Editor,
If the gist of the Codification of Garo Customary laws in the newspapers correctly interprets the Bill passed unanimously by the GHADC, I, as a true blue Garo (which many cannot claim) have a few pertinent questions to ask.
- What is the status of a non Garo child adopted by Garo parents? More importantly, what happens when the bloodline of the child cannot be traced? There is a possibility, isn’t there?
- What happens to a child born out of wedlock whose father is unknown or undeclared?
- How can a handful of “representatives” claim to represent the will of an entire society without consensus, especially in matters of identity. Identities are individual. We have multiple identities, many of which are not our choice. We are born into families, ethnicities, race, colour, gender and given names without being asked, aren’t we? Hence, given a choice, would you rather be female? British? White? Aryan? Japanese? Garo? Do think about it.
- Did it ever occur to the MDCs that this Bill as reported in the papers, is highly divisive, parochial, arrogant, myopic and irrational. Parochial because it assumes insularity breeds ethnic purity. Arrogant because it is veiled bigotry. Myopic because the vision extends to a few metres, and irrational because it is thoughtless and impractical.
- Our culture is primarily socio-religious in practice and spirit. The only true reservoirs of Garo culture today are the Songsareks living in clusters in remote villages. If preservation of culture is what propelled the GHADC to pass this Bill, how about working towards empowering them, maybe through reservations in educational institutions, better job opportunities, alternative livelihoods, rather than using them as mere exhibits for cultural festivals as tourist attractions or as ideal subjects for anthropological research? After all, they are the authentic Garos and indigeneity is all about authenticity.
Finally, who are the MDCs to question and doubt the wisdom of our forefathers? We are already a highly democratic society, unlike the sham of an Institution called the District Council that they man at present. Property is passed through the female, hence lineage is traced through her. However, she is only a custodian, much like the MDCs and all matters pertaining to the family are decided collectively by the male elders of the clan. The system of checks and balances are already in place without the Council’s interference. When the Mahari agrees to participate and support a marriage between a Garo and a non- Garo, doesn’t it automatically symbolise acceptance? Why usurp and undermine the powers traditionally vested on the Mahari? Why not empower them instead? If unscrupulous elements are the target of the ethnic cleansing, devise innovative ways and means of identifying them and weeding them out (Councillors don’t seem to have a dearth of innovative ideas in other matters). The GHADC has hurt the sentiments of thousands of Garos by its insensitivity and arbitrariness. Cultures are preserved not through exclusion based on percentages of genealogical purity but through communion and mutual participation.
Yours etc,
Ramona Sangma
Tura
Controversial Bill on Garo Customary Law
Editor,
The recent landmark codification of Garo Customary practices have created two unequally opposite Garo (A’chik) society. Supporters of the Bill are joyful while critics are vehement in their responses. Any proposal on categorizing the tribal status by the NPP led GHADC is seen as meticulous plan to ostracize Dr. Mukul Sangma and the families, though their intention might have been patriotic. Interestingly, the downfall of NPP in GHADC is seen by NPP as a ploy of Dr. Sangma to prevent the Bill from becoming an Act. For any non-political citizen, both the theories put forth by contrasting parties are merely tactics to avoid embarrassing themselves. Everyone knows there is infighting for the chair in GHADC. A’chiks have been clamoring to preserve their identity and culture for long. Those who are directly or indirectly affected by the Bill had aired their protest. An ad-hoc organisation had been formed to register protest and follow up the contentious issue. One (Jaycee May Marak) had even ridiculed the Bill prematurely and taken it personally! Their sentiments are palpable and understandable and why not, when they are losing their A’chik identity.
A’chiks are neither against any caste nor do they hate any tribe. Present codification is the culmination of an identity crisis and a bid to prevent misuse of the A’chik’s innocence by non-tribals. Like any caste which encourages marriage within the caste, A’chiks also have the same feelings. It doesn’t mean A’chiks want to go back to pre-historic times or defy world order, but only to preserve their identity and waning culture. It is a universal truth that any person born to their caste/tribe has special attachments and feelings for their culture and will defend identity if need be. That same emotional attachment will not be seen in a non-tribal no matter how he is Garodified (moulded as Garo). One very important element of the Bill is let reservation and special benefits of tribes not go to the wrong persons. But, is it proper and valid to impose through legislation whom you should marry? Are they less patriotic than you who marry non-A’chik? Do you contribute more than them to our A’chik society? Havent’t they helped shape our society better in some way? Will you not take pride if a child born of such parent wins an Olympic medal?
For a small and vulnerable tribe the A’chiks with just a handful of population to exist without any code/legislation is equally dangerous. Evidence has shown how non-tribals marry tribal women especially in coal belts and plain belt areas only to suck honey, when he has a non-tribal wife elsewhere. Meanwhile such persons will incognito obtain ST certificate even for the child of the non-tribal mother, thus reaping all the fruits of tribals. Some children don’t know anything about A’chik culture yet literally call themselves A’chik only to gain benefits from reservation. Uniformity in clan (mahari) lineage is to be followed, as some take mahari of father and others of mother, which is confusing since upcoming generation, even from the same family might write different mahari yet DNA remains unaltered, which is medically dangerous as consanguineous marriage (within the same blood lineage) can have serious effects. Marriage within the same gotra or marriage among blood-relatives is taboo in all religions. So, it is vital to have a code for A’chiks. There are many issues to discuss on the topic which is beyond the scope of this letter.
In a democracy, every citizen should have a voice. In this case all A’chiks should have been consulted. Surprisingly, the GHADC councilors had neither debated nor consulted the people while codifying the Garo customary practices. History has enough evidence to warn legislators not to circumvent the public, like the recent, “Nepal Constitutional Crisis,” of which one issue was the subject of citizenship of children born out of non-Nepali fathers. Hence to gain the confidence of all and to make the Bill democratically vibrant, legislators should have left the sensitive issue to the public and given enough time for opinions and feedbacks before sending the Bill to Raj Bhavan. The GHADC has failed the Garo people.
Yours etc.,
Te’ Rikrak Napak
Williamnagar