3.1.3. panchayati raj in Tribal Areas

Many tribal areas have had a rich tradition of grassroot democratic functioning. We give an illustrative example from Meghalaya. All the three major ethnic tribal groups, namely, the Khasis, Jaintias and the Garos have their own traditional political institutions that have existed for hundreds of years. These political institutions were fairly well-developed and functioned at various tiers, such as the village level, clan level and state level.

Many tribal areas in India, like Meghalaya, have established their own systems of democratic governance for centuries. The Khasis, Jaintias, and Garos—three main ethnic groups in Meghalaya—each possess unique traditional political institutions that operate at different levels. This means that decisions affecting their communities are made locally, often reflecting the values and customs of the tribal people.

Think of a small town where citizens gather in a community center to discuss local issues and make decisions together, rather than waiting for distant leaders to decide for them. This is similar to how tribal groups in Meghalaya have historically governed themselves, ensuring that their voices are heard and respected.

Though there is a long tradition of grassroot political institutions in Meghalaya, a large chunk of tribal areas lie outside the provisions of the 73rd Amendment. This may be because the concerned policymakers did not wish to interfere with the traditional tribal institutions.

While the tribal areas in Meghalaya have established traditional governance, many of these areas are not included in the formal framework set by the 73rd Constitutional Amendment. Policymakers have often avoided changing these traditional systems, as they respect the autonomy and cultural practices of tribal communities. However, this exclusion from the amendment means that these institutions might not benefit from legal support and recognition afforded by the broader constitutional framework.

Imagine a community that has its own longstanding traditions of resolving disputes among neighbors. While these traditions work for the locals, when new laws are implemented that overlook these practices, the community might struggle to adapt. This situation mirrors how traditional tribal institutions interact with formal government laws.

As sociologist Tiplut Nongbri remarks that tribal institutions in themselves need not necessarily be democratic in its structure and functioning. Commenting on the Bhuria Committee Report that went into this issue, Nongbri remarks that while the Committee’s concern for the traditional tribal institutions is appreciable, it fails to take stock of the complexity of the situation.

Sociologist Tiplut Nongbri critiques the idea that traditional tribal organizations automatically function democratically. He suggests that while these institutions may respect local customs, they can sometimes lack fairness or equality in decision-making. The Bhuria Committee, which reviewed these institutions, recognized their importance but didn’t fully consider the complexities—like how certain groups within the tribal structure might dominate others, particularly regarding women's roles.

Think of a family where only the eldest son makes all the decisions about family matters without consulting the rest of the family. While they may have their customs, it doesn’t mean that everyone in the family has an equal say, highlighting issues of dominance despite the appearance of a family democratic structure.

It will be clear to you that democratisation is not easy in a society that has had a long history of inequality based on caste, community and gender.

In societies where historical inequalities exist, such as those based on caste or gender, the process of democratization faces significant barriers. Individuals from marginalized groups often struggle to have their voices heard in village meetings or decision-making processes. This exclusion can lead to governance that primarily represents the interests of a limited few, typically from wealthier or more privileged backgrounds.

Consider a school where only the loudest and most popular students get to speak in class discussions, while quieter students feel afraid to share their ideas. In this scenario, only a subset of students shapes the conversation, which is an analogy to how certain groups in rural villages may dominate decision-making, sidelining others.

The Gram Sabha members are often controlled by a small coterie of rich landlords usually hailing from the upper castes or landed peasantry. They make decisions on development activities, allocate funds, leaving the silent majority as mere onlookers.

In many villages, the Gram Sabha—a local assembly of citizens—can be dominated by a small group of wealthy individuals, typically from upper castes or land-owning families. As a result, the majority of villagers may feel sidelined or ignored during discussions about development projects, fund allocation, and other crucial decisions impacting their lives. This dominance leads to a lack of genuine representation and participation in democratic processes.

Imagine a neighborhood meeting where only a few influential residents are allowed to speak, while others can only listen and do not get a chance to express their concerns or ideas. This creates an environment where only a select few benefit from the decisions made, similar to how certain groups manage the Gram Sabha.

--