1. INTRODUCTION:

The evolution of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (C.A.D.C.) in the southern part of Mizoram bordering Bangladesh is one of the most problematic and complexed political issues, Mizoram as a state has ever faced. The issue has been propagated in different dimensions by certain political parties, civil societies and even the law-makers. However, research analysis of the issue with objective finding is lacking because no much research has been done in this field. The issue has been so tense and problematic because Chakmas are regarded as outsiders but Autonomous District Council (ADC) has been created for the so-called outsiders with the trifurcation of the Pawi-Lakher Regional Council (PLRC) in 1972.

It is an undeniable fact to admit that the original home of the Chakmas is Chittagong in Bangladesh and Chakma kingdom also flourished there since pre-British period. Whereas, the Chakmas’ association with Lushai Hills began since 1894 because of the transfer of some Chakma settlements nearby Demagiri from Chittagong administration to South Lushai Hills. However, Chakma settlement was not yet found in the present C.A.D.C. geographical area at that time. During that time, the Tlanglau chiefs ruled over the present C.A.D.C. geographical area and they employed the Chakmas as labourers in their paddy fields. In such away, Chakma settlement began in the Uiphum Tlangdung because the present Chakma Autonomous District Council area has been known as Uiphum Tlangdung meaning Uiphum Hill Range by the Mizo. Other than the Tlanglau chiefs, there were also some other chiefs from the Zo ethnic tribes, namely, Bawm Chiefs and Pang Chiefs in Uiphum Tlangdung. Thus, geographical area of the present CADC (Uiphum Tlangdung), was administered by the Tlanglau, Bawm and Pang chiefs of the Zo ethnic group since pre-British period.¹ The Chakma’s population increased at faster rate due to influx from across the border which led to domination of the present CADC. (Uiphum Tlangdung) area by the Chakmas. As a matter of fact, the Chakma Regional Council (CRC) later on the Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC) surprisingly emerged with the trifurcation of the Pawi-Lakher Regional Council (PLRC) in 1972 after the creation and declaration of the Union Territory of Mizoram. This paper attempts to objectively highlight the true facts of historical incidences and political history which automatically led to the emergence of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC). The paper will briefly trace upon the historical background and political history of the Chakmas since the pre-British period, association of the Chakmas with the Lushai Hills since British period, evolution of the CADC by trifurcating the Pawi-Lakher Regional Council (PLRC) into three Regional councils later on the Autonomous District Councils and it briefly touches upon the either the constitutionality or the unconstitutionality of the emergence of the CADC.

2. Status of the Chakmas in pre-independent era:

The status of the Chakmas in pre-independent era shall be traced as given below

2.1. Pre-British period:

There are different views about the historical origin, ethnic identity and migratory route of the Chakmas. Despite the divergent views about the historical origin, it can unequivocally be stated that the Chakmas are a community professing Buddhism and inhabiting the remote hilly areas in North East India, namely, Tripura, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram; the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) in Bangladesh and Arakan in Myanmar (Burma). On the basis of the physiognomical features and dialects, the anthropologists and linguists assumed that the Chakmas belong to the Tibeto-Burman group of Mongoloid race. Many writers are of the opinion that the Chakmas are of Arakanese origin. They immigrated into Chittagong where they intermarried with the Bengalees and their language is consequently influenced by Bengalees. However, R.H.S. Hutchinson held the view that the Chalkmas belong to eastern group of Indian Aryan family. He further stated that Chakma is the offspring of the marriage between the soldier of Nawab Shaista Khan, Governor of Lower Bengal and the hill woman, but this theory is flatly denied by the Chakmas. The other theories on the origin of the Chakmas are, namely, the Chakmas belong to Assam and they were driven out by the Ahoms and the Chakmas are believed to be one of the branches of the conglomerate tribes of the Chin-Kuki-Mizo or Zo ethnic stock, however, there is no sufficient historical evidence to authenticate that the Chakmas are from the Zo ethnic stoc.²Dr F. Lianchhinga, the writer of ‘Chakma Chanchin’ and prominent researcher on Chakmas stated that the Chakmas called themselves as ‘Shangma’ or ‘Sangma” and they traced their origin to Champanagar, he added. Some writers believed Champanagar to be located at a distance of 29 kilometres from Agartala, some writers believed Champa to be located in Bihar but some writers believed that it might be located in Vietnam. There are also divergent views about the racial group of the Chakmas, such as, Mongoloid race, Tibeto Burman race, Tai Ahom group, Mon-Khmer group and Sakya race. Dr F. Lianchhinga does not believe the chakmas to be from Tibeto-Burman group. He held the view that the Chakmas might pass through upper Myanmar from East Asia, and then proceeded to Brahmaputra valley, Manipur and Lower Chindwin. Then, they further proceeded to Arakan, where, they left some of their tribesmen and finally settled in Chittagong, he added. He further stated that the ethnic stock who are believed to be close to the Chakmas are Asek/Asak tribe of Upper Myanmar, Tsek/Tsak tribe of Arakan, Tai, Cambodians and Vietnamese. And, due to their long association with the Bengalis, they are influenced by the Bengalee culture and language which subsequently led to the emergence of Bengali related language, he further said.³The tribes of Chittagong Hill Tracts (C.H.T.) are classified in to two groups, such as, Khyoungtha and Toungtha. Khyoungtha signified those tribes who live near the river and Toungtha signified those tribes who live in the thick jungle in the hills. Tribes who were classified as Khyoungtha were Tipperahs or Mroongs, Kumis or Kweymees, Mroos, Khyengs and Chukmas (Chakmas).⁴

