TURA, March 30 - The much anticipated codification of the Garo Customary Law Bill, 2009, which was passed by the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC), was met with a mixed response.
The debate now centres around the identify of being a �Garo�, �A�chik� or �Mande�.
The Bill was passed yesterday with all members present passing it unopposed. Of the 29 members in the council, 18 were present in the House with all in support. Chief Executive Member (CEM) Denang T Sangma has termed the passing of the Bill as historic.
Attempts made earlier in the year 2014 had to be stalled over the question of who could be called a Garo, with various NGOs up in arms as they feared such an attempt would allow non-Garos to become a part of the tribe. That Bill was viewed as a way out for the ST status of Meghalaya Chief Minister Mukul M Sangma, whose mother was a Bengali.
According to the new Bill, any person born of a legal marriage whose parent are or were both Garos or A�chik or Mande shall have the right to take Garo or A�chik or Mande ma�chong (clan title from the mother) as per the customary law, traditions and usages. The Bill further states that any person who is born of a non-Garo mother and a Garo father is not a Garo, even if he/she takes the ma�chong-ma�bipek�s chatchi of his/her father. It also states that any person who is born of a non-Garo father and a Garo mother is not a Garo even if he/she takes the ma�chong-ma�bipek�s chatchi of his/her mother.
Some Garos have taken note of the clause, which states that any person born of a Garo father and a Garo mother but takes the ma�chong-ma�bipek�s chatchi of his/her father is not a Garo as per Garo customary law.
The Bill is being viewed by some as a huge blow to inter-caste and inter-racial marriages.
�I feel that the steps and the law they (GHADC) are trying to make are irrational. We are not living in Stone Age. It is a new, modern world we are living in. This kind of Act would create communal insecurities. It will divide us as a community as Garos and non-Garos,� felt Luigi Pangsang Sangma of Tura. He added that the Act is against freedom of choice.
The contentious clause of both parents being Garo yet the children being termed non-Garo if the children chose the father�s title, came in for severe criticism.
�How come they are not Garo anymore? It doesn�t make sense at all. There should be a strong public debate before this kind of decision is taken,� he added.
A software professional, Auro Sangma, felt the codification gives a thundering effect on those who do not understand the value of customary practice and dilute the practices that should have otherwise been preserved with respect.
�It is surprising that the code, which is set to become a law, is also not going to give that respect to our cultural identity,� said Auro.
�Since Garo customary code has been a work in the making, it should have clearly mentioned all details. People like me are in dilemma as to why there is still a series of shortcomings in this code,� he added.
A section felt that the Bill needs to be reexamined.
�I wonder what would be the percentage of pure Garos if we genetically study the lineage of each and every individual who claims to be a Garo. If the authenticity of pure Garo is mandatory, it needs to be proven genetically, right from the forefathers. I feel the Bill needs to be re-examined,� said Jheney Marak, lecturer.
Uttora Sangma of Tura, however, felt that the codified law was in the best interest of the Garo society and not to bar anyone from intermarriage.
The Bill is set to become an Act once the Governor gives his assent to it.