United Democratic Party (UDP) Vice President Robertjune Kharjahrin has stated that implementing both Article 371 and the Sixth Schedule simultaneously is impractical, as they are not the same, even though their objectives align.
He pointed out that discussions on Article 371 mainly revolve around ensuring that Indian laws do not apply in tribal areas. However, this can already be achieved by amending Paragraph 12A of the Sixth Schedule. If Article 371 is enforced, it would conflict with certain provisions of the Sixth Schedule, making its implementation difficult.
Kharjahrin highlighted that recent debates have focused on Article 371A and 371G, which safeguard land, customs, and resources in the regions they cover. While their purpose is similar to that of the Sixth Schedule, they are fundamentally different. The Sixth Schedule grants self-governance to indigenous communities, aiming to protect land, minerals, and cultural heritage.
He further explained that having both provisions in place could create governance challenges. Drawing a comparison with Mizoram, he noted that when Article 371 was introduced, the Mizo District Council was abolished, leaving only District Councils for smaller tribes such as the Lai, Chakma, and Mara, who were previously under the Mizo District Council.
This statement adds to the ongoing debate on whether Meghalaya should push for Article 371 or strengthen the existing provisions of the Sixth Schedule for better protection of tribal rights.
#Article371 #SixthSchedule #MeghalayaPolitics #TribalRights #UDP
