By M.A.Haider
In my humble opinion, the terms like ‘Khasi’, ‘Khasi-Pnar’ or ‘Khun Hynniewtrep’ etc, in today’s usage is more political than anything else. They have nothing or very little to do with religion or religious practices as the majority, 90% I believe, are non-practicing with regards to the so-called Khasi Religion(Niam Tynrai) except for certain myths and superstitions which people of all sects and denominations dread even today.
With regards to family norms and social customs, which are also directly and indirectly intertwined with religious beliefs and practices, there are demands for change, e.g., matriliny and equitable distribution of wealth, thus undermining the very ‘foundations’ of the so-called Khasi-Pnar ‘tribal’ society. Even political institutions have undergone change with the coming of party politics starting from the grassroots level. But here we are confronted with a dilemma,viz., the choice between the so-called traditional and the so-called modernist viewpoints. They present two different, if not opposing, worldviews.
Personally I am averse to using terms like ‘race’, ‘tribe’, ‘sub-tribe’, ‘clan’, ‘co-clan’ as according to the Enclyclopaedia Britannica and other modern dictionaries these terms are outdated, derogatory, misleading and irrelevant in today’s context. Today, when we speak, we speak of a ‘society’, a ‘community’, a ‘kinship’, a ‘brotherhood’, a ‘nationality’, a ‘people’ and other all-encompassing derivatives. With the advancement of education and information technologies all manmade barriers are kept at abeyance(read ‘museums’). In other words, a human being has been seen as a human being. This is what we may call the epitome of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ for which every nation is yearning for.
However, for the sake of argument, if we are to judge any person as belonging or not belonging to a certain category or group, which yardstick should we use? Moreover, there is an ever growing gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’, the urban and the rural, the working class and the daily wage earners…the classification goes on and on.
In my view, there are three distinct but inter-connected areas where we could still see life in Khasi-Pnar society:
First, the Language spoken at the family unit or within the group. Now since the phenomena called ‘language’ is by itself in the developing process, we cannot say for sure what ‘Khasi Language’ is exactly like (here I am not talking of the varieties in dialect). Having said that, it is safer to keep intact the original sounds of the language. For instance, we cannot tell a person who pronounces ‘kor’ for ‘goal’ or ‘ijot’ for ‘izzat’ that he is wrong. If you try to correct him, you are indeed spoiling and worse defiling the uniqueness of the language! Khasi language is still thriving in this sense. Nonetheless, certain critical aspects of the language need to be resolved by the scholars and experts themselves with regards to phonetics, etymology, orthography, standardization of written words and other complexities. Also certain peculiar terms and phrases have been used in both the narrow and the broad sense,eg., Bah, Kong, pynhiar-synjat, pyllait san shyieng, iakad-maw, khunkur, lait-ksuid, bam kwai ha dwar U Blei, etc. I often wonder if there is a certain ‘Kong’ Hillary Syiemlieh, can there also be a ‘Kong’ Hillary Clinton, or a ‘Bah’Hosni Mubarak or a ‘Bah’ Yasser Arafat(‘Bam kwai ha Dwar U Blei’)? In short, can the language be universalized as U Nissor Singh pioneered during his times? Are there enough literature or courses for ‘other’ students who want to pursue or study it as a Third or Fourth Language if not as the Mother Tongue? Or whose ‘monopoly’ is the Language anyway?
Second, the Kinship. Khasi society today can be called a ‘universal microcosm’ which is by itself a unique feature. It is kept alive to a certain extent by the concept of ‘Kurship’,i.e. maternal kinship, having its roots from the first ancestresses who were ‘non- Khasis’ (or ‘dkhars’!) in most cases. In my view, matriliny had a lot to do with such cross-marriages and of course, polygyny. This is because the society was not matriarchal like the Minangkabaus of Indonesia. The real patriarchs were the avunculus instead as in any other matrilineal society such as the people of Lakshadweep. Just below the Kurship is the Khaship,i.e., the paternal kinship (Forgive me for ‘khasiaising’ the English language!). The development of these two sets of kinship is, in my opinion, to allow for marriage ties to take place between them in future generations and thus preserve their respective kinds, linkages, securities, and privileges. That is why there is exogamy here and not endogamy. The only change we see in this phenomena is the emergence of non-matrilocal nuclear families or FMCs(short for Father-Mother-Child) where there is an assertion as to the paternal role and authority, his rights and privileges, etc which were hitherto unknown and unquestioned. This again, in my view, is the outcome of migration, cross-marriages and mixed-living, especially if either of the spouses happen to come from a patriarchal background- because in this case, the father’s role becomes more prominent as compared to the maternal uncle(s).Collectivism thus gave way to Individualism or Privativism. Single Parent Families(SPFs), on the other hand, are mostly affiliated to the Kurship and hence the responsibility of the maternal uncle, in most cases.
As for the change in kinship affinity(or lineage as one may call it), from Kurship to Khaship, which some have suggested as a solution to all the problems, I have my own doubts and reservations and foresee a clash of opinions since there is no guarantee that patriarchalism can solve all the problems especially related to gender equality. Moreover, this has also something to do with the beliefs of people coming from different faith backgrounds including the peoples’ deep-rooted faith in U Thawlang, ka Iawbei and U Suidnia who are considered the fountainheads of the matrilineal system, alongwith all the norms and taboos associated with the Faith. I for myself do not vote for either since the dictum is clear: Tipkur Tipkha or shall we say Tipkha Tipkur. One must know and respect both relationships because both are responsible for one’s being. My Faith teaches me that I must not weigh one over the other. The rest is the economic aspect which must be looked after by the patriarchs themselves keeping in mind the wellbeing of all concerned. This I say because as far as I know most resources are owned collectively at the Kur or the Kpoh level except for the Ri-Khurid(another borrowed term) which is at the disposal of the family unit, the mother in this case. The management of such resources may vary, of course, from family to family especially with regards to inheritance and matrilocalism and so most changes occur at this level, whether it is the ‘Khatduh’ who moves out or it is someone else who comes in, etc. Patrilocalism is also a phenomena here in some cases and so I think it is time to bring in new laws which will ensure that the sons also inherit something from what their parents have left behind.
The third is the traditional political institution as represented by the Kur itself. When talking of such institutions I am always reminded of a couplet from S.M.Amjad Ali’s classic poem entitled, ‘Synshar Riw Khasi'(Govern O’Khasi People), in which he says, “Synshar ia la ki kur”, i.e., ‘Govern your kith and kin’. This shows that in the traditional setup, the ‘kur’ was actually the primary unit of governance and thus it functioned as a political organization, if not like a Party as such. Political representation was made through the Kur depending upon its size and extant. The greater the kur-size, the greater the political influence it would seem. Moreover, each kur had its own jurisdiction and well determined demarcations starting from the village level. It was from here that the Patriarchs played their role as governors and representatives to the Dorbar or Assemblies at different levels.
Today, even though the kur structure has been fragmented or dismantled to a great extent due to various factors, historical or otherwise, the coming of the ‘Sengkurs’ can be seen as a positive sign, even though as mentioned earlier the Kur is de facto a ‘Seng'(Organisation) by itself. The Seng Kur, on the other hand, perhaps makes it more social, more economical, more secular and liberal and maybe more or less political and non-religious or non-sectarian.
To conclude, if I were to elaborate on the question of Khasi identity, I would base my arguments on these three aspects which, as far as my knowledge goes, continue to exist despite the many changes and variations that have taken place, both from within and from without.
[The writer is a Teacher of Social Science, Pyndenglitha SS and
Research Scholar in Comparative Religion and Culture]