By Fabian Lyngdoh
The Khasi judicature is called, ‘ka bishar’. The ancestors of the Khasis believed that no man with his own human intellect or wisdom can judge another man. For this reason they avoided as far as possible to judge a man because they know that human knowledge however great, cannot fathom into the deep recesses of the human mind and soul. It is only God who knows all and has the authority to pass judgment. Besides God, the Khasis believed that other spiritual beings, including the souls of the dead also know the truth behind the realm of human knowledge unless that faculty is specifically blocked by God himself. It is for that reason that the Khasis before offering prayers or sacrifices to ‘ki blei ki dken’ (gods and goddesses), or before communicating to their ancestors would always first communicate to God Almighty so that He may permit them to communicate to other spiritual beings through the chosen rite or formula.
Factually speaking, there is no judgment in the Khasi judicature through human intellectual and rational faculty. Judgment for crimes or wrongs done may take place anywhere and anytime. It is not necessary that every injustice be redressed by the State dorbar. A person who breaks a taboo might be struck by lightning or eaten by a tiger anywhere and anytime without any decree by a human judge. Anyone who tampers with a land boundary over which covenant has been instituted would receive punishment even without human judgment. If there is a dispute over land boundaries over which no previous covenant has been instituted, the State dorbar would always convince the disputants to come to terms and fresh covenant would be instituted. If the dispute is over boundaries over which covenants have already been instituted, then judgment over the dispute would be offered to the spiritual beings who had been called upon to stand witness to the covenant. The spiritual beings who stand witness when the covenant was instituted would be the judges to the dispute. If ‘ka Hok’ (Divine Justice) had been the witness to the covenant, then she shall be the judge; if the deities of the hills or valleys had been the witnesses to the covenant, then they would be the judges in the dispute. In a dispute between members of the same kur (clan), the spirit of ka Iawbei would always be called upon to be the judge. Being ka Iawbei (primal ancestress) she is always the witness to every covenant between members of the clan.
At the level of human judgment the basis is always on reconciliation. This is the primary stage in all suits, both criminal and civil. As far as possible the elders of the State would seek to end the dispute within the human level and to bring peaceful settlement through human faculty because the process beyond that, becomes spiritual and would always institute ‘u smai u byrnei’ (covenant of enmity), and would bring disorder in ‘ka longkur-longkha’ (society). A dispute between members of the same clan carried over to the spiritual level is always ‘ka sang ka ma’ (taboo) because the Iawbei as the judge is bound to condemn either of the contending parties who are both her own progenies. Therefore litigation between members of the same kur in the traditional Khasi society was extremely rare.
Litigation according to the Khasi thought is not the end of a dispute but it is in fact, the beginning of enmity. The judgment of the judge whoever he is, whether human or spiritual agent would institute a covenant of enmity between the two clans, the poison of which would be carried forward in every social interaction between them; it will hinder successful marriage between them, and reveals itself in ‘ka shat ka khein’ (religious divination) from generation to generation. According to the Khasi belief it is not only the disputants in the litigation who are bound to the covenant but also the person who passes the judgment. If the judge has wrongly passed the judgment, whether knowingly or unknowingly, the condemned would face punishment through human agents; but the judge has to bear punishments through spiritual agents more severe than the condemned. It is on this reason that even ‘ka dorbar of ki bakhraw’ in the raid or hima would always stress on reconciliation and would not dare constitute human judgment in a serious dispute. H.O. Mawrie writes, “When there are disputes on matters over which both parties stand adamant and neither is willing to compromise or reconcile, the judicial authority takes resort to pynkie klong or jingiangam um or “divination for determination of justice”. What the syiem and ki bakhraw did was not judgment but they merely invoked spiritual authority to take over the responsibility of the judgment. The human judicial authority simply initiates the process and the spiritual judgment takes place by itself without any intellectual or rational effort on the part of the human authority. This spiritual process of judgment is called ‘ka bishar-blei’. ‘Ka bishar-blei’ proper is when ‘ka Hok’ (Divine Justice) is called upon to reveal the truth of the case in dispute. There are also ‘ki bishar-blei’ in which the deities of the hills, the valleys, the rivers, the waterfalls, etc. were called upon to reveal the facts of the case. Various forms of ordeal used in judgment are not judgments at all but they are ‘ki thmat ne jingkhan’ (divinations) through which spiritual agents would reveal the facts of the case in question. It is on this ground that the Khasis also called ‘ka thmat ka trong’ (divination), as ‘ka khein ka bishar’ (calculating and judging).
In the Khasi principle of judicature there are also ordinary cases which can be judged through human effort and human commitment. If there is a man who voluntarily comes forward to testify in the dispute and agreed by both parties that he is the eye witness or has full knowledge of the case, such a person is called upon to give testimony under oath that he would speak the truth. Such a person is called ‘U Saiphla’. ‘Sai’ is a short form of ‘ksai’ (thread) and ‘phla’ means ‘to confess’. So ‘U Saiphla’ means a thread leading to the truth through the confession of a neutral person. U Saiphla can give the testimony only under the permission or sanction of his own kur. A man without kur cannot be U Saiphla. This is so because the traditional social and political transactions of the Khasis were not recorded in writings but in the covenants of the spoken words, these covenants can only be permanently recorded in the commitment of ki kur whose age is not limited as that of a single individual. The testimony of a man whose kur has become extinct is not acceptable in the dorbar however true his testimony might be because he has no permanent institution to back up the covenant of his statement whether true or false for generations to come. The testimony of such a man would be permanently deleted by his death. So it is felt that he might speak whatever comes to his mind because he has no kur to bear the repercussion of his statement. However, such a person may be allowed to be U Saiphla if it has become extremely necessary as he is the only eye witness or has connections with some covenant involved in the case; and provided further that both the parties agree to the proposal. Thus when U Saiphla is employed, the dorbar would officially pass judgement on the basis of the statement he gives under oath. The oath of U Saiphla constitutes a covenant binding on him and his kur, and prescribes severe punishments if he speaks falsehood and bountiful blessings if he speaks the truth. So the judgment in the Khasi principle of judicature is based either on the revelation of spiritual agents or on the testimony of human agents under commitment and backing up of the kur. The syiem and the dorbar would not declare any judgment unless there is spiritual revelation or there is a person or a kur ready to bear the responsibility of the judgment. The basis of this principle of judicature is based on people’s firm belief in the existence of God and other spiritual beings and their readiness to intervene in human affairs.
[author’s contact: [email protected]]