Fabian Lyngdoh
In her article, ‘Will the Khasi public intellectual please speak up’, (ST. April 10th, 2015), Patricia Mukhim pointed out that the Khasi society is at the crossroads, and suffers from beleaguered morale, intellectual vacuum, and a near collapse of ideas because the enlightened elders prefer to play safe instead of leading the society out of the doldrums; and that the society seems to be under the grip of pressure groups and the plethora of non-state organizations under questionable leadership with hazy objectives. Some other writers on the other hand opine that it is the rulers who treat the people daily to mindless antics, inane tantrums, silly shenanigans, et al; and that the more things change the more they remain the same (Poonam I Kaushish, ‘Darling, I pay for your narcissism’, ST, April 7th, 2015). Then we hear of some state governments’ moves to make the teaching of Hindu scriptures compulsory in the schools; of a law imposing five years imprisonment for possession, sale or consumption of beef, a ten year imprisonment for slaughtering cattle, etc. These moves are indeed profoundly undemocratic and suggest that it is not a peculiarity among the Khasis only, but the Indian society as a whole is still lingering in the doldrums.
Let us discuss this issue along with Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, modern India’s greatest philosopher. A question is posed, whether myths and fables can become the building blocks of a society that is grappling with a harsh economic future. In Dr. Radhakrishnan’s view, ‘the scriptures of an earlier age cannot answer the problems of our time…The great representatives of Indian culture were men of mobility and ceaseless adventure and we are not loyal to their spirit if we mark time in a world of perpetual movement by sitting still and chanting hymns. We cannot command the Sun to stand still in the plains of Hindustan, searching the scriptures while the storm was blowing, half ruined the country…Loyalty to usage is a self-protective virtue which we employ to guard our stupidity and preserve our ignorance. To pervert the past in order to gain new sanctions for our dream of the future is to sin against our intellectual conscience’. He further says that ‘no opinion is true simply because it is handed down from the past, and…it does not become more true simply because we have it in our power to impose penalties on those who refuse to accept it’. Hence Dr. Radhakrisnan says that the real leaders of the country are ‘the seekers of truth who conquer our minds by the spirit of truth and to whom we owe reverence, not the conformists, who enslave our minds in the name of tradition. Tradition cannot ever supersede truth. What is manifestly wrong cannot become right by mere force of custom or authority.
Ms Mukhim suggested that scholars and academics should come forward to provide the kindly light to the society at the crossroads, and to set the sails and blow the wind to lead the society out of the doldrums. But on the contrary, it seems that heightened emotions and sentiments about the glorious past of the ‘jaidbynriew’ constitute the mark, or rather the craze found among the majority of indigenous academics including those whose professions are supposed to be scientific. This indigenous academic fashion seems to have been started with the poets who have their own poetic license to pour in whatever amount of emotions or sentiments right into the centre of their songs. But clandestine appropriation of poetic license by scientific scholars would render their works useless, and would, as Ms Mukhim says, be misleading to the young and impressionable. Unlike the present day champions of tradition, u Soso Tham even as a poet was realistic in his attitude. In the foreword to his book, ‘Ki Sngi Ba Rim U Hynniew Trep’, he says, ‘Ngi ngim iaid shuh tang ha ka jingshai u kseh kum kiba rim, hynrei ha khmat ka sngi:’ (we walk no more by a firebrand like the ancestors, but by the light of the sun). Dr. Radhakrisnan urged upon the universities and the academics to provide enlightened leadership in the society. He says, ‘if university education is to enable us to anticipate needs and meet new situations, it should not be hampered by obsolete thought and tradition. An educated man is not one who lives in petrified illusions but is released from the burden of inert ideas. He preserves the sense of wonder and curiosity and his mind is fresh and adventurous. But if university education takes hold of the young with all the fullness and ardour of their youth and turns them into timid, selfish, conservative men, if it petrifies their ideas and freezes their initiative, the university has failed as a university’. Dr. Radhakrishnan laments that the society could not be protected from the dangers of dogmatism. He says that ‘there are millions in our country today who use scientific devices and yet revere superstition as mystical revelation and adhere to absurd social customs in the name of tradition…They use scientific facts and theories, and quote the latest researches of anthropologists and eugenists to buttress their own pet prejudices and defend the cruelties of caste. When passion and prejudice clothe themselves in the garb of scientific respectability, when they invent pseudo-science to save themselves from true science, they become most dangerous’. As human beings we need some doses of idealism to soften our edges so that we can see the truth in its eternal majesty, not only in its pragmatic aspects which are applied mainly to achieve individualistic goals.
I agree with Patricia Mukhim that the Khasi society today is at the crossroads. While the men folk are lulled in conservatism sustained by a soothing but frivolous lamentation of the glorious past, the women folk in general are beckoned into adventurous empowerment and freedom of the future. This indecisive and relentless tug of war between contrary attitudinal forces, keeps the tribe lingering in the doldrums. In such a situation the society has no effective social leadership to lead the way because there is no wind to set sail; only false prophets abound who preach hazy ideas with choleric passion that the tribe is doomed to slavery unless it returns to the ‘aiom-ksiar’ (golden age or sat-yuga). Dr. Radhakrishnan says that ‘we are tempted to look for great things in the past which is generally regarded as a golden age of peace and plenty, when men lived for centuries, married angels and entertained gods. The farther we go into the past of the country, the greater is the temptation to the uncontrolled imagination’. ‘It is easy’, says Dr. Radhakrishnan ‘to be romantic about good old days. But it is a sure sign of decadence if we live contentedly in the traditional fabric of ideas congealed into forms…However perfect the wisdom of the past may be, the forms in which it is clothed are not final. They require to be broken and made afresh’. The notion of the golden age exists in every race or tribe. It is nothing but the lingering mirage created by the soothing sub-conscious memory of the heaven of a child suckling at the mother’s breast. Speaking of the present and the future only in terms of the glorious past would not enlighten the way at this crossroads. If there is no other light, then it is only when dire circumstances arise leading to great crisis, would the society be pushed out of the doldrums, but weakened badly to the core. Dr. Radhakrishnan says that ‘permanence belongs to eternity alone and unceasing change is the rule of life’. Hence he says that ‘mighty nations in the past had been doomed to decay because they could not change in response to changed conditions. History found them useless and swept them aside in its onward march’. In line with Mahatma Gandhi who says that ‘our offences with regard to women and the low castes have been grave and we must submit to a heavy penance’, Dr. Radhakrishnan opines that ‘a society which tolerates the scourge of untouchability has no right to call itself civilized’. Hence he invites everybody ‘to stand up against the disruptive agencies of caste and creed and make India more glorious than ever’.