The Chakmas who settled in the Chittagong Hill Tracts are known as Annakya Chakmas and those who settled in Arakan are known as Doingnak Chakmas and Tangchangya Chakmas. The Doingnak Chakmas and Tangchangya Chakmas moved into Chittagong Hill Tracts around 1819 A.D. The first legendary king of the Chakmas was believed to be Raja Bijoygiri but clear cut years of his reign was not recorded. The first recorded king of the Chakma was Jabbar Khan who ruled from 1686 to 1705 AD. The Chakma kings have been claiming their dynastic rule from the Sakya genealogy; however, the claim for Sakya genealogy could not be accurately confirmed. The Chakma kings ruled without disturbance from outside till the advent of the Mughal rule in Deccan. With the entry of the Mughal in Chittagong, there were several military encounters between the forces of Mughal Governor of Chittagong and the Chakma king and two canons of the Mughal were captured by the Chakma forces which were subsequently known as ‘Kalu Khan’ and ‘Fateh Khan’ after the names of two prominent Chakma kings. After that, Fateh Khan, the Chakma king made peace with the Mughals and obtained permission from the Mughal emperor, Farruk Shiyar to allow traders to trade with hill cultivators on payment of 11 mounds of cotton which was largely grown in the hills and transported through the river Karnaphuli. It also gave access to hill cultivators to buy their necessity items such as, salt, dry fish and other essential items from Chittagong. Thus, the Chakma king ruled without any more outside interference till the entry of the British authority in Chittagong Tracts in 1787. It should be recollected that 8 Chakma kings ruled in proper dynastic succession in pre-British period. The adoption of ‘Khan’ title by the Chakma kings seemed to disturb and surprise every one because the Chakmas are never converted to Muslim. In fact, the adoption of Khan title was believed to be the tactical policy of the Chakma king to get favour from the powerful Muslim rulers of the time. The title ‘Khan’ means the head of a tribal group of people similar to Chengis Khan in China.⁵

2.2. British period:

The Chakma kingdom status quo functioning began to be disturbed with the entry of the British Administration in Chittagong. Subsequently, the Chakma kingdom was slowly diminished in power and status as a result of the tactical policy of the British Administration. The British colonization of the Chakma settlement started during the reign of Kalindi Rani in 1860. The status of Chittagong Hill Tract (CHT) as hill cultivation tract with slash and burning of forest continued even after the British took over the administration from the Mughal. In 1860, the Chakma kingdom was divided into two administrative units by the British Administration for its own administrative convenience, such as, Chittagong (plain area of Chittagong) and Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT). Chittagong was included in Bengal as regulated District, whereas, Chittagong Hill Tracts was retained as non-regulated District. The Chakma inhabited areas were found in both the administrative units at that time. The official designation of the Administrator in CHT was changed from Superintendent to Deputy Commissioner in 1860 and Lt Col. T.H. Lewin was appointed as the first Deputy Commissioner of CHT with headquarters at Rangamati. There was some issue regarding the succession of Kalindi Rani to the throne with the demise of her husband, Raja Dharam Bux Khan in 1832 but the Commissioner of Chittagong wrote to the Collector of Chittagong about the necessity of recognizing Kalinda Rani as the legitimate Queen of the Chakma because the Chakmas could be utilized for administering hill areas by the British Administration only if they (Chakmas) were powerful, he added. Kalindi Rani also seemed to be the most useful Chakma ruler for the British authority though she was a trouble shooter to British authority for forty years before. The reason being, she delivered some sepoys of the native regiment who mutinied at Chittagong in the Sepoy Muntiny of 1857 to the British authority and such action of her really pleased the British Administration. Moreover, she also exercised a very dominating influence over her tribe and she was greatly feared and respected by her people. In fact, her very status of being feared and respected by her people, was tactically utilized by the British authority for its own advantages. In 1892, the Chakma Chief divided CHT into 9 circles, 33 blocks (Taluks) and a number of Mouzas (taxation areas). The head of each Taluk was known as Talukdar.⁶The Chakma kingdom was earlier concentrated in the Chittagong plains and the Chittagong Hill Tract was inhabited by the Kuki (Zo ethnic tribes) in the initial stage. The different Zo ethnic tribes in the hills, such as, Pang (Pangkhua), Bawm (Bawmzo), Lusei (Lishei), Lai (Pawi), Mara (Lakher) were known as Kuki by the Bengalees, as such, Chittagong Hill Tract was known as Kukiland or Kuki country, however, there was no Thadou-Kuki settlement at all. So, Chittagong Hill Tract was free from any rulers in pre British period because it was regarded as land of the head hunters. As it was regaded as land of the head hunters, no outsiders dare to enter the interior portion of Chittagong Hill Tracts. In 1860 the Chittagong Hill Tracts District was created by the British Administration without exactly knowing the territory properly and Headquarters of the newly created district was located at Chandraghona. As a result of that, Chakma King was recognized by the British Administration as Raja of Chittagong Hill Tracts but there was no much Chakma settlement at that time in the tract.⁷

The area near Demagiri (Tlabung) was inhabited by the Chakmas, and in fact, that area became part of Lushai Hills due to official transfer of land from Chittagong to South Lushai Hills by the British administration. Therefore, under the order passed by Sir Charles Elliot, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal in 1892, Demagiri and the surrounding villages which were inhabited by the Chakmas, were to be included in the Lushai Hills and should be placed under the Chief Commissioner of Assam.⁸After that, the South Lushai Hills and the North Lushai Hills were amalgamated in to a single administrative unit, known as the Lushai Hills District with effect from 1^st April 1898, and was placed under the jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner of Assam as suggested earlier by Sir Charles Elliot.⁹ However, it should be recollected that, other than those labourers who were employed by the Tlanglau Chiefs, there were no Chakma population at all in the Uiphum Tlangdung range at that time. In fact, influx of the Chakmas to the Uiphum Tlangdung range began only in the late 1940`s. The large influx of Chakmas to the present settlement was said to be the outcome of construction of Kaptai Dam at Chittagong in Bangladesh. The reason being, many Chakmas became homeless as their settlement was destroyed by the construction of Kaptai dam. As such, they left their original home and scattered in many North Eastern states, namely, Mizoram, Assam, Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh.¹⁰

3. Status of the Chakmas in post-independent era:

With the exit of British Empire from India and partition of India into two dominions, namely, India and Pakistan; Chittagong Hill Tracts (C.H.T.) was clandestinely given to Pakistan as the outcome of the negotiation between the two dominion governments of India and Pakistan exchanging the Sikh dominated areas, namely, Zira and Ferozpur of Punjab in lieu of the C.H.T. of the erstwhile East Bengal and declaration to this effect was made on 17^th August 1947. The Pakistani government was suspicious of the indigenous Chakmas as anti-Pakistani and anti-Islamic from the very beginning and disbanded even the C.H.T. Police Force. After that, the Pakistani Government abolished the excluded area status of C.H.T. in 1963 and it directly encouraged Muslim infiltrations to settle in the C.H.T. area. On the eve of independence, tribal constituted 97.5 percent of the population in C.H.T. but in the 1991 census, the ratio of tribal population declined at alarming rate to 51.5 percent whereas, the Bengali population jumped up to 48.5 percent. Over and above that, the construction of Kaptai Hydro Electric Project on the Karnaphulli river flooded 1036 Kilometers of land and submerged 54 percent of agricultural land and it displaced 1 (one) lakh people homeless. Thus, thousands of people fled to India and Myanmar and majority of those who migrated to India settle at present in the state of Arunachal Pradesh without citizenship status. Further, the condition of the Chakmas in C.H.T. was not better even after the liberation of Bangladesh from the autocratic rule of Pakistan. ¹¹ In fact, the ruthless actions of Pakistani Government, such as, forcible occupation of land of indigenous people by the Muslim population and submerging of 1036 kilometres of land of the indigenous people amounted to gross violation of Human Rights and natural rights of the indigenous people.

Chakmas’ association with the Lushai Hills began only during the British period because some Chakma villages nearby Demagiri became part of Lushai Hills due to official transfer of land from Chittagong to South Lushai Hills by the British administration. Therefore, under the order passed by Sir Charles Elliot, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal in 1892, Demagiri and the surrounding villages which were inhabited by the Chakmas, were to be included in the Lushai Hills and should be placed under the Chief Commissioner of Assam. Since then, such Chakma villages legally became part of Lushai Hills.However; it should be pointed out that the erstwhile Uiphum Tlangdung or the present Chakma Autonomous District Council area was the domain of the Tlanglau chiefs at that time and there were only few Chakma population in the area who were engaged as labourers in the paddy field by the Tlanglau chiefs.¹² It should be recollected that the Lushai Hills Autonomous District Council later on Mizo District Council started functioning officially with effect from 26^th April, 1952¹³ and the Pawi-Lakher Regional Council began functioning officially with effect from 23^rd April, 1953.¹⁴ There were Chakma population in both the Mizo District Council and the Pawi-Lakher Regional Council, and the Chakmas got their political berth both under district council and regional council. Chakma Member could be found in the Mizo District Council since the second term general election of 1957. Medhi Chakma was a nominated Member of District Council (M.D.C.) in the second term of Mizo District Council. After that Hari Kristo Chakma was elected as M.D.C. in the third term and fourth term general election of the Mizo District Council in 1962 and 1970 respectively.¹⁵Likewise, Chakma representative could also be found in the Pawi-Lakher Regional Council (PLRC) since the second term general election of 1958. Atul Chandra Chakma was elected as Member of Regional Council (M.R.C.) in the second term general election of 1958, third term general election of 1963 and the fourth term general election of 1970. In addition to Atul Chandra Chakma, Arun Kumar Dewan was also elected as M.R.C, in the fourth term general election of 1970 and he was also elected as Deputy Chairman of the P.L.R.C. In fact, Arun Kumar Dewan was the first Chakma who held political post in the Pawi-Lakher Regional Council (P.L.R.C).¹⁶ Moreover; the Chakmas have been represented by two Member of Legislative Assembly (M.L.A.) in each term with the creation of Mizoram Legislative assembly since 1972.¹⁷ In such away, the Chakmas got their political privileges and facilities which they ought to get under Mizoram political system. It should be recollected that the Chakma leaders began demanding Regional Council by submitting memorandum to the Chief Minister of Assam since 1952 and the Chakma delegates had met the higher authority of the Government of Assam four times for demanding the Regional Council at the time when Lushai Hills was a district of undivided Assam.

