Patricia Mukhim
At this decisive moment in Khasi society one looks to wise elders and scholars for enlightenment. Sadly that is not forthcoming. We wax eloquent in small groups but shy away from public discourses even when that is the only sane thing to do. We are a confused tribal society standing at a tipping point but we don’t want to tip over because the past looks too inviting, pristine, romantic, safe and secure while the future is daunting because we don’t know what it holds for us. Yet nature abhors not just a vacuum but also the status quo because humans are not inert objects. They are dynamic, thinking, progressive creatures who can and have adapted to change. Ironically there are among us coteries of vested interests who while well-adjusted themselves with the present and its comfort zones, want to play the role of saviours of their self-defined, “poor, illiterate, helpless, desperate peoples,” who we are told are afraid of erosion of tradition because they need to cling on to tradition for their survival. Do people in villages reject the cell phone? Do people not want roads, mobile towers, livelihoods? Are we suggesting that they still live on trees?
It is educative indeed that the people who first approached the Meghalaya High Court to seek justice from an unjust, arbitrary, merciless traditional institution – the Dorbar Shnong of an obscure village called Pamrakmai in Jaintia Hills. That Dorbar Shnong had ostracised them (beh shnong), without allowing them an opportunity to explain their transgressions, if any. That people from the village would pick up courage to sue the Dorbar and the Government for an injustice they suffered should have made the Khasi society and its intellectuals introspect on this societal ailment. Instead we have powerful groups in society including the Khasi Hills District Council and a newly formed youth group all closing ranks to defend an institution (Dorbar) which is in sore need of reforms.
I will not hide under the populist and chauvinistic tribal garb of “Jaidbynriew,” since I am not a politician. Hence I don’t buy this hyperbole of “Khasis are descended from the Gods (Ki Khasi ki hiar na u Lum Sohpet bneng); they are a unique people ( Ki Khasi ki long ka jaidbynriew kaba kyrpang) etc. What’s so unique about us? We have poverty increasing at a galloping pace. Is that also unique to us? Most of us don’t have even own a plot of land for a home which all members of tribal communities are supposed to own. This means that if we cannot afford to buy land we will remain tenants forever. So where is the tribal egalitarianism we love to flaunt? Already a large chunk of the Khasi population is landless. Our common properties (water sources, forests, sand, stones, rivers) are today owned by individual Khasis. Isn’t this happening in other parts of India too? So there is nothing unique about us. Those who wax eloquent on our uniqueness are the very people who exploit tradition and customary practices to suit their individual needs. Such people are afraid that if there are land reforms after a cadastral survey is carried out and it is discovered that Bah A owns 50 acres of land which he bought at a throwaway price from Kong B who had to sell plots of her ancestrally held land to meet a family exigency, then a vigilant government at the Centre could push in a Land Ceiling Act to bring in a more equal society.
It is also educative that all our institutions from the KHADC, JHADC, the Dorbar Hima and Dorbar Raid are silent on the issue of landlessness. They have never conducted a survey to find out how many people in which Raid are actually landless. They have never made any effort to address the issue of privatisation of community land. And yet this is the single biggest threat to the Khasi society today. If land is tied to tradition, custom, faith and identity then what does that make a landless people? Are they then a people without tradition, custom, faith and identity? What is remarkable is that some foreign missionaries of the Catholic Church have enabled people in distant West Khasi Hills to buy land and build houses for them. So while foreigners have empathy for the poor, our own Syiem, Sordar and Rangbah Shnong go about their jobs mechanically. They assert their authority over areas that are beyond their jurisdiction and now crave for more powers without accountability.
The pathetic part about this society is that it is driven by emotions (ka jingsngew). This was apparent from the behaviour of the CEM, KHADC when he appeared in court on Jan 27 last. When asked why he uttered disparaging words against the High Court ruling of a particular judge on the powers of the Rangbah Shnong, he blurted out that he had become emotional and protective about his ‘beloved indigenous institution’. For a people fed on a regular does of hysteria and emotions the CEM’s hyperbole are designed to win applause. To the illogical romantic he is a “saviour of the jaidbynriew,” a much abused political slogan. For Adelbert Nongrum the High Court ruling on the Rangbah Shnong was perfect opportunity to amass political capital. There are many who feel sorry that he was hauled up for contempt of court. These are the characteristics of a people that lack what Alvin Toffler calls ‘social rationality.’ Margeret Mead in ‘New Lives for Old,’ says each human culture like each human language is a whole and if individuals or groups of people have to change it is imperative that they change from one whole pattern to another because tensions arise from incongruities in cultural elements. This is precisely what is happening in Khasi society. People like John Kharshiing want to bring in change but it is a partial change that empowers a few who already wield arbitrary powers. Kharshiing never says a word about landlessness or poverty and its implications over time. So some tribal elite do want change – but it is change that is self-defined, not what empowers the Khasi people. Kharshiing too is garnering political capital by using the clever metaphor of social revolution.
I have never ceased to be amazed at those who raise the loudest voice for the jaidbynriew. They invariably introduce the element of self-indulgent despair and make self-fulfilling prophecies to draw attention to themselves. Some of our so-called heart-rending songs by renowned vocalists, for instance attribute all the evils that have befallen us on the “outsider” (u mynder, u poi-ei). Even the dirt and garbage of Shillong is certified to be non-tribal. And this is what we feed our young people day in and day out. We feed them pessimism; we caution them against adapting to change because we want to protect them forever. No wonder most of our young men are like fish out of water outside Meghalaya. Never have I heard a political speech where our issues are discussed with pragmatism. Never have our young people been told to throw away their crutches for they have strong pairs of legs; that they have a sharp intellect which they have misused because of the easy route of “reservation.” Never have they been told that this is the century of ideas and that fear psychoses are caused by insecure people with a political agenda.
Alvin Toffler says those who treasure the status quo may seize upon the concept of future shock as an excuse to argue for a moratorium on change. He cautions that such an attempt to suppress change will fail and trigger an even bloodier and more unmanageable change than any we have seen. He calls this a ‘moral lunacy’. “By any set of human standards, certain radical social changes are already desperately overdue. The answer to future shock is not non-change but a different kind of change,” says Toffler. The Khasi society is today facing a “Future Shock” situation. We have been pushed to change (by no less than a court order) because we have not managed change. Managing change requires societal and political leadership both of which Meghalaya has been lacking. We have politicians with short term agendas and bureaucrats who allow themselves to be used. We have so-called leaders of ‘traditional’ institutions for whom democracy is anathema. Hence women are kept out of bounds of running the Dorbar. Women are fit only for cooking and serving tea – a well defined role and they support it for it is tradition. And yet the Dorbar which was traditionally confined to performing social roles has now assumed an administrative role, sui generis. Where is tradition here? It is high time that the word tradition is removed from all governing institutions. You cannot govern a modern society by traditional norms. Tradition has its place; let us not glorify it. We must be proud of our present and gear ourselves for the future.