The Kebang, the Elopement and the Police Complaint
In a Karbi village of 78 households in Karbi Anglong, a 19-year-old woman and a 23-year-old man from the same village eloped to a town 40 km away and registered their marriage. By customary rule their two clans are 'brother clans', and marriage between them is treated as incestuous. The village kebang, the council of elders, met for three hours. It fined the man's household ₹15,000, ordered the couple not to enter the village, and barred the household from drawing water from the community pond and from using the village threshing floor. The young woman's father supports the couple. The man's family has paid nothing and has approached the police, arguing that the kebang has no legal authority. The kebang's chairman replies that the matter is theirs to decide and that the police have never interfered before. A local students' union and a women's organisation have taken opposite sides.
1. Is this a case of crime, deviance or social control? Distinguish the three carefully.
Read the worked answer
All three labels apply - but to different acts, which is exactly what the question is testing.
Deviance is behaviour that breaks a shared norm and attracts disapproval. The couple's marriage is deviant in the village's terms: it violates clan exogamy, which the community regards as a serious rule. Deviance is a sociological category, not a legal one; it exists wherever a norm exists, whether or not a statute backs it.
Crime is behaviour defined as punishable by the state. The couple's registered marriage is not a crime; adults may marry whom they choose, and the right to marry a person of one's choice has been read into Article 21. What may be legally vulnerable is the other side of the ledger - the fine, the bar on entry and the denial of access to the community pond, depending on how they are enforced.
Social control is the response: the kebang's meeting, fine and boycott are informal social control in its classic form, and they are also an assertion of jurisdiction against the police and the courts.
The real situation is legal pluralism: two rule-systems, customary and statutory, each claiming authority over the same event and neither able to ignore the other. Durkheim's insight is useful here - punishment expresses the strength of collective sentiment rather than the harm done, which is why a marriage that harms nobody can attract a heavy sanction.
2. Should the police intervene? Argue both sides and reach a reasoned position.
Read the worked answer
The case for intervention. The couple are adults; their marriage is lawful. A community that bars a household from water and from common property is using collective coercion, and where custom is enforced against a person's constitutional rights the state cannot stand aside simply because the enforcer is an elder. There is also a gendered dimension: rules of clan exogamy are enforced most heavily against women, and the women's organisation is right to notice it.
The case against. The kebang is a long-established institution of governance in the hill district, recognised in various ways in law and practice, and it resolves disputes cheaply and accessibly. A police raid would delegitimise it, drive enforcement underground and leave the couple more isolated than before. The state has limited capacity to protect them in a village of 78 households.
Reasoned position: separate the two questions.
- Validity of the marriage: the couple's choice stands. The fine cannot be enforced as a legal debt, and no one should be compelled to pay it.
- Conduct of the community: the police should record the complaint and make clear that physical coercion and denial of access to water will not be tolerated, while referring the wider dispute to the district council and to mediation, with a women's organisation present.
The general principle is that custom may regulate the terms of association within a community, but cannot be used to deny an adult a lawful marriage or the essentials of living. Enforcement of the second kind is where the state must act; enforcement of the first is better negotiated than policed.
3. Some observers say the kebang's action proves that 'traditional institutions are the real guardians of social order'. Assess this claim.
Read the worked answer
It captures a truth and conceals a problem.
The truth is functionalist: institutions like the kebang regulate behaviour, settle disputes without courts, transmit norms to the young and give the community a way of handling conflict that people understand. Order is not produced by police alone; it is produced daily by such bodies. The kebang also has the advantage of speed and local knowledge that no police station in Karbi Anglong can match.
The problem is the unasked question: order for whom? A conflict reading observes that the elders, clan heads and men control the interpretation of custom, and that the harshest sanctions here fall on a young couple and, in practice, on the woman. What is described as 'social order' may be a gerontocratic and gendered order that happens to be stable.
There is also a functionalist point the slogan misses: institutions survive on legitimacy, not only on power. The woman's father's support, the police complaint and the split among local organisations are all signs that the kebang's legitimacy is being contested from inside the village. When people stop accepting a body's right to decide, its sanctions stop working - which is the erosion the elders should fear more than the police.
Finally, the sharp line drawn between 'traditional' and 'modern' institutions is misleading: hill district governance has been reshaped by statutory councils and elections for decades. The kebang is not a survival from an untouched past; it is an institution adapting to a state that now sits beside it.