By Patricia Mukhim
Dr. J. Rufus Fears, who teaches “History of freedom” in the University of Oklahama, says a politician and a statesman are not the same thing. A statesman, Fears argues, is not a tyrant; he is the free leader of a free people and he must possess four critical qualities: (1) A bedrock of principles (2) A moral compass (3) A vision (4) The ability to build a consensus to achieve that vision. We in Meghalaya have been mumbling that we no longer have statesmen today; only politicians. We associate politicians with short term interests and believe that statesmanship is dead. A wit I know has rightly remarked, “We are suffering from a drought of statesmen and a flood of politicians. It’s like a diet full of calories with almost no nutrition. Statesmen are like vegetables. Many people don’t like them, but they’re good for you. Politicians are like too much ice cream. Yummy. I’ll worry about the stomach ache later.
We often speak of political leaders and leadership but we would have noticed that a politician actually follows the crowd. He is constantly gauging which way the wind blows and does not create an anti-cyclone. Nor do they stir people to action. Politicians maintain the image of leadership, but in reality they wait to declare a position until they see which is the most likely to get them re-elected. Woodrow Wilson once said, “If you think too much about being re-elected, it is very difficult to be worth re-electing.”
The fundamental difference between a statesman and a politician is that the former leads while the latter follows. A statesman doesn’t bow to the screeching and wailing that often passes for opposition. The statesman follows the path blazed by John Adams, who said “Always stand on principle even if you stand alone.” Politicians are like hornets and mosquitoes. We may never understand why we have to endure them, but they, like the poor, will always be with us. Statesmen are almost like dinosaurs though, doomed for extinction if not already extinct. The small (and small minded) survive and thrive, while the great and noble drop by the wayside. Sounds rather pessimistic but that’s how it is.
However, we cannot be idealistic and expect a statesman to be faultless. Abraham Lincoln had his failings but he meant well and that is what is important. In the context of Meghalaya or India, the question to ask is whether the eco-system supports statesmanship. Would a politician who refuses to go with the flow be popular? Can he/she be re-elected for daring to walk the path less traveled? Statesmen don’t live in isolation. They live in the real world. So if we carp about not having statesmen then we need to ask ourselves if we as citizens are responsible for driving every politician into a silo where there is no elbow room for statesmanship.
I was present at a seminar organized by the Centre Development and Peace Studies (CDPS) at Guwahati recently, on the theme of statehood demands and autonomy and how viable the statehood demands in Assam are. Paul Lyngdoh was invited to present a paper. He made some very important points. Firstly, he said that there is no cap on the number of states that can be created because the Constitution has left this open ended. Paul also contended that states could be created if people residing in a certain geographical unit have the resource base to make the state viable, a sizeable population and adequate safeguards for other minorities residing within that territory. Paul Lyngdoh had obviously done his homework well. He pointed out that states created from larger ones such as Jharkhand, Chattisgarh and Uttara-khand have registered growth rates which doubled that of the parent states. Another point that Paul made is that the States Re-organisation Commission should not be constituted only when there are demands for states but that it should be a permanent autonomous body that can objectively assess claims for state demands. These are very statesmanlike observ-ations and Paul could make these statements because he was outside his home state where he would not be judged by the yardstick of hide-bound rightists whose pre-occupation is to run down politicians.
If Paul Lyngdoh can be a statesman abroad why can’t he bring his statesmanship to bear on an issue that is threatening to send Meghalaya into convu-lsions? Those who propose the Inner Line Permit (ILP) as the only instrument to contain influx have either lost their peripheral vision or it is severely limited. They see only objects directly in line. It’s what is called a tunnel vision. Needless to say this is close-minded thinking which refuses to use other lenses to look at the problem. The way the ILP discourse is moving now it appears that pressure groups are hell bent on putting the Government in a corner and then forcing it to say yes to the ILP. Of course the Government is respo-nsible to a large extent for not using its think tanks in the bureaucracy to come up with appropriate models for containing influx. They say history repeats itself if we refuse to learn from it. The ILP is a failed experiment in Nagaland and Mizoram. Why do we believe it would work in Meghalaya unless we are starry eyed optimists? In this two way conflict between the Government and pressure groups, what is the third alternative? Can the Opposition Parties provide that third alternative? Or will they go the way of pressure groups because they need to appease these groups? Where is the political leadership here? Is it correct then to say that there is not a single statesman in Meghalaya?
My next point is related to the recent cold-blooded killings in Smit and elsewhere. This is vigilantism gone overboard hence people are killed on the mere suspicion that they are sorcerers or keepers of the Thlen. These rumours spread like wild fire by word of mouth. You don’t need evidence to condemn someone a Nongshohnoh (a worshipper of the Thlen), just as you don’t need evidence to label someone a witch and kill her. One wonders whether the Thlen is part of Khasi consciousness and is linked to our indigenous faith. Or whether it is just superstition (ka jingngeit biej)? If it is not a superstition there should have been evidence of a person being killed in the way our ancestors vividly described it for us. But this is a scientific age; it is the age of reason not of blind faith. We need to instill in society the benefits of enquiry training; of basing our statements on evidence, not on assum-ptions.
In the melee that happened on August 16, we are yet to hear a strong voice of condemnation of such ghastly and inhuman incidents from politicians across the board. Ardent Basaiawmoit the MLA of the area has not spoken. And all that Lambor Malngiang did was to lash his tongue at the police instead of condemning the wrong doers. The Police have done their duty and arrested those involved in this vigilantism. We should leave them alone to do their work unhindered. There is no need for politicians to take sides with perpetrators of crime just because they are his/her supporters.
And the less said about the Dorbar Shnong the better. It is hard to believe that the Shnong would not have got wind of what was brewing in their little “kingdom.” Could they not have alerted the Police so that such a heinous crime could have been avoided? And now the Shnong wants administrative and police powers! This is unwarranted unless we have a good model of devolution of powers down to the lowest level. Imagine giving policing and formal administrative powers to an institution that has no template of accountability! The consequences would be disastrous. The Dorbar Shnong is yet to prove that it is an inclusive institution of, by and for the people. And I am yet to see even one statesmanlike Rangbah Shnong so far.
Yes we do need statesmen to lead Meghalaya even if they are a rare species. But society needs to create the space where they can thrive and get their voices heard. They must, as far as possible, follow the four principles laid out by Professor Fears. Is that too much to expect?