constituted another interim council for the third time in 2001 which became malfunction after 2010 (Batori, 2012, p. 2). Accordingly, the RHAC had been run by the nominated members for many years since its inception and the State Government never held election to the council till 2012. Although the Government announced the 30 th April, 2013 (Tribune, 2013, p. 1) as the date for election to the RHAC after 17 years of its formation, election could not take place due to panchayat-council election debate among the Rabhas and non-Rabhas. For such a long period of time, neither the council nor the panchayat election was held in the council area as a result of which the people falling within the council are deprived from the right to exercise grassroots democracy. On such ground, it may be observed that the Government has failed to implement the Act. Moreover, the RHAC had been run under the control and administration of the commissioner of lower Assam division since 2011 (Batori, 2012, p. 2). After the interim council became malfunctional, the RHAC had no political executive and every power and function of the general council and village council was carried out by the commissioner. However, election to the RHAC was held in November, 2013 for the first time and 12 member executive council was formed with Tankeswar Rabha as chief executive member of the council. Further existence and practice of this elected council will be seen in time.

Conclusion

It appears from the above discussion that the RHAC is partly inclusive, partly exclusive, both territorial and non-territorial in nature. Such territorial and non-territorial dilemma has made the council unconstitutional by keeping it aside from falling under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of Indian Constitution. The State Government’s failure in implementing the RHAC Act, 1995 for a long period of time has also made the council malfunctional. Such malfunctioning and inclusive-exclusive nature of the council may be considered one of the causes for emerging debate among the Rabhas, other tribals (Garos) and non-tribals in the council area. There was a constant demand from the Rabhas to hold election to the council and to include the council under the Sixth Schedule of Indian Constitution. In the meantime, other tribals (Garos) and non-tribals are mobilized under the banner of Non-Rabha Coordination Forum urging the Government of Assam to exclude their villages from the council. Moreover, under the banner of said organization the non-tribals are raising demand for panchayat election to be held in non-tribal dominated villages of the council area. Such developments have involved both the groups into mobilization and counter mobilization resulting in violent clashes among the Rabhas, non-tribals and police forces in December 2008 (Sonowal, 2010, p. 407), between the Rabhas and Garos in December, 2010 (Tribune, 2010, p. 1) and among the Rabhas, other tribals (Garos), non-tribals and police forces in February, 2013 (Tribune, 2010, p. 1). In fact, the council has become a highly contested autonomous council in Assam. However, if the Governments of Assam and India concede a form of autonomy to the Rabhas including all scattered Rabhas of Assam and at the same time protecting the aspirations and rights of other minorities, it may be possible to contain and manage such autonomy related clashes between the Rabhas and non-tribals.

References

• Ajir Dainik Batori. (September 21, 2012). A Regional Daily in Assamese. Guwahati, Assam.
• Basu, Durga Das. (1960). Introduction to the Constitution of India. Nagpur, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa.
• Benedikter, Thomas. (2009). The World’s Modern Autonomy Systems: Concept and Experiences of Regional Territorial Autonomy. Bolzano, EUR.AC Research.
• Bordoloi, B.N., Thakur, G.C. Sharma and Saikia, M.C. (1987). Tribes of Assam: Part-I. Guwahati, Assam, Tribal Research Institute.
• Brass, Paul. (1991). Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison. New Delhi, Sage Publications.
• Chakrabarty, Prasanta. (2012). Social Changes among the Rabhas: With Special Reference to the Religious Aspect. Troumani Chamancha. Guwahati, North East Printer, pp. 356-359. (A Souvenir Published in the 14 th Bi-ennial Conference of All Rabha Students Union and 7 th Bi-ennial Conference of All Rabha Women Council held at Dudhnoi from 30 th March to 2 nd April, 2012).
• Chaube, S.K. (1973). Hill Politics in Northeast India. New Delhi, Orient Longman.
• Ghai, Yash. (2000). Ethnicity and Autonomy: A Framework for Analysis. In Yash Ghai [ed.], Autonomy and Ethnicity: Negotiating Claims in Multi-Ethnic Societies (pp.77-98). United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press.
• Hazarika, Niru. (2005). Ethnic Autonomy Question in North East India: Search for an Answer. Guwahati, Spectrum Publications.
• List of Villages Included in the Rabha Hasong Autonomous Council. Notified by the Government of Assam in the Assam Gazette, Extraordinary on May 17 th, 2005. Dispur, pp. 1554-1560.
• Sarmah, Jayanta Krishna. (2010). Fused Decentralization: Status of Tribe Specific Autonomous Councils in Plains Districts of Assam. In C.J. Sonowal [ed.], Quest for Identity, Autonomy and Development: The Contemporary Trends of Ethnic and Tribal Assertion in Assam, Vol. 1 (pp. 74-93). New Delhi, Akansha Publishing House.
• Sonowal, C.J. (2010). Identity Formation and Political Assertion among the Rabhas of Assam. In C.J. Sonowal [ed.], Quest for Identity, Autonomy and Development: The Contemporary Trends of Ethnic and Tribal Assertion in Assam,Vol. 2, (pp. 393-411). New Delhi, Akansha Publishing House.
• Statement of Village Wise Population Showing Total and ST/ SC Population as Per 2001 Census in Respect of Rabha Hasong Autonomous Council. Dudhnoi, Assam.
• The Memorandum of Settlement (Rabha Accord). (March 10, 1995). Guwahati, Assam,
• The Rabha Hasong Autonomous Council Act. (1995). Passed by the Government of Assam on July 5, 1995 under the Assam Act No. XVII of 1995. Dispur, pp. 890-929.
• The Rabha Hasong Autonomous Council (Amendment) Act. (2005). Amended by the Government of Assam on May 8, 2005 under the Assam Act No. XXIV of 2005. Dispur, pp. 1639-1641.
• The Assam Tribune. (December 22, 2010). A Regional Daily in English. Guwahati, Assam, p. 1.
• The Assam Tribune . (January20, 2013). A Regional Daily in English. Guwahati, Assam, p. 1.
• Villiers, Bertus de. (December 13, 2012). Protecting Minorities on a Non-Territorial Basis-Recent International Development, Beijing Law Review, 3(4), 172-173. Retrieve from http://www.SciRP.org/journal/blr on October 24, 2013 at 10.55 P.M. Indian Standard Time.

Have you like this article?