By Fabian Lyngdoh
The concept of economy among the Khasis starts and ends with the kur, and there is no concept of ‘state economy’ whether in the raid, or the hima. Every kur is a separate and independent economy which strives to be competent and self sufficient and every member contributes something to the total wealth of the kur. The kur as a whole is responsible for the economic and social security of every member man or woman. No members of the kur would beg or ask for free gifts from another kur however poor they might be, because by doing so they would be mortgaging the dignity and status of their own kur. Therefore every kur takes serious concern for the economic and social security of all its members.
While descent is traced from the female line, and the youngest daughter is the custodian of properties, the management of the economy is under the direction and control of the uncles. This is so because in the past, the uncles were the earners and builders of the kur economy, and hence they administer principally the products of their own labour and sweat. Some scholars opined that the only important functional unit of the kur is the ‘iing’, while the kur is not a corporate property group. That is true of the modern period, but it was not so in the traditional kur system. Traditionally, within one political community, where a kin group has established its mawbah (religious cairn), that kin group whether it is the whole kur, or ka kpoh, or only ka iing, is bound to be a functional and corporate unit with one economy. All forms of property religiously and legally belonged to the whole kur. The properties of all ki kpoh and ki iing of the kur within one political community though may be under the care of each individual iing or kpoh, are considered as parts of the kur economy. Even ‘ka khih-nongkhynraw’ (self-acquired property) in the ultimate sense, belongs to the kur as a component wealth of its economy.
All kur members living within the political community, regardless of ki kpoh or ki iing, have a right to the security provided by the kur economy. The property of the kur can never be inherited by any individual, as the kur itself was conceived of as a perpetual entity. What is inherited is the position and responsibility to multiply wealth and maintain the steady growth of the kur economy (like the growth of national economy), and the right to enjoy it as a corollary; but there was no inheritance as private ownership of any individual, to the exclusion of other kur members.
As ki kur are independent economies, David Roy says that, “there must be a clear segregation of wealth and property belonging to the kha or the kur of the father, from that of his wife and children. The Khasis have obligation to keep distinct and separate the wealth belonging to the kur and to the kha. There must not be any indiscriminate mixing up and application of the incomes from the two sources”. In fact, there must be clear segregation of wealth belonging to each and every kur. Kynpham Singh says that “a man cannot take with him to his wife’s house landed property of his kur without their consent, or use it for the benefit of his family without paying rent and that even his personal belongings which he carries along to his wife’s house must be returned to his kur on his death”. This practice is still in vogue in some parts of the Khasi Hills. At the father’s death, his kur would demand certain amount of his labour and sweat, or even his ‘mohkhiew-tasam’ and ‘wait-tasam’ (remnants of his working tools). Today, this demand might be paid in real wealth or only in symbolic value, but the important thing is that it should be paid; whether it is real wealth or of symbolic value is secondary.
The spirits of the departed members are the joint-holders of all ancestral properties of the kur, and it was on this belief that exchanging of wealth between ki kur was a very strict affair. Every economic transaction pertaining to exchange of wealth or transfer of property had to be communicated to the invisible department of the kur; and its approval is always sought for through divinations. With regard to economic transactions between ki kur, it was a matter of a grain for a grain and a Rupee for a Rupee. For a Khasi, to take something from another kur by fraud would weaken ka rngiew (dignity and status) of his kur in relation to the other kur. That is why it is said that theft, robbery and fraud were rare in the Khasi society in the past.
The system is similar to the balance of trade and balance of payments in the import and export between independent economies of the world. The transfer of wealth from one kur to another had to strictly follow the principles of balance of trade. If there is no balance of trade, the imbalance is redressed through balance of payments. If one kur cannot provide balance of payments to another kur, that kur would suffer in status and sovereignty in relation to the other kur involved. In cases were imbalance was brought about by fraud from one side, that imbalance could be redressed in extreme cases through evil ways which could be through ‘ka sympha-taro’, or ‘sympha-shwar’, or in general, ‘sympha-blei’ (handing over the act of redress to the gods or goddesses). That was the extreme case of payment demand, or deficit balancing.
This article only shows the bare facts of the Khasi traditional concept of economy. Drastic and irrevocable changes have taken place in the Khasi society today, and I leave it to the economists and sociologists to suggest ways and means how to juxtapose this tradition with the present and future of the society. But as I see it, to solve the various social problems we need to undertake meticulous analysis of their histories and symptoms so as to arrive at proper diagnoses; then only will we be able to administer the necessary remedial measures. Hasty diagnoses through biased or improper analysis, and denial of the existence of unwholesome precedents in tradition, would only lead to cancerous consequences. The nuclear family has replaced the kur as the new basic unit of the Khasi society in political affairs, in religion, in social membership and in economy. Without the four basic characteristics of the kur, it is doubtful whether statutory recognition of the dorbar-kur or seng-kur on mere reckoning of lineage would ever make any positive improvement on the Khasi social conditions. But it is evident that to keep the Khasi society on its feet, a father should now assume the role of the traditional uncle as the builder and guarantor of the economic and social security of the nuclear family.
Customs are not sacred but they were always based on the socio-economic requirements of the time. Life experience of the current generation had always been the basis on which customs had been modified from generation to generation in any society. Most of the Khasi customs were relevant when the livelihood of the tribe was based wholly on agriculture and the land was in plenty in the form of ‘ri-raid’. Today there is no more free ‘ri-raid’ for our youth to bank upon, but they have to struggle for new ways and means of survival. Customs which were economically viable for the youth of twenty generations ago cannot be converted into bread and butter for the youth of today. Much more than customs are now needed. It is time to stop fooling our youth on the sacredness of customs, or sacrifice their future for the interests of those who are in advantageous positions by the customs, or by the indifference of those who are no more in need of change. Besides the books suggested by Gerald F. Kharkrang, I would also suggest our youth to read the book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People”, by Dale Carnegie. These books would help in improving the cash flow pattern and public relation skills of the youth, and building up their assets, better than lectures on customs.