Dr James Ralte and Dr Vineeth Thomas have collaboratively published a significant research paper titled “From Article 371 to the Sixth Schedule: Rethinking Tribal Autonomy as Constitutional Justice.” The impact of their research extends beyond academic discourse; it informs policy discussions surrounding federalism and indigenous rights in India’s Northeast.

Abstract of the Research
The demand for Article 371 in Meghalaya, a north-eastern state in India, has emerged as a significant constitutional and political issue, with proponents arguing that it would enhance indigenous protections and autonomy beyond the Sixth Schedule. Led by the Voice of the People Party (VPP), the movement reflects concerns over central legislative interventions, resource control, and cultural preservation. Drawing from the experiences of Nagaland (Article 371A) and Mizoram (Article 371G), this study evaluates whether Article 371 is a viable solution or a governance-unsettling and normatively dissonant proposal. It concludes that strengthening the Sixth Schedule through amendments enhancing district council autonomy, funding mechanisms, and governance reforms offers a more practical and constitutionally coherent approach to safeguarding tribal self-governance in Meghalaya.

Explanation in layperson’s terms
This research looks at a key political debate in Meghalaya: whether the state should be granted Article 371 status, like Nagaland or Mizoram, to give its tribal communities more constitutional protection. The paper argues that while this proposal reflects genuine concerns about preserving local culture and control over resources, it might create legal and administrative confusion. Instead, the study suggests improving the existing Sixth Schedule, which already provides autonomy to local tribal councils. Strengthening this system, rather than adding new constitutional layers would be a more effective and stable way to protect tribal identity, ensure better governance, and promote justice for Meghalaya’s indigenous peoples.

Practical Implementation and Social Implications

The study has direct policy relevance for constitutional governance and indigenous rights in India’s Northeast. Its findings contribute to ongoing discussions on federalism and decentralization by highlighting that:

• Enhancing Autonomous District Councils through administrative and financial reforms can ensure better self-governance for tribal areas.
• It provides a model for reconciling local autonomy with national integration, particularly in multi-ethnic regions.
• The research offers insights for policymakers to balance environmental sustainability, indigenous resource control, and governance efficiency.
• In social terms, it underscores that justice for tribal peoples must come from empowering existing democratic institutions rather than creating parallel or overlapping systems.

Collaborations:
This research was co-authored with Dr Vineeth Thomas, Head, Department of Political Science, SRM University–AP. The study also draws upon engagement with constitutional scholars and regional policy discourses related to India’s Northeast

Future Research Plans:
Comparative border governance between India and Myanmar.