Meghalaya pressure group seeks status of 1948 Khasi agreement from state government

The Hynñiewtrep Integrated Territorial Organisation (HITO) has sought clarity from the Meghalaya government on the status of official correspondence linked to the implementation of the Instrument of Agreement and the Annexed Agreement signed between the Government of India and the Khasi States on August 17, 1948.

In a letter dated January 28, 2026, addressed to Chief Secretary Shakil Ahamed, IAS, the organisation asked for details of the response, if any, sent by the state government to a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) communication dated November 27, 2014. That MHA letter followed multiple representations on the non-implementation of the agreements governing the political and constitutional position of the Khasi States.

HITO said the issue goes to the core of what it described as “national solemn commitments” accepted at the time of accession, and argued that the delay in fulfilling those commitments has left traditional Khasi institutions in a constitutional grey zone for decades.

Referring to studies by its education and research wings, the organisation noted that sustained representations by Khasi chiefs and bodies, including the Grand Council of Chiefs of Meghalaya and the Federation of Khasi States led by Bah John F Kharshiing, had earlier prompted interventions by constitutional authorities. These included letters from the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) to the Union home ministry in 2014, recommending that the Instrument of Agreement (IOA) and Annexed Agreement (AA) be concluded and their mandate incorporated into the Constitution.

The letter also cited a National Human Rights Commission communication from June 16, 2012, which stated: “The Commission has examined the petition carefully and we find that the matter within the Legislative competence of Parliament. The petitioner may approach the Government for redressal of their grievance.”

HITO pointed out that political parties, too, have acknowledged the issue in principle. It quoted a Bharatiya Janata Party policy statement for Meghalaya which reads: “24. On old Agreement/ Instrument: The party shall pay full respect to any or all the old agreements or Instruments solemnly entered in between the tribal rulers and the then Dominion of India Immediately after India’s independence and shall take appropriate steps in confirmation and fulfillment of the sprit enshrined therein”.

The organisation recalled that in October 2013, a delegation of 30 chiefs had handed a similar memorandum to then President Pranab Mukherjee during his Shillong visit, with comparable memoranda submitted to earlier Presidents as well.

According to HITO, the non-fulfilment of the 1948 agreements has led to continuing conflicts between customary indigenous systems and several central laws, including those governing land, forests, mining, coal, and information rights. It said these contradictions have also surfaced in repeated resolutions of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly on issues such as the Inner Line Permit, language, inter-state and international boundaries, and amendments to Scheduled Tribe orders.

The letter further argued that the Khasi, Jaintia and Garo traditional institutions were left in limbo after January 26, 1950, when the Khasi States were placed within Assam in the First Schedule and brought under the Sixth Schedule, despite the IOA and AA remaining unfulfilled. This, HITO said, created a structural anomaly that persists even after 78 years.

Drawing a comparison with the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, which formally defined Panchayati Raj institutions across India, HITO noted that Article 243ZC excluded Sixth Schedule areas on the assumption that traditional systems already existed. However, it said the Government of India has yet to clearly integrate or recognise Khasi States, Dolloi in Jaintia Hills, and Nokmas within a settled constitutional framework, relying instead on autonomous district councils as an interim arrangement.

The organisation questioned why stakeholders such as Dorbar Shnong, Dorbar Kur, Dorbar Raid and Dorbar Hima are not directly represented in the autonomous district councils, despite these bodies forming the backbone of traditional governance. It also criticised what it described as excessive party political influence in institutions meant to function outside party lines.

Seeking a response, HITO asked the chief secretary to clarify whether the state government had submitted any report to the MHA on the matter, calling the issue one of “significant importance” to the Hynniewtrep people and urging an update on the long-pending process.