By Fabian Lyngdoh
The term ‘community’ is one of the most elusive and vague in sociological discourse, and is by now largely without specific meaning. Primarily, it refers to a collection of people in a geographical area, possessing a particular social structure, a sense of belonging or community spirit, and is self contained. But in recent times the term has also been used to indicate a sense of identity or belonging that may or may not be tied to geographical location. In this sense, a community is formed when people have a reasonably clear idea of who has something in common with them and who is not. The term ‘community’ therefore may also refer to mental constructs formed by imagined boundaries between groups, through occupational or religious affiliations.
In common understanding, the organic grouping of human beings in a definite geographical territory without reference to any particular ethnicity or socio-cultural structure is called ‘society’. When a human society is viewed in terms of its particular ethnic grouping or unique cultural aspect then it may be called a ‘community’, which as Patricia Mukhim said is also envisaged to be having shared beliefs, shared goals and a shared idea of how to achieve these goals (ST. February 26th, 2016).
The Khasi society, in general, comprises all the people who call themselves the children of ‘ki Hynniew Trep’ (seven huts) inhabiting the Khasi and Jaintia Hills. But the functional social grouping of the Khasis which can be called a ‘community’ was the ‘Raid’ which was translated as ‘a political commune’. In the western part of the Khasi Hills, it was ‘Ka Shnong’ which was translated as ‘village’ ruled by hereditary headmen called lyngdoh-shnong. These independent political communes had existed long before the formation of any present hima, and the emergence of modern day dorbar shnong.
The ‘Raid’ was formed when a group of clans inhabiting a particular territory united to form a political community, and the male heads of founding clans assumed various political roles, such as, lyngdoh, basan, sangot, daloi, pator, maji, shutia, sohblei etc., and they were collectively known as ‘ki longsan’. The political role of the clan was called ‘ka jait’. There was no equality among the clans as ‘ki jait’, though there was perfectly equality among them as ‘ki kur’. Political affairs and territorial authority in a Raid were the prerogatives of these founding clans who called themselves ‘ki binong-bishon’. The dorbar of ‘ki longsan’ was the supreme territorial authority over the land. The ‘Raid’ was an organic community with a life of its own manifested through the processes of its socio-political system and community religion. That is why the concept of land was called ‘Ka Ri-Raid’ and the concept of political territory was called ‘Ka Ri – Ka Raid’.
Within the Raid, the kurs were equal and independent entities, and functioned as sub-systems within the larger system. Each clan was a basic member of society, a primary political unit, an independent economy, and a religious institution with independent religious cult. Since the clans were exogamous, their survival depended on marital relationships among themselves. For this reason the Khasi society is also understood in terms of ‘ka longkur-ka longkha’ (a web of social relationships established by inter-marriages between the clans). The socio-political formation of the Khasi society depended on the inter-relationships of the clans. All socio-political functions and concepts of socio-political and religious virtues in the Raid or the Shnong could be made operationalised only through the clans; and the conscience of the Khasi society was imbedded in the structure and inter-relationships of the clans.
The traditional system described above is no more in existence in the present Khasi society. Traditional community life and the conscience of the society had long been lost as pointed out by Michael Makri (ST. February 27th, 2016). Patricia Mukhim has rightly said that there is no equivalent of the term ‘community’ in the Khasi language. Even the term ‘ka imlang-sahlang’ is a modern formulation. In the present Khasi society there isn’t any community with a shared vision. But we stick on to the idea that the society today still exists on angelic virtues of ‘ka tipbriew tipblei’ (knowing man and knowing God), ‘ka hok ka sot’ (divinely sanctioned socio-religious code), ‘ka tipkur ka tipkha’ (living as abiding members of the clan and good members of society), ‘kamai ia ka hok’ (earning righteousness and truth), ‘ka burom ka akor’ (to hold on to propriety and honour), etc. We claim that we still have the prevailing well established social custom based on the principles of egalitarianism, participative action, and spirit of solidarity, with enlightened code of moral conduct and ethics embedded in all sorts of angelic virtues. We claim that our indigenous judicial system is being run on the principle of ‘ka bishar-blei’ (judgment by divine intervention) while our dorbar shnong, dorbar raid and dorbar hima are today actually functioning as raw imitations of the modern judicial system.
The recent Judgment of the Meghalaya High Court on the 13th January 2016 in the case WA No. 2 of 2015, has stated that a firm belief in the ultimate judgment of God which a member of Khasi society is expected to practice and imbibe in day to day life would never permit a customary elected representative of the tribe to indulge in misconduct and practice intolerance. The Judgment pointed out that it is unimaginable that the Khasi, a tribe which practised novel, unconventional and liberal ideology could allow its tool of governance at the lowest rung to betray and hold its rich cultural heritage to ransom by preventing his own kinsmen from practicing his lawful avocation while denying their right in the native village only on the ground of inter-religious marriages. Indeed, the High Court Judgment declared that a person who does not practice the way of life the Khasi culture ordains cannot legitimately claim to be a Khasi. But the High Court Judgment also rightly concluded that all the philanthropic and humanitarian objectives, being the cardinal principles of Khasi culture, which used to be practiced religiously by their ancestors, have now remained only in the pages of their history.
The Meghalaya High Court has given the right judgment according to the Khasi concept of ‘ka nia ka jutang’ (argument of truth according to a covenant). According to Khasi thought, the words spoken or declarations made constitute ‘ka jutang’ (covenant). We are apt to set up covenants in terms of spiritual ideals or angelic virtues by which we promise to perform or maintain. Hence, we shall be judged in accordance with our conformity or deviation from these angelic virtues. But if we set up covenants according to common provisions of law, then we shall also be judged according to the law, and we shall not be condemned even if we fail to perform or maintain angelic virtues.
The Khasis in the past were able to perform or maintain all the virtues claimed, because the clan was then, a socio-political and religious institution binding on all its members, and functioned as a primary informal as well as formal mechanism of social control and the existence of the Raid or Shnong as a socio-political commune with a community religion binding on all clans for the maintenance of the social order. But the Khasi society is today broken up into various occupational and religious communities cutting across clans, Shnongs, Raids or Himas. Even the Khasis who claim to profess the indigenous faith had bypassed the clan and set up a new faith prescribing the individuals’ direct relationship with God according to the need of the times. The virtues established by the ancestors cannot be put into operation without the agency of the traditional kur system and the basic political commune. But the kur today is no more a primary member of society, no more an independent economy, no more a basic political unit and no more a religious institution. Hence, the virtues and wisdom of the ancestors now exist only in the pages of history, and have become either redundant or insufficient to run an efficient system of community administration on the principle of egalitarianism, justice, righteousness, honour, dignity and solidarity.
The ancestors were wise to devise social norms according to the needs of their times, and if they can resurrect today they would certainly, in their wisdom, seek God’s permission to redesign social norms and redirect tradition to adapt to the changing circumstances. But since they can no more return, let us on their behalf and for the interest of future generations, redesign social norms and devise new mechanisms to operationalise the wisdom of the ancestors and reconstruct the ‘community’ and restore its conscience.