By Fabian Lyngdoh
‘Community’ is a group of people, hence it is primarily an anthropological concept. ‘Society’ is a web of social relationships, hence, it is primarily a sociological concept. The basic objective of anthropology is to study and document human communities in terms of their varied cultural expressions and genetic and historical groupings; while the basic objective of sociology is to study the various social groupings and their cultural expressions in terms of the fundamental and universal principles of human collective living. A combination of both disciplines would provide better light in understanding human beings’ collective life. Let us see what are the factors binding society in general and what are binding communities in particular.
I would like to offer a basic definition of human society as, ‘a naturally evolved system of balance between individual freedom and collective order.’ Culture is a complex network of only those evolved values, norms and practices which have attained the function of reconciliation between individual freedom and collective order within a set of circumstances. The difference of cultures among human communities is due to the difference in the given sets of circumstances. Norms and ways of behaviour imposed on members of a society by external authority without passing through the test of balancing individual freedom and collective order are not elements of culture as there would be no spontaneity or general pleasure in their observance. Culture cannot be transmitted under coercion but only through the process of internalization; and internalization of culture is possible because it is accompanied by pleasure, as culture contains elements of collective order as well as elements of individual freedom.
The most important mutual adjustment that human beings ever made is the conscientious adjustment of the unlimited urge for freedom, for the sake of an ordered collective living. Unrestrained individual freedom is aggressive and harmful as well as repercussive and suicidal. As unrestrained freedom is aggressive and harmful, the collective feels the need to regulate the individual’s behaviour. And, as it is also repercussive and suicidal, the individual is compelled by sociological forces to submit to collective restraint for mutual benefit and security. All other principles of human society and their cultural expressions revolve around this basic principle. That is why all the laws in the world concern more with the regulation of human behaviour against possible aggressions, transgressions and trespasses than with possible cooperation. Cooperation for common benefit is already contained in the instincts; and instinctive regulatory system is sufficient to keep human groupings together as a community of beasts for mere propagation of the species by the alpha male alone. But to constitute a society of human beings, normative regulatory system is required; and for human beings, the ‘don’ts’ of the normative system are more important than the ‘do’s’ of the instincts.
Among the Khasis, pre-conditioning of individuals’ instincts and aspirations, and regulation of individual freedom is exercised by the ‘Kur’ (clan). Individuals have no independent social identity, because their identities and social interactions are subsumed into that of the ‘Kur’, which in turn stands as an individual in the web of social relationships. Traditionally, the basic functional society among the Khasis was the ‘Raid’ (traditional village) which was established by the association of a number of clans. In this traditional collective, there is a system of balance between individual freedom of the clans, and the collective order of the ‘Raid’.
There are also factors which bind human beings to particular groups or ethnic communities. The primary factor is the sense of uniqueness and dignity of the human individual. The division of human population into tribes, clans and families, guarantees the identification of every human individual. The closest group that a person identifies with his/her individuality comprises his/her parents, brothers and sisters. Second, a person identifies with the closest uncles, aunties and cousins; third, with the clan, fourth with the tribe, fifth with the nation, and last, with the rest of human beings. Individual’s circle of identification grows larger and larger according to the situation in which the individual is placed. So, a Khasi would consider an African as his tribesman in the community of the apes.
The birth, life and death of a single individual among billions of human beings can only be identified, recognized and respected by the society, as he/she is a member of a certain family, of certain clan, and of certain tribe. Without these divisions, the lives of human individuals are insignificant events, and the social value of individual would be non-existent. The birth of a calf or the death of a cow among hundreds of cows is not felt by the herd; but it is not so among human beings. So, as long as the consciousness of the dignity of the human individual exists, the ideas of race, tribe, clans and families would continue to exist. Even if traditional structure of human societies on the basis of tribes and clans may disappear, other forms of social groupings guaranteeing recognition and respect to human individuality would evolve to maintain the balance.
Another subsidiary factor which binds people into particular groupings is the consciousness of possible external threat to the established order by the invasion of some savage or barbarian communities. This factor sometimes plays a negative role in today’s modern world when there are no more barbarians around. When there is a perception of external threat, internal strife becomes insignificant and reserved in the cupboards. The society encloses itself in the shell to evade external danger and the cultural development of any society tends to remain static. But when there is no perception of external threat, it is internal strife that keeps any culture dynamic in a flux of change and ever enriching process, and influences renewal and development of culture from generation to generation.
The factor of external threat is now replaced by constitutional protection such as the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. It is being perceived that special protection and benefits would be provided to people of a schedule tribe on condition that they maintain their age-old customs and traditional identity in the political museum. It is assumed that if some sections of a schedule tribe deviate from traditions and customs and recreate some improved ways of life according to prevalent circumstances, then they violate tradition as well as the constitutional provisions, and therefore, lose the benefits of scheduled tribe status. Internal strife necessary for cultural development is again confined into the cupboards even when there are no barbarians around. Society is a web of social relationships of the present, not of the past. Social relationships of the past took the form of traditions as guidelines for the present, but not as immutable laws. It is not for the needs of the dead, but for the needs of the living that human society continues to exist. Is the constitutional protection meant for the welfare of the people living in the present, or relevant only for maintaining the customs of the past?
The Khasi tradition was never rigid; it was dynamic and ever improving itself with time. It is the present perception that makes it rigid. The District Council should be made an agency for a healthy social change, and it should have the power to legislate for reformations of customs, and not merely to codify them as they are rigidly perceived. Special protection should not hinder the reformations of customs required for readjustment to the balance between individual freedom and the collective order at the point of justice according to present circumstances, and not according to the past. Customs which have become rigid and dysfunctional are not conducive for maintaining an equitable social order, or for strengthening the present identity of the tribe. Hence, perception of external threat to a particular community could be a reality in spite of constitutional protection, if it fails to evolve with time and recreate its identity on the bases of numerical strength, social, political, economical and intellectual competence in a wider inter-cultural circle.
When traditions and customs become dysfunctional, a mirage of disorder is created in the society; this mirage of disorder is sometimes seen as a deviance from ‘ka hok’ (truth). No amount of moral preaching can rectify a perceived deviance that is almost universal without introducing necessary changes in the cultural elements of the social system itself. To say that the morality of the Khasi society has gone down is a crude statement. If the society’s morality is perceived as disintegrating, then either the social system is in the process of change in line with prevalent circumstances, or that the standard of morality taken as a frame of reference to pass judgement on people’s behaviour is itself redundant. Individuals may stray, but the society as a whole can never go wrong.