Is the Sixth Schedule Too Little, Too Late for Manipur’s ‘Hill Areas’?

The Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution is a unique constitutional innovation designed to preserve the autonomy, identity, and traditional governance of tribal communities in certain parts of Northeast India. Enshrined under Article 244(2), this provision offers a framework for Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) that wield legislative, executive, and limited judicial powers. Bodos have been granted a more powerful version of the Sixth Schedule under Article 244-A, which is like a mini-state with specific police powers not given to other Sixth Schedule areas. But decades after its adoption, the Schedule’s selective application to just four states—Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram—and their varying degree of empowerment continue to raise questions about equity, inclusion, and constitutional consistency across the Northeast. The Government of India’s response and grant of concessions only when faced with violence, as in the case of Tripura tribes and Bodos, seems to send a message that only violence is rewarded.

Objective of the Sixth Schedule was to safeguard the rights of tribal populations in the hill areas of the Northeast, who feared cultural erosion and political marginalisation in a post-independence, majoritarian India. The Schedule provides for the creation of Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) and Regional Councils; grants these bodies powers to legislate on customary law, land, forest management, inheritance, marriage, social customs, village administration, etc.; allows judicial powers and some control over local taxation and public infrastructure; enables preservation of tribal identity, language, culture, and self-governance.

This was seen as a constitutional compromise between full integration and full independence, providing internal autonomy while maintaining national unity.

Rev. JJM Nicholas Roy, a prominent Khasi leader and Member of the Constituent Assembly from undivided Assam, has a big role in shaping the Sixth Schedule. He advocated for a federal model that would allow the tribal people of the Northeast to preserve their traditional governance and customary practices. As the lone tribal representative from the hill areas of Assam (since Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Nagaland were part of undivided Assam) in the Constituent Assembly, Roy strongly opposed a one-size-fits-all governance model for India’s diverse tribal communities. His collaboration with Gopinath Bordoloi, chairman of the Sub-Committee on Northeast Frontier (Hill) Tribes, led to the formulation of the Sixth Schedule, rooted in non-assimilationist, protective autonomy. Roy famously said that the hill tribes do not want to secede but wanted assurance that their way of life would be respected in the Indian Union. His vision laid the foundation for India’s most decentralised and ethnically sensitive governance model, a legacy that continues to shape Northeast politics to this day.

There have been questions about why the Sixth Schedule is extended to only four states in northeast India, i.e. Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram, even though substantial tribal populations exist across the northeast in Manipur and Arunachal, but the local self-government of the tribes in these two states is not under the Sixth Schedule. The British-era administration had categorised certain hill areas as "Excluded" or "Partially Excluded" as these areas were deemed unsuitable for standard governance.

The Sixth Schedule inherited and adapted this logic for Assam tribes (which included Meghalaya and Mizoram) having significant tribal hill areas warranting protection against domination by the plains people, both demographically and administratively, but did not give the same safeguards to Arunachal tribes.

Tribes of Tripura and the Bodos of Assam received Sixth Schedule provisions later after prolonged violence and conceded by the Government of India (GoI) to end insurgencies. Driven by the need to end violence besides protecting the traditional tribal way of life, the GoI created a new state in 1963 called Nagaland for the Naga Hills and Tuensang with special provisions under Article 371-A, with more safeguards than those under the Sixth Schedule, allowing a free hand to the Naga tribes to preserve and continue administering their age-old practices.

When a new state called Meghalaya was created in 1972, the three autonomous district councils under the Sixth Schedule which existed under Assam continued. The union territory of Mizoram, comprising three autonomous district councils, was made into a state in 1987, and special provisions were given under Article 371-G with more safeguards than the ones under the Sixth Schedule, very similar to Nagaland minus the word “resources”. Nagaland and Mizoram (for Mizo tribe-inhabited areas) may not be under the Sixth Schedule, but they are tribal majority states and follow the age-old customary practices. Tripura was a princely state, and one autonomous district council was granted under the Sixth Schedule in 1984. Currently, there are ten autonomous district councils under the Sixth Schedule in four northeastern states.

