Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India
On autonomy to Scheduled Tribes in Northeast India
The Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India provides measures of autonomy and self-governance to the Scheduled Tribes in the hill regions of Northeast India.[1]
Overview
During the British Raj, the frontier regions of the Assam province populated by tribal communities were designated as "excluded areas" or "partially excluded areas". The North-East Frontier Tracts (present-day Arunachal Pradesh), the Naga Hills district (present-day Nagaland) and the Lushai Hills district (present-day Mizoram) were designated as "excluded areas", while the Khasi and Jaintia Hills region (in present-day Meghalaya) was designated as a "partially excluded area". The "exclusion" worked in both directions. The tribes were excluded from the legislature and the governance mechanisms of the Assam province. At the same time, the laws created for the province were excluded from application to the tribal areas. Essentially, the tribes governed themselves via their traditional systems, except for being asked to participate in the imperial interests such as taxation and road-building.
During the formulation of the Constitution of India, the Sixth Schedule was devised to continue these modes of governance, providing the tribes autonomy and to allow them to continue their own traditional systems of self-governance. The tribal areas in other parts of India were covered by a parallel Fifth Schedule with somewhat weaker forms of autonomy. The difference was justified by B. R. Ambedkar in the following words:
The tribal people in areas other than Assam are more or less Hinduised, more or less assimilated with the civilisation and culture of the majority of the people in whose midst they live. With regard to the tribals in Assam that is not the case. Their roots are still in their own civilisation and their own culture. They have not adopted, mainly or in a large part, either the modes or the manners of the Hindus who surround them. Their laws of inheritance, their laws of marriage, customs and so on are quite different from that of the Hindus. I think that is the main distinction which influenced us to have a different sort of scheme for Assam from the one we have provided for other territories.[2]
Manipur and Tripura, having been princely states separate from the province of Assam, did not obtain the benefit of the Sixth Schedule, even though similar considerations might have applied to them.[3] The North-East Frontier Tract (later "North-East Frontier Agency") was directly governed by the Governor of Assam, in a manner similar to the system under British Raj. The Naga Hills and Lushai Hills districts were the primary beneficiaries of the Sixth Schedule provisions of autonomy.
When Naga Hills and Lushai Hills became independent states of India (as Nagaland and Mizoram respectively), these provisions became redundant for the states as a whole.[4] However minority tribal districts in these states were granted the Sixth Schedule provisions in course of time.
Sixth Schedule districts
There are 10 Sixth Schedule districts in India.
| Sl. No. | Autonomous Council | State/UT | Headquarters | Formation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bodoland Territorial Council | Assam | Kokrajhar | 2003 |
| 2 | North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council | Assam | Haflong | 1951 |
| 3 | Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council | Assam | Diphu | 1952 |
| 4 | Garo Hills Autonomous District Council | Meghalaya | Tura | 1973 |
| 5 | Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council | Meghalaya | Jowai | 1973 |
| 6 | Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council | Meghalaya | Shillong | 1973 |
| 7 | Chakma Autonomous District Council | Mizoram | Kamalanagar | 1972 |
| 8 | Lai Autonomous District Council | Mizoram | Lawngtlai | 1972 |
| 9 | Mara Autonomous District Council | Mizoram | Siaha | 1972 |
| 10 | Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council | Tripura | Khumulwng | 1982 |
References
- ^ Datta, Prabhat Kumar; Sen, Panchali (June 2020). "Governance in the Sixth Schedule Areas in India's North-East: Context, Content and Challenges". Indian Journal of Public Administration. 66 (2): 191–205. doi:10.1177/0019556120916885. S2CID 219000331.
- ^ Haokip (2017).
- ^ Haokip (2017), "No special provisions were made for the hill areas of the then princely states of Manipur and Tripura. Chaube (2012[1973], p. 94) alluded: 'Perhaps the Constituent Assembly felt that, as the integrated Indian states would be constituted as part B and part C states under the rigorous control of the centre, no special scheme for their minorities would be necessary' (emphasis mine). Since the attainment of statehood by Tripura and Manipur the hill tribals increasingly clamour for the extension of Sixth Schedule.".
- ^ Haokip (2017), "With the granting of statehood this provision is rendered meaningless by the Nagas and Mizos.".
Bibliography
- Kom, Skholal (January–March 2010). "Identity and Governance: Demand for Sixth Schedule in Manipur". Indian Journal of Political Science. LXXI (1): 313–322. JSTOR 42748389.
- Haokip, Thongkholal (September 2017), "Dereliction of Duties or the Politics of 'Political Quadrangle'? The Governor, Hill Areas Committee and Upsurge in the Hills of Manipur", Indian Journal of Public Administration, 63 (3): 456–474, doi:10.1177/0019556117720606, S2CID 158347359
- Piang, L. Lam Khan (13 April 2019), "Institutional Exclusion of the Hill Tribes in Manipur: Demand for Protection under the Sixth Schedule", Economic and Political Weekly, 54 (15), ProQuest 2209626765
- Umdor, Sumarbin; Vanlalhruaitluanga, K. (9 December 2023). "All is not well in the Sixth Schedule - A Reaction to the Demand for the Sixth Schedule in Ladakh". Economic and Political Weekly. 58 (49).
External links
- Sixth Schedule: Provisions as to the Administration of Tribal Areas in the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, retrieved 14 February 2024.
- v
- t
- e
