By Patricia Mukhim
Meghalaya turns a stately 40 on Saturday. If she was a lady of means she would have celebrated in grand style at one of the plush resorts of this state with friends, well wishers and family. Someone might gift her sparkling wine and toast to her health and beauty. But if she is one of those who have to count her pennies each time she thinks of buying a kilogram of rice or a 250 gram packet of oil and 250 grams of dal, then we know what her birthday’s going to be like. Rich and poor is the stuff that fairy tales used to be made of when we were younger. In the united Khasi and Jaintia Hills and Garo Hills, later renamed Meghalaya after cutting the umbilical cord with Assam, we did not have poor people. I still recall how we would borrow rice and sugar from one another’s homes when we suddenly ran short of those in an emergency. Can we do the same today? No, we cannot because the societal equilibrium has changed.
And what is it that has changed? Firstly, we are no longer a community. We may be related to each other through distant clan ties but can a rich Lyngdoh and poor destitute Lyngdoh sit and break bread together without a sense of unease? Would I be wrong to say that even the clan ties are weakening if not eroded? So are we still tribals? And what exactly makes me or you a tribal except for that ubiquitous scheduled tribe certificate (a passport to an easy life). Surely the sense of community is an integral part of being tribal. Without that we are mere citizens of the world. Everyone has a culture they belong to. They have songs, dances, languages and kinship. But does that make them tribal?
What distinguishes a tribal from “others” is the ownership over land and resources. The United Nations came up with the term indigenous peoples to identify people who were loosely termed as tribals. But does a nomenclature coined by the UN have the force of law in India and more specifically in Meghalaya? Does being indigenous give us any special protection? And what exactly is being protected and by whom? By that amorphous definition I am a tribal or indigenous person. But does that automatically entitle me to the resources in this state of mine? No it doesn’t. If I am not rich and do not have the financial clout to avail a bank loan, I will never be able to buy land and will always remain a tenant living under somebody else’s roof.
Some might ask, what has happened to community land? Isn’t that supposed to be equitably distributed amongst the clan members? Aren’t the chieftains (Ki Syiem, Ki Dolloi, Ki Sordar) supposed to ensure that every inhabitant in a village has a roof over her head? But is that happening? If every community member owned some land would they give it up and come to find work in Shillong? Isn’t landlessness the biggest threat to the Khasi community today? If we take a count of hands the people who are landowners belong to a few clans only. Let’s say that the Khasi-Pnar community number about 10 lakhs. By a rough guestimate only less than 50% actually own any land and perhaps a home. The rest are landless and the number is growing because as per the Government records a staggering 66% of our people have slipped below poverty line.
According to Rediff.com Business (August 25, 2011) Meghalaya’s per capita income is Rs 48,383. The news portal states that Meghalaya is mainly dependent on agricultural activities but says that the State however has rich deposits of minerals like coal, granite, limestone, etc. It goes on to say that lack of proper infrastructure is the main reason that keeps the state from growing to its full potential. So this is how the rest of India sees us. Going purely by statistics therefore every individual in Meghalaya would be earning Rs 48, 383 annually which works out roughly to Rs 4000 per month. Per capita income is calculated by dividing the total personal income of the people in a state, by its population. But this figure is highly misleading because Meghalaya has several millionaires and billionaires who do not pay taxes and without any taxation on income it would be difficult to assess the exact per capita income.
In 2009, the present chief minister who was then the deputy chief minister in charge finance said that Meghalaya has the potential to have the highest per capita income ‘through judicious use of its resources.’ The operative phrase here is ‘judicious use of resources.’ But who do the resources belong to in the first place? Not to the state to be used for the greater good of its citizens but to a few wealthy individuals who have acquired more and more land vested with coal and limestone. So will the wealth acquired thereby actually be equitably distributed? Where is the community here? What are its present strengths and status? Does it have a voice to regulate the society, such that the egalitarian principles are safeguarded? We know the answer to that, don’t we? I never realised it until recently that the Khasi society is highly capitalistic and had been so even when India had not pursued its globalisation agenda. We are individualists par excellence.
Would any society with a strong communal bond become so fragmented such that today you have not one but several communities depending on their affiliations? There is the community of the coal business, the community of contractors, the community of poor farmers, the community of government employees, of teachers, of politicians; the community of those who live by their wits everyday. Each community safeguards its own interests and could not care less what happens to the others.
It is in this heterogenous community and a society pulling in all opposite directions that we are all operating. Yet, come election time and we believe we can bring all these disparate forces together and ask people with different selfish interests to rise above their base human instincts and vote those who in our definition can bring change. What change? I wonder if those who believe they are game changers are not actually “day-dream believers.”
Meghalaya needs a revolutionary leader (not cowards who threaten people with guns from a safe hideout a la HNLC and GNLA) who has the charisma to lead; who is non-judgemental or holier than thou but someone who can identify with people’s dreams and help them translate those aspirations to tangible goals. Do we have such a one who can blaze a trail and leave behind “footprints in the sands of time” (the favourite quote of one of our political patriarchs)? Or will we have instead someone who will scatter the evil and toxic remnants of the coal mines even into areas that were once virgin forests? Do we really have a choice? And if we had to choose who would we vote?
Who does not want an MLA who is both statesman and visionary? But will the present system allow one such to ride the crest of victory? Will it not be a futile search? Almost like looking for scarce pine needles in a mound of coal!