By Sonie Kharduit
It was refreshing to read the topic raised by Fabian Lyngdoh titled, “Should Khasi Christians lose ST status”. It was informative and insightful because it was a multi-dimensional analysis not constrained by a singular perspective. I just want to add extra inputs to this topic, considering the importance of this issue in a state where people are part of the entity called MINORITY.
Constitutionally the word ‘minority ‘was not defined anywhere, but two attributes were identified in this regard meant to safeguard and protect the people falling in this segment, i.e. the linguistic basis and religious basis. Unfortunately when debates around the topic of minority arises generally dwell only on the religious component and not the linguistic basis. As correctly pointed out by the writer, granting Schedules Tribe (ST) status is not done on the religious basis but it’s on other criteria that defines a person that qualifies to be an ST. The arguments stating that someone may lose their ST status on the basis of faith conversion is far from the truth. A Khasi will be an ST whether he/she practices the indigenous faith or Christianity or other faiths. The perks of being under the religious minority tag is altogether a different subject which will be discussed later. The nodal authority authorised to grant the ST status lies with the President of India in consultation with the Governor of the State.
The Ministry of Tribal Affairs does follow certain benchmarks in the assessment process, hence this limits any scope for discretionary decision of the President or Governor. Some criteria in the appraisal process while granting the ST status includes indication of “primitive” traits, distinctive culture, geographical isolation, “shyness of connect” with the community at large, and “backwardness”. Factoring the above criteria, the three tribes in our state and other aboriginal tribes in Northeastern states and certain backward pockets of India’s mainland deserve the preferential treatment. Hence the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, a constitutional body was established to safeguard the interests of the ST community.
The debate on this Minority status is a highly complex phenomenon, because of the heterogeneous structural arrangement of Indian society, not to forget that the benefits of being an ST add additional flavour. For example the composition of Indian society has spatial variation throughout the its territory, Punjab being a Sikh dominant state does get to enjoy the religious minority status but is exempted from ST or SC status, because of better socio-economic indicators. Whereas in Manipur, which is a geographically and economically disadvantaged state, the inhabitants such as the Meities (constituting 53%) of the population, are still deprived of the ST status. Our state has been fortunate in that the three dominant tribes) get to enjoy the benefits of both statuses (ST status and religious minority status). But the one on the losing side is the indigenous faith of the Khasi (Niam Tre) (Seng Khasi) because in a big way they are deprived of the benefits enjoyed by religious minority institutions. The fundamental rights under Article 29(1) clearly give adequate scope for ‘any section of the society’ to safeguard their own identity further strengthened by the benefits under Article 30, but Niam Khasi/NiamTre stand deprived of both.
This minority issue debacle when viewed from the religious angle becomes more labyrinthian. There are thousands of indigenous faiths associated with tribal communities spread throughout our country and all of them become victims of exclusion. The National Commission for Minorities (NCM) notification 1992 notifies only six religious communities, viz; Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Zoroastrians (Parsis) and Jains in the Gazette of India as minority communities by the Union Government all over India, hence all those outside the list stand to lose the benefits entitled under the Fundamental Rights granted to linguistic and religious minorities.
Another interesting aspect of this discussion as highlighted by Fabian Lyngdoh is the fact of spatial differences in religious dominance. The same Hindu which is pan majority on national scale becomes the minority in our state. When viewed at a global scale the minority-majority debate becomes even more complex. Religious dominance is synchronized with political boundaries. The South American continent is dominated by Roman Catholics, whereas the Middle East is the zone of Islamic dominance, Eastern Europe and North America is the zone of Protestant Church dominance and then East Asia with the Confucians in China etc. So the world is highly fractured on the basis of religious dogmas, but peace prevails more on those territories with high Human developmental Index (HDI) simply because of the egalitarian set up. The equitable distribution of resources among the population leaves no room nor reasons for conflict between the two groups. Nordic countries are the best examples in this case. But in poor countries like India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and several distressed countries in the African continent, majority-minority conflict is a regular phenomenon simply because the inequitable resource distribution and the rich-poor divide is huge and hence religious conflict may become a reality because it has the inherent potential to create divisions and people may use it just to have greater share from the limited resources (the word ‘resource ‘ here may include food security, social security, job opportunities, access to education- health, income security etc).
The Jharkhand story last year generated loads of criticism mainly from the Christian community because they felt the excessive intrusion of the state in the aspects of religious matters by enacting the “religious freedom act 2017,” prohibiting any forceful conversion, incitement, allurement with punishment of 3 years jail term and Rs 50,000 fine. In fact Jharkhand is the eighth state enacting such Act. Arunachal Pradesh is one among the NE states that enacted the anti-conversion Act. Anti- conversion is bi-directional act means it prohibits conversion both ways. Christian converts may face the same punishment as Hindu converts or a Muslim converts etc. Moreover the Right to Religious Freedom is not absolute either as stated in the Constitution; the state can always interfere to prevent any coercive conversion but on what basis the Jharkhand government enacted this act is altogether a different debate. Coming back to the Sindri tribe conversion and other Ghar Wapasi controversies in Jharkhand, who is right and wrong is no one’s business to dictate judgment from 1000 miles away without knowing the facts, but what is relevant for us is the arguments regarding the loss of ST status connected with this Act as reported by some writer is not convincing. As Fabian Lyngdoh and I concur to the fact that granting ST status is totally separate from religious affiliation, so whether the Sindri tribe converts to Christianity from Hinduism or the Khunti indigenous faith or vice versa, the ST status is intact no matter what faith they profess because the tribal identity is the determining factor and not religion.
The take- away from the Jharkhand episode is that many of us view it only through the lens of religion and not the overall features of the inhabitants. Jharkhand is known as a resource cursed state with plenty of mineral resources but with minimal development, inhabited by several tribal groups and Munda tribe being the prominent one. Hence it’s a fertile ground for all religious faiths to prove their supremacy (whether as a Good Samaritan or mere religious empire expansion). As the story narrated by one distressed family, the reason of conversion to Christianity as facilitated by one pastor is to get the cure of her ailing mother, expecting miracles to happen in this new faith. But with time the real miracle did not come neither from the Hindu nor Christian nor Islam religion but from her indigenous Khunti faith (nature worship) in the form of herbal medicines practiced by the community for ages. This incident is not to be interpreted as ‘no miracle can happen in some established religion’ around the world but where it went wrong is the thought that miracle which is nothing but God’s divine touch is the sole property of one religion. Any righteous heart deserves a miracle no matter what faith we follow because God is one and he judges nobody.
Finally on the debate whether Khasi community should lose the ST status on account of faith conversion, the simple answer is NO. It would be ultra- vires violating the constitutional mandate and the Supreme Court will not allow such provisions. On the issue whether the Niam Khasi/Niam Tre deserves the religious minority status, logically the answer is YES but practically the process is a herculean task, keeping in mind the close nexus between religion and politics and how they influence each other as witnesses recently with the Lingayat episode in Karnataka. The National Commission for Minorities (NCM) being a mere advisory body further complicates the problems.