Empowering Indongta
By Kevin Pau
Recent events have called for legalizing and reforming the institution of ‘household council’. This social practice is inherent in our social mores and customs since time immemorial and form an unique bond with the tribal way of life. The pervasion of religious conversion has not been able to denude its practice and remains an integral institution today, wholly or partially.
The function of an Indongta is to act as a confidant and to aid and advice a household in good and bad times. The role played by an Indongta cannot be substantiated with any modern equivalent form of social inclusion. It ensures the survival of a household unit by playing three key important roles of counselor, planner and liaison when dealing with another household in a matter of crime, celebration and marital dispute. It is a strong social alliance dominated by blood lines and bonded friendship.
The practice of Indongta has been codified by many tribes to prevent dilution and extinction. However the complication arises when the legality of the practice comes into conflict with the law of the land. For example in the eye of the law marriage exist only on legal papers, however tribal marriage is orally solemnized on mutual agreement between consenting adults as long as both indongta agreed on a consensus. And in the matter of resolving criminal dispute, matters are debated and settled amicably without further repercussions.
The tribals who are layman preferred quick justice over perennial pendency and the snail pace of the Indian judiciary system leaves little room to be desired.
The overreliance on the traditional method of justice is far from complications, time after time the police have to be engaged with for prospective mutual settlement. Legally the police don’t have to comply, but out of respect for the traditional institute and also for administrative convenience. However in the absence of a legal sanction if the matter is an interest to the law enforcing agency they may not always uphold the practice. Therefore we need a legal endorsement of our traditional law.
The uniqueness of tribal issues and the segregation of justice mechanisms comes in the form of Manipur State Hill Peoples (Administration) Regulation Act 1947, which empower the village authority to administer criminal justice among the tribal by setting up ‘hill bench’ for the trial of hill cases under Manipur State Courts Act, 1947. The Village Authority Act of 1956 also provides for setting up a separate Village Court with jurisdiction in criminal and civil cases as specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898 and the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908. Surprisingly the acts are silent on the protection and practice of tribal traditional law.
The only ray of hope to legislate our age old practice can be found in the ‘The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971’ which is a watered down version of the fifth and sixth schedule. Chapter 3 Section 2(c) (d) of the act empowers the district council to recommend legislation to the government of Manipur in the matter of ‘marriage and divorce’ and ‘social customs’ concerning schedule tribe of the state. If we can muster the necessary political mileage in the state legislature, this may paved a path to legalizing the institution of Indongta.
The cry for legislation of the ‘household council’ echoes with the need for reform. We can assume that when the practice was instituted the social fabric of the village life was simple, and the primeval society devoid of any economic opportunity makes it a level playing field for all. Likewise the issues the Indongta have to deal with were also elementary in nature. The once close knit society splinter further with the dawn of modern age and the issues of man were getting complex while the process of arbitrating disputes remains the same.
The opaqueness and the polarity between crimes and justice leaves too many to open interpretation. It is a common practice nowadays to mediate an issue using the power of influence and social status. The clout carried by a powerful Indongta can intimidate an opponent from the lower strata of the society to arm twist into a lopsided agreement. The situation is also made worst by the absence of code of law or conventions. Thus the parallel justice system leaves too many rooms for abuse and in some cases the aggrieved parties resort to seeking existing legal mechanism, which then erodes the role of Indongta.
The need of the hour is to reform the barter of justice and the dichotomy that exist between rule of law and tradition. The tribal councils should come up with a holistic view of the issue and mandate a code of practice. Justice should be based on severity of crime and cause and not on the power of negotiation. Conclusively the importance of legalizing our customary practices is paramount to protecting our tribal identity and we should work towards its fulfillment.