INDIA: Women barred from food ration in Meghalaya

Dear friends,

Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received disturbing information from Civil Society Women’s Organisation (CSWO), an anti-corruption and women’s rights organization based in Shillong, Meghalaya. In the remote village of Kynroh Nonglyer, Sohiong (Lyngdohship), East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya, which lies about 50 kms from Shillong city, women have been barred from village meetings and from availing food rations under the Indian Public Distribution System (PDS).

CASE NARRATIVE:

On 31 January 2014, Ms. Ortila Nongrum, a resident of Kynroh Nonglyer, visited a fair price shop to collect her monthly food ration. Under PDS, a government programme that seeks to guarantee food security, staple food grains like rice, wheat, and sugar are distributed. To her astonishment, Ortila was denied her ration of rice for the month of January 2014. She had collected her last allotment of grain on 30 December 2013.

The fair price shop owner and PDS distributor, Mr. Basil Kharthangmaw, informed Ortila that his action is a result of a verbal dictum from Mr. Kwit Kyrsien, village Sordar (Headman), and Mr. Faithstar Nongtri, Secretary of the ‘Dorbar’ of Kynroh Nonglyer village. The Dorbar is a traditional grassroot organization of the Khasi tribe, made up of select male members. Such bodies have immense influence over local community life. Women are excluded from membership, as well as the meetings of many Dorbars. The Khasi Dorbar draws its legitimacy from the Sixth Schedule [explained later] status of the district. (In the picture: women of Kynroh Nonglyer village. The woman in yellow sweater: Ms. Ortila Nongrum. Picture: Agnes Kharshiing)

The PDS Distributor went on to tell Ortila that, on 31 January 2014, he has been told not to collect and distribute PDS for to Ortila. Womenfolk of the village came forth to help Ortila and then contacted CSWO for help. On behalf of Ortila, Ms. Agnes Kharshiing, President of CSWO, has filed an FIR with the police on 15 February 2014, under section 7 of Essential Commodity Act 1955 [Laban PS Case No 12(2) 2014]. Acting on the FIR, the police have arrested the Sordar, the Secretary of the Dorbar, and the PDS distributor, who were all later released on bail.

Ortila is a financially disadvantaged woman; she is the custodian of two minor children born to a daughter now deceased. Additionally, she looks after her son, Mr. J. Nongrum, 24 years of age, who left his matrimonial house following a dispute. According to Khasi customary laws, men, upon marriage, move to their wife’s residence, ceasing to be inhabitants of the villages where they grew up.

Because of his outsider status, Mr. J. Nongrum was not allowed to take part in village cleaning activities in December 2013. Village cleaning is a voluntary contribution of labour; however, abstainers are fined by the Dorbar. Despite J. Nongrum’s willingness to take part in village cleaning, he was barred from doing so. His mother, Ortila, was still fined Rs. 400 INR. The fine appears to have been imposed by the Dorbar to harass Ortila. Ortila’s financial condition didn’t allow her to pay off this fine and is the main reason of her denial of PDS allotments.

Ortila is enrolled under the Antyodaya Anna Yojna Scheme (AAY), which provides citizens grains at a minimal cost. Under this Scheme, up to 35 kgs of rice is supplied monthly to each poor family at Rs. 3 INR per kg. Denial of monthly allotment has deprived Ortila and her family of food and nutrition. The AHRC has also been informed that AAY, and other Below Poverty Line (BPL), beneficiaries in the said village have to pay Rs. 8-9 INR per kg of rice in order to compensate for the transportation cost of the food grains. This is against the laid down rates of the government, and is basically an extortion of poor village residents.

After the 3 men were released on bail, an urgent meeting of the Dorbar was convened on 10 April 2014 by the Sordar and the Secretary of the Dorbar. The women of the village were prohibited from attending the meeting. They were chased away when they insisted on attendance. The 10 April meeting was called to draw village funds, which the women folk have also made contributions to. In this meeting, the Sordar and the Secretary succeeded in obtaining a sanction of 20,000 INR from the village development fund to pay legal expenses. Some of the members of the Dorbar were unhappy with this use of village funds. They, however, failed to counter the influence of the Sordar. The Treasurer, Mr. Terlin Kyrsian, released the amount under compulsion. Village development fund is usually disbursed by the Dorbar for welfare activities in the village. (In the picture: womenfolk of Kynroh Nonglyer village. Picture courtesy: Agnes Kharshiing).