4. Chakmas demand for ADC and emergence of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (C.A.D.C.):

Z. Hengmang and Vako who were elected members of the Lushai Hills Advisory Council later on Lushai Hills Advisory Committee since 1949 from the Pawi-Lakher region, were timely aware of the creation of Regional Council for sub-minority tribes within the Autonomous District Council area under the provision of Paragraph 1 (2) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. Then, they immediately consulted the Superintendent in this regard and apprised him of the necessity for formation of Regional Council for the Pawis and the Lakhers. As advised by the Superintendent, they submitted an application for permission of the formation of political party which was readily granted by the Superintendent. After that, Z. Hengmang and Vako consulted government servants of the Pawi and Lakher tribes at Lunglei and asked for their (government servants) advice for their future course of action. Through the advice of the government servants of the Pawi and Lakher tribes at Lunglei, an assembly was convened at Lawngtlai on 25^th October 1949 which was attended by representatives from all villages of the Pawi-Lakher region. Consequently, the Pawi-Lakher Tribal Union (P.L.T.U.) was formed and Z. Hengmang was elected as President. Z. Hengmang and Vako vigorously pursued the demand for creation of the Regional Council for the Pawi and the Lakher tribes and they tactfully utilised their status as Members of the Lushai Hills Advisory Committee. On the other hand, leaders of the Mizo Union (M.U.) and the United Mizo Freedom Organisation (U.M.F.O.) persuaded Z. Hengmang and Vako not to proceed with their demand for Regional Council for the sake of Mizo integrity but they intensified their demand to achieve the Regional Council. They claimed that Pawi and Lakher needed separate Regional Council for their ethnic safeguard and all-round development. Subsequently, the Pawi-Lakher Regional Council (P.L.R.C.) was constituted by the Government of Assam Vide Notification No. TAD/R/10/50 dated 1951. Then, Regional Advisory Council was constituted with 6 members and the first general election of the P.L.R.C. was held in 1953. Immediately after the first general election, the Pawi-Lakher Regional Council (P.L.R.C.) was officially inaugurated by Ch. Saprawnga, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Government of Assam at Lunglei on 23^rd April, 1953. The P.L.R.C. existed for 19 years till its trifurcation into three Regional Councils on 2^nd April, 1972. It is a unique feature to highlight that, P.L.R.C. was the only Regional Council, established so far under the provision of Paragraph 1 (2) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India.¹⁷ Regional Council of any form has not been established outside the geographical boundary of the erstwhile Pawi-Lakher Regional Council area till now. Herein lies the speciality and uniqueness of the Pawi-Lakher Regional Council (P.L.R.C.).

Just before the separation of Lushai Hills District from Assam, Ch. Chhunga, the then Chief Executive Member (C.E.M.) of the Mizo District Council and Congress leader, Dengthuama visited New Delhi in September 1971. In the meantime, leaders from the P.L.R.C., namely, F. Manghnuna, Sapliana Vandir, K. Sangchhum, Mylai Hlychho, Zakhu Hlychho, S. Hiato and Atul Chandra Chakma were also there in New Delhi for demanding full-fledged Autonomous District Council. So, Ch. Chhunga persuaded leaders of the P.L.R.C. not to proceed with their demand for Autonomous District Council but he could not convince them.¹⁷The Chakmas also had aspired for Regional Council, as such, the first Chakma delegation, which comprised of Kristo Mohan Chakma and Gura Nitai Chakma, met Bishnu Ram Medhi, the Chief Minister of Assam at Shillong in 1952 demanding the creation of Chakma Regional Council. Kristo Mohan Chakma led another delegation to Shillong three more times and he was accompanied by Hari Kristo Chakma, Satya Priya Dewan and Baneswar Chakma in all the three delegations. They demanded Chakma Regional Council with headquarters at Demagiri in all the three delegations to Shillong. In fact, nomination of Chakma as Member of District Council (M.D.C.) in Mizo District Council seemed to be the outcome of Chakma’s delegation to the Chief Minister of Assam at Shillong and it was also believed to play some indirect part in the evolution of the C.A.D.C.¹⁸ On theother hand, the Lakhers (Maras) and Chakmas had aspired for facilitating them with their own separate Autonomous District Council in order that, they may be able to freely enjoy their autonomy apart from the dominance of the Lais. So, they (Maras and Chakmas) were firmed in their determination to pursue the demand for separate Autonomous District Council. Atul Chandra Chakma had told Pimputkar, Special Secretary of the Union Territory, Government of India about the ethnic differences of the Chakmas with other tribes of the Lushai Hills. He also told Pimputkar that, Chakmas in Lushai Hills were around ten thousand in population and their socio-cultural differences with other tribes necessitated a separate District Council for them (Chakmas). As Atul Chandra Chakma could converse fluently in Hindi to Pimputkar and highlighted all the relevant points for constitutional preservation of the Chakmas under the provision of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, Pimputkar was absolutely convinced by the arguments put-forwarded by Atul Chandra Chakma. As a result, Pimputkar initiated steps in favour of the Chakmas which was a good foundation for the emergence of the Chakma Autonomous District Council afterward.¹⁹In fact, Atul Chandra Chakma was praiseworthy for his relentless sacrifice and fight for the cause of the Chakma people which enabled them (Chakmas) to be facilitated with the provision of Autonomous District Council under the provision of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. Had Atul Chandra Chakma been not there at the crucial time in the interim period when Lushai Hills was to be upgraded to the status of Union Territory of Mizoram and when the future status of the P.L.R.C. was yet to be decided, it is unlikely that the Chakma Autonomous District Council may be created. Therefore, the whole credits for the creation of the Chakma Autonomous District Council goes to Atul Chandra Chakma whether the Chakma public in general accept it or not. It is stated that Autonomous District Council has also been demanded by some Chakma leaders since the early fifties to the higher authority even before the emergence of Atul Chandra Chakma in the political scene, however, it should be noted that District Council could be concretized only due to the leading role of Atul Chandra Chakma who was in the political limelight at that time. The memorandum, submitted before by other leaders might have some impacts but the constructive role of Atul Chandra Chakma should be remembered so far as the creation of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC) is concerned.

