By Fabian Lyngdoh
The dorbar-shnongs had existed in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills as modern indigenous grassroots institutions before the formation of the state of Meghalaya. However, they functioned only as informal and non-statutory local bodies. Statutory village courts under the acts of the district councils are not constituted at the level of the modern dorbar-shnong, but only at the level of the Raids and British villages, with the daloi, sirdar, syiem raid, basan, or lyngdoh, as the chairman. Till today neither the state government nor the district councils could exercise effective regulation on the functioning of the dorbar-shnongs whose rules of procedure widely vary from one village to the other.
The Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Village and Town Development Council) Act, 2021, was enacted to provide for the constitution of the village development council (VDC) and town development council (TDC), for planning and implementation of developmental activities within the village and town. The Act provided that these VDCs and TDCs shall be under the administrative control not only of the dorbar-shnong, but also under the control of the Raids and Elaka/Hima’s functionaries. It provided that whenever a VDC is constituted in the village, the dorbar-shnong shall report to the district council through the chief of the Hima/Elaka, for approval. The annual account of the VDC shall be audited by the auditor appointed by the chief and his dorbar or by the dorbar-raid. The VDC shall place the audited report annually to the chief and his dorbar. According to the Act, the district council shall constitute a local area planning council (LAPC) in every district council constituency to be headed by the incumbent MDC as chairman to consolidate the plans prepared by the VDCs and TDCs and to prepare a draft development plan for the whole constituency. The Act particularly says that the chief(s) of the elaka(s) shall compulsorily be included as a member of the LAPC along with all the chairmen of the VDCs and TDCs.
I wonder why this obsession with the traditional chiefs, most of whom are hereditary functionaries, or even if elected, they have to belong to certain clans, and to be elected by representatives of a few clans as the electoral college. When the traditional hereditary chieftainship in Mizoram was abolished in 1956, new constitutional village councils were established in every village in the Mizo Hills, and all the powers of the chiefs were transferred to the village councils. In Nagaland too statutory village councils were created for the administration of land and customs. For implementing socio-economic welfare schemes and developmental projects, village development boards (VDB) were created, where women too have the right to participate. These tribes are able to maintain their cultural and ethnic identities as well as move forward with the changing world. How can the KHADC along with the traditional chiefs jump in between, to increase the number of stakeholders, as well as complicating the already unwanted and saturated levels of power-centres in the society? Traditional hereditary chiefs cannot be intermediaries in the flow of funds from the central government, state government or the district councils to the village councils for the purpose of implementing socio-economic welfare schemes or development projects.
The Act states that the district council shall also constitute a district development planning council (DDPC) to consolidate the plans prepared by the LAPCs, and to prepare a draft development plan for the whole district. The DDPC shall consist of the CEM, Deputy CEM, EM i/c Finance, EM i/c Development and other members nominated by the district council. All grants, funds, and other financial assistance received from the central government, state government or any other agency for the purpose of socio-economic development and poverty alleviation shall be spent only through the development department of the district council as the nodal agency, and monitoring and evaluation of all the works shall be done by the officers appointed by the district council. Does the district council possess the expertise to undertake such a huge task? This will only create multiple problems. It will bring what social scientists say ‘institutional dissonance’ by the multiplicity of stakeholders and power-centres. The village functionaries are exhausted enough running day after day to the different line departments of the state government. Now the process shall be longer, from the villages to the chiefs of the Raid and Hima, then to the district council, and again back to the C&RD Block office. Is the KHADC intending to take over the C&RD Blocks as well? If everything is to rest on the weak shoulders of the district council, what else does the state government have to do?
The Act states that in areas where there are no dorbar-shnongs, the district council after consultation with the chief and his dorbar or with the dorbar-raid as the case may be, shall constitute the VDC in such villages. ‘Areas where there are no dorbar-shnongs’, means the villages inhabited by non-Khasis, such as Karbis, Garos, Tiwas, Rabhas, etc. This implies these non-Khasi communities living within the territorial jurisdiction of the KHADC have no dorbar-shnong, and have no right to constitute dorbar-shnong. VDCs in these villages shall be constituted directly by the traditional chiefs and the district council. Isn’t that parochial and divisive? If the Dima Hasao Territorial District Council, in North Cachar hills is kind enough to reserve an MDC seat for the Khasis living in Jatinga, why should we be so apprehensive about permanent non-Khasi inhabitants constituting their own village councils or development councils in their localities?
The dorbar-shnongs today are not traditional institutions since time immemorial, but they are post-colonial modern indigenous institutions that have been quite successful in implementing the civic welfare schemes, and the socio-economic development projects of the state government through the line departments as well as through the C&RD Block office and the district level development agency. The state government, through executive guidelines, has constituted village employment councils (VECs) in the villages for the implementation of the NREGS development programmes. Overall, the programmes have been successful and the people are happy with the exercise. Women are actively participating in the meetings of the VEC, and the secretary of the VEC is compulsory to be a woman. The state government guidelines do not require the chairman of the VEC to be a rangbah-shnong with a sanad from the Basan of the Raid or Syiem of the Hima. Any person elected by the job card holders of the village can be the chairman. But in most cases, the rangbah-shnong is elected the chairman for convenience, and smooth process of the works. Indeed, the dorbar-shnongs have their day to day relationship with the state government departments for various aspects of administration and development programmes. There is no administrative relationship with the district council other than the MDC schemes which are nothing but nuts, compared to the overall needs of the village. There is also no day to day administrative relationship between the dorbar-shnong and the dorbar-raid or dorbar-hima, except in occasional judicial matters; and that too not because of any cultural spontaneity, but because there is no other option as the modern law through the Sixth Schedule has structured that relationship.
Analysing “The KHAD (Village and Town Development Council) Act, 2021” reveals that it is just another form of the Village Administration Bill, 2014”, passed by the KHADC on 1.7.2014. The same provisions for the constitution and functions of the village development council are found in both of them. The attempt is to derive direct funding from the central government through the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments which empower the village panchayats, and nagar palikas in urban localities as local self-governments. But the approach is laced with perennial apprehension about thoroughly adopting the modern democratic process. A wise adage says, “You cannot have your cake and eat it too.”
There is no uniformity in the functioning of the dorbar-shnongs. The rules or village laws vary widely from one village to another. Fees for judicial proceedings, no objection certificates, etc., are not uniform. Some villages charge Rs 20,000 as dorbar fee for whatever the purchase price of land is. While in some villages, the fee might be 5 percent, 10 percent, 15 percent, or even 20 percent of the purchase price of land. Sale and purchase of land for the permanent and absolute private ownership by individuals did not exist in Khasi tradition. As such, sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of paragraph 3 of the Sixth Schedule empowers the district council to make laws only with regard to the allotment, occupation or use, or the setting apart of land, but not on matters relating to transfer of land. The KHADC enacted “The Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Regulation and Administration of Land) Act, 2021” to provide for regulating and administering the allotment, occupation or use or the setting apart of land for the purpose of agriculture, residential and other purposes. But it is questionable whether this KHADC Act can apply for the transfer or selling and buying of land by private parties. The state government can enact laws for the constitution of village development councils for the implementation of modern development programmes, providing civic welfare services to the citizens and maintenance of law and order in the villages and urban localities. On the basis of “The Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971”, the state government can also make rules for the regulation of selling and buying of land in the villages. There is an urgent need to reform and regulate the dorbar-shnong on a constitutional and democratic line. The district council and the state government are both concerned with the administration of the Sixth Schedule areas by virtue of Article 244(2) and Article 244A respectively.