Patricia Mukhim
We have heard a lot about John Kharshiing’s proposal to revisit the Instrument of Accession (IoA) ostensibly because it will bring better governance and empower the traditional institutions. I for one don’t agree that institutions that don’t know what it is to be accountable in little things can be given more powers to bungle on larger issues.
But how did John Kharshiing get the idea of whipping up a dead instrument which is designed to take Meghalaya back into the era of ‘oligarchs.’ He self-confessedly developed this idea after visiting the United States where he was invited to speak on grassroots democracy in that citadel of democracy. There a native American asked him if the Khasi traditional political institutions were mentioned in the Constitution, to which Kharshiing replied in the negative. The native American evidently told Kharshiing, “If you’re not mentioned in the Constitution, you don’t exist. This prompted John K to round up the tribal chieftains and present to them an attractive model to reclaim their past vide some loopholes in the IoA signed by the Khasi chieftains in 1948. The Khasis apparently never signed the Instrument of Merger whereby they would have ceded their authority only on certain areas of governance and held on to others.
Bengt G Karlsson an eminent scholar who spent considerable time in North East India before coming up with his significant book – The Unruly Hills – also followed the Kharshiing brother’s (Robert and John) trail in his attempt to understand tribal politics. While speaking to Karlsson, John K said that the Khasi “Kings” did not accept the privy purse like other Indian kings and therefore have a right to reclaim their space in the Indian Constitution. This needs clarification. The word ‘King’ is a British construct. For want of a vocabulary to define the Khasi chieftains the British used this simple term without going into the etymology of the word.
The Khasis had no concept of ‘kingship.’ In the past a Khasi male was chosen from among the ordinary citizen to act as syiem or chieftain who would bring social order and convene meetings of adult males from time to time to discuss matters pertaining to their village. The origin of the syiemship and its evolution into an institution has not been studied intensively by the British or Khasi historians. The ritual for crowning of the Syiem of Sohra for instance seems to have been copied from the British. The Khasis had no concept of a ‘crown for a king.’ Our chieftains used the jain-spong or turban and the dhoti (jainboh) pretty much like other Indians do. There is nothing unique about them. So John K’s statement to Karlsson is not based on historical facts.
Several villages formed a Raid administered by the Sordar. The Raids together make up a Hima. As far as I understand Khasi history the Hima does not translate into “kingdom.” The 25 Khasi Hima each had a chieftain – the Syiem. Even the word ‘Khasi states’ is a misnomer. It is borrowed from modern political lingo because states have a particular connotation. Global Policy Forum defines a state as an institution with unique features such as the rule of law, citizenship rights, and broad economic and social responsibilities. A state is the means of rule over a defined or “sovereign” territory. It comprises of an executive, a bureaucracy, courts and other institutions. Above all, a state levies taxes and operates a military and police force. States distribute and re-distribute resources and wealth, so lobbyists, politicians and revolutionaries seek in their own way to influence or even to get hold of the levers of state power. To that extent the Khasi Hima are not states in political philosophy. Again it was the British that coined the words ‘Khasi states’ which we have accepted unquestioningly because we believe it is dishonourable to question our past and our tradition. But have we not superimposed a lot of what is foreign on our institutions?
John K’s proposal to the National Advisory Committee (NAC) then headed by Sonia Gandhi that the IoA should be invoked and powers be devolved to the traditional institutions (which Rajiv Gandhi had romanticised to the point of keeping Meghalaya out of the 73rd and 74th Amendment Acts -Panchayati Raj), was accepted. The lady, however, found the proposal to be beyond her ken and endorsed it to then Home Minister P Chidambaram. PC sent it to the babus in his Department. The Joint Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) sent the proposal to the State Government asking that it be examined and sent back to the MHA with their comments. The letter from the MHA is lying with the Dept of District Council Affairs, as yet unexamined. Earlier John K had travelled to different tribal areas of India and in Chennai had sounded the idea of forming a conglomerate of tribal heads who would then be nominated to Parliament in the same manner that the Anglo Indians were. Actually that is John K’s ambition – to sit in Parliament and propose some more new ideas before he retires from politics like Robert K has today.