After the separation of the Lushai Hills from Assam and formation of the Union Territory of Mizoram on 21^st January, 1972, the dissolution of Mizo District Council had already been decided. But, as Assembly election of the newly created Union Territory was not yet conducted, the then Chief Executive Member (C.E.M.) of the erstwhile Mizo District Council, Zalawma and his cabinet (Executive Committee) continued to govern as caretaker government till Assembly election was held. Along with the C.E.M., the then Chairman, J. Thanghuama also remained in office during that period. At the same time, S.J. Das was appointed as the Chief Commissioner of the newly created Union Territory of Mizoram as interim arrangement and Lieutenant Governor was to be appointed after the conduct of Assembly election. It is a notable feature that, S.J. Das took keen interest for the cause of the Chakmas. The keen interest, undertaken by S.J. Das for the cause of the Chakmas might have been due to the impact of the role, initiated by Pimputkar. In fact, S.J. Das, Chief Commissioner of Mizoram and A.C. Ray, Deputy Commissioner of Aizawl were said to have been given strong instructions to do the needful work for creation of the CADC by Pimputkar. As stated earlier, Pimputkar had already been convinced by Atul Chandra Chakma for the cause of the Chakmas. During the Chief Commissionership of S.J. Das, Mizoram was divided into three administrative districts. Consequently, the North Mizo District came to be known as Aizawl District with headquarters at Aizawl, the South Mizo District came to be known as Lunglei District with headquarters at Lunglei and the Pawi-Lakher Region came to be known as Chhimtuipui District with headquarters at Saiha. Further, the Pawi-Lakher Regional Council was also trifurcated into three regional councils, namely, the Pawi Regional Council (P.R.C.), the Lakher Regional Council (L.R.C.) and the Chakma Regional Council (C.R.C.) on 2^nd April 1972 as per Notification No. CCMP/3/72-77 of 1.4. 1972 of the Administrator of Mizoram. The headquarters of the P.R.C. was located at Lawngtlai, headquarters of the L.R.C. at Saiha and the headquarters of the C.R.C. at Kamalanagar (Chawngte ‘C’)Administrative arrangement was made in such a way that, the existing Members of Regional Council (M.R.C.s`) would automatically be members of their respective Regional Council. So, all Pawi M.R.C.s` were members of the legislature of the Pawi Regional Council (P.R.C.), all Lakher M.R.C.s` were members of the legislature of the Lakher Regional Council (L.R.C.) and all Chakma M.R.C.s` were members of the Chakma Regional Council (C.R.C.). However, due to geographical location of their constituencies after demarcation of boundaries, Sapliana Vandir and Arun Kumar Dewan were given membership in the Chakma Regional Council and Pawi Regional Council respectively. Likewise, employees of the P.L.R.C. were also given direction to serve under their respective Regional Councils.²⁰A.C. Ray who was the last Deputy Commissioner of Lushai Hills District also played an important role in the evolution of the CADC because he was the administrator who practically dealt with administration and governance of the Lushai Hills on the eve of its upgradation to Union Territory of Mizoram. A.C. Ray stated that as insurgency, spearheaded by the MNF was so intensified and so violent, the Chakma belt could be used as buffer zone by the government because Chakmas would not be trustworthy to the MNF. As a matter of fact, the idea for creation of District Council was proposed to be initiated. The reason being, as Uiphum Tlangdun, the ancestral land of the Tlanglau chief have already been overpopulated by the Chakmas, it was felt that there was no harm in creating District Council for the Chakmas from ancestral land of the Tlanglau chiefs.²¹

As a measure for speedy governmental functioning, interim government (Executive Committee) was formed in each of the newly created Regional Council. As such, the Chief Commissioner of Mizoram had appointed interim Chief Executive Members for the three Regional Councils, namely, L. Chinzah for the Pawi Regional Council (P.R.C.), Zakhu Hlychho for the Lakher Regional Council (L.R.C.) and Atul Chandra Chakma for the Chakma Regional Council (C.R.C.). The Chief Executive Members constituted their respective cabinet. Accordingly, in the Pawi Regional Council, Ukmang Zathang and Arun Kumar Dewan were appointed as Executive Members and B. Sangchema as Chairman. In the Lakher Regional Council, S. Hiato and Pailai were appointed as Executive Members, K. Khosa as Chairman and Roma as Deputy Chairman. Likewise in the Chakma Regional Council, Gunadhar Chakma and Ananda Kumar Chakma were appointed as Executive Members and Mayurdhos Chakma as Chairman.²²

The first general election of the Union Territory Assembly of Mizoram was held on 18^th April 1972 for 30 seats and the Chief Commissioner, S.J. Das was recalled after formation of the Mizoram Legislative Assembly. However, he (S.J. Das) could fulfil his aims and targets for creation of Regional Council for Chakmas which later on became a full-fledged Autonomous District Council. Then, S.P. Mukherjee was appointed as the first Lieutenant Governor of Mizoram by the President of India and he took charge on 23^rd April, 1972. The Lieutenant Governor as Administrator of Mizoram by public notification ordered the dissolution of the Mizo District Council as per the Mizo District Council (Miscellaneous Provision order, 1972) on 29^th April, 1972 and with this order, the Mizo District Council ceased to exist. With regard to transfer of assets and liabilities of the Mizo District Council, on and from the prescribed date i.e. 29^th April 1972, articles and other goods belonging to the Mizo District Council shall²³

(a) In case where land, stores, articles and other goods are situated in a District Council area, pass to the successor District Council concerned, and

(b) In any other case, pass to the Union for the administration of the Union Territory of Mizoram.

On the same day when the dissolution of the Mizo District Council was promulgated i.e. on 29^th April, 1972, the three Regional Councils were upgraded to the status of full-fledged Autonomous District Council, but they were continued to be governed by their respective interim government till the conduct of District Council general election up to June, 1973. Subsequently, the Pawi Regional Council became the Pawi Autonomous District Council, the Chakma Regional Council became the Chakma Autonomous District Council (C.A.D.C.) and the Lakher Regional Council became the Lakher Autonomous District Council. However, the Lais and the Maras demanded for the change of name of their respective District Council from imposed tribe’s name to original name of the tribe, namely, ‘Pawi’ to ‘Lai’ and ‘Lakher’ to ‘Mara.’ Thus, under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India (Amendment) Act, 1988 of the Indian Parliament (No, 67 of 1988) and by Notification No. DCA/E/154/81/40, the name Pawi Autonomous District Council was changed into Lai Autonomous District Council (L.A.D.C.) and the Lakher Autonomous District Council was changed into Mara Autonomous District Council (M.A.D.C.).²⁴