Furthermore, the leaders of the Dorbar unilaterally decided not to disburse PDS allotments to womenfolk of the village. The Dorbar leaders apparently took such a decision in response to the criminal cases filed against them for the PDS refusal and also to teach a lesson to the women for an earlier political disagreement with them. Dorbar leaders are known to be linked to political parties of the state and brook no dissent.

The women of the village conducted their own meeting on 14 April 2014 and called the PDS distributor to communicate the situation. The PDS distributor agreed to disburse ration to womenfolk. He promised to the womenfolk that he will defy Dorbar’s dictum or otherwise, close down his shop.

On 18 April 2014, the women of the village protested against the withdrawal of Rs. 20,000 INR for litigation purposes and indicated that they would take up more legal action against Dorbar leaders who had misappropriated funds. The Rs. 20,000 amount now has since been promised to return to the village development fund.

It has also been alleged that women of the village, and their male supporters, have been prevented from using the community utensils that have been purchased with allocations from the local Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) fund, due to political differences. Excluding a group due to its political affiliation / belief in such a manner is discriminatory. (In the picture: copy of Ms. Martha Mawlong’s application, unsigned by the MLA).

The PDS is a scheme sponsored by the Union government and it does not exclude women from its benefits. However, the Dorbar leaders deprived some of the women beneficiaries of the village of Kynroh Nonglyer their right to food. Of times, due to political interference and corruption, the traditional mode of administration in certain villages becomes a hindrance to equality. The decisions of the Dorbar are not always egalitarian and sometimes violate principles of justice and gender equality. In this case, the actions of the Dorbar have also restricted the women’s freedom of expression and political participation.

In Meghalaya, gender and political differences can lead to harassment. For instance, AHRC has learned that a certain Ms. Martha Mawlong had applied for low cost government housing and was accordingly given a Utilization Certificate (UC) for the Special Rural Works Programme (SRWP) Scheme. However, to process her application further she had to obtain the signature of the Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from her constituency of Sohiong. She approached the constituency MLA, Mr. H.D.R Lyngdoh, who allegedly refused to sign, on the pretext that Martha Mawlong is not a member of the Congress party.

Meghalaya is a state characterised by its matrilineal system of inheritance and its gender equality. Khasi traditions bolster this impression: the youngest daughter inherits all ancestral property, men are expected to migrate to their wives’ homes after marriage, and children must take their mother’s family name. However, the case demonstrates how the Khasi tribal community in Meghalaya while being structurally matrilineal has become functionally patriarchal. The Dorbar system is primarily meant for welfare of the village. However, its exclusive composition of male members sometimes imposes patriarchal dicta in a society that follows a matrilineal system of inheritance.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The constitution of India has given special recognition to the customs and traditions of the tribal communities in the country. The Sixth Schedule system is such an attempt, and pertains to articles 244 (2) and 275(1) of the constitution.

In a Sixth Schedule area, the District Council and the Regional Council are empowered with autonomy and law making functions to administer a tribal population’s customs and traditional way of life. The District Councils exercise their powers and functions related to customs and institutions without interrupting the jurisdiction of the State and the Union Government. The state legislature refrains from passing laws on topics that are dealt with by the District Council and the Regional Councils. However, Governors can intervene if the functioning of the Councils is contrary to the safety and security of the Union.

In north east India, parts of Assam, Mizoram, and Tripura, and whole of Meghalaya, fall under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, and Assam have adopted the 73rd and 74th amendment of the Constitution and have introduced the Panchayat system for local government, which prevails in the rest of India. Nagaland has an altogether separate category under article 371 of the constitution.

In its working, the sixth schedule system in Meghalaya is confusing, with contradictions in terms of functions and power sharing. Three different types of courts exist in the state: District Council courts, the court of Deputy Commissioners, and Village councils, like the Dorbar. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution in 2001, the recommendations of which have been completely ignored, suggested amendments to the Schedule VI, by recommending the removal anomalies and contradictions.

The Public Distribution System (PDS), a food security programme of union government is one source of food at affordable price across India. Under this system, the Union Government is responsible for procurement and storage of food grains, and the distribution of the same is left to the state government.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the authorities mentioned below demanding an immediate investigation into the case and to resolve the fair distribution of grains in the village.

The AHRC is writing separately to the UN Special Rapporteur on Right to Food and other concerned authorities for their immediate action.

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER