By Toki Blah
In the ‘abode of the clouds’ reality is never what it seems to be. One really has only to know where to look for the truth, yet this simple exercise can be surprisingly complex as reality is often hidden and covered by layers ( or is it liars ?) of ruthless business guile, political deceit, inflated traditional egos or simple downright stupidity. Public gullibility, lovingly nurtured by all systems within cloud cuckoo land, ably helps sustain this sordid, cover-up enterprise. Thus even after 40 years of statehood, the simple question as to the rationale behind the creation of this Hill State, continues to beg for a plausible answer. The reason behind statehood continues to metamorphose from one form to another. Never constant, never fully understood. In its latest avatar, Meghalaya appears to exist simply to project the self interest of Political Parties and their chosen few. I don’t believe it either, but it’s pretty hard to brush off circumstantial evidence staring you at the face.
Till 41 years ago we had the 6th Schedule and two District Councils to look into our need for cultural and demographic protection. And then came statehood, and with it the relevance of what had sustained us so far- our ADCs. The decision to retain Meghalaya ADCs on the ground that they serve as potent training grounds for future state legislators is as phony as it sounds. When Albert Camus observed that “Politics and the fate of mankind are formed by men devoid of ideas and greatness” he really must have had this Megha political blunder in mind. The lofty ideas and vision JJM Nicholsroy and the Constituent Assembly had for the hill people of this region were rubbished, in the blink of an eye, by grubby political considerations devoid of all foresight and imagination. Sadly this trend in political thinking continues till today.
If at all there is any sense of expectation from the forthcoming 2013 Assembly polls, it is the hope that they will bring in change. A gulf of difference however exists between the public’s perspective of change and the political viewpoint. The public in general expect and want a change in governance; a change for better governance; for better standards of living ; for better service delivery systems, in general for anything better than what they have today. For their pains the people of Meghalaya have received spin versions of what is in store for them. The President of a Regional Party has given the promise that ‘IF’ his party is returned to power, every wish of the state would be fulfilled. How and why it has never dawned on his party to do so in the last 20 years of its existence, are questions that only a fool like me would raise and obviously they do not deserve an answer. The fate of Meghalaya and its people post 2013 will once again depend on an ‘IF’, with the implication that ‘IF’ does not materialise, then ‘the Hell with all of you’. Ye Gods and little fishes, do political leaders spouting such political baloney actually exist?
Not to be outdone, the President of a National Party has also decided to contribute his mite to the expectations of the electorate. He has a different spin. His party has decided that ‘winnability’ is the sole criteria for a party ticket. Sounds great, but begins to stink when factors that contribute to this winability concept are analysed. Reputable social service is definitely not a factor and neither is educational qualification; nor is it political experience and expertise; nor is it for any capability to bring in vision and value to Meghalaya politics and governance. The winnability factor will instead depend strictly on a fat bank balance and the ability to buy votes. No matter that the wealth could have been obtained from dubious Government contracts or through ruthless exploitation of Meghalaya’s mineral resources. Who cares if in the process the Lukha, the Myntdu are left dead and lifeless or if the poor now have to trudge miles for just one bucket of water. Winnability counts and the winner can even become Minister Mines and Minerals or in charge of Public drinking water. The irony of electoral politics in Meghalaya is that it gives a damn about the electorate.
At this point it is perhaps pertinent to ask just what does the electorate want? What are its expectations from politics? Ask anyone, just any one on the street, and the answer would in all likelihood be – Development. Yes, development is what everyone wants but the Meghalaya paradox is, the more we want development the less we seem to get it. The problem is further compounded by the curious fact that everyone keeps on running after development without ever trying to find out why, in the first place, it refuses to take root! If we dig we might not like what we might find. Truth is when most people speak of development they are more inclined towards the past than the future. Many are so enchanted with our unwritten past that they tend to ignore the future they are expected to script. There is a growing tendency to misrepresent tradition as something written in stone which cannot be changed nor challenged. Futuristic development paradigms are unable to find a toe hold in such an anachronistic mindset and Development keeps on eluding us.
A clarification perhaps is called for and the writer hastens to add that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Tradition nor with the past. History has a lot to teach and only fools can afford to discard it. Tradition for the indigenous Kahsis, Jaintias and Garos is important for with it comes the wisdom, acumen and the rich experience handed down from our forefathers. Taken from this perspective, tradition is what shapes culture and its expressions and the people of Meghalaya are no exception to this rule. The problem arises when one is unable to differentiate between cultural values and cultural expressions. Values are intrinsic. They have determined and will continue to determine our relationship with our environment and our interaction within and outside the community. Our identity is established through the value systems we uphold. Cultural expressions (dress, language, food habits etc) on the other hand are secondary and liable to change with the dictates and passage of time. Identity is never subject to such changes. Unfortunately there are those, and a growing number of them, who associate tradition more with its expressions rather than the fundamental values it seeks to inculcate. Sad but true!
The tendency spoken of above leaves many of us desperate for some meaningful change. For too long the state and its people have been held hostage to the insipid and uninspiring political ethos of the state. For too long we have been held hostage to an erroneous and incorrect interpretation of Tradition and Culture. In the process we have been denied, time and again, opportunities to develop and advance with the rest of humanity. Self created political instability and alarm over loss of identity and outmoded habits has repeatedly caused us to turn our backs to development opportunities that other people have benefitted from. Too many a time we have ended up as the laughing stock of the world. We need to ask ourselves a very serious question. It’s a question on which our very survival as indigenous people of a Hill State will depend on. For how long can we continue to survive on fear and apprehension? Is withdrawing into a shell and an inward looking mental makeup the only options before us? As we approach the 2013 assembly elections these questions will have to be answered. Hopefully this time we will elect people capable of coming up with answers. Hopefully with people who realise that the Legislative Assembly is a constitutional arena for discussions and debate, not a place to sleep in. However, one thing is certain. Ifs and buts and the winability factor of money are the worst options we can give onto ourselves.
The author is President of ICARE a social organisation that focuseson issues of Good Governance