By Gregory Shullai
Nothing is more intolerable than losing the power that comes with a Ministerial berth in politics, because in every respect possible one joins politics in order to gain power, every other gain being a by-product from politics and losing that by-product in the recent reshuffling of portfolios hurts all the more as they were considered as heavy weights from amongst the Khasi Hills politicians. Not only are they senior politicians but they both are well educated and articulate – in fact the most articulate and the most deserving of recognition among the lot. My estimation that they are the most articulate among the Members of the Legislative Assembly may be a contentious matter, but if I’m right they will now have more to say in future Assembly sessions. But for now, there has been an inversion of the order of rank and the charlatans will now make political decisions; now they will say, “knowledgeable and noble citizens will need us…we will now construe what is best under the circumstances.” If anything has been achieved it is a more innocuous relation to progress.
It might appear very offensive to some that I should have called the two “the most articulate,” in the oldest understanding of the word, but it would also be exceedingly dismissive of me if I deliberately maintained a silence on it because for debate and discussion in the House only their type really play a role of any significance. All the beauty and sublimity of discussion on topics of importance are bestowed upon those that have the rudimentary gift of dialectics and education because even the smallest apparently insignificant topic discussed can become the greatest weapon in the hands of a dialectician. I’ve come across a quite a few among the politicians of the 1980s who were capable of dividing themselves into different personalities when confronted with problems through the use of aphorisms in Assembly discussions.
There is another quality that any politician, or rather a good politician possesses namely that they are capable of superhuman abilities which they have to make easily perceptible as supporters of the needy: because it is in this that they find their calling, it is for this that their instincts serve them, to make everything appear possible by posturing and posing and talking – the shrewdness of their art must above all aim at showing that theirs is a good conscience, a cheerful disposition and that under whatsoever circumstances they are ever capable to mitigate the hardships the people face. And the two politicians from amongst the Khasis that were axed more than expressed and displayed these qualities among the people in their constituencies – even from beyond their constituencies.
It had become normal for lay men and politicians alike to take the matters they were confronted with to either of the two as they possessed the art of taking in hand the direction in which the matter should go by arrogating to themselves the right to decide what was best under the circumstances. This they assumed to themselves because they were capable seniors. To be sure, they were the only ones who could shoulder the responsibility of the leader of the House if and when that need arose. Whereas certain virtues are expected in every politician the virtues differ from one to the other based on seniority, personality, education and a gift of having dealt with problems in the course of their roles as representatives. And in the case of our two displaced leaders, their role has for a long period of time proved to be of great benefit to the people and so they were able to create the impression that they had enough influence to get things done the way they wanted it should be done.
If one has read the book, “Western Political Thought” O.P. Gauba 2016th Edition one comes across an entire field of definitions dealing with politics and the political world. It defines “political” as, “political in modern times may be identified as its concern with the use of power……” I will not go into details of what the book spells out but let it suffice that the whole book is founded on the premise that the well-being of the people is the inspiration upon which political actions originate. This logic immediately raises questions if we examine it in context with what has just happened in the politics of our State…the dropping of two articulate MLAs from the Khasi Hills and replacing them with less articulate members. Is it possible that in order to improve governance in the Khasi Hills it was incumbent to drop the two or was it because they were posing a threat to the stability of the coalition? In politics, the leader has the right to consider that what he/she considers the norm is to be accepted as the norm – the high point and the supreme expression of a coalition. The leader believes he/she has the right to feel superior and that in the event that there is a threat to his/her position, he/she must get rid of that threat. If that is the case, the whole definition of “political” is then drawn from the desire to hold power without threat. The end is therefore towards the establishment of rule…one must be able to rule, one must have the power to rule, in short, the leader must eliminate whatever threat there is to his/her ability to rule, and therefore the action taken justifies the definition “political in modern times may be identified as its concern with the use of power.”
It follows that plans to ensure that there are no threats to one’s power are of more importance than progress; this highlights the belief that the value lies in amenability, rather than in objectivity. A seasoned politician is one who possesses the ability to predict what is coming and then to explain why it didn’t happen as expected; and it appears that the above statement perhaps sums up what was going on…in secret of course. In a coalition the leader must possess a practical approach in dealing with unpredictable elements; he/she must be able to understand and respond to warnings by preempting them. In the context of changes in the ministerial berths, which was a pre-ordained matter in the coalition, it was imperative that the leader first remove that which is likely to react to the changes: he/she must understand that when conditions change stability should not be compromised – seasoned politicians always act prior to breaking long-term pledges.
It is a mistake to suppose that the sacking of the two Ministers was an unconscious or a naïve act. The leader of the house has displayed perfect political gamesmanship. All politicians, nay all intelligent politicians have a clear insight into why and when there is a need to drop anyone, and those that are dropped change in favour of dialectics. Normally dialectics is repudiated in politics because one is compromised by it, but when one is de-seated one is literally being lowered from a higher position to a lower one and this causes a certain degree of embarrassment, but what is even more unbearable in this case is the fact that less worthy individuals are now holding higher positions and this is why we are witnessing dialectics on how and why all this took place – but the public don’t attach importance to dialectics, while on the other hand, the one who caused all this is stoically silent for why things were done in the way they were. His silence reflects his political maturity. His approach is the most sensible approach because if one is to give reasons or justifications for what one does then there is no value in having done it in the first place. Wherever authority is still part of the accepted usage one does not ‘give reasons’ but orders – talk becomes meaningless: but for those that now have nothing except their power as politicians, they can freely talk; they have nothing to lose. And with Justice Katakey’s recent demand for a probe into the missing 16000MT of coal from the East Jaintia Hills, the preponderance is that they have plenty to talk about.
