Are Autonomous Development Councils an answer to the geographical, historical, socio-cultural and political constraints of those who live within them, asks VIMAL KHAWAS

The last two decades of the 20th century witnessed the creation of three Autonomous Development Councils within the Indian federation. They are the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Autonomous Council (1988), the Ladakh Autonomous Development Council (1995) and the Bodo Autonomous Development Council (1993). The creation of ADCs restructured and decentralised our federation, which consists of the Union and the federated units (states). ADCs are basically district level councils created within a district under the traditional district level administration. They are mainly responsible for taking care of development activities within their functional jurisdiction while the district administration, as a representative of the state, looks after the general administration of the district.
ADCs were formed after taking into account factors like geographical isolation, a distinct regional identity and some special problems that are different from those of mainstream India. They are the result of a long ethnic struggle to regain a measure of political autonomy from the ruling state. They have been created on the basis of the belief that decentralisation of power would give a boost to developmental activities and meet the aspirations of the people. The aim of ADCs, thus, is the socio-economic and cultural advancement of the local people within the established council.

Ladakh Autonomous Development Council
Ladakh is a region located in the Trans-Himalayas and is geographically isolated from the rest of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Consequently, the people of the area have a distinct regional identity in terms of ethnic composition, religion and linguistics. The people of Ladakh demanded an effective local institutional arrangement that could help promote and accelerate the pace of progress and equitable all round growth and development, and have regard for its unique geo-climatic and locational conditions and stimulate the full participation of the community in the decision-making process. The demand was to regain a measure of autonomy from J&K.

The history of the struggle can be traced to the loss of independence of Ladakh in the 1830s, and more immediately to the 1930s and particularly to the years after the accession of the state to newly independent India. Initially, the struggle had been intermittent and thus failed to make much progress. It was, however, resumed in 1989 when the Ladakh Buddhist Association launched a violent communal agitation. Finally, negotiations with the Central and state governments followed and a compromise was reached in 1995. The compromise was based on the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council model. The Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council Act, 1995, was enacted and thus was formed LAHDC.
The creation of LAHDC has, however, not been able to address the aspirations and needs of the Ladakhis over the years. Buddhists in Ladakh still feel they suffer discrimination in every field of development and are being treated as second-class citizens. There is an effort to resume the agitation for total secession from Kashmir. This was the original demand of the people.

Bodo Autonomous Development Council
The Bodo problem is multidimensional in nature. The term Bodo refers to a tribal group residing in the state of Assam. The group is often regarded as autochthonous. The movement initially started with a cry for identity that had supposedly been endangered by the myopic outlook of the then chauvinistic groups ruling Assam. Subsequently, the question of ascertaining political rights and constitutional safeguards arose. There were protests against the exploitation and deprivation of the common man by the upper classes. The struggle against anti-Bodo cultural chauvinism intensified in the 1960s. Illegal immigration from the surrounding regions amplified the situation.
Today, the right of self-determination – with various interpretations, from political autonomy to complete freedom, that is, a separate nation – is important for the Bodo community. The common goal of all Bodo organisations is the creation of a separate state of Bodoland. The Bodo movement took a violent turn from 1980 when a vigorous mass movement started in the region. The movement came to an end in 1993 with the signing of the Bodo accord. This treaty led to the creation of the Bodoland Autonomous Council. The Bodo accord and the Bodo council could not, however, keep pace with the aspirations and requirements of the Bodos. The Bodo movement has been revived today.

Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Autonomous Council
Darjeeling, currently the northernmost district of West Bengal, was an integral part of the kingdom of Sikkim till 1706. It was ruled by Bhutan, Nepal and British India in the subsequent years before it was permanently taken over by the Government of India after 1947. As a result, the region evolved as a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-lingual area. People living in the region had to pass through difficult phases in the process of development and importantly, never formed a part of the mainstream development process. The district has seen ethnic insurgencies since 1907. The Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Autonomous Council was formed under a state Act in July 1988.

The 1990s saw radical changes in the political scenario of Darjeeling. The DGHAC was granted autonomy. With the passage of time, over-confidence set in among the councillors of Darjeeling. Easy wins in elections ensured the councillors’ lethargy. There was frequent mismanagement of funds. Naturally, development work has failed to yield the desired results. A new chapter in the history of Darjeeling Hills was added on 6 December 2005, following a tripartite agreement between the DGHAC, West Bengal government and the GoI. It was formally agreed that Darjeeling Hills would be included in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, with two more mauzas to be the part of the updated council. There will be some minor changes here and there and a revision of electoral representation in the updated council. Further, as earlier, the offices of the district magistrate and superintendent of police will be outside the control and direction of the new council.
The complexities in the functioning of ADCs and the prevailing socio-economic and political situation therein compel us to question the very existence of ADCs in the country.

Some of the pertinent queries that must be clarified in this connection are:
What is the political status of ADCs? Are ADCs appropriate development units? What is the planning and development status of ADC areas within the Indian federation? Do ADCs fit the geographical, historical, socio-cultural and political constraints of the concerned people? Who is being empowered here, on what basis and to what extent?
Mere institutional and legal empowerment of local communities does not address in itself problems of social justice and inequality, and certainly does not lead naturally or necessarily to better policies. We also need to know that devolution and decentralisation are indispensable components of any attempt to move towards social justice and sustainability. The challenge ahead is to re-conceptualise the very concept of community representation and institutional arrangements that we often envision in the context of their relevance to the regions and the people therein so that inter-regional as well as intra-regional disparities/conflicts are reduced and sustainable development is attained. Besides, the scientific allocation of resources and respective functions also have to be worked out systematically.

(The writer is Associate Fellow, Council for Social Development, New Delhi.)

© The Statesman Section: Perspective Date:Apr 05,2006