By Paul Lyngdoh
This has reference to Morning Star Sumer’s letter (ST, July 22) on the recent observance of U Tirot Sing Day jointly organised by members of the Marwari community of Shillong and the Meghalaya Taekwondo Institute in which I was had attended as a guest, the others being Messrs Sanbor Shullai, A.L.Hek and Dr Jemino Mawthoh. A new form of affliction- something I would call cultural thrombosis- seems to have infected a section of enlightened Khasis whose world-view seeks to trap Khasi culture in a time-warp of their imagination and fancy. Otherwise why should they indulge in needless fault-finding when one of their most celebrated icons is being honoured, and that too, in all probability, for the first time ever by people who are non-Khasis?
To me- and I believe to countless others- U Tirot Sing Syiem was more than just a very fine specimen of Khasi nationalism; his appeal went beyond the territorial confines of Hima Nongkhlaw, of which he was the Syiem, and the Khasi Highlanders, whose patriotic spark he helped to ignite. His was a pan-Khasiland appeal. In fact, pigeon-holing him thus is to further belittle the yet unacknowledged contribution that the tribes of North-East India made to the struggle against colonial rule decades before the Great Rising of 1857 shook mainland India from its stupor and general indifference to the evil of British imperialism. If there is one singular point I have been harping on whenever opportunity afforded itself to me at relevant platforms, it is the sad fact that the Khasi-Jaintia People’s role in the overthrow of British imperialism still remains relegated to mere footnotes in historical records, books, memoirs and archives. It is a historical injustice that must be corrected.
The danger with Sumer’s viewpoint is that it validates the spurious claim that Tirot Sing only belongs to the Khasi people and need not be introduced- let alone honoured- beyond that constricting construct. It is like arguing that Gandhi, by virtue of his birth, belongs to Gujarat alone and should not have had his philosophy studied beyond the confines of his birthplace!
Then there is the complaint lodged as to the manner in which U Tirot Sing was honoured at the gathering. Why light lamps and offer floral tributes which is something alien to Khasi culture? Surely these are cultural motifs associated with Hinduism like Surya and Saraswati? Surely this is a non- indigenous and hence impure form of commemorating the dead? I am more amused than angered by these specious and facetious arguments. To begin with, what constitutes indigenous practice while venerating the dead? Is the placing of wreaths, lighting of candles at memorial services for departed souls indigenous? If not, is it un-Khasi or anti-Khasi? Sumer himself wondered if venerating Tirot Sing as was done last week would have made the warrior turn in his grave. But again this is a non-indigenous turn of phrase and imagery. It is only the likes of Shakespeare or Robert Burns who were capable of turning in their graves as they remained interred inside the earth while awaiting Judgement Day. To a Khasi Khasi (meaning a Khasi practicing the indigenous faith), whether cremated or buried (as Tirot Sing most probably was- it is up to researchers to come up with conclusive evidence in this regard), his belief was that his soul lived on, took the form of a golden bird (Ka Mynsiem Ksiar) whose owner joined his ancestors to partake of betel-nuts and leaves in the gateway of Paradise (Bam Kwai ha dwar u Blei) as he awaits God’s final verdict on his ultimate habitat.
But to come back to the fundamental argument of this write-up : What is wrong with a group (religious, ethnic or linguistic) honouring a certain hero or personality in the manner they think befits that hero best? Surely the Marwaris or the Sikhs of Shillong cannot be faulted for not venerating U Tirot Sing the way the Seng Khasi Sein Raij would have done! As for the use of non-indigenous symbols, well, even the history of Christianity (which over 80 per cent of Khasis have today embraced) is replete with the ever-changing contours of symbolism dictated by reasons of history and geography, among others. Today, it is historically established that even Christmas had Pagan roots. Does it make the message of Christmas any less relevant? A good friend of mine, the Rev. Kyrsoibor Pyrtuh, sought to indigenise (or Khasinise) Christmas celebrations a couple of years back. Would that reduce Christ to a member of the Khasi Scheduled Tribe community or would it, instead, help harmonise the spirit of Christmas with the Khasi milieu and world-view?
These are fundamental questions that cannot be answered by a mind warped by jingoism, clouded by paranoia and coloured by deep-seated prejudices.
(The writer is MLA and former Minister; a poet and former President Khasi Students’ Union)