By Aristotle Lyngdoh
Darwin explained how evolution worked for animals through the process of small changes, which enabled them to respond better to their environment with regards to avoiding predators, attracting mates or finding a better supply of food. This led animals to successfully have offspring who possessed the characteristics of their parents. This is the process of continual improvement sometimes described as ‘survival of the fittest.’ It is also a process of trial and error in which success means survival and failure means extinction.
When it comes to the external aspects of traditional practices, we have two schools of thought, the evolutionist and the traditionalist. The former is more enterprising, energetic and receptive while the latter are antagonistic and afraid of new ideas and challenges, thinking that they may vanish and disappear from the domain. One thing we must understand is that a small community such as ours can only survive longer if we dare to adopt changes in certain areas without altering the basic principles.
Recently there have been several diverse comments on our socially ingrained, so-called ‘traditional’ governance. And such critiques and comments will keep on exploding as people become more enlightened. Critiquing the status and system of functioning of Rangbah Shnong or Headmen or for that matter the Dorbar Shnong is indeed a good and healthy exercise. This will pave the way for better and more reliable and accountable form of grassroots governance. But to understand the evolution of the Dorbar Shnong during these decades will somehow give us a fair and balanced judgement and also the areas where changes ought to come in. I would also agree with Toki Blah’s idea on the need for a locus-standi on our Dorbar Shnong if they wish to emerge stronger and to re-establish themselves firmly in the democratic morale that we have adopted.
The evolution of Dorbar Shnongs in Shillong conglomerates and other places in Khasi and Jaintia regions is nothing but gradual phenomena replicated from the age-old system such as Dorbar Hima, Raid, Elaka, etc. And this process of replication took place probably in the nineteenth century after Shillong was elevated to a kind of town. Although, the Khasis in the past had no knowledge or idea about urban township and city dwelling and most of the places or villages were known in general by the name of their respective Himas, Raids, or Elakas. The same could have been with Shillong had not the British shifted their Head Quarters from Sohra in 1874. The name Shillong is derived from Hima Shyllong and was merely a country type dwelling under one Dorbar Hima. The new Headquarter became the centre of attraction and a preferred placed to reside, especially for the privileged Khasis in those years because of education, health and other facilities.
When this new paradigm shift happened and the increasing migration, it also gave birth to the idea of town committees though, urbanisation and planning was not the prominent thought at that time. Coincidentally, the new concept of Dorbar Shnong evolved just to replicate the ethos of the premier institutions the Dorbar Hima. The reason I say new is simply because of the fact that every locality within the Shillong agglomerate and outside can easily tell the name of the first ever Headmen or Rangbah Shnong of their respective localities. This shows that our Dorbar Shnong system is not even two hundred years old. The idea then spread to every nook and corner of the region to constitute Dorbar Shnong which is good. But today Dorbar Shnong seems to enjoy more power than the Dorbar Hima or Dorbar Raid and that’s because they have direct contact with and control over households and individuals.
There may be other reasons that prompted the Khasis in those days to organise and replicate the ethos of Dorbar Hima into the Dorbar Shnong, but prominently, the cultural and anthropological inheritance that every Khasi belongs to the Dorbar System cannot be exonerated. The Dorbar is created by the people where the Chief is only a presiding officer, a form of popular parliamentary system so to say. We learned that the war against the British was not the desire of U Tirot Sing Syiem alone but in fact the decision of the entire Hima through its Dorbar. And this is one of the reasons that the British had to face stiff resistance. But unfortunately we have failed to accord the same heroic status to the members of this Dorbar (Hima Nongkhlaw) for their brave decision. Traditionally, the criterion for a person to attend and participate in the Dorbar is simply the maturity of age. And this gave them a sense of pride and a primary factor to be present in a Dorbar (but not any more in the present system). The rural-urban migration in those days has subsequently made people awkward and reluctant to attend their parent Dorbar due to distance and time which compels them to constitute new Dorbars in the localities they reside in, called the Dorbar Shnong along with other residents of the same neighbourhood.
The service rendered by Dorbar Shnong at that time was to some extent essential and adequate for the requirements of society. And most commonly was the support and assistance provided to the bereaved family members of a dead person. Others include maintaining order in the locality and to take a collective decision on any important matter which is no longer a practiced now in any Dorbar. In the past, Dorbars were ruled by consensus but the same principle is not effective anymore and therefore there is a need to align with the rule of law through a piece of legislation. For instance, the aspect of the continuity of office of the Rangbah Shnong and other functionaries is a matter of great concern unless backed by a proper legislation. Some Dorbar Shnong may claim to have proper records of activities undertaken by the Dorbar Shnong. But I am sorry to say they do not have the backing and force of law and can be easily disrupted by anyone in the future.
There are other areas that require improvement and changes such as equal representation and gender justice apart from accountability and transparency. There is also an urgent need to have a wide participation at the grassroots level for any matter before making public through the PA system of the Shnong. Looking at the style of functioning of Dorbar Shnong in general, its image outside the city is horrible because it centres mainly on one person that is the Rangbah Shnong. He is the CEO not bound by any clause of any treaty or law; he functions according to his own will with a very little aspect of accountability. If this is the pattern, then how will we teach our children the principles of good governance?
In conclusion, the questions that arise are whether our Dorbar Shnong should continue to remain adamant and be exposed to criticism and other unexpected judicial activism? Or should they brace themselves by seeking refuge under the constitutional provisions available and take advantage of the initiatives for inclusive grassroots governance? Governance issues are becoming increasingly complex and the Dorbar Shnong cannot be a stand-alone entity like a banyan tree. It has to connect with the vine which is the Constitution of India.