By Kyrsoibor Pyrtuh
There are many like me who were born months after the inauguration of Meghalaya on January 21 1972. It never occurred to me to ask my deceased mother what she felt when Meghalaya was inaugurated and what it meant for her? Like any lower middleclass family, I believe that my parents felt very secure as they worked in Government establishments, however low the grade, and that their children’s future were certain and as they were able to raise us well and provide us good education.
We heard stories told by our parents and elders that even prior to statehood, educated individuals were accorded appointments on the spot in Government establishments. Many were also asked to join as teachers in order to help build the educational sector and with zeal they worked towards laying the foundation for the development of education in the new State. However, over a hundred years before Meghalaya was born, the Christian mission run schools were the only institutions which provided basic education in the region. As a society we are indebted to them.
Decades before the era of commercialization of health care in the State, we had dedicated doctors, nurses etc who would treat every illness or disease with vigour and respect the sick and the needy. Despite the constraints in resources and human capital no stone was left unturned in their service to the people. The State has two major health care providers, the Religious Missions and the Government. While the former have been in the field about a hundred years ago, both served the people and the State was healthy. It was both the welfarist and socialist approach to health care and education which enabled my parents to trust the State and brought us up with certainty.
On the 50th Anniversary of Statehood I salute the teachers and health workers who had selflessly served the State and its people. I also salute sportspersons, writers, free thinkers, traders, journalists, artists, cultivators and farmers, bus and taxi drivers, construction workers, tailors, shoe makers, domestic workers and labourers in general who had toiled and contributed to the growth and development of the State. Though Meghalaya is predominantly tribal, but for ages together diverse non indigenous communities had been inhabiting the State, especially Shillong since it became the British Headquarters in 1866. Other smaller tribes indigenous to the State also contributed their mite and one must sincerely acknowledge their contributions and participation in State and community building. Henceforth, platforms must be created for interface between communities.
With due apologies, my knowledge of the Garos and their participation in the Hill State Movement is shallow. However, I strongly believe that the Garos too have stood firm in their resolve for autonomy and self-rule and contributed immensely towards the formation of Meghalaya.
The Hills Union and Khasi National Dorbar were amongst the first to submit their respective memoranda to the States Re-Organization Commission demanding for a separate Hill State in April 1954. The Garos under the leadership of Captain W.A. Sangma wired an express telegram to the State Reorganization Commission, “GAROS FULLY SUPPORT THE DEMAND BY THE KHASI NATIONAL DORBAR FOR FORMATION OF SEPARATE HILL STATE. STOP. REASONS FOR SUPPORT BEING SUBMITTED”. During the conclave of District Councils of Assam held in Shillong in June 1954, Captain Sangma reiterated the need for a separate state for the Hill Tribes of Assam. He pointed out that “there are no adequate safeguards for preservation of the identity- racial, language and culture-of the Hills People…that the provisions of the Sixth Schedule do not give the Hills adequate power to safeguard their interests-social, economic and political…” Besides, the majoritarian attitude and domination of Assamese culture added fire to the already burning aspiration for self- determination.
In the Khasi Hills, the movement for political autonomy and self-rule can be traced back to the early 20th century with the formation of the Khasi National Dorbar on the September 4, 1923. The reason for the formation of the Khasi National Dorbar was laid bare in the Letter and Notice dated July 27, 1923, “You are all aware that the people of India had started a great movement for self-rule and independence. Since 1921 the British rulers had initiated certain reforms to facilitate participation of native Indians in Governance and many Indians have begun to occupy important positions including the bureaucracy…therefore it is imperative upon the native tribes of the Khasi Hills to wake up and to think for the good and future of the Khasi Nation in relation to the ensuing governmental and legislative reforms…to prepare ourselves to meet the imminent changes and to build the community in the sphere of education, self-rule and in every aspect of life. Thus, for the larger cause of the Khasi tribe everyone is urged to take up the responsibility and participate in the Dorbar to be held from 4-6 September 1923”.
The Khasi National Dorbar in spite of its drawbacks and not being able to sustain the movement, played an important role in the formulation of democratic and participatory processes. At the right moment it provided the platform for the people in the Khasi Hills to debate and visualise their dream. Three important pieces of legislations concerning the Khasi Community were debated at length in its regular sessions and these laws were more or less the codification of the customary practices prevalent among the Khasis. Interestingly, the question of who is a Khasi was debated and settled by the Khasi National Dorbar in 1925.
Another issue which was debated and settled in 1925 was the participation of women in governance and at the end of the Session in October 1925, Rev J.J.M Nichols Roy put forward his submission, “Before the Dorbar concludes today I want to mention a word. We now witnessed in the developed nations that there was a movement and major consideration for the full participation of women in governance and politics. In our own country we witnessed the participation of women in various spheres and we also see that many are present in this Dorbar today. Thus, the Executive Committee of the Khasi National Dorbar had proposed to amend its rule to allow women to be members…When the building is complete, we will provide a special space for women…” Subsequently, the Dorbar passed the amendment for full membership of women and thus J.J.M Nichols Roy’s rhetoric about a special space for women had envisioned reservation for women!
Dreaming of self-governance and autonomy, L.L.D Basan of Hill Union wrote in 1954, “If full fledged Autonomy is desired, it cannot be had within the State of Assam, for full- fledged Autonomy implies a separate State within the Union of India.…there will be no scope for the present Sixth Schedule Districts to aspire for Autonomy as the scope for such aspiration lies only in a separate state…”
A year later, while pursuing the dream, Prof G.G Swell made public his 16 Point Programme of Action for Meghalaya. Through his letter of appeal Dated July 6, 1973, to the intelligentsia and the common citizens he urged upon the people to deliberate and debate on matters concerning the state which was at its nascent stage then. His programme of action covered a vast range of areas and subjects which needed policy and legislative formulations.
From land to agriculture to economy all were included in his programme of action. It is imperative upon the State to protect the interest of farmers and not to leave them at the mercy of merchants and traders. Prof G.G Swell strongly argued that the State must enter the market in order to protect the cultivators/farmers against exploitation by “fixing the floor purchasing price annually after taking into account the farmers’ cost of production and allowing the differential between the floor price and the ruling market price to go to the benefit of the farmers.”
On the land question he defended the land holding system prevalent among the tribal community whereby there exist the clan and community ownership of lands, but be believed that this idea of the commons has to be reinforced with policy and legislative formulations. Moreover, he stated the necessity of having a proper registration of records of rights to help people from unnecessary and wasteful litigations.
When it began in 1972, Meghalaya’s per capita income was Rs 327 and was the lowest in the country. It is ironic that today at fifty the State is again among the last five States with lowest per capita income which includes Manipur, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar. Today the per capita income of Meghalaya is about Rs 95,000. In the 16 points of action Prof GG Swell reminded that the State was created not only to meet the political aspirations of the Hill people but also to overcome their great economic backwardness.
The State and people will continue to dream and chart a future for themselves. But what about the socio-political leadership which Prof G.G Swell retorted in these words in 1973, “…If leadership is corroded by vices and sap its strength, vitality and will, the best of programmes (laws and policies) will remain but a scrap of paper”.