5. The issue of constitutionality and legality of the creation of the CADC:

The constitutionality and legality of the trifurcation of the PLRC and emergence of the CADC have been questioned from different circles and it is an on-going political debate in Mizoram. As the final authority for amending any provision of the Sixth Schedule lies with the Parliament, the State Legislative Assembly or any other legislatures do not have any say with regard to amendment, deletion and addition of any part of the Sixth Schedule. It shall be ascertained that the provision for amendment of the provision of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India has been incorporated in the Sixth Schedule itself. Any issue concerning constitution matter shall be analyzed correctly only from objective observation and interpretation of the constitutional provision itself but not by arguing from other perspectives. It is incorporated in Paragraph 21, sub-paragraph (1) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India that “Parliament may from time to time by law amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any of the provision of this schedule and, when the schedule is so amended, any reference to this schedule in this constitution shall be construed as a reference to such schedule as so amended.” Paragraph 21 sub-paragraph (2) “No such law as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall be deemed to be an amendment of this constitution for the purposes of article 368”²⁵

It is stated clearly in Paragraph 21, sub-paragraph (1) of the Sixth Schedule that any part of the provision of the Six Schedule can be amended in the form of addition, variation or repeal by Parliament and it is further clarified in Paragraph 21, sub-paragraph 2 that any amendment of the Six Schedule shall not be regarded as normal amendment as per the provision of Article 368 of the Constitution of India. It should be noted from the constitutional wording of Paragraph 21 of the Sixth Schedule that any provision of the Sixth Schedule can be amended by Parliament by just simple majority in the form of addition, variation or repeal by Parliament but any legislature in India other than Parliament is not authorized to exercise any legislative powers with regard to the Sixth Schedule.²⁶ Therefore, it should be noted that the Sixth Schedule can be amended or modified only by Parliament and even incorporation of slight changes in the provision cannot be processed without involvement of the Parliament. Therefore, it should be ascertained that so long as Parliament is involved and any modification and additions have been made as per the legislation of Parliament, constitutionality and legality of that process cannot be questioned. However, if any slight modifications and changes have been introduced without the involvement of Parliament, constitutionality and legality can be questioned. Thus, the question of constitutionality and legality do not arise so long as Parliament is involved in the process and if actions have been initiated as per the legislation of the Parliament.

As stated above, the process for emergence of the CADC began with the trifurcation of the PLRC. Therefore, it should first be analyzed how the process for trifurcation of the PLRC had been initiated. It should be noted that Paragraph 1, sub-paragraph 3 of the Sixth Schedule gives power to the Governor to (c ) create a new autonomous district, (d) increase the area of any autonomous district (e) diminish the area of any autonomous district (f) unite two or more autonomous districts or parts thereof so as to form one autonomous district (ff) alter the name of autonomous district (g) define the boundaries of any autonomous district. Yet, Governor cannot make order under clauses (c ), (d), (e) and (f) till consideration of report appointed under sub-paragraph1, Paragraph 14 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. However, even in this case, the Governor can only issue notification or order only after it is passed and approved by the Parliament.²⁷

The provision for creation of new autonomous district, increase of the area of autonomous district as well as increase and diminish of the autonomous districts are incorporated in the Sixth Schedule in Paragraph 1, sub-paragraph 3, however, no such provisions have been provided for creation of new regional council, increase or diminish of regional councils and creation of more than one regional council from the existing regional council. On the other hand, as top bureaucrat of the concerned department and political authority had already been convinced by the Chakma leader for creation of Chakma District Council, steps have been carefully initiated through constitutional process by an act of Parliament and the solution lies in the North Eastern Areas Reorganisation Act, 1971. The North Eastern Areas Reorganisation Act, 1971 (NEARA, 1971) was enacted by Parliament on 30^th December, 1971 and it became effective with effect from its publication in the Gazette of India on 6^th January, 1972. The NEARA, 1971 has 9 Parts and 10 Schedules of its own and it touches many parts, schedules and articles of the Constitution of India which concern North Eastern States in particular and states of mainland India in general. As the NEARA, 1971 incorporated maximum amendments and modifications in the Constitution of India, it can be described as mini-constitution like the 42^nd Amendment Act of 1976. The NEARA, 1971 created three new states, namely, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura and two new Union Territories, namely, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram from North East India earlier loosely known as Assam. The NEARA 1971 inserted clause (h) after clause (g) in sub-paragraph 3, Paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule with the wording “divide any autonomous region into two or more autonomous regions and define the boundaries thereof” and it also inserted amendment in other paragraphs of the Sixth Schedule, namely, Paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12 and 20.²⁸ Thus, the provision for creation of more than two regional councils from the existing regional council was provided by inserting clause (h) in Paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (3) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India.

