Future of Meghalaya’s Politics
Patricia Mukhim
So our former legislator Ardent Basaiawmoit is back on the political trail. Like a Rock Star this time Ardent has given a call for a “Revolution.” The revolution has come up with a few goalposts which the public was asked to respond to after each of his clarion call. The first call was that Khasis should unite, respect one another, love one another; the second call was that they should work together; the third to rent out homes only to other Khasis; marry only among Khasis, do trade and business only among Khasis; buy and sell only among Khasis; give jobs only to Khasis. The crowd loves a rock star. Hence the response from the nearly 1000 strong crowd was electrifying.
What is this politics supposed to be if not the politics of insulating Khasi society completely from outside influences and making them live in an isolated little island. It is the politics of exclusion that warns them not to move out of the cocoon because of the fear of being exploited. The cocoons are ghettoes where groups seek out their own and talk to themselves in a dangerous echo-chamber and where alternative voices are shut out.
This is a potentially dangerous situation because the survival of the group then transcends all else and democracy is temporarily shelved. The ghetto can often be a dangerous place because those that don’t belong are treated as “outsiders” not deserving of entry into the ghetto and certainly not deserving of the opportunities (jobs and otherwise) which those in the communal ghetto believe is their birthright. Then, even justice and peace derive a new meaning; they are entitlements of those in the ghetto; not those that don’t belong. Justice and peace are defined by the leaders of the ghetto according to their convoluted yardsticks, not by the yardsticks of modern jurisprudence. There can be no justice in such tribal laws. It is this “belongingness” or the sense of not belonging that afflicts many non-tribals who have been born and lived in predominantly tribal communities for several generations. They certainly don’t experience democracy as it is being interpreted by the Constitution and are not equal partners in the nation-building project. It would not be wrong to say therefore that in this region called the “NorthEast” a geographical definition with serious political connotations and in the state of Meghalaya, democracy is practiced in fits and starts.
What Ardent is preaching comes from a mindset that seeks to exclude and ‘other.’ Does this also mean that young Khasi students will not move out of Meghalaya? Once you push people into a cocoon you also expect them to remain there. In the cocoon there is no place for excellence; if anyone excels he/she becomes a threat to the others. So is Ardent’s call for a Revolution also a call to the youth not move out of Meghalaya for studies and employment? What a pity indeed that in the 21st century someone should preach cultural chauvinism.
One expects leaders to give a call to young people to rise to their highest potential. The call for Khasis to deal only with fellow Khasis is the antithesis to the pluralistic culture of Shillong. Pluralism is also an important facet of democracy. India includes many races, and the idea of democracy is to learn to co-exist in a climate of give and take; of cooperation and collaboration. Anything short of this will defeat the very idea of democracy. Democracy is a society made up of individuals. The essential logic of society is not actually individuals seeking their self-interest. It’s groups struggling for power. Society is also an arena where certain groups crush other groups. Democracy is meant to be the balancing factor where no group or individual is crushed.
We humans have evolved complex social networks in our brains to enable us to bond, teach and collaborate. We don’t cooperate only to get things we want individually. Often, we collaborate to build shared environments we can enjoy together. Often, we pick a challenge just so we can have the joy of collaborating. Relationships are what binds people irrespective of our differing identities. But Ardent’s idea of Revolution seems to strike at the roots of democracy because of its exclusionary ideas. Thus, the best future for Meghalaya politics cannot be based on this narrative of, “Khasis are an exclusive race with divine origin.” If we were such a race how come we are so divided by class, education and huge socio-economic disparities? The earlier we debunk this exclusive narrative the better for us. The truth is that we are an incredibly diverse society that learnt the benefits of collaboration because we had to in order to survive.
The language used at the Revolution rally is oppressive. Language has always been a political tool used by the oppressor class to permanently marginalize the oppressed. In Meghalaya the Khasis are not the oppressed. If we keep our ears to the ground and listen with greater empathy then we are in fact the oppressors. Non-Khasis live here in constant fear and trepidation at what could happen to them if someone calls a rally or a political gathering or a protest march. The non-Khasis have always borne the consequences. So the Revolution that Ardent proposes should have been about checking corruption and extortion in high places; exploring opportunities for creating jobs; encouraging our youth to move out and learn from their peers outside and then return to invest their learning in shaping the economy of the state.
At one time Ardent Basaiawmoit said he was going to be the messiah for Clean Politics and even started that campaign but left it half accomplished or not accomplished at all. To bring change in any aspect of society one has to be a team player. Is Ardent a team player or a lone wolf? One person’s vision is not always the answer. It’s only a step in a creative learning process. And politicians are not very good at team playing. A good leader always sets up feedback mechanisms to hear voices from the ground; especially voices that are unheard and are hurting. To listen to feedback and reform oneself is a leadership goal our politicians have not learnt. Walking the talk is not just rhetoric. It’s an important goalpost. A leader that is dogmatic and intransigent is unlikely to bring solutions. His followers too will imbibe the same dogmatic spirit that resists correction. Openness and adjustment is the only way forward. This is a characteristic that is so rare among politicians in Meghalaya.
In politics, leaders require to weave people together and to encourage the growth of institutions that are not subsumed by tribal warfare such as the district councils are today. Meghalaya needs institutions that encourage collaboration. Most of our tribal institutions are no longer formative spaces where we learn and serve; they have instead become platforms that individuals use to broadcast their supreme selves.
What Meghalaya needs today are leaders that are not community-centric but large-hearted enough to transcend their ethnicity. Today Ardent has given a call to the Khasi people. He may have become a Khasi leader but is he a leader that can lead Meghalaya? Meghalaya today needs transformative policies that will address our most serious divides. Are there leaders strong and humble enough to acknowledge the wrongs inflicted on non-Khasis and to begin to heal that breach? When we learn to accept that politics is about weaving relationships and not breaching them we will also realize that Meghalaya must embrace all its residents and not treat some who don’t belong to the cocoon as interlopers that are out to take away our share of the pie.