By Fabian Lyngdoh
The article, “Travelling back into a hoary past” (ST December 12, 2014), by Patricia Mukhim has raised up some dust and heat. I would like to contribute to the debate on this contentious issue which according to my finding is due to the confusion between ‘ka riti’ (tradition) and ‘ka dustur’ (custom). Ka riti is the philosophy or ideology which is transmitted from generation to generation, while ka dustur is a practice which is subject to change from generation to generation. Historical literature and oral tradition about the history of the ‘hima’, the ‘raid’ and the ‘shnong’ tell us that the Khasi society had a dynamic tradition (riti) which guided the evolution of customs (dustur) in a continuous flux. Formations of states and breaking up of states were still in motion before the British put everything down in writing and arrested the traditional dynamic flux of the society. By codifying through administrative actions the British declared once and for all times, the number, the names, the territories of the Khasi states, and the statuses of the syiems and bakhraws into law. This action arrested the natural flow of social change and converted the Khasi customs into static, rigid and two- dimensional in character and induced a freezing effect to the traditional dynamics of the Khasi social and political evolution.
In reality, customs are never static like the codified law. Customs exist in a three-dimensional context. They are alive in themselves, in a two-dimensional space and also persist through a third dimension in the duration of time, to grow, to reproduce or to die naturally in accordance with the emergent requirements of the society. They are not like a written law which lies dormant in the two-dimensional pages of a law book and becomes alive only when interpreted by the lawyers. Customs do not need abrupt amendments like law because they are continuously self amending according to social changes. Those customs which have lost the dynamism of self amending are dead. Therefore, whatever custom which is interpreted as unchangeable is either dead or not a custom at all, but a clandestine prerogative put forward by some vested interests and codified by legal instruments as sacred custom.
Written history and oral traditions tell us that a number of non-Khasi families were converted into Khasi kurs; a majority of the jait syiem of Khasi himas were appointed from families of non-Khasi origin; some jait syiem had been ousted and other kurs were appointed as jait syiem in their places; some ‘binong-bishon’ clans (aristocratic or founding clans), were ousted, while a number of the ‘shongthap’ clans (later immigrant clans who had no right in the political affairs of the community) were instead inducted into the group of the ‘binong-bishon’ in the political community. The cults of several Hindu deities had been incorporated into the religions of many raid and hima. It is in the tradition of the Khasis to adopt aspects of any religion under the care of the ‘iing-sad’, provided they do not interfere with the kur-religion, or tarnish the sanctity of the ‘iing-seng’. So it is in the Khasi tradition to adopt necessary changes in customs from time to time, always moving forward, but not backward.
It is a known fact that hima Shyllong broke up and hima Sohra came into existence. The original hima Sohra broke up and produced hima Mawsmai and hima Sohra of today. A large group of people from the Jaintia area migrated to the place we now know as the hima Shella and set up their own political system ruled by four popularly elected Wahadadars much different from the political system in other parts of the Khasi Hills. A large number of clans fled from hima Sutnga and migrated to various parts of the Khasi Hills to form a number of raid and hima. Even during the British rule in the year 1853 hima Shyllong again broke up into two: hima Khyrim and hima Mylliem, because the bakhraws were divided into two camps with regard to the appointment of a new syiem. The Khasi riti (tradition) is that every kur should have the right in political affairs of the raid or hima; and the dorbar of the representatives of the kurs is the core of Khasi polity. The office of the syiem, or lyngdoh, daloi, or wahadadar is only ‘ka dustur’ (custom) not ka riti (tradition). There was no chief in the Khasi polity. It is the dorbar only which is the chief, and the syiem is the official appointed by the dorbar, who may be reaffirmed or ousted along with his clan, whatever the dorbar may think fit. Several such cases had happened in the history of Khasi polity. It was the British colonial government which installed a chief in the Khasi state. So the Grand Council of Chiefs under the chairmanship of John F. Kharshiing is an invented dustur which is totally out of tune with the Khasi tradition.
There was no fixed custom that only such and such a clan can become the syiem or the lyngdoh, or the bakhraw-basan; or to define permanently the number, the names and the territories of the himas in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills. The social system of the Khasis was in a tradition of continuous evolution, ever moving towards equilibrium and stability and ever improving to meet the emergent requirements of society. It is only when the British came and introduced written documents and defined the Khasi customs as per these documents that these self-amending and self-refining customs became static and rigid as divine revelations; and the tradition freezes. This rigidity of customs brought about by documentation in written form, induced some sections of the society to believe that the customs are divinely-sanctioned, and hence cannot be changed. The election of the syiem by the myntris, and the change of nomenclature from ‘bakhraw-basan’ to ‘myntri’ which were introduced by the British are being rigidly adopted as ‘ki riti-ki dustur’ handed down from the ancestors. Many of the traditional autonomous ‘raids’ were joined together into sirdarships, or attached to other himas; and many raids and villages were accorded independent state status by the British, all for the interests of their colonial rule. Some of the present himas are much smaller than many of the raids in Ri Bhoi area. These arrangements of the colonial power now became ‘ki riti-ki dustur’ handed down by the ancestors!
The District Council in the footsteps of the British, codified all these newfound customs as traditional and as those handed down by the ancestors from time immemorial, and that it would be sacrilegious to break them; and hence no amount of democratic requirement, or human rights consideration can be justified enough to change these customs!
As a society committed to the tradition of ‘ka tipbriew-tipblei’ (conscientiousness) and, ‘ban kamai ia ka hok’ (to earn righteousness and justice), it is now advisable that there should be a review of the present customary practices in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, especially those which concern with the public governance institutions so as to find out which customs are legitimately traditional and serve the need of the society at large, and which customs are mere interpolations which aim at serving the interests of the few dominant sections in the society. Invented customs, not in line with tradition, which exist merely for the interest of the dominant few against the welfare of the majority, should be abolished by law. The District Council as the guardian of tradition (riti) and the guide to the evolution of customs (dustur) should take the lead in this effort by involving the service of the legal and academic institutions, and knowledgeable elders in the community. As Bah Toki Blah says in his article The Sixth Schedule and ADCs (ST December, 19th 2012), “the Sixth Schedule is not all about protecting the inviolable past, or protecting those people led by ignorant self proclaimed patriots whose vision is constrained by over-conservative mental confinements, who cannot look forward as they constantly believe that the past is the only best thing that could ever happen to them”. This healthy dynamic tradition should not be in the hands of self proclaimed patriots whose ego and social standing depend on the nurturing of conservative rhetoric. It is the function of the District Council to conserve the dynamics of tradition; and not to preserve the static and dead customs which is the function of the museum.
(Author’s contact fabianthaiang @mail.com)