Meghalaya’s Hynñiewtrep Integrated Territorial Organization (HITO) has called on the state’s District Council Affairs Department to address ongoing issues related to the allocation of funds from the Union Ministry of Finance. In a statement, HITO emphasized the need for proper financial resources to support rural local governance in the state. The organization highlighted the disparity between Meghalaya’s allocation of just Rs 27 crore from the Central government’s Finance Commission grants and the significantly higher sum of over Rs 266 crore allocated to Kerala for its rural local bodies. HITO has raised concerns over this disparity, stressing that the allocation for Meghalaya’s Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) — Khasi, Garo, and Jaintia — is insufficient and lacks clarity on how it will be distributed among the actual local governance structures in the state. “Unlike in Kerala, where funds are clearly categorized for each layer of governance, the Finance Ministry in Meghalaya has directed funds solely to the three ADCs, inaccurately labeling them as rural local bodies,” the statement reads.
HITO criticized the Fifteenth Finance Commission and the Union Finance Ministry for overlooking indigenous and traditional institutions within Meghalaya’s three-tiered self-government system, which includes the Dorbar Hima, Dorbar Raid, and Dorbar Shnong. The organization argues that these traditional governance bodies, which are integral to the state’s rural self-rule, were not properly acknowledged in the fund allocation process. HITO President Donbok Dkhar pointed out that the current ADCs no longer represent true rural local governance, having evolved into party-dominated entities since their establishment in 1952. He outlined several key differences between the ADCs and the indigenous self-governance systems: Tenure and Accountability: In traditional governance, leaders such as Syiem, Dolloi, Sirdar, and Rangbah Shnong can be recalled during annual Dorbar meetings if serious complaints arise. In contrast, India’s political system lacks a similar recall mechanism for elected representatives, creating a disconnect between the electorate and their leaders.
Inclusivity in Discussions: The Dorbar system allows everyone a voice, fostering an inclusive decision-making environment. Political assemblies, however, are often dominated by the ruling party, sidelining opposition views. Integrity and Power: Traditional leaders in the Dorbar system are known for their integrity and honesty, whereas the political arena in India often sees wealthier individuals having significant advantages in elections. Allocation of Local Funds: In the Dorbar system, funds are allocated transparently, prioritizing citizens’ welfare. In contrast, political systems often see funds allocated to favor ruling parties, lacking transparency. Beneficiary Selection Process: The Dorbar system ensures transparency in selecting beneficiaries for government schemes, unlike the party-based system, where representatives tend to favor their party members.