Tripura tribes and Bodos were the only statutory autonomous district councils which first started under their respective state laws. Through a very violent struggle, Tripura tribes earned an autonomous district council under the Sixth Schedule, and Bodos got Bodoland Territorial Council under Article 244-A. Bodoland Territorial Council is like a mini-state and is the most powerful council among all the ten councils.

The only state in the northeastern states which is still run under a statutory law of the state is the six autonomous district councils of Manipur. Despite demands for extension of the Sixth Schedule to “hill areas” of Manipur, the attempts of the tribes have not succeeded partly on account of chicanery by the dominant community and largely by the lack of unity between the tribes: the Nagas and the Zo (Chin, Kuki, Mizo) ethnic group. The lukewarm participation of the Naga tribes in the demand for extension of the Sixth Schedule, partly on account of being mesmerised by the promise of greater Nagalim with a unique federal structure of shared sovereignty, etc., has greater blame to shoulder for its failure.

It is observed that in some states like Tripura, difficulties are still created by the state government in the functioning of the Sixth Schedule council, and the adversarial approach of the dominant community there has not helped in strengthening the integrity of the state. Rather, under the leadership of Tipra Motha, the political movement appears to be veering towards separation to escape from the difficulties of the tribes not being treated as equals by the dominant community. 

Historical facts seem to indicate that the demands for a new state in NER or extension of the Sixth Schedule have all had a history of violence before demand is conceded. Nagaland and Mizoram had a violent past for freedom, and they got their states with special provisions under Article 371-A and Article 372-G, respectively. Bodoland had violent movements, and on each phase of agitation, more powers were granted under the Sixth Schedule, with the last accord granting some police powers. The unspoken underlying message from the GoI appears to suggest that the GoI is reactionary and not proactive, as violence gets rewarded.

Are the tribes in the “hill areas” of Manipur supposed to take a leaf out of the past violent history of creation of states or political concessions given to different tribes in the northeastern region? Bodoland agitation was exceptionally violent in all phases of its agitation, and they have been rewarded with the most powerful Sixth Schedule local self-government akin to a mini-state. What Rev. Nicholas Roy famously stated is repeated for the benefit of understanding why many tribes of the northeast still worry about losing their culture and land and demand constitutional safeguards - the hill tribes did not want to secede but wanted assurance that their way of life would be respected in the Indian Union.

As the Manipur crisis lingers and prolongs without any headway, the idea of extending the Sixth Schedule to the “Hill Areas” has the risk of being termed “too little, too late”.

Given the lack of equity, inclusion in governance of the “hill areas” of Manipur, and constitutional consistency across the Northeast, coupled with the helplessness of some autonomous district councils under the control of the dominant community of their state, it is felt that the time has come for the tribes living in the “hill areas” of Manipur to demand either the creation of a new state with amended Article 371-C on lines similar to Nagaland (Article 371-A) and Mizoram (Article 371-G) or the integration of different parts of “hill areas” with Nagaland and Mizoram.

The demands are within the ambit of the Constitution of India under Articles 2 and 3. Given the belligerent and unrelenting assault on the rights of the tribes in the “hill areas” of Manipur and the unwillingness of the dominant community to consider the option of coexistence without breaking up the state, demanding the creation of two autonomous territorial councils for “hill areas” of Manipur within the Manipur state may no longer be a good, respectable, and acceptable idea.

The tribes are being pushed away by the hegemonic designs of the dominant community, and the fence-sitters whose first option would be co-existence may soon be swayed by the idea that there may be no future for them in the present state of Manipur given the hegemonic designs. It may be the time for the tribes to consider opting for a respectable option available to them to get out of the difficult situation created by the dominant community.

Ngaranmi Shimray

New Delhi