By H.H.Mohrmen
Ki Rangbah Shnong (headmen) and leaders of the community in the entire Khasi and Jaintia Hills area of the state are in a dilemma after the Hon’ble High Court recently gave its ruling in the case WP(C) No. 363 of 2014. The ruling has put the body, which we have all along taken for granted to be a legal institution and held in high esteem, in a quandary. Conglomerates of headmen from different parts of the region approached their respective District Councils to put pressure on the Councils to enlighten them on the order. Pressure groups too joined the bandwagon and approached the Autonomous District Councils on the issue.
The High Court order has compelled us to look at the Traditional Institutions (TIs) and here I mean the Dorbar Shnong and the office of Headman in particular, in a new light and to introspect on the future course of action if we want to continue with the so called tradition. After this Ruling people have started analyzing the institution of Dorbar Shnong and found that it is not even traditional, but was created for administrative conveniences after Meghalaya had attained statehood. Therefore the Dorbar Shnong led by a Rangbah Shnong has become an institution which has been imposed on the people. As time passed it has become a necessary evil. The TIs are here to stay and we cannot simply do away with the institution of headman but as the High Court has rightly pointed out the institution of Rangbah Shnong has no legal standing.
Perhaps that is something that can be addressed and set right by the authority which includes the State and the Autonomous District Councils, but the other pertinent question is whether we can accept the institution as it is now, lock stock and barrel. The Institution is imperfect to say the least. It has evolved on its own with many flaws that need to be corrected. So even if the government and the ADC move to legally empower the Institution, there are still many facets of the office that need to be debated.
The recent Court ruling has made it imperative that we look ahead and examine the issue diligently and see where we can correct the mistake if we still want the institution to be relevant in this modern world. The Court has rightly observed that the Dorbar Shnong were merely meant to be organizations which were originally mandated to look after the social development of the locality and nothing more. But in course of time the office of headman (with the active or passive support of government agencies) has self-acquired roles and functions that it has not been authorized to. This is especially true in the case of Jowai where all the localities in the town were originally started and till recently known as Clubs. Only recently has the nomenclature changed to Dorbar Chnong or Dorbar Dong.
The blame should also be on the government and the district administration in particular for encouraging the dorbar shnong and the office of the headman to act beyond their brief. It is this tacit support which has encouraged the dorbar shnong to stretch its limits in other area and then there is no stopping it – it is like opening the proverbial Pandora’s box.
We cannot deny the fact that there are Rangbah Shnong who have abused their powers; some have even acted like dictators. There are many reported cases of ostracization of families by the headman for not complying with the decisions made by the dorbar. Or people were banished because they were alleged to be the keepers of U Thlen or nongai ksuid. There were even cases of individuals suspected to be HIV positive patients being stigmatized and ostracized by the dorbar. Some people were denied ration cards and other benefits because they protested against some acts of the dorbar. And kids were not allowed to attend school because their parent do not obey the dorbar’s dictak.
Sometimes Rangbah Shnong behave as if they are running an independent state of their own and as the Court has rightly noted they run a parallel government. The Dorbar Shnong also conduct Kangaroo courts and yes there are dorbar shnong which have their own jails too. There are also reported cases of dorbar shnong protesting against the police for arresting an alleged criminal without consulting the dorbar. Now why would the police need the dorbar shnong’s permission to arrest a criminal in the first place?
The point is that even if we decide to continue with the office of the Rangbah Shnong the Government or the ADC, whatever the case may be, should define the role of the Rangbah Shnong and build their capacities to enable them to perform their duties. The State Government/ ADCs should come up with dos and don’ts for the Rangbah Shnong and there should be a clear line to demarcate what they can and cannot do.
There is no act or rule that empowers the dorbar shnong to issue no objection certificate, but the NOC does not come cheap either. There are localities which charge five hundred rupees for issuing a no objection certificate. There are dorbar shnong which act extra constitutionally. In Jaintia hills there are even villages which prohibit people of certain denominations from settling in their village. Yes, even if you are a Christian but if you don’t belong to the right denomination, you do not have the same rights in the village. And there are villages which do not consider a person a full-fledged member of the community even if he/she had settled in the village for many years together.
In some areas the office of the headman is also a lucrative one. It is an open secret that headmen always quote a percentage whenever there is buying and selling of land in their respective localities. In some cases the commission is collected by the headman on behalf of the community and part of it goes to the village funds, but in many cases the commission is pocketed by the headman himself.
The office of Rangbah Shnong is a coveted post and is always keenly contested especially before the elections to the State Assembly or the District Councils. During elections most headmen abuse their positions by canvassing for certain candidates; no headman will canvass for any candidate unless a deal is struck. Many a time during election the residence of the headman also becomes the ‘centre’ of the candidate that the headman supports. And until recently in certain villages, residents who went against the majority will were punished and were even denied their right to vote just because they went against the dorbar’s diktat.
I will only share two stories which I had encountered where a Rangbah Shnong acted rather unconstitutionally. I was with a TV crew to shoot in Sutnga village some years ago and when we sought the headman’s permission for filming, he denied us permission outright. In another case a friend who planned to make a documentary on a young boy in the coal mine areas of East Jaintia hills, wished to film a teacher who helped the young Nepali miner go to school. Again for reasons best known to the headman of Byrwai village and in spite of all the efforts to convince him to allow us to do the film, the headman denied us the right. The question is, who has empowered the headman to deny people their right to shoot a film? But the best part is that we succumb to the unconstitutional decision of the headman and now, the Court has ruled that the decision of the headman is not binding on us.
Surely we cannot paint all the dorbar shnong with the same brush; there progressive dorbar shnong like those in Shangpung and Narwan, where dorbar’s decision to prohibit coal mining in the village and its vicinity has enabled the village to get clean and safe water. There are dorbar shnong like those of Shnongpdeng and Nongtalang mission which have made the best use of the MNREGS and brought change to the villages. There is also a story of a dorbar shnong of Khimmusniang which is the cleanest locality in Jowai and had recently went a step further during New Year’s day celebration by banning the sale and bursting of crackers in the jurisdiction of the locality.
The crux of the matter is that we urgently need to address three issues if we want to retain the dorbar shnong and the office of the headman. The institution needs to be legalized with all powers and functions. The election of headman and term of office should be codified and the issue of women’s representation in the dorbar need to be addressed. There should be regular capacity building programmes to capacitate the headmen to do their jobs.