By FabianLyngdoh
In the past, the Khasi society was a web of social relationships among the matrilineal clans called the ‘ki Kur’, and not a web of social relationships of individuals as understood in Western societies. Each Kur is a basic social unit, an independent religious institution, a primary political institution, and an independent economy within one political community called the ‘Raid.’Land in the form of the ‘Ri-Raid’ (commune land) belongs to the people as members of society.Individual families can establish homesteads, own settled farm lands, and cultivate crops in the Ri-Raid. Large stretches of lands called ‘Ri-Kur’ or ‘Ri-Khain are also owned by particular Kurs as trustees. However, all lands are basically part of the Ri-Raid. If a section of the Kur migrates to another Raid, it loses right over the Ri-Kur; and, if the whole Kur migrates to another Raid, its Ri-Kur stands dissolved and becomes part of the Ri-Raid. Ownership right over land in Khasi tradition extends only to occupation and use, and not in the context of inalienable private right as understood in Western societies. Hence, the Kur owns the Ri-Kur only as along as it occupies land within the territory of the Raid and is a part of the political body in the Raid.
The concept of economy starts and ends with the Kur only; and there is no concept of ‘state economy’ whether in the Raid or the Hima. Therefore, every Kur strives to be competent and self-sufficient as an economy, and every member contributes something to the total wealth of the Kur. That is expressed as‘ kamai ia ka hok’ (to earn righteous means of survival, either materially or spiritually). Land as the main source of economy was the joint property of the Kur. In turn, the Kur as a whole was responsible for the economic and social security of all its members, men and women equally.
In the strictest sense of Khasi tradition, the spirits of the departed members of the Kur who had laboured to build and maintain the Kur economy are the joint-holders of all ancestral properties and of all honour and dignity of the Kur. It was on this account that exchange of wealth between the Kurs was a very strict affair. Every economic transaction pertaining to exchange of wealth or transfer of property has to be communicated to the ancestors, and it was necessary that their approval be sought for through various forms of divination.
The natal household of the Kur which is supposed to be under the day-to-day care of the youngest daughter is the custodian of wealth, but under the control of the maternal uncles for the benefits of all Kur members. This is so, because in the past it was the maternal uncles who built the Kur economy, such as labouring in toil and sweat to convert marshy lands into paddy fields for settled cultivation. So, in Khasi tradition, maternal uncles are the directors of the Kur economy and the youngest household is the custodian of wealth. Khasi elders say that the youngest daughter is the custodian of the Kur property because she is expected to be the one who is “ban ri ïing ri sem, ri blei, ri Syiem,” meaning that she is expected to manage the natal household, as the head quarters of the Kur, and to hold in her personal responsibility the rites of pacification of all the deities of the clan as well as all the spirits of ancestors. Hence, the youngest daughter would have no right even as a custodian of Kur property if she is not in management of the natal household of the Kur; and, maternal uncles who contribute nothing to the Kur economy have no right to meddle in its management.
Some scholars opine that the Kur has no structural or functional relevance beyond the strictly defined domestic group called the ‘Ïing’ which is the only important functional unit of the Kur, while the Kur is not a corporate property group. These scholars had observed the Khasi society only when it had already undergone drastic changes under the influence of the British rule. Hence, their views could be true only in the context of the modern period, but it was not so in the traditional Kur system of the Khasis. In the traditional set up, within one Raid (political community), where a kin group,whether it is the whole Kur, or ka Kpoh (lineage section), or only ka Ïing (family), has established its ‘Mawbah’ (religious stone cairn),that kin group, is bound to be a functional and corporate body with one economy, and all Kur members living within the same Raid, regardless of ki Kpoh or ki Ïing, have equal right to the security provided by the Kur economy. If two lineages of a Kur reside within the same Raid but stand as separate religious institutions by having separate Mawbah and separate economy, then they no longer belong to the same Kur. So, the structural and functional unit of a Kur is not determined on the basis of ka Kpoh or ka Ïing, but on the basis of the Raid in which they reside.
All forms of property belong to the whole Kur, religiously and legally. The properties of all ki Kpoh and ki Ïing of the Kur within one political community, though under the care of each individual Ïing or Kpoh, are considered 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. A man’s children can enjoy the interests and profits accrued on his self-acquired property, but the property itself as the capital belongs to his Kur.
As the Kur is conceived of as a corporate social institution with perpetual succession and common seal, strictly speaking, there is no concept of inheritance of Kur property in the Khasi thought and practice. Inheritance of land ownership as a private property is a concept borrowed from individualistic societies, where land is not seen as a natural source of economy, but as a commercial commodity which can be bought and sold. In the Khasi traditional society, land cannot be bought or sold; it can only be left to nature for others to use. Even the division of the clan land between the various Kpohs of the Kur is not amounting to bequeathing as individualistic inheritance, but is only a way of allocation or allotment of land for occupation and use. And, land can only be gifted or exchanged between political communities by way of political transactions, but not as economic or commercial transactions.
The new individualistic concept of law of inheritance was introduced to the Khasis by the British colonial rulers in 1918 through a court ruling, declaring that according to Khasi tradition, the youngest daughter as an individual is the rightful heiress to inherit ancestral property. How can the property of a body corporate with perpetual succession and common seal be inherited by an individual?Moreover, by this British ruling, the youngest daughter of a Kur living comfortably in Shillong within Hima Mylliem, can claim inheritance right to ancestral land in Hima Sohra. That is unimaginable in Khasi tradition!
In societies, where the idea of individual ownership of property exists, an individual or group of individuals can inherit property when the owner of the property dies. It has even been reported that a certain woman in a Western Country who was a millionaire bequeathed her whole property to a cat because she had no human relations. Western individualism can go to that extent! But in the Khasi thought, the Kur as the owner of property is an institution with perpetual succession, and the property of whatsoever nature belongs to the Kur as a whole. The Kur does not die, but it can only become extinct. Hence, Kur property is thought of as continually owned by the Kur from generation to generation and can never be inherited by any individual. 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 is no inheritance of ancestral property as private ownership by any Kpoh, Ïing or individual, to the exclusion of other Kur members.
Alas! Today few individuals have become crorepatis overnight by the sale of Ri-Kur, and most of the land in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills is owned by few rich individuals while the majority own only homesteads, or are landless. Within the scope of this article, I end the discourse at this point, and leave to other thinkers and economists, social reformers and policy makers to dwell upon the issue and look into the past, examine the present, and speculate the future of the tribe vis-a-vis the rest of the world.