By Toki Blah
Whether we like it or not the time to face facts has come. One of the facts that we can no longer sweep under the carpet is the increasing public scrutiny that our traditional institutions (TIs) and the umbrella they shelter under, the 6th Schedule, are coming under. Today a High Court order prohibits the Rangbah Shnong from issuing any certificate unless empowered by legislation to do so. The legal status of village durbars, grassroot institutions of governance with whom Govt partnered with for development, has thus been paralysed; their contribution to development effectively put on hold. The common man is confused and the urgent need to come up with a legally empowered system of grassroot governance can no longer be ignored. A panel to advice on how to empower and institutionalise Meghalaya’s grassroot institution of governance has been set up under the Chairmanship of DD Lapang.
In 1992, 23 years ago, India came up with the 73rd Amendment. It was an attempt to institutionalise and empower local self government with aspects of Good Governance that was expected to work in tandem with Govt, to usher in sustainable development. The Panchayati Raj regime was thus installed in India. Meghalaya was exempted from the 73rd because there was this belief that our traditional Durbars already embodied the best in local self governance. This write-up in no way advocates nor supports that Panchayats be also introduced in Meghalaya. No way!! The sad fact however cannot be overlooked that our dorbar system was never allowed to make itself relevant to the needs of the times. Hiding behind the flimsy excuse of tradition, grassroot governance and local self government in Meghalaya was left as it was 1000 years ago. It needed a wakeup call from the High Court to jerk us out of our ‘traditional’ comfort zone.
So what’s wrong with the Dorbar system of grassroot governance? Is the charge of its inability to deliver on modern concepts of governance justified? Perhaps a SWOT analysis will help. The only STRENGTH perceptible with our Dorbar system is the fact that it has the respect and support of the indigenous public. The apparent WEAKNESSES however are many. The court has already pointed out its legal deficiencies. Secondly it continues to remain a domain of the male elite and by tradition only the elite males of any village or locality (landlords, the wealthy, the educated, the politician, the loudmouth) are entitled to become decision makers of the Dorbar. In the process the interests of the poor, the marginalised and gender related issues seldom find mention in Dorbar agendas. Or if they do, merely as Govt initiated schemes, never as a demand- driven agenda of the local community. How can modern concepts of good governance emerge from such a male centric oligarchy?
The OPPORTUNITIES before the Dorbar are varied and exciting. We now have the opportunity to empower and institutionalise our traditional grassroot governance system as a mechanism to deliver sustainable development. Empowered Dorbars can be showcased as modern institutions where indigenous tradition has been able to keep up with the demands of the 21st century. Such institutions will be showpieces in the international arena. An achievement no Panchayat will ever be able to boast of. As to the THREATS, the danger to the Dorbar system and its umbrella organisation the Autonomous District Councils can only emanate from ourselves and from no one else. Short sighted, unthinking, opportunistic and emotion based political leadership will sound the death knell of our indigenous governance system without assistance from any outside quarter. An illustration is called for.
As pointed out above, because of the abuse of power by some Rangbah Shnongs, a single bench of the High Court intervened and put on hold the power of Rangbah Shnongs to issue NOCs or other forms of certificates unless so empowered by law. It caused an uproar and in the hullabaloo, the caveat “unless so empowered by law” is almost lost sight of. Instead there is this increasing hysterical call from certain politicians to appeal against this ruling. Fact is, an appeal is usually based on the belief that the ruling of the lower court will be squashed. The appellate court can however uphold the lower court’s verdict and dismiss an appeal. While so doing it can also come up with observations of its own. No politician can stop it. Now, what if the appellate court were to observe that the District Councils have lost their relevance? What if it observed on the need to do away with the 6th Schedule? What if the attention of Parliament is then drawn towards such court observations? Seriously, who needs enemies with such champions of tradition in our midst?
Let us come back to the panel set up to empower and institutionalise our traditional grassroot institutions. The Panel recommendations when translated into law would be path breaking; historic and a paradigm shift in our approach towards concepts of Good Governance. Sadly the jumbo sized panel of more than 50 will simply nullify these expectations of the people. Many are already of the opinion, and justifiably so, that it’s going to be a typical ‘iew luri lura’, a meaningless gathering capable of producing noise and nothing else. Whether the panel size is by accident or by design to please everyone, is not the issue here. Our concern is towards the final outcome; the ability to usher in effective grassroot governance to the state as a whole. It’s obvious that the size of the present panel is ill suited to deliver on this crucial requirement of the state. If the Govt is therefore serious then the present panel should either be recast, downsized or scrapped altogether. One can safely predict that, in its present form, it’s incapable of delivering and it is absolutely naive and ridiculous to think otherwise!
So why not constitute a more credible and workable panel composed of the following – all CEMs from the three District Councils (3); one Rangbah Shnong from the jurisdiction of each District Council (3); the Minister Home, C&RD, Urban Affairs and Assembly opposition leader (4); Three women representatives (3); three experts on the subject of grassroot governance [ not experts on Tradition for God’s sake, otherwise every loudmouth in Meghalaya will have to be included] (3). A total of 16 members excluding the Chairman. Let them deliberate on the TOR set up before them and come up with a draft proposal. This draft can then be circulated to as many stakeholders as required for their time bound comments and views. The panel shall of course have a final say on the matter and its final version will then be sent to Govt for presentation before the Assembly for legislation. In this way a three tier system of scrutiny of the proposals will ensure we get the best available product. The plea is not to play politics of apleasment with the issue but instead to make it as participatory as possible.
The TOR for the recast panel should be clear and to the point with no room for misinterpretations. Its main objective is to come up with a draft for a uniform system of grassroot governance applicable to the whole state of Meghalaya. Therefore the focus should shift from the Rangbah Shnong as an individual to the need for an empowered and improved system of grassroot governance. We need to institutionalise the role and functions of our traditional grassroot institutions so as to make them institutions of good governance capable of delivering on Govt programmes and services with greater transparency, accountability and inclusiveness. We need to endow them with governance credibility.
After having said what needs to be said, one cannot overlook the fact that there will still be doubting Thomases who will desperately try to link indigenous identity with tradition. Change for such people, even for the betterment and good of society is unacceptable. For them tradition is a way of life, carved on stone never to be disturbed. We have to be as our forefathers were otherwise identity would be betrayed. Such arguments forget that we have replaced traditional wear for modern apparel; surrendered oral tradition for the written word; given up traditional and pastoral ways of life for a more comfortable and efficient life style. Nonetheless and despite these changes, I and countless others are still proud Khasis with our indigenous identity intact. Tradition cannot be used as a means to block progress. The future of our children cannot be held hostage by tradition. A thought the Panel should keep uppermost in its mind.
