I do not know whether that is so. The point is this, that as someone from that side said – I think my Friend Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri – three-fourths of the municipality is really covered by this area. There is not the slightest doubt about it that so far as marriage laws, inheritance laws and other customs and manners are concerned, the people living in this part of the Mylliem State share the same laws, the same customs, the same marriage laws and ceremonies of the whole district. Consequently what will happen is this. Supposing this area were completely excluded from the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills district, the result will be that these people although they are fundamentally alike to their brethren interest of the part of the Mylliem State with regard to marriage laws, their customs, etc., etc., they will become at once subject to the general law of inheritance, general law of marriage, all general laws which the Parliament may make or which the Assam Legislature may make. I do not think that it is right that a part of the people who are homogeneous in certain matters should be severed in this manner. A part will obtain autonomy so far as their tribal life is concerned and a part will be subject to the general law to which the rest of the population is subject. It is for this reason that the Drafting Committee felt that the provision contained in sub-clause (2) and the proviso which accompanies it was the proper solution of this problem, namely, that for the purpose of the municipality as defined in the proviso that part of the Mylliem State which is part of the municipality should remain subject to the municipality, while for purposes for which the district council if constituted that part should remain subject to the district council. There is no conflict and it helps to sub serve the fundamental purpose, namely, that a homogeneous people should be subject to the same sort of laws, and to the same sort of administrative system which all of them should have and have.
