By Fabian Lyngdoh
It seems that the discourse on the issue of the “Religious Minority Act,’ has strayed from the legal implications of the Act from social living, into the theological doctrine of religions. As a concerned Khasi citizen of India I feel deeply bound to mediate in this seemingly endless debate on the platform of your respectable column. Christianity and some other religions are being recognised as religious minorities under Indian law. The Khasis who belong to the so called ‘Niam Khasi Tynrai’ or ‘Niam Tre’ (I put the words ‘so called’ intentionally) had so far been classified as belonging to no particular religion and indicated in the Census as ‘other religions’ without a definite identity. However, at the individual level, all the Khasis, either belonging to Christian Churches or professing to belong to the so called indigenous faith availed the same benefits as people belonging to Khasi scheduled tribe. There is a pending case in the Supreme Court seeking recognition of the so called Khasi indigenous religion as a religious minority. If Khasi Christians had been provided special facilities and assistance on the basis of being Christian minority, then I support the move of the so called indigenous Khasi religion hundred per cent. They are indeed a minority group not only at the national level, but also at the state level. All their activities aiming for social wellbeing and overall justice, including health care and education must be provided special support.
At the State level, Christians in Meghalaya are in majority, but at the national level Christians are in a minority. Therefore, Christians cannot claim minority rights at the State level, but they can still claim minority rights at the national level, if there is any such right. The so called Khasi indigenous religion should have a minority status at the State level if there is any such right, and they should also have religious minority right at the national level as a distinct religion.
However, the move of the so called indigenous Khasi religious group to achieve constitutional recognition as a distinct religion should not affect the rights of Khasi Christians as members of the Khasi scheduled tribe. The rights of the Khasis to the constitutional provisions as Scheduled Tribes is not based on religion but on the basis of being Khasis; and that should be left to local definition. If the leaders of the so called Khasi indigenous Khasi religion think that Khasi Christians are no longer Khasis and they have no right to the Constitutional provisions of being Scheduled Tribes, then they are digging the grave of the tribe only to placate the Hindutva ideology.
Sonie Kharduit had rightly criticised Fr. Barnes Mawrie for having ventured to argue the issue from academic point of view. But, Fr. Barnes Mawrie is a Christian priest; hence, he has the mandate to preach the Gospel not only in Church services, but also through the social media or even shouting from the roof tops. Those who believe are accepted into the fold, and those who do not believe are free to have their own convictions. No one can force them to believe; it is as simple as that. Even those who are baptised are still free to move out at any time without any legally binding penalty whatsoever. As for the charge that conversion has been done by force or fraud, only those who were converted can testify, but not by those outside the flock who only imagine it to be so. It is too simplistic for those who are not Christians to imagine that all the Khasis who became Christians did so only because of some worldly factors. With due respect to the view of Sonie Kharduit a vast majority of Khasi Christians today would testify that they chose to be Christians out of their own conviction. The whole clan to which I belong chose to become Christians only after the last grandmother and the last chief maternal uncle of the clan who were in the old tradition declared that “the old religion would no longer sustain, so you have to adopt a religion that would sustain your present needs as well as continue with the tradition of the ancestors.” Is anyone out there to challenge the declaration of the Iawbei and Suidnia of my own clan as far as their descendants are concerned? It seems clear that the true religion of the Khasis has become grossly innovated through misinterpretation of the political and economic elites of the twentieth century who became partly influenced by Hinduism and Christianity. The believers of the so called indigenous Khasi faith are a minority today because that kind of faith itself is not traditional though it might be an indigenous evolution. It is similar to the Heraka faith movement which replaced the real traditional religion of the Zeliangrong Nagas called ‘Paupai Renet’ by a new religion based on a new cult introduced by Haipou Jadonang in the late 1920’s after spiritual inspiration from the temple of the Hindu god Vishnu on the Bhuban Hill in East Cachar, and vigorously followed up by a woman disciple Rani Gaidinliu.
However, the field is free for those who think that Khasis had become Christians by force or by the lure of worldly benefits, to organise a ‘ghar wapasi’ for the imaginary forced/influenced/indoctrinated Christians to leave their faith because the Christians are free to do so without ‘ka sang’ (sacrilege) as there is no spiritual covenant, law or magic to keep them from remaining as Christians. Khasi champions of ‘ghar wapasi’ with Hindu inclination have the right to do scientific investigation to find out how many Christians feel that they have been forced by any circumstance to remain Christians. Mere imagination is no proof.
I respect the new Niam Khasi as the Nagas respect the new Heraka movement, and I support the idea that they should have constitutional religious minority rights, but to say that Christians or those who do not belong to the new Khasi religion are no longer Khasis and they should no longer avail Scheduled Tribe benefit is not an issue of the Khasi tribe but an issue of the Hindutva ideology which is downright condemnable.