Patricia Mukhim
The raging debate on the role and functions of the Dorbar Shnong does not seem to have a theoretical framework from which can be deduced some practical understanding of how it emerged, for what purpose it emerged and what was its ambit? It is important also at this juncture to see if there are huge disjunctions between the role of the Dorbar Shnong in what is normally defined by most traditionalists as “time immemorial,” a point in history that no one can lay claim to in the absence of written narratives, and what it is meant to be today.
As a resident of a locality which is very well managed by the Dorbar Shnong and with office bearers looking after every sub-locality (dong) I see no vestiges of tradition here except for the fact that women cannot hold office and that it is an ethno-centric institution and therefore exclusive. This Dorbar and many like it are institutions that deliver civic governance very effectively. Let me list out the civic responsibilities discharged by my Dorbar Shnong. Garbage is regularly collected; water supply is managed (although many residents still depend on private water sellers or public taps and waste much time in the morning queuing up for water); there are sincere attempts to keep the locality clean; there are regular proposals made to the local MLA for developmental projects such as roads, footpaths, a more efficient water supply and above all maintaining law and order. Mine is a locality where one does not see policemen patrolling.
Hence the Dorbar Shnong has its work cut out and by consensus. Whose consensus? The consensus arrived at by elected members of the Dorbar Shnong who spend a considerable part of their time sorting out issues relating to problems of their localities. They do this work pro-bono and I think this is not fair to these gentlemen considering they are taking quality time off, away from their family to sit in the Dorbar Office three times a week in the evening from 7 pm onwards.
Therefore if anyone is to be hauled up by the judiciary then it is the Government which thrust upon the Dorbar Shnong a task that they hitherto had not taken upon themselves – the task of giving No Objection Certificates (NOCs) for a host of reasons. By doing so the Government has saved its own human resource because it need not depute its own officers to check up on the applicants for LPG cylinders, passports, bank accounts, college scholarships and what have you. When you empower an institution that emerged organically and whose role and functions are not codified you are entering dangerous territory. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
No one empowered the Rangbah Shnong as an individual and he is not meant to be an institution. It is the Dorbar Shnong which is the institution. The Dorbar Shnong was authorised to give NOCs by none other than the Government. That the Rangbah Shnong assumed the sole authority of certifying the antecedents of different people within his locality and perhaps at a consideration, is what has brought in the venality into the system. Then the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) made matters worse by asking all non-tribal applicants for trading licenses to get an NOC from all the Rangbah Dong of the locality in which the person resides. This is obnoxious because it involves waste of time of the applicants and their having to pay money to each of the Rangbah Dong. The amount is never stipulated but it gives them a sense of power to withhold the permission until money changes hands. This arbitrary decision of the KHADC to empower the Rangbah Dong should have been publicly explained so that applicants know why that is necessary and whether that is indeed lawful. Having said that, the procedure should have been that when applications for trading licenses are received by any Dorbar, that Dorbar should call a special council where all the Rangbah Dong are present. Each application should be discussed and permission given or withheld on merit. This makes it transparent. The applicant should not visit the residence of every Rangbah Dong for we know what happens then.
Evers since the High Court ruling of December 14 last year the topic of discussion everywhere has been on the fate of the Rangbah Shnong minus their powers to issue NOCs. Now this would not have come to pass if the Rangbah Shnong had taken seriously the Village Administration Bill which the KHADC had circulated to all of them for their views/comments. Failing to receive any comments/suggestions the KHADC passed the above Bill in 2014. The Bill has defined the powers and functions of the Rangbah Shnong and also keyed in some stipulations about what they can and cannot do. It says the RS cannot arbitrarily expel any inhabitant or households from the village/locality. The RS cannot condone any allegations of rumours and witchcraft, sorcery and practice of black magic against any person, individual, or any inhabitant or household in the village. Perhaps this clause was meant to deal with the issue of “Nongshohnoh” and nongai ksuid both of which are based on superstitions and have resulted of lynching and mob violence against the alleged perpetrators. The Rangbah Shnong for some reason did not give due importance to the Bill because they too thought they were a law unto themselves and so who is the District Council to define their powers. Now that the inevitable has happened the RS cannot blame the District Council.
Except for the fact that the Bill could have been given a more inclusive nomenclature such as Local Area Administration Bill since most of us no longer live in villages and the fact that it is silent on gender representation, it is a document that merits consideration. The State Government’s District Council Affairs Department had no business to sit on the Bill and to only now send it back to the Council for rectification/inclusions/exclusions. In fact, if the State Government is keen on a grass-roots governance body it should have invited the KHADC for a meeting and thrashed out the ticklish issues upfront instead of indulging in red tape. Why is it so difficult for the State Government to give due respect to the Council and to treat them as equals? After all they have a purpose too since they still exist as a constitutional body with duly elected members!
If we are looking at Local Area Governance we cannot exclude the non-tribal residents from the ambit of that administration on the plea that the Dorbar Shnong is a traditional institution which would only look at the welfare of tribals. This goes against the grain of the Indian Constitution. If we want the Dorbar Shnong to remain a cultural symbol and an institution that upholds the identity of the indigenous tribals then we cannot call it an institution of governance. It must, as Justice SR Sen says, restrict itself to the socio-cultural domain. But is that what the indigenous tribals want today? Is local governance which includes maintenance of law and order, civic management, natural resource management not more important? We have other cultural bodies to look after our culture. The Dorbar Shnong in the 21st century cannot call itself, “Ka Dorbar Blei” or bring in elements of the past which inhibit our progress and development as a people.
Sociologists have duly warned that if we do not adapt to change we will be pushed into it and at great cost. It has been our plight that we have always resisted change because the present is a comfort zone and our fear of the unknown. But can the Khasi society still sit back and talk of traditional governance when the need is for a 21st century swish governance model? The choice is ours. But if we choose tradition then we cannot demand the powers to become local area administrators because administration is a tough call and does not lend itself to obsolete and obscurantist ideas. Modern challenges require modern means to tackle them! The Khasi society should come together and decide its future. It cannot be left only to the Rangbah Shnong because the future belongs to everyone.