By HH Mohrmen
Call it by whatever name you like, Ka Jaitbynriew Khasi Pnar, ka jaitbynriew Hynñiewtrep or even U Khun Khasi- Khara, the fact of the matter is that the Jaitbynriew is in turmoil. We need nobody to tell us that in the prevailing situation we are at the crossroads in our common journey as a community or a tribe. Some foretold that a gloomy future is awaiting us if we continue to tread on the same track, while some are of the opinion that we are heading in the right direction and still there those who refuse to say anything but choose to live their life as it comes. .
Still others are of the opinion that the reason the Jaitbynriew is going downhill because of our traditional matrilineal practice of inheritance. This school of thought is of the opinion that people are not doing well in business because property belongs to the female members of the society. They also blame all the ills in the society be it the inter-racial marriage or the so called ka jinghiar kyrdan or ka jingnoh arsut ka akor ka burom (moral degradation) in the society of the Jaitbynriew on women. One does not have to look much further to see the double- standards of a society which claims to give equal respect to woman but has a skewed attitude towards inter-racial marriages. If a man enters into an inter-racial wedlock and marries a non- Hynñiewtrep woman, a ceremony of Tang-jait is performed to initiate a new clan from the woman. And if a woman enters does the same and marries a non-Hynñiewtrep man she is called “kaba ioh lok khyllah,” (woman who marries strange men) and children out of the wedlock are called Khun- shiteng or Khun khleh (hybridized kids).
We are a community which does not have the capacity to innovate. Look at the kind of agitation programs that the NGOs have called! We can’t think beyond bandhs, road blockades and office picketing. Why can’t we think of different kinds of protests? The present types of protests are undemocratic in the sense that it does not respect the rights of those who disagree with the protestors; it does not give them their right to live and move freely. Even the section of the society which does not support the NGOs are forced to remain inside their houses and denied their rights to work and move as they are entitled to do in a democratic country.
The case of arson and attacks on police personals are not only undemocratic but these are criminal acts, which should be dealt with firmly as per the law of the land. The police deserve appreciation in the way they have handled the situation. In spite of being provoked to act otherwise, they have remained calm and did not react. So far so good, the home minister too is handling the situation very professionally. She has also been able to keep law and order situation in the city under control. It is sad that the protestors have not condemned the criminal acts of arsons and assault. By remaining silent they are indirectly condoning the acts which happened during their agitation programs. On the other hand it seems like the NGOs are instead using the cases of arson and rampage to create fear in the minds of the people who disagree with them. It is true that even those who just wish to be free and do not want to be on either side of the divide feel threatened by these acts of vandalism.
When one reads of many cases of arsons which include burning of government buildings, government vehicles and even damaging private vehicles, one can’t help but ask why we are so obsessed with burning or damaging government property? Why is there no respect for public property in the state? Is it because as tribals we do not pay income tax, hence we do not realize that government properties are paid from tax payer’s money? That they actually belong to the people? When one reads in the newspapers the report of arsons, it takes us back to the pages in the history of the Pnar when u Kiang Nangbah fought against the British during the Jaintia rebellion. The British soldiers used the same tactics to cripple the revolution by burning villages and the stockade of the people. The pertinent question is whether this is some kind of colonial hangover? According to the traditional value systems of the Hynñiew trep people, even if one has to fight against one’s enemy, one should do so with honour. It is not in the Khasi Pnar tradition to stab a person or even one’s enemy on the back. The Hynñiewtrep people believe in ‘Ka nia ka jutang’ (arguments and promises), ‘Ka hok ka sot’ (truth and justice). These are the values distinct to a Hynñiewtrep soldier.
The arson may not be a case of colonial hangover but, is the demand for implementation of ILP in Meghalaya not a case of colonial hangover? Trying to solve modern problem using a colonial regulation is like using a square peg in a round hole. We have to use modern laws to solve contemporary issues. Moreover we already have numerous legislations and regulations which are related to the issue. We have the ADCs which are supposed to control trading by non-tribals; we have our land transfer act, we have the infiltration directorate and labour laws. If these machineries have failed what guarantee is there that this will succeed? ILP or ILR will only add more lists of licenses and permits that one has to acquire and everybody knows the license raj only encourages corruption.
Another important question is – why can’t we give ourselves the opportunity to work on the issue and come up with our own solutions to solve this problem? We are insulting our own intelligence if we think that only ILP can curb influx of foreign nationals to the state. If we continue to rely on a more than a century old legislation to protect ourselves we will be portrayed as people who can’t think for themselves and a community which does not have the will or the ability to innovate and come up with new ideas to solve our problems. If we continue to see ILP as the only thing that can save us from imminent perish and that there is no other alternative to it, then we slammed the door of possibility right on our faces. At least the UDP is looking at ways to amend ILP and introduce some changes on the regulation. This is somewhat better that saying that only the old legislation made by the British holds the key to the survival of the Jaitbynriew.
The government too is fooling itself if it assumes that its work is done if the NGOs decide to withdraw their agitation. Even if the protestors decided to end their agitation the only saving grace from this for the government is that it has attained a short term goal. The duty of the government is to look for a long term solution to the influx problem. The government needs to find solutions that can resolve this problem once and for all.
As for the Jaitbynriew we need to ask ourselves the question – What really ails Ka Jaitbynriew? Is it our traditional inheritance system? Is it the degradation of Hynñiewtrep moral values? Is it the influx? Or is it the combination of all these problems? Or is it a case of overreaction to the change that is happening around us? What is really threatening the Jaitbynriew? We ourselves need to find the answers to these questions and comes to some unanimity about how to proceed forward.