A Meghalaya-based organisation, HITO, has urged the State government to clarify its response to a 2014 Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) letter about the 1948 Instrument of Accession signed by 25 Khasi tribal chiefs with India. These agreements, signed between December 1947 and March 1948, joined Khasi States to India, preserving local control over forests, land, and water, rather than ending their autonomy. In a letter to Meghalaya’s Chief Secretary Shakil Ahamed on January 28, 2026, HITO asked for details on any reply sent to the MHA's November 27, 2014 communication. That letter followed many complaints about the "non-implementation of the Instrument of Accession and the Annexed Agreement." HITO stressed this is a "national solemn commitment" and argued decades of delay have left Khasi institutions in a "constitutional grey area." It cited interventions by bodies like the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, which recommended incorporating these agreements into the Indian Constitution back in 2014. The National Human Rights Commission also advised petitioners to approach Parliament for action. Political parties, including the Bharatiya Janata Party, have recognized the issue. BJP’s Meghalaya policy promises respect for tribal agreements made before Independence and fulfilling their spirit. HITO noted past memoranda submitted by Khasi chiefs to Presidents, including Pranab Mukherjee in 2013, also raised this concern. The organisation said failure to implement the 1948 agreements has caused ongoing conflicts between traditional customs and central laws on land, forests, mining, coal, and information. These are reflected in repeated Meghalaya Assembly resolutions on Inner Line Permit, language, and Scheduled Tribe amendments. HITO further pointed out that after January 26, 1950, Khasi States were merged into Assam and placed under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, but without fulfilling the original agreements. This created a "structural anomaly" persisting for 78 years. Comparing with the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, HITO argued that Sixth Schedule areas were excluded since traditional systems supposedly existed. However, these systems have never been clearly integrated or constitutionally recognized. The autonomous district councils thus remain only a temporary solution.