By Fabian Lyngdoh
Political life of the Khasis in the past was governed by the council of the elders of the founding clans of a hima called ‘ka dorbar ki bakhraw’. The existence and status of the syiem are subject to the supreme power of ‘ka dorbar ki bakhraw’ in every hima. Dr. Homiwell Lyngdoh says that “among many races and tribes of the world it is the powerful and conquerors who made themselves kings and emperors. But among the Khasis, a man cannot make himself a king or a ruler or to establish a kingdom of his own. It was ki bakhraw who were the leaders and rulers of their villages and ki raid, who establish a State through their confederation and then only they would seek a particular family and appoint it the syiem”. L.G. Shullai, also says that ‘the syiem of a Khasi state was only a neutral centre which is surrounded by ki bakhraw who were the owners and foundation of the territory. It was not the syiem who appointed ki bakhraw but it was ki bakhraw who appointed the syiem. The syiem of a Khasi state was neither a King nor a Raja and that there had never been a Khasi kingdom. A syiem had neither a throne nor a crown’. Kynpham Singh says that ‘the syiem is subservient and sub-ordinate to the dorbar and not the dorbar to the syiem; and that his duty was to put into operation the decision of the dorbar’. Even ‘the massacre at Nongkhlaw’, says Mr. Robertson, ‘may perhaps be traced, since Teerut Sing seems to have been merely an instrument on that occasion, of executing the will of the confederates, who were displeased at a treaty which he had signed without their sanction entered into’.
The British had earlier mistaken the Khasi syiem as a Raja, but later, through Political Proceedings, Nh. 14, March 1867, they ceased to class the syiem as Rajas, and the title of ‘syiem’ was officially recognised. But there was a strong contention that through the grant of the sanad, the British administration recognized the syiem alone as head of the hima and completely ignored the existence of ‘ka dorbar ki bakhraw’; and thus converted the syiem into a landlord and reducing the ruling clans and ki raid into mere freehold serfs. With this tampering by the British, ‘damage has been done’, says Kynpham Singh, ‘because by these sanads the syiems attempted to identify their position with that of the Maharajas, they attempted to create for themselves a false superior status, to usurp the powers of the dorbar and to encroach upon the traditional rights of the people leading to continuous conflict’.
According to L.G. Shullai ‘the British wanted to raise the power of the syiem far above that of ki bakhraw because it was then easier for them to rule, as they had to deal with one person rather than many. To achieve this end, the British purposely mobilized and motivated the conversion of the concept of ‘ ki bakhraw’ to that of ‘ki myntri’ until officially in State transactions, as well as in the people’s minds, ki bakhraw came to be known only as ki myntri whose function was to elect and assist the syiem’. Thus the traditional structure has been changed and the syiem became the legislative, executive and judicial head, or the chief of a Khasi state and ki bakhraw have become ki myntri, whose appointments are subject to the approval of the chief. The chiefs also attempted to usurp territorial authority over ki raid which they never had before. Ka raid is becoming like the raj of a Raja.
But the chiefs were able to maintain their new position not through voluntary submission of the people but by the might of the British Government. Keith Cantlie admitted that the Khasis have always been of a democratic and independent temper, not given to obeying with meekness orders of chiefs. The chiefs have no police to enforce their orders and being apprehensive of resistance to the execution of their orders and fines, they always sought the Deputy Commissioner’s aid in the enforcement of orders and the realization of fines. Cantlie was of the view that the chiefs could not maintain their authority if the support of the Government was withdrawn. In 1876 ki sordar of 25 villages petitioned Colonel Bivar against the misdeeds of the Syiem of Khyrim, with a warning that any attempt by the syiem to enforce his authority would be resisted and that there would be bloodshed and anarchy. The D.C. instead detained the sordar of the 25 villages until they signed an agreement to obey the syiem, with a threat that if they resist the authority of the syiem, they would be deported to Tura; and the syiem was provided with a small force for a period of six months at the cost of the syiem and the villagers. The power of the syiem as chief over the people was enforced by the British Government; thus the British firmly established the institution of chiefs in the Khasi Hills. Before the implementation of the Government of India Act 1935, the Khasi chiefs and their supporters constituted their own organisation called the ‘Federation of Khasi States’.
J.J.M. Nichols Roy must have observed that the ascendancy of the chief over the dorbar was against the tradition. Therefore after Independence he was actively involved in the constitutional development of the Khasi and Jaintia Hills. He prepared a draft for the future administration of the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, according to which, the Khasi States and the British areas from all parts of the district would form ‘The Khasi Jaintia Federated State’. But there was a strong resentment by the chiefs and their supporters with the movement of Rev. Nichols Roy. An organization called “The Khasi-Jaintia Political Association” came up with the objective to bring about the unity of the Khasi States through the revival of the “Federation of Khasi States”.
In the sessions of the Constitution Making Durbar on the 14th July, 1949, J.J.M. Nichols Roy introduced a resolution for merging the Khasi and Jaintia Hills with the State of Assam through the Autonomous District Council under the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. The Federation of Khasi States introduced its own resolution seeking to retain the Federation of the Khasi States in direct relation with the Government of India. The resolution of the Federation of the Khasi States was adopted by a majority of 46 to 40. But subsequently the Constituent Assembly incorporated the Sixth Schedule in the Constitution. The United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council was inaugurated on the 27th June 1952 amidst heavy protest by members of the ‘Federation of Khasi States’ and the demonstration of black flags by a group of students. So there seems to be tensions and conflicts right from the very beginning between the chiefs and the constitutionally established District Council.
As ‘ka dorbar ki bakhraw’ in every hima which was above the syiem was reduced to a group of ki myntri which is under the syiem, the District Council was constituted on democratic basis to function as a ‘dorbar ki bakhraw’ for all the hima under its jurisdiction. No Khasi syiem should be above the dorbar, and Rev. J.J.M. Nichols Roy has devised that collective authority befitting today’s situation. The MDC’s are supposed to be the wise elders or ‘Ki Bakhraw’ of the jaitbynriew. It is up to the people to elect the dorbar ki bakhraw in the District Council, and not a group of money-minded businessmen or ignorant party-ticket holders. If the District Council fails in its responsibility then it is the fault of the jaitbynriew, not the flaws of the Indian Constitution. It is because the District Council could not assume the status and role of the traditional dorbar ki bakhraw that there are now movements to abolish it and to bring back the chiefs to occupy the absolute position of Kings and Rajas with no other authority over them except the British Crown. Today, the concept of ‘chiefs’ is translated into ‘ki khlieh nongsynshar’ to create a traditional tag by those who have interests in the new found status of the syiem. So, for the genuine welfare of ka jaitbynriew the District Council should not be a replica of the British Deputy Commissioner, but a modern avatar of ‘ka dorbar ki bakhraw’. [contact: fabianthaiang @gmail.com]