By Fabian Lyngdoh
We are interested to know what the future has in store for us. But the ‘future’ has always been an abstract and vague concept. It has an existence only in the mind, conjured up by hope, and sometimes by despair. The only events we can analyse are those of the past, and the only life we can possibly live is the present. Therefore, we have to be attentive to the present, because what we call a future is only a continuation of the present. It is in this context that Jesus said, “Take therefore no thought of the morrow; for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” If we are not attentive to improve the present situation, then the morrow cannot take care for the things of itself. We can improve our lives by learning a lesson from the past, but taking the present, and not the past, as the base line. The past has already been overlapped by the present, and whatever value there was in the past, has become the ingredient of the present. If we miss out this point, then we will lose hold of both the concrete past and the prospective future.
Globalization with the broader objectives of universal economic and social development by the removal of barriers to trade and investment between nations with a view to achieve economic efficiency through competitiveness was not able to achieve the dream of a global village and a common culture of the world. The concepts and the activities have always been dominated by the developed nations of the West with a motive to globalise not knowledge or prosperity, but to expand the production and market networks for their branded products through patent regime at the cost of the natural resources of the poor societies. Hence, instead of a common culture, there arose a reaction on the part of the poorer societies to thicken their narrow domestic walls in defence against such onslaught. Organizations like the Terra Madre seek to empower the indigenous peoples to protect and promote the indigenous way of life, to rediscover the traditional indigenous knowledge and agro-ecological practices which have sustained indigenous life since time immemorial. The objective is to fight against the globalisation of a ‘criminal’ food system perpetrated by the multi-national companies, and hence to ensure the food security of the poor indigenous communities.
Several years back in a training programme in the ICAR Institute at Umiam, I had a quarrel with one of the scientists of the institute. It was not his fault in condemning the indigenous methods of cultivation as outdated, and preaching the benefits of foreign hybrid seeds, chemical fertilizers and lots of pesticides because he was following the Government policy. Indeed, during those years all NGOs took pride in collaborating with the State Government’s programmes to do away with the useless local seeds and adopt the high class imported seeds from Germany, Israel etc. That was the fashion then. At my turn to speak, I said that a few years of experiments in the lab of scientists cannot compare with millions of years of evolution in the lap of nature. So, it would be good if government institutions assist the farmers in land development and watershed management but not to encourage poisoning the country side with chemicals and not to interfere with the local biodiversity and indigenous seeds. At the end of the session, that particular scientist publicly rebuked me, saying that I should not speak out of turn because India is overpopulated and millions of mouths have to be fed. Being so rudely stung, I rudely retorted that if India is overpopulated, so let it be; but Meghalaya with only 79 people per sq.km is miserably under populated. I told him not to impose his common policy based on blanket statistics. The cordial relationship got destroyed. I wish I could meet him again now to salute for his sense of duty in discouraging indigenous organic farming.
On September 13, 2007, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was adopted by the General Assembly, and ‘Indigenous People’s Rights’ becomes a popular catchword. Though the idea of protecting indigenous people from exploitation is sound, but we should be able to discern the difference between the ideas of ‘traditional’ and ‘indigenous’. A sound indigenous agro-ecological practice may not be traditional, and a traditional practice relevant in the past, may no more be sound in the socio-economic setting of today. A modern institution or method can be indigenous if it is developed within the society and the local eco-system. The present-day dorbar shnong for example, has naturally evolved from within the society, so it is an indigenous institution of the Khasis even though it is not traditional as it has never been there in the past. Therefore, sustainable development depends not so much on the rediscovery of the traditional knowledge and agro-ecological practices which have been practised since time immemorial, but it depends much more on the discovery and invention of new indigenous methods relevant to the present needs but not foreign to the geographic conditions and biodiversity of the land. It is not the cultural patterns that determine the socio-economic activities of the people, but on the other hand, it is the socio-economic activities based on the prevalent conditions of existence that determine their cultural patterns.
Our ancestors were completely independent because they lived in isolation and their density of population was very low compared to the availability of abundant natural resources. In 1924 the total population of the 25 Khasi states was only1,80,000 with a density of 17.24/sq.km, of whom, 1,63,000 were Khasis. Their population a hundred years before the advent of the British rule could have been extremely low that wild bananas would have been more than sufficient to feed their little ones. In 2011, the population of the same area under the 25 Khasi States is 14,68,040, and a density of 140.58/sq.km, which is more than 8 times the population in 1924. Looking at these figures it becomes clear that the traditional methods of production and the relations of productions among the people cannot be relevant with the present needs. New indigenous methods of production and new relations of production must evolve and improved cultural patterns need to emerge. The tribe has to be capable of inventing new indigenous methods of livelihood and renovating improved cultural patterns from within, and not wait for a declaration from the UNO, or lamely return to the past or blindly accept the dictates of multi-national companies.
Multi-national companies have the intelligence and the power to influence political authorities including the UN. Karl Marx is right in saying that in capitalist societies, the government is only the executive committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie. It could be that the industrialized nations realised that they had destroyed their natural environment, and to keep their lungs healthy they have to strategize to convince the so called underdeveloped societies and indigenous peoples all over the world to reduce their populations and convert all their habitats into reserve forests and wild life sanctuaries. They would readily finance such projects so that they can smoke the cigars there in America, while we live on roots, wild herbs and insects to protect their lungs here in the remote corner of India. They might even buy away the rights of under-developed nations to industrialise themselves through the so called ‘carbon trading’.
Hence besides the right as an indigenous tribe, our people need socio-economic security. They still need to achieve a certain decent level of modern development, and there is nothing to romanticise about the paradise of a cowherd playing his flute in the rain while tending his cattle on the hill side and bitten by mosquito and leeches. That is good for poetry and spiritual contemplation, but not for socio-economic development. It would not be just for some of us to live in good dwelling houses with cushioned beds and sofas while others sit on ‘ka knor ka phala’ (log or bamboo splinter). Our indigenous culture may contribute to our cultural tourism, but other than that we need to encourage our youth to invent new indigenous methods along with modern scientific knowledge to improve the lives of the people.