It should also be recollected that the Administrator of Mizoram was entrusted with the powers and responsibilities of the Governor in matter concerning with the provision of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. Further, the Chief Commissioner exercised the responsibilities of the Administrator till the appointment of the Lieutenant Governor. As a matter of fact, S.J. Das, Chief Commissioner of Mizoram in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h), sub-paragraph 3 of Paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India notified the Pawi-Lakher Region (Reorganisation) Order, 1972 vide No. CCMP/3/72/70-77 dt. 1.4.1972 that the Pawi-Lakher Regional Council shall be trifurcated into three regional councils, namely, the Chakma Regional Council, the Lakher Regional Council and the Pawi Regional Council with effect from 2^nd April, 1972.²⁹ The Chief Commissioner also appointed interim Chief Executive Member (CEM) for the three regional councils, namely, Atul Chandra Chakma for the Chakma Regional Council, Zakhu Hlychho for the Lakher Regional Council and Lalchunga Chinzah for the Pawi Regional Council.Consequently, the Chakma Regional Council surprisingly emerged out of the Pawi-Lakher Region (Reorganisation) Order, 1972 and the inhabitants of Mizoram in general and the political leaders in particular were amazed by the unexpected emergence of the Chakma Regional Council. However the first general election of the Union Territory of Mizoram was held on 18^th April, 1972 for 30 seats and S.J. Das was recalled after the formation of Mizoram Legislature and S.P. Mukherjee was appointed as Lieutenant Governor by the President of India. S.P. Mukherjee took charge as Lieutenant Governor of Mizoram on 23th April,1972. On 29^th April, 1972 dissolution of the Mizo District Council was promulgated and provision for dissolution of the Mizo District Council was inserted in Paragraph 20A of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India; whereas, the three regional councils were upgraded to the status of full-fledged ADC on that day itself.³⁰

Leaders of the Mizo District Council and Mizo politicians were not aware of the process which was initiated confidentially from high official of the Central Government for creation of the CADC and it has also been constitutionalised and legalised by amendment of the Sixth Schedule through the North Eastern Areas Reorganisation Act, 1971 by the Parliament. Many questions have been raised whether the CADC has constitutional basis or not? Is there any constitutionally justification and legal validity in the creation of the CADC? Whose Mizo politicians are responsible for the emergence of the CADC? Did the Mizo Union leaders and PLRC leaders are responsible for emergence of the CADC? It is evident that the present CADC area is the ancestral land of the Tlanglau chiefs and Chakmas are illegal immigrants who are not original inhabitants of the land. However, the process for creation of the CADC is both constitutional and legal. Further, no Mizo politicians were responsible in the emergence of the CADC and Mizo politicians did not play any role in the creation of the CADC. Over and above that, the Mizo Union leaders and the PLRC leaders are also not responsible for the emergence of the CADC and they did not play any role in the creation of the CADC. Thus, CADC evolved out as a result of struggle of the Chakmas and their good lobbying tactic in convincing high officials and political leaders of the Central Government. Thus, the Chakmas are not original settlers of the land but the creation of the CADC cannot be definitely questioned on constitutional and legal basis because it has been established as per the provision of the Constitution of India by an Act of the Indian Parliament.

The clause which was quoted by the Administrator of Mizoram i.e. clause (h), sub-paragraph 3, Paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India was enacted by Parliament as per the provision of Paragraph 21 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. However, clause (h) was no longer found in sub-paragraph 3, Paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule and the clause was missing from the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India after the trifurcation of the PLRC. Clause (h) is no longer found in the Sixth Schedule and it secretly exited in the same manner as how it surprisingly emerged in the Sixth Schedule. Thus, if it is to be charged as unconstitutional and illegal because it is no longer part of the Constitution of India, it cannot be justified because it was part of the Constitution of India and it was very much there in sub-paragraph 3, Paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India at the time when NEARA, 1971 was enacted. It is said that clause (h) of sub-paragraph 3 of Paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule was omitted from the Sixth Schedule by the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Act, 1971 but it is not clearly enshrined in the act. Whatever be the case, whether clause (h) was omitted by the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Act, 1971 or by any other act of Parliament? it is no longer enshrined in the Sixth Schedule, as such, the vague disappearance of clause (h) may not provide valid constitutional background for challenging the constitutionality and legality of the creation of the CADC. Over and above that, any law enacted by Parliament as per the constitutional provision is unlikely to be declared as null and void or unconstitutional by the judiciary. Therefore, the question about constitutionality and legality of the creation of the CADC should not be unnecessarily initiated without valid legal evidence and detection of constitutional flow.

If only authentic constitutional provisions and legal validity can be used as reliable sources, the Governor of Mizoram, Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Minister of Home Affairs can only be approached to initiate necessary steps for abolition of the CADC. Further, the process for any amendment whether deletion, abolition or creation of any part of the Sixth Schedule cannot be processed without convincing high officials and Minister of the Home Ministry. The reason being, any amendment of the Sixth Schedule cannot be initiated without legislation of the Parliament and the same case is with regard to the issue of abolition of the CADC. It is evident that the final authority for amendment of the Sixth Schedule lies with the Parliament but notification to what the Parliament has legislated for any amendment is usually notified by the Governor. Therefore, the only available option for introducing any amendment in the Sixth Schedule including abolition of the CADC lies in convincing the Governor, high officials of Ministry of Home Affairs, Minister of Home Affairs and the Parliament with authentic constitutional sources, if not, it will only be fighting a losing battle. It should also be noted that the judiciary has little role in the Sixth Schedule because final authority is vested in the Parliament as enshrined in Paragraph 21 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India.