John K of course has a fertile imagination. Here is what he told the media at a recent press conference in Shillong. “This correction of the anomalies in the Constitution will allow the Instrument of Accession and Annexed Agreement to find place within a special Article in the Constitution of India, similar to the Instrument of Accession of Jammu & Kashmir under Article 370,” He feels that most of the problems faced by the indigenous tribals will be resolved through this amendment to the Constitution. Again he says, “The central laws will not be applicable in the state of Meghalaya, if a special Article is adopted that is similar to Article 370 of the Constitution,” Kharshiing also highlighted the fact that, unlike other princely states, the 25 Khasi states did not sign the Instrument of Merger and did not accept the Privy Purse or the pension for dissolving and merging their identity completely with the Dominion of India.
This writer spoke to the officials of the MHA and asked them to clarify whether an Instrument signed in 1948, before the Indian Constitution was adopted in 1950 does not stand abrogated, They said, of course it does. So how can John K rake up a dead issue? The MHA officials, who are probably too busy to study whether John K’s proposal merits to be entertained took the easy and lazy way out. They sent it to the State Govt for its comments. This is funny because the IoA precedes the State Govt. How can a constitutionally created entity comment on an instrument that was signed before its creation? No wonder the letter from the MHA is gathering dust even while John K goes around telling the heads of traditional institutions that they will soon find their place in the Lok Sabha or better still the Rajya Sabha, apart from receiving generous funds from a patronising Central Govt.
Bengt Karlsson correctly termed Kharshiing’s movement as a “well organised urban elite initiative.” The arguments pushed forth by John K and his cohorts is that the traditional institutions have to be empowered because the modern institutions of governance have performed poorly. Karlsson who witnessed several seminars on the topic of empowering traditional institutions said that the debate was clearly a very highly politicized one where ethnic loyalties are commonly read into positions taken by different scholars. For others, Karlsson, says, the hype about revisiting the TI’s is basically a non issue. Karlsson further points to the actors who first sowed the seeds of this movement, namely, Purno Sangma who had begun to lose political traction after he left the Congress, and Robert K an acolyte of Sangma, then who was also heading towards political wilderness.
Karlsson’s conclusions seem even more classic. He says” Good or successful leadership might be described as the capacity to detect and explore contingent social processes to capture things that so to speak, are already in the making. The contingent social process here is the new consciousness about the Khasi people’s own revival about their indigeneity.
What is somewhat curious about John K’s proposition is that the large majority of those heading the Traditional Institutions today (Rangbah Shnong etc) are unaware of the implications of his ‘grand plans’ as the Spokesperson for the Grand Council of Chiefs (GCoC). But perhaps ‘Ki Rangbah Shnong’ are excluded from that charmed circle of GCoC who in John K’s parlance are the ‘Khasi Kings.’ I asked several Rangbah Shnong what they thought of the proposal to invoke the IoA. In typical Khasi style they say “Tip phi, ngin shu ia leit sngap” ( We don’t really know; we will just go and listen). This is the problem. Those who are supposed to be involved don’t know what they are getting into. The media only reports John K’s quixotic ideas mindlessly and don’t ask searching questions. As a result the public too is kept in the dark. Why does John K not invite the intelligentsia of Meghalaya to debate this issue before pushing it to the Centre? If what he is doing is democratic then does he have the mandate to represent all of us in this revisiting of an outdated Instrument. Or is this what Bengt Karlsson says is an elitist way of capturing power insidiously by co-opting the people without their informed consent?
We have allowed John K to say what he wants without contesting his logic. This has gone on for too long. It is time to test his ideas and see if they can still work in a modern democratic set-up. I doubt that too many people want to return to oligarchy. Only those with the quest for power for power’s sake might support the idea.
