By Patricia Mukhim
The Khasi society was not a democracy however hard put we are to argue that it was, merely because the British told us so. A liberal democracy is a system that includes and accommodates people by virtue of citizenship and not by ethnicity. In Meghalaya today our traditional institution are paranoid about including non-Khasi, non-tribals in the scheme of governance. It is that paranoia which made the Rangbah Shnong repeatedly oppose the elections to the Shillong Municipality – an institution that has now reached a point of collapse, since it is nobody’s baby and is run by a bureaucrat who is just a part timer in that institution. Ever since Meghalaya became a state it was felt that the Rangbah Shnong would become stakeholders in the Shillong Municipality after they are elected from their respective ‘Shnong’ (localities), by a party-less election. But then there are localities in Shillong city with a substantial chunk of non-tribal population. If an election is held it is possible that a non-tribal would be elected. This is problematic since we are talking here of a traditional system of governance where only the indigenous tribal is allowed to contest. But Meghalaya is in India and India is not Africa where the population is largely homogenous. But even there the traditional system of governance has transited into modern democratic politics after a lot of adjustments.
In Botswana for instance the chieftaincy was accommodated by giving them a role in land allocation without being the final determinant, or in district development councils as members, but not as the final authority. So they are, in a sense being accommodated. But as pointed out by scholars it is also important to note that even with customary institutions, the people running them are actually the modern elite. The current generation of chiefs in Botswana have degrees, and many are lawyers before they are chiefs. They have modernized their role to ensure that they understand the intricacies of modern society. In the case of Meghalaya, however, there is a resistance to grapple with the realities of modern governance which involves above all a spirit of accommodation. A Rangbah Shnong/headman is elected to govern and to deliver the public goods. He is not, as is the practice with the Syiem or the Dolloi a religious head. In a modern, liberal, democratic set-up it is not possible to mix religion with governance because we are not a theocratic state but a secular, democratic republic. Our Rangbah Shnong however, are ambivalent about what they actually want to be. Again that ambivalence springs from the paranoia that ceding any space to non-tribals in grass-roots governance would result in their usurping the larger political space. This is discussed behind closed doors and not publicly. That is the reason why they are averse to the Government’s Grass-roots Governance Bill but are in support of the District Council’s Village Administration Bill since the District Council ostensibly stands for tribal interests only.
The framers of the Sixth Schedule left certain ambiguities when they bestowed upon the District Councils the power to appoint chiefs and headmen. We are aware that the relations between the Rangbah Shnong, the Syiems (chieftains) and the Councils are not harmonious. The Councils have no role to play in how the Rangbah Shnong runs his affairs because they have no resources with which to fund the Dorbar Shnong or the Syiem. On the contrary the Councils get a substantial revenue from the Syiem who collects taxes from markets, and other sources. If the Syiem is paying revenue to the Council then he also has certain leverage and is not a vassal of the Councils. As far as the Rangbah Shnong are concerned they are a stand-alone institution who would rather owe their loyalty to the Syiem rather than to the Councils by virtue of tradition.
The District Council itself is a creation of the modern state, hence its claims to be the defender of the rights of only a section of the population is in itself problematic. Yet Meghalaya has succumbed to ethno-centric politics to the point where the names of non-tribal voters have been removed from the voters list while electing the Councillors. Earlier there were non-tribal representatives in the Khasi Hills District Council but that was done away with. Now the same is sought to be replicated in Garo Hills. I am aware that such a statement from this writer will be construed as anti-tribal but that is immaterial. The District Councils were created at a time when the tribals were a minority within Assam. Isn’t it a contradiction in terms that that today when Meghalaya has a majority tribal population, the minority non-tribals have no representatives from their communities? Some will brush this off and say, “Why can non-tribals not be represented by a Khasi MLA? Or why should the non-tribal be represented in the Councils? The same could have been argued by Dr Ambedkar when Mr JJM Nichols Roy made a case that the minority tribals needed a separate institution to safeguard their interests. The non-Khasi, non-tribals too have their cultures.
The non-tribal residents of Meghalaya may be Bengali, Assamese, Punjabi, Sikh, Nepalese etc. but it would be wrong to assume that they have a solidarity group elsewhere which will represent their interests. They live here and their interests are here. Their cultural affiliations are amongst their own kind in Meghalaya. And the large majority of them want to be stakeholders in the governance process but have been treated as pariahs ever since Meghalaya was created. They are kept outside the governance system and it is assumed that the State Government would take care of their local governance needs. How is this possible? How can such a system be allowed to carry on without being challenged?
The Meghalaya Governor’s predicament is exactly that. He cannot pass a Bill for grass-roots governance which seeks to represent just the indigenous ethnic community. That would be unconstitutional. And because of that the Rangban Shnong now seek his ouster! How pathetic is that! Who will entertain such a plea? Not a President in his right mind.
Tradition is deadweight. The problem is that those who create institutions very soon get stuck in entrenched beliefs even while governance is supposed to be an evolving process. In other parts of the world traditional institutions have changed over time and adapted to new situations. A complex process of integration, articulation and compromise involving continuous political renewal is what works best. For example, the current Botswanan president and another traditional leader have decided to temporarily suspend their rights as chiefs of their communities and pursue elected political positions. Initially this caused a furore in the country because, as was mentioned earlier, chiefs in Botswana and Malawi are not supposed to be partisan, but rather neutral players who can deal with people on the basis of their needs as opposed to their political alignments. Soon afterwards, another chief followed suit and resigned; he gave his chieftaincy role to his sister and entered elective politics. Luckily he joined the ruling party, so he was elected. Although this is a new development, it also means that chiefs still command sufficient authority and respect to make people vote for them.
By contrast, there was a recent case of a young chief who decided to go back to his community traditions and force circumcision on people, only to find himself in direct confrontation with national law. After he reintroduced the local customary law of discipline— flogging—and prevented churches from operating freely, the chief’s people challenged him with a court case.
In Botswana the modern constitutional state and the traditional chieftaincy system are cleverly and intelligently integrated and intermingled. But this arrangement is starting to run out of steam. Over the last couple of years there have been some serious problems between the political elite and the customary chiefs. Has the system that has run Botswana since 1964 now reached a point where it is exhausted? Have the current political elite misunderstood their role and function in terms of maintaining the delicate balance between the various actors? There is a lot of talk of the need for discipline, which has caused a furore. A number of retired members of the political elite and customary chiefs have tried to offer their good offices to negotiate a reconciliation between customary chiefs and the current political leadership. But there appears to be a stalemate between the two systems. As a result governance suffers.
Meghalaya is in exactly the same position. It is important for us to learn from the histories of other countries as well and not to remain insular and regressive.