By Phrangsngi Pyrtuh
Democracy in India is a legacy of the British rule as is the legal system that still operates in many areas. The constitution of India makes democracy a political process and formation binding to India. Enshrined in the constitution are various provisions which accord special status such as the Sixth Schedule. The constitution is not static but evolves as time changes hence the number of amendments. Policy making and the relevance of the constitution is in sync with the requirements of strengthening democracy in India. Any policy/legal framework not in consonance with the constitution not only subverts it but may endanger the entire process of our democratic foundation. The Sixth Schedule is given a place to strengthen the democratic process that is taking place throughout the country albeit in a manner and time that is suitable to the uniqueness so accorded in the few North Eastern States.
Local self government remains the cornerstone of India’s democracy and it is hoped that with time participatory democracy at the grassroots level will strengthen and make robust the notion of Indian democracy. Democracy in itself is not inert. The more power the people possess the more vibrant it becomes. Institutions, traditional or modern, falling within the jurisdiction of the Indian constitution must endeavor to strive towards democratizing themselves. If they do not, then the law which is again a product of the democratic process given in the constitution will eventually take due notice.
It is still a wonder that we in Meghalaya have instead uses the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution to shield us from the ethos of (modern) democracy which is abysmally absent at the grassroots level. The prohibition against women to shoulder responsibilities in the Dorbar Shnong (DS) by citing tradition is one such problem and the amorphous and uncodified role of the Rangbah Shnong (RS) is another.
There are two schools of thoughts on these two issues with one refusing to look through the prism of modern democratic practices viz participatory and decentralized politics based on fairness and (gender) equality. This perspective has sought to justify their stand invoking tradition and oddly divinity and sacredness of that tradition. They would rather burn bridges than budge from their rigid and parochial outlook. In case of the RS issue some of our leaders saw this as an opportunity to invoke sentiments as was evident from the flip-flop position of the present CEM Adelbert Nongrum. And he did it with elan by smoldering the issue of the jaidbynriew. Being part of this great democratic set up let me ask this to the present CEM. Do we not as a “jaidbynriew” deserve the best of democratic participation even at the level of the Shnong? What utility does it give us if we uphold the constitution of India and due process of law but it mitigates attempts for democracy to seep further to the people?
Instead of taking potshots at the court it should trigger us to delve deeper on the nuance of the judgment. And we expect no less from our so called upholders of tradition. Instead of casting aspersions on the ruling, the leaders in the Council should have introspected and followed a course that is in sync with modern democratic practices. The High court Judgement should in fact bring into spotlight the role of the District Councils and questions must be sought from them, and not from the court. What have the District Councils contributed that we can all be proud of and which we can share with the rest of the world in line with best shared practices? Have the District Councils progressed much since their inception? There are many other philosophical and scholarly questions yet. However the District Councils have become so much a part of our tribal consciousness that questioning them is seen as anti-tribal or anti-jaidbynriew. It is assumed that what they do (or don’t) is right for us. This is nothing but misplaced trust and the people leading the Councils have used it to their political advantage.
The Dorbar Shnong is a social institution and attempts to reform it must be seen purely from its societal functions and how best it can supplement the role of the government which is trying to reach out to the masses through different welfare programmes. Since we have no Panchayati system or municipal bodies, the Dorbar Shnong has become by default an entity to facilitate the same. Only in this case some of the Dorbar and Rangbah Shnong have misused their positions. Evidently the end user of the system ie the beneficiaries of different welfare programes have been at the receiving end of such malpractices. Can we therefore say that such occurrences are rare and exceptional and it is no excuse to dilute the role of the DS/RS?
Another question maybe asked as to why such occurrences are becoming more frequent? Is it because the social welfare programmes have intensified and there is much scope for rent seeking behaviour and opportunism and if not checked this may become pervasive? It is in this realm that I think the recent ruling of the Honorable High court on the Rangbah Shnong has been overdue. I hope that the three District Councils take immediate cognizance of this and either come up with a specific law as manifested in the village administration bill of the KHADC or that the government frames a law applicable to the entire State of Meghalaya regarding the role and responsibilities of the Dorbar Shong and RS.
As long as the shortcomings and loopholes in the functioning of the DS/RS are fixed, it should not really matter whether the District Councils or the State Government gets the job done. I only hope that such a law is progressive and not regressive.