Editor,
The relevance and role of traditional institutions in Meghalaya has been a very hotly debated and contested issue with argument and counter-arguments abounding on both the supporting and opposing parties respectively. Recently my friend, Avner Pariat and I got the chance to conduct an interview with the author of the book ‘Unruly Hills: Nature and Nation in India’s North East’, Bengt G. Karlsson. During the discussion, I was made aware of the article written by Ms. Patricia Mukhim titled ‘Travelling back into a hoary past’ (ST Dec 12, 2014) on the issue of traditional institutions, a topic which Karlsson had dealt in his book. In the article, she has suggested that the call to strengthen and recognize the traditional body is an attempt to return to oligarchy and “only those with the quest for power for power’s sake might support the idea”. I find this highly simplistic evaluation of the movement towards revival of traditional bodies disappointing but most importantly I find Ms. Mukhim’s attempt to portray the book as a confirmation of her stand, i.e., dismantling of traditional bodies, highly misleading.
After reading the book and more importantly engaging in a discussion with Mr. Karlsson, an entirely different impression emerges. First of all, the book is no way antagonistic to the cause of revival and strengthening of traditional bodies. It does a critical evaluation with both the strengths and weakness of these bodies being given equal scrutiny. The author has cited the example of Mawphlang where traditional governance has been found to have done well, but has also acknowledged that it failed to prevent (in fact facilitated) the total denudation of the Shillong peak. The book does not take sides though a certain leaning towards the community perspective informed through the idea of custodianship is observed. In fact the idea of custodianship, which is basis of our traditional norms, as the guiding principle for seeking a just and sustainable development, came out strongly during the interview.
Personally what I could take from the interview and reading the book was the recognition of the increasing importance of the role of (reformed) traditional institutions in the current scenario where it can act as a bulwark against capitalistic appropriation of nature in the state; a process that has led to dispossession reflected in growing landlessness in our tribal society and formation of neo-tribal elites/capitalists. With current emphasis being laid on bottoms- up approach in governance, these bodies have furthermore become highly critical. Instead of outright rejection there is a need to consider traditional institutions (with emphasis on place-based rather than ethnic-based identities) as part of process for promotion of social justice in the state.
However, my main concern out here is the employment of certain passages in the book without any reference to the overall argument of the book, but imbibing an intention (inadvertently maybe) that is not found in the book or what the author intended. This becomes especially critical when issues are imbued with political overtones than can have significant repercussions. The debate regarding traditional institutions will go on but while making our arguments we must be careful of how we use sources through which we make our case, especially in assigning objectives/meanings/intentions that are not present.
Yours etc.,
Bhogtoram Mawroh
PhD Scholar, Department of Geography
North Eastern Hill University
The author replies: My citations from Karlsson’s book are reflected by the inverted commas in the article. I have never stated that Karlsson speaks of a return to oligarchy. Those are my statements and I stand by them because the Khasi customary practice of village chieftains being elected from certain clans only is not a democratic practice. It is an oligarchy. I have also not used Karlsson to endorse my own views and using the phrase ‘dismantling the traditional institutions’ is also an attempt to mislead the readers. My critique is related to John Kharshiing’s attempts to take the society back to the pre-democracy, pre-independence period, which to my mind is fraught with inconsistencies and would result in diluting the rights guaranteed to us by the Indian Constitution. The traditional institutions as they are today have failed to protect the poorest among the tribes and have therefore, by default been used and misused by the tribal elite. The best example is how the coal mine owners and their cohorts are using the Sixth Schedule and perhaps even the Instrument of Accession to justify their rights to do whatever they choose to with “their” land without considering the long term consequences on millions of others who suffer the consequences of environmental savagery.
It would have been appropriate for Karlsson himself to write a rejoinder to my piece than for some scholars to become apologists for him. And if my arguments as a non-scholar are simplistic then will the scholars propose an alternative to the present model of traditional governance which have none of the features of a democracy and do not provide a platform for the weakest member of the community to speak up? Who do the landless and the poor go to? Will the Dorbar or the Syiem take up their cause? If so, would we have so much poverty and landlessness in Meghalaya?
Patricia Mukhim