By David R Syiemlieh
A month ago Bah Hopingstone Lyngdoh, MLA, called on me in the University. I thought he would start a conversation on the comments he had made on three Khasi leaders which appeared in The Shillong Times of the previous day. I was disappointed there was no reference to the newspaper report and Bah Hopingstone did not stay long as he had come to enquire from me the procedure to set up a new college. I then politely guided him to meet the concerned officer.
The Shillong Times of 15 June 2011 had carried a front page report with headlines “In his twilight years HS Lyngdoh turns iconoclast: Veteran leader bares it all” The report was disturbing to many. It stated that Bah Hoping claimed that three Khasi leaders, Tirot Sing, JJM Nichols-Roy and GG Swell had betrayed the people and that no one had come out with the inside story about the true story of these three leaders.
Much of that report centred on Tirot Sing. Bah Hopingstone Lyngdoh had opined that Tirot Sing had failed to live up to the expectations of his people which were to protect his people; to protect his family and to protect his own land. He refers to the inability of the Syiem of Nongkhlaw to take up the case of Ka Phan Nonglait who reported to him of a British officer raping her, and that Tirot Sing had declined interfering at the behest of his mother. After receiving no support from Tirot Sing, Bah Hopingstone said that Ka Phan Nonglait then appealed to Mon Bhut. Of concern to many who have read on the life and times of Tirot Sing is the report that “Tirot Sing and the Syiem of Khyrim were the two who did not participate in the war against the British.” The newspaper report also informed that after seeing the soldiers of Hima Sohiong getting ready for war, Tirot Sing decided to return to Mawmih where he went into hiding until the end of the war. The report continues with a brief report on Tirot going to Kamrup, falling into a trap, was arrested and kept in a prison in Dacca.
The first to react to Bah Hopingstone’s comments was the Kur Syiemlieh They were shocked to hear of the comments which has tarnished the image of the Khasi freedom fighter including the remarks made on JJM Nichols- Roy and GG Swell. They have shown their concern on the episode related to Tirot Sing’s mother and Ka Phan Nonglait and have questioned that had the Syiem of Nongkhlaw not fought against the British, how then was he arrested and imprisoned. I assured my kur Syiemlieh that I would write a long note on this issue and have it published in the press before 17 July which is Tirot Sing day.
Two other organizations have expressed their concern on the newspaper report. The Hynniewtrep National Youth Front have expressed their anxiety about the unfounded remarks of Bah Hopingstone and have asked him to produce facts to substantiate his judgment. The Dorbar Kur Syiem Mawnai- Mawlong of Hima Khadsawphra has also expressed their anguish of what has appeared in the press. Surprisingly there was little response from Shillong and from those circles who would ordinarily have taken up such issues. It is as if the lack of response, other than that made by the Kur Syiemlieh and from organizations in the West Khasi hills, is an indication that these things do not matter for they are lost in time.
Realising the gravity of the comments he had made through an interview published in the newspaper, Bah Hopingstone in the presence of several elders of the community has explained that his comments were based on oral tradition as passed down by ‘riew tymmen kiba mynshuwa’ (wise elders of yore). Bah Hopingstone also clarified that it was not his intention to hurt the populace, the kur Syiemlieh and the association by the remarks that he made and which was reported in the press.
This episode require questions be asked and comments be made on the report. That the news report was placed in the most prominent part of the first page of The Shillong Times with bold letters and attractive caption indicates the mind of the management of the newspaper. The reporter’s write up appeared as not being in the right place. Ordinarily news of some significance is placed on the first page. This was not news but a person’s views and did not perhaps deserve the prominence it received. The Shillong Times could have been more circumspect placing reports such as the one under discussion for it has not come at a right time given that the State and the people will be observing Tirot Sing day on 17 July.
This apart, the reporter has simply reported the remarks of Bah Hopingstone without informing readers in what context the report was made. Did Bah Hopingstone want the information to be disseminated? Was the intention to rewrite the histories of the three leaders? What were the compulsions placing this report so prominently? Good journalism requires the reporter to make their own investigations before putting their reports in print. There is enough literature in history texts and biographies that have detailed the life and efforts of Tirot Sing in raising the standard of resistance against the efforts of the East India Company government to take over these hills. Bah Hopingstone should have given more attention to what has been established in history than raising issues which he does not have documentary of other reliable sources. This is not to disclaim the use of oral traditions in the writing of the past. The little that there is on ka Phan Nonglait has to be corroborated with other sources. Till date though, there is little on this subject to ascertain for sure the veracity of the remarks made by Bah Hopingstone.
The report makes mention that the story of ka Phan Nonglait was told to Bah Hopingstone “by one late Rahon Marwein ( a man who took part in the struggle against the British)”. The Khasi resistance to British rule started in 1829 and came to a close in 1833. The struggle of the Syiem of Maharam continued well into 1839. Thereafter the Khasis did not take up arms against the British. The only other resistance was that of the Jaintias who went to war against the British between 1862-1863. It is unimaginable that Rahon Marwein could have been a witness to the events of a hundred and eighty years ago! How reliable then is the source of information of Bah Hopingstone?
The same informant is said to have told Bah Hopingstone that after seeing the soldiers of Hima Sohiong getting ready for war, Tirot Sing decided to return to Mawmih where he went into hiding until the end of the war. The cave he took shelter in is popularly known as “Krem Tirot.” Constantly on the move in his struggle against the British, Syiem Tirot may have taken shelter but surely not as implied in the report. Had Syiem Tirot not given the leadership to the Khasi struggle against British colonialism there would have been no reason for the British to want his arrest. That the British from 1832 schemed for his surrender and arrest there is archival proof. Tirot Sing surrendered early in 1833, not in Kamrup but in the hills in a location close to lum Shillong and at a pre-discussed location. The historicity of the information, therefore, that the Syiem ” remained in hiding” will require to be established before it becomes accepted. Historical records do not mention at all that the Syiem was in hiding and for a long duration.
There appears to be contradiction between what we know of the past and what is being brought out today. Good history should have a judicious use of archival records and oral tradition. While archival records can easily be interpreted and is reliable, the over-dependence on oral traditions in interpreting the past could be misused by those who have too close a relationship with the actors of the past and their own lives.
(The author is Pro Vice Chancellor, NEHU, Shillong)