By Toki Blah
Let me be very clear from the very onset, that this article is directed mainly at the growing crime rate in Meghalaya today and on some basic and common sense ideas on how to manage this social crisis. “Growing crime rate” is not criticism of the Government nor the Meghalaya Police but is simply meant to draw the reader’s attention to the changing profile and sophistication of crimes we encounter today. Change comes with the passage of time and hence crime as it exists today is no longer the same as it was 53 years ago when Meghalaya attained statehood. Then, petty theft, an odd murder here and there and perhaps intercepting moonshine supply were the major social offences the state had to deal with. Today the character of criminal activities has increased many-fold. Drug smuggling and addiction, theft and burglaries, murders, illegal immigration, child trafficking, kidnappings, break-ins and sex offences especially on minors, form most of the cases the police are called upon to deal with. Police response many a time has been reactive or focused primarily on the punitive aspect of each case. Reading between the lines one is forced to conclude that if the police could have had prior information of the crime, if their intelligence inputs on potential crimes or criminals were enhanced, then perhaps preventive action could have been more effective. The crime could have been prevented. So here is where the above call for “some basic and commonsense idea on how to manage this social crisis” comes in. The first question that then pops up is, why do we as citizens of Meghalaya think, the police to be the sole, single agency mandated and interested in managing crime? Are there no others with the same mandate?
So, if citizen safety and social harmony is the goal, how did we as an indigenous tribal society manage it 300 years ago before the advent of the modern police force? In the past we as a society depended mainly on our own indigenous village level institutions of governance for protection. Yes, we are speaking of the traditional Village Council system of governance that prevails in all three District Councils of Meghalaya. The 6th Schedule is quite clear on the concept of a village Headman. All of us are well versed with the concept of the Rangbah Shnong and local Dorbar Shnong. (within the context of this article, the term Dorbar will loosely be used to cover all the three systems of grassroot governance prevailing in all the three District Councils of the state of Meghalaya).
The Dorbar therefore is an integral part of the culture and identity of both the Achik and Hynniewtrep people. We have been carrying on with the system since time immemorial and the Dorbar as a grassroot institution of governance has efficiently delivered on the expectations of the people. The traditional responsibilities of the Dorbar are to maintain law and order; peace and tranquility within the village. Today a Village Dorbar has also been mandated with implementing flagship programmes of the government in the field of Social Welfare and participatory development. We as indigenous tribal communities can therefore take pride in the fact that what the 73rd Amendment wished to introduce in grassroot governance was already our forte and that is the main reason why Meghalaya was exempted from the Panchayati Raj System.
It is now satisfactorily established that the basic traditional profile of the Meghalaya Dorbar is to usher in social harmony, public safety and civic satisfaction to all residents within its jurisdiction. In modern Independent India, enforcing the law , especially aspects of the law that deal with public safety; law and order and prevention of crime has been entrusted to a constitutionally created entity called the Police. Now we suddenly realize that both the Police and the Dorbar system are stakeholders sharing the same goal. The natural alignment therefore is for both to support and complement each other. Question is why has this not happened? We see instead Dorbars shying away and reluctant to actively associate themselves with the Police. “No entry” of policemen into the shnong seem to be the preferred dogma. The usual excuse trotted up is that a Khaki uniform will cause fear and terror among the women and children. Time has arrived to question this notion and to find out who actually stands to lose if the Shnong starts cooperating with the police.
Today 99% of our police force comprise our own tribal people; a police patrol will always have a local female constable, so why should this upset the women and children of the village? This argument makes no sense. Truth is the people with a reason to be disturbed from a Police- Dorbar collaboration are the local hooligans, present in every shnong. This group is usually made up of habitual trouble makers, alcoholics, drug addicts, drug peddlers, police history sheeters, people who seek dark unlit corners to pass the evening by. These are the usual suspects who first create those small symptoms of disorder (e.g., vandalism, public drinking, loitering) that in turn create an environment that make local citizens, especially women and children, feel unsafe and emboldens further crime.
The New York Police go by the Broken Window Theory, where petty crime if not nipped in the bud, will often lead to more serious crimes. The sad part is that the Dorbar, usually composed of mature males and females, who should know better, fall into a false sense of security by believing that these small acts of hooliganism by local bad elements, if left alone, will fade away on their own. This never happens! Crime instead blossoms, grows and thrives under such misplaced “Let them be” beliefs.
Let’s accept the fact that the sort of crimes our society faces are not endemic to only Meghalaya but they manifest the world over. Law enforcement agencies and governments have discovered that the best way to control the complexities of modern crime, most of it organized, is for the law enforcement agencies ( the police) to work in tandem with local communities. This concept is called Community Policing which has proved its worth where ever it has come into force. Its potency lies in the coming together of stakeholders sharing the same goals, working together to make things happen.
Community policing is not just a law enforcement strategy—it’s a philosophy of partnership. It emphasizes that police and citizens are co-creators of safety and order working together to prevent crime, resolve conflicts, and improve quality of life. Community policing focuses more on collaborative prevention of crime than on reactive enforcement that responds only after the crime has been committed. While this feels nice and comfortable in theory but for this philosophy to practically take off, especially in Meghalaya’s case, a paradigm shift is necessary on how the partners view and approach each other. To me the first aspect in this proposed partnership against crime that needs to be seriously addressed is the issue of trust between the partners. Trust is the foundation of cooperation and hence the Police must be seen as fair, transparent, accountable and non-bossy in all their dealings with the Dorbars while Dorbars must start showing more tolerance, understanding and readiness to accommodate the police. With this trust will also come the realization of the need for shared responsibility towards a shared goal – the prevention of crime. Communities and police jointly identify problems and solutions. It means moving away from the negative “us vs them” model to a more proactive paradigm of “we together against crime.” It has worked elsewhere. No reason why it shouldn’t work for Meghalaya.
Crime and police journals the world over are currently speaking of ways and means of taking Community Policing to its logical end as per the local circumstances prevailing. All however are of the opinion that creating the appropriate community structure or institution to meet the needs of this new law enforcing paradigm is the greatest hurdle they face. In India the PRI grassroot governance institutions created under the 73rd Amendment are found to be increasingly handicapped by political and caste factors and it is these disabling components that make it that much harder to come about with an effective community policing system. In Meghalaya these handicaps do not exist. Our Dorbars are non-political as well as being free of any prejudicial social impediment such as caste. Secondly, as pointed out above their vocational mandate is similar to that of law enforcing agencies. All that is required is the political will and vision to give the final nudge and bring about this natural amalgamation between the Dorbars and the Police. It will perhaps require some training, some capacity building and some vision enhancing exercises for both partners, especially at the ground level. All in all however, it is something that is urgently required so as to bring in a unified effort to contain and manage crime, not after it has happened but most important, preventing it before it happens.
