By H H Mohrmen
It is true that so much has been written and debated on the issue of the office of Rangbah Shnong, and the question with regards to the office being “traditional” was brought to the fore. It is also accepted that the root of the very word “dorbar” was borrowed from other cultures. In the recent ITM or International Mei-ramew the dialogue was on various issues with regards to the culture, tradition and various aspect of the indigenous people’s lives. The meet has only reaffirmed my understanding that culture and tradition are not linear or static as reminded by one of the representatives from the Hawaiian Island. Culture, tradition and the way of life of the people evolve and change with changing times. Therefore the office of the Rangbah Shnong may not be traditional, but it has been part of our culture and tradition and the need of the hour is that we improve the system as we evolve as a community.
The office of the Rangbah Shnong is not perfect. Like any other human institution it has many flaws and drawbacks of its own that need to be corrected. One such defect is the gender inequality in the institution which has been highlighted by many. Again in its present form there were many reports of misuse and abuse of the office of Rangbah Shnong and the dorbar shnong by those in power for ulterior motives and vested interests. Take for example the recent case of the Executive Committee of Dorbar Shnong Jaiaw Laitdom’s unceremonious removal of bah Michael N. Syiem from membership of the executive committee of the Dorbar Shnong. Now even if there is a section in the Constitution of the Dorbar Shnong that a member can be removed from membership in the executive committee for acting against the interest of the Dorbar, natural justice still entails that he be given the right to show cause and defend himself for his action.
Yet, as reported, the executive committee conveyed this message to him via the media and even refused to address his appeal. This incident has raised many important questions, the first being – Why was Bah Michael not given the right he deserved to explain himself? If this is the way Dorbar Shnong operates even without the Village Administration Bill being enacted then I do not want to think what the Rangbah Shnong will do when they are empowered by the Act. But the most important question is why was Bah Michael removed from the membership of the EC of Jaiaw Laitdom in the first place? And if the answer is because he had filed a public interest litigation in the Hon’ble High Court to seek clarification on the relevance of the Autonomous District Council, the other pertinent question is since when has it become a crime to file a PIL?
This is a classic example of the executive committee of the Dorbar Shnong abusing its powers. By doing so it has discouraged people to raise their voices against the powers that be. This only brings to light what is a regular phenomenon in many Dorbar Shnong – that there is no room for voices of dissent in the institution. What democracy are we talking about when there is no room even for disagreement? And what one fears most is, if this can happen in the heart of Shillong where people are educated then, I shiver to think of what can happen in the villages in the interior of the state when the Act is enacted.
The other important question is how can we expect democracy to prevail in the Dorbar Shnong when we tend to systematically remove or sideline all those who choose to oppose those who are in control? We boast that election to the different office of the Dorbar Shnong is very democratic because it is being done by consensus. How can a true democratic election by consensus to the different offices in the institution happen when people are not even encouraged to voice their dissent?
The decision of the executive committee of the Dorbar Shnong of Jaiaw Laitdom to remove Bah Michael from its membership also infringes on his right as the citizen of this country. Is it true that the executive committee took punitive action against Bah Michael because he approached the court as per rights guaranteed by the Constitution? And what is wrong with that? As a citizen he has every right to seek redress from the court of law on any issue under the sun. And if his removal from the Committee is on the basis of the PIL filed in the court then isn’t this denying the citizen his right to approach the courts to redress his grievances? The other question is whether the Dorbar Shnong is above the law and does it has extra-constitutional powers which can even deny people their rights?
Cases of abuse of power by the headman or the EC of the Dorbar Shnong is reported from many villages and now it has happened in Shillong the heart of the state and Jaiaw Laitdom the heart of the capital. This is a very serious issue which concerns everybody and that needs to be addressed immediately. Can the Rangbah Shnong or Dorbar Shnong do whatever they like even if that is against the constitution?
We need to give ourselves time and the Government, the Synjuk Ki Nongsynshar Shnong and civil society should work together to make the best use of the situation at hand and come up with the best possible solution to the problem. Our Village Administration Bill or whatever nomenclature the Bill is given needs to be futuristic and forward looking. We are not going to do the State and its people any favour if the present Bill passed by the KHADC only addresses the current stalemate and does not even look to the future.
We have always taken shelter in the fact that we are protected by the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, and since we are tribals we can do anything under the sun with our land and anything related to our culture and tradition because it is guaranteed by the law. But isn’t the Sixth Schedule a part of the larger Constitution? The very existence of the Sixth Schedule depends on the big book and the Schedule only derives its powers from the Constitution. On its own the Sixth Schedule has no power hence whatever Bill is prepared by the Autonomous District Council or the State has to be in consonance with the law of the land as prescribed in the Constitution.
The citizens of this State now have reason to hope because good sense has prevailed and the Synjuk Ki Nongsynshar Shnong had agreed to listen and talk to the government. Listening to another’s point of view is yet another characteristic of the indigenous people. It reminds me of the story of the ‘talking stick’ that one of the Native American tribe uses whenever they have a Council. Whenever the tribe meets, they will have a stick passing around and only a person who holds the stick has the right to speak. And while the member speaks all others listen till the ‘talking stick’ is passed to another member. We need to listen to each other to address this very important issue. The Government too needs to listen to the Synjuk. If we continue without listening to others then if at all we are able to come up with any solution to the problem it will be half-baked and it will only address the present stalemate but will not be progressive . Until and unless we have an open mind we will never be able to solve this problem and come out of this impasse. Therefore let us listen to one another before we jump to conclusions.