6. CONCLUSION:

The original home of the Chakmas is Chittagong in Bangladesh and Chakma kingdom also flourished there since pre-British period. Whereas, the Chakma association with Lushai Hills began only since 1894 because of the transfer of some Chakma settlements nearby Demagiri from Chittagong administration to South Lushai Hills. However, Chakma settlement was not yet found in the present C.A.D.C. geographical area (Uiphum Tlangdung) at the time when some Chakma inhabited villages were transferred to South Lushai Hills through the order of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. The present C.A.D.C. area was the domain of the Tlanglau chiefs since pre-British period, as such, Bawm, Pang and Tlanglaus are still found in the C.A.D.C. geographical area. The independence of India reversed the political fate of the Chakmas due to inclusion of Chittagong in East Pakistan and construction of Kaptai Hydro Electric Project on the Karnaphulli river which flooded 1036 Kilometers of Chakma ancestral land further worsen the condition of the Chakmas. The reason being, more than 1 lakh people became homeless and thousands of people fled to India and Myanmar and majority of those who migrated to India settle in Arunachal Pradesh. Chakmas of Mizoram are concentrated in two specific areas, namely, in Tlabung (Demagiri) under Lushai Hills Autonomous District Council later on Mizo District Council and the erstwhile Pawi-Lakher Regional Council (P.L.R.C.). And, Chakmas of both areas received their political berths under the respective council and the Chakma Regional Council later on Chakma Autonomous District Council surprisingly emerged along with the trifurcation of the Pawi-Lakher Regional Council after the declaration of the Union Territory of Mizoram. The Chakma Autonomous District Council has been in existence for more than 40 years now and it emerges as the hot bed of political crisis in Mizoram. There have been many talks and expression of opinions about the existence of the Chakma Autonomous District Council but any amendment in the Sixth Schedule provision is within the ambit of Parliament. 21 private member resolutions were submitted from 1985 to 2000 for abolition of the CADC in the Mizoram Legislative Assembly⁴³ but such resolution could not have much impact because amendment of the Sixth Schedule provision is strictly within the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament. As a matter of fact, Chakmas from Uiphum Tlangdung (present Chakma Autonomous District Council) area are illegal immigrants and the process by which they inhabited the land might also be illegal and unconstitutional, however, the emergence of the Chakma Autonomous District Council is constitutional and legal which has been created constitutionally by an Act of the Indian Parliament. As a matter of fact, constitutional body, created by an Act of Parliament may not be declared as null and void by judiciary of any level whether it be High Court or Supreme Court. Over and above that, any amendment, addition or deletion of any part of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India can be initiated only in Parliament and Parliament alone can do it, but, not by any legislature lower than Parliament.

7. REFERENCES:

1. Jangkhongam Doungel, Lai Chieftainship and its Impact in Politics, Balaji Publications, Delhi, 2014, pp. 147-149.

2. R.S. Rosangluaia, The Tribes of Mizoram, Tribal Research Institute, Aizawl, 1994, pp. 89-91.

3. F. Lianchhinga, Chakma Chanchin, Tribal Research Institute, First edition, 1996, pp. 1-8.

4. Capt. TH. Lewin, The Hill Tracts of Chittagong and the Dwellers, Tribal Research Institute, Aizawl, 2004, pp. 41-41 &133-138.

5. S.P Talukdar, Genesis of Indigenous Chakma Buddhists and their pulverization Worldwide, Kalpaz Publications, Delhi, 2010, pp. 25-27 & 32-33.

6. Ibid. pp. 28, 34-35 & 41-42.

7. Laldova, History of Chittagong Hill Tracts, Genesis Printers & Publishers Pvt Ltd, Guwahati, 2014, p. 2.

8. Sir Robert Reid, The Lushai Hills, Tribal Reseacrh Institute, Aizawl, Reprint, 1978, p. 55

9. Movement for autonomy-A case study of the Chakmas of Mizoram’ by P. Chakraborty in Autonomy Movements in Mizoram, edited by R.N. Prasad, Vikas Publishing House Pvt Ltd, Delhi, 1994, pp. 158-159.

10. “Kaptai Dam”, an article, written by Laldova in 16^th July 2009 issue of the Aizawl Post daily, Aizawl, Mizoram, edited by C. Lalrambuatsaiha.

11. S.P Talukdar, op.cit, pp. 43-47.

12. Sir Robert Reid, op.cit, p. 55.

13. 13 Chaltuahkuma, Political History of Mizoram, Vanthangi, Electric Veng, Aizawl, 2001, p.144.

14. Jangkhongam Doungel’s “The Uniqueness of the Erstwhile Pawi-Lakher Regional Council (PLRC)” in October 2005 issue of Journal of North east India Council for Social Science Research, edited by B. Datta Ray, pp. 30-31.

15. Chaltuahkuma, Political History of Mizoram, Vanthangi, Electric Veng, Aizawl, 2001, pp. 194-196, 211-215 & 234-236.

16. R.T Hnialum, Road to Pawi-Autonomous District Council, Lai Autonomous District Council, first edition, 1988, p. 5.

17. Op.cit, pp. 250, 267, 277, 300-301 & 324-325.

18. Jangkhongam Doungel, Evolution of District Council Autonomy in Mizoram, Spectrum Publications, Guwahati, 2010, pp. 29-34,66-67.

19. R. Vanlawma, Ka Ram leh Kei (My Country and I), Lengchhawn Press, Khatla, Aizawl, 1989, pp. 373-374.

20. Jangkhongam Doungel, Evolution of District Council Autonomy in Mizoram, op.cit, pp. 68-69.

21. Sources from Prof. J.V. Hluna, Aizawl, 28^th September, 2017.

22. Op.cit.

23. Jangkhongam Doungel’s “Emergence of Autonomous District Council in Mizoram” in Mizo Narratives Accounts From Mizoram, Scientific Book Centre, Guwahati, edited by Malsawmdawngliana and Rohmingmawii, Revised and Enlarged Edition, 2014, pp. 340-341.

24. Jangkhongam Doungel, Evolution of District Council Autonomy in Mizoram, op.cit, pp. 70-72.

25. Chakraborty, P., Mizoram Compendium of Laws, Linkman Publications, Titagarh, West Bengal, 1990, pp. 149-150.

26. P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, Delhi, Delhi, 2006, pp. 304 & 361.

27. Ibid, pp. 341, 344 & 354-355.

28. Government of India, Constitution of India (As on 1^st June, 1996), Department of Publication, Ministry of W&H, Delhi, 1996, p. 164.

29. Ibid, p.151.

30. North Eastern Areas Reorganisation Act, 1971

Received on 14.10.2019 Modified on 19.11.2019

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2020; 11(1):19-28.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2020.00004.2