By Dr Omarlin Kyndiah
The controversy over the non-issuance of the sanad to the Syiem-designate of Hima Sohra is not just an administrative matter. It is a serious issue concerning Khasi customs, traditional governance, and the growing interference of politics in indigenous institutions.
Pa’iem Laborious Manik S. Syiem, Advisor of the Synjuk Ki Khlieh Nongsynshar Hima Sohra, was right in clarifying that the movement in Sohra is not politically motivated. His statement reflects the feelings of many people who believe that the struggle is about protecting the Dorbar system and preserving the dignity of Khasi traditions.
For generations, the Khasi system of governance has stood on the five important pillars – Dorbar Kur, Dorbar Iing, Dorbar Shnong, Dorbar Raid and Dorbar Hima. These institutions were built on community consensus, respect for custom, and the authority of the founding kur. The people of a Hima always had the right to choose or reject a Syiem through the traditional electoral Dorbar made up of the Lyngdoh, Basan, Lyngskor, Myntri and Sirdar.
The protest held on May 7 by the Dorbar Khlieh ki Nongsynshar Hima Sohra against the KHADC occurred because many people felt there was injustice in handling the election of the Syiem of Hima Sohra. Their demand was simple: Immediate correction of the process and the issuing of the confirmation certificate to the customary choice of the people.However, instead of understanding the traditional concerns of the people, the issue has slowly been turned into a political debate. This is dangerous because once politics enters traditional institutions, public trust weakens.The appointment of Mynjurlang Majaw as Acting Syiem, despite the community already accepting Marremdor Syiem as the customary Syiem-designate, has raised many questions. People are asking whether traditional authority now comes from the Dorbar and the people or from political decisions inside the KHADC.During my student days in NEHU, I remember interacting with the late former Vice Chancellor of NEHU, Professor B. Pakem regarding the future of traditional institutions in modern governance. I recall how members of a clan from Sutnga approached him seeking advice on reviving the Syiemship of Hima Jaintia. Professor Pakem’s response was both practical and thought-provoking. He reportedly said that the institution of the Syiem would remain relevant only if the Syiem could also be nominated as a member of the JHADC. His remark reflected an important reality: traditional institutions cannot survive merely as ceremonial symbols while political power remains concentrated elsewhere. At the same time, it also serves as a warning that once traditional institutions become too dependent on political structures for recognition and relevance, there is always the danger of politics slowly influencing and controlling customary authority.
Many may not realise that the sanad system itself comes from the British colonial period. After the British took control of the Khasi Hills in the 19th century, they started giving official sanads to Syiems in order to control traditional institutions. Before that, legitimacy came mainly from the people, the Dorbar and the founding clan. Over time, power slowly shifted from the community to the administration.
Unfortunately, the same system continues today. The ADCs still have the power to issue or delay sanads to Syiems, Dollois, Rangbah Shnongs and Waheh Chnongs. Because of this, traditional institutions are increasingly seen as being under political control instead of being independent cultural institutions.
The situation became more complicated after amendments to the United Khasi & Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959 introduced the posts of Deputy Chief and Acting Chief. Under this law, even a person from another clan can be appointed as Acting Chief. This goes against Khasi customary practice where only members of the ruling clan chosen through consensus can hold the office.
While the law may allow such appointments, many people fear that these provisions can be misused by any ruling Executive Committee of the ADCs to place politically convenient persons in positions of traditional authority. This creates suspicion that politics is slowly entering areas where custom and tradition should remain supreme.
Pa’iem Laborious Manik S. Syiem was also correct in rejecting attempts to label the people of Sohra as supporters of any political party. Defending Khasi customs should not automatically be seen as supporting one party or opposing another. The issue is bigger than party politics. It is about protecting the independence of traditional institutions.At the same time, traditional institutions must also move with the times. They must remain transparent, accountable and connected to the people. Respect for tradition should not mean refusing change. But reforms must come from within the Dorbar and the community, not through political pressure.
The present conflict in Sohra should become an opportunity for serious reflection. The role of the ADC should be to respect and formally recognise the customary decision of the people, not to appear as the final authority over traditional legitimacy. Otherwise, the old colonial system of controlling traditional institutions simply continues under a different political system.
Ultimately, this issue is not only about one sanad or one Syiem. It is about whether Khasi and Jaintia self-governance will continue to be guided by the Dorbar and customary law or whether political interests will slowly take control over institutions that were meant to belong to the people.
