By Albert Thyrniang
My late father had the prefix ‘khar’ to his clan name. He openly and even proudly declared that one of his fore parents, either from the mother or father’s side, was a ‘dkhar’ from Bangladesh. The ‘dkharness’ was incorporated into his ‘Jahrin’ surname to become ‘Kharjahrin’. Probably that is how the other clans with the prefix ‘khar’ like ‘Kharsyntiew’, ‘Khardewsaw’, ‘Kharmawphlang’, ‘Kharmawlong’, ‘Kharbhih’, ‘Kharlyngdoh’ came into being. We have also the title ‘Dhar’ among the Khasis. Was it that once upon the time a Khasi man married a ‘dkhar’ (non Khasi woman) and the husband surrendered his Khasi title in favour of his wife? Yet his offspring remained Khasis and were accepted as Khasis though they were probably called or branded as ‘dkhar.’ So probably the ‘khars’ or ‘dkhars’ might have originated from inter racial marriages. Otherwise what explanation can we offer?
These offsprings of ‘mixed descents’ have been have been considered full-fledged Khasis. At no point of time were their Khasi status questioned. All possess the tribal certificate. Until recently no one made an issue out of it. Our forefathers and mothers were able to assimilate them into the mainstream Khasi society. They were not discriminated against. The present generation too do not face any discrimination because of their last name. They are not even aware of the ‘dkharness’ in their family name.
My hypothesis of ‘khar’/’dkhar’ might be baseless. However, there is no denying the fact that inter-racial marriages in the Khasi Society were always there from time immemorial and their off-springs have been happily accepted into the tribal fold. Today there are hundreds and thousands of Khasi women marrying non-Khasi men and children are born out of such unions. In many cases they are looked upon askance but they still have the right to belong to the indigenous tribe legally.
Now with the passing of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (Khasi Social Custom of Lineage) (Second amendment) Bill, 2018 the age-old practices could be altered all of a sudden. The Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, the custodian of customary laws under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, on July 25, passed a Bill that proposes to deem Khasi women who marry non-Khasis and their children too as non-Khasis. If the Governor of the state gives his assent to the Bill the above will be stripped of their Khasi status, their Scheduled Tribe status and the other constitutional privileges entitled to them as Khasis.
The Bill that was passed unanimously by the 29 members of the council states, “Any Khasi woman who marries a Non-Khasi as well as her offspring[s] born out of such marriage[s] shall be deemed as Non-Khasi who shall lose the Khasi status and all privileges and benefits as a member of the Khasi Tribe who cannot claim preferential privileges under any law.”
The Bill defines a non-Khasi as “a person not belonging to indigenous Khasi Tribe classified as Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950 (Part III – Rules and Orders Under the Constitution) Part XI – Meghalaya”.
As no law is retrospective, the present KHADC Amendment Bill too will not have retrospective effect. It will not be applicable to mixed marriages that have taken place before the Bill and more specifically before the assent of the Governor. Here is the crucial point. Will the Governor give his assent? How long will he take to sign on the dotted lines? Will it be sent back to the Council for consideration? Will he sleep over the Bill as it often happens to bills sent by District Councils for approval? Will the Bill lapse so that it dies a natural death? Will this controversial KHADC Bill meet the fate of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (2017) Bill which also sought to declare the children of mixed couples as non-Garos?
The Bill is seen as a protective mechanism against the ‘alarming’ rate of women marrying non-Khasis. It is hoped it will deter women from choosing non-Khasis as their life partner as they and their children will be declared non-Khasis. The proponents of the Bill will now expect women to start and build a family with a fellow Khasi man even if they wish otherwise. It will compel them to ‘fall in line’. Thus it is hoped that the Bill will be the panacea to the imminent dangers and threats to the very survival of 1.41 million Khasi community in Meghalaya. It will contribute to the preservation, conservation and promotion of social customs, practices and tradition of the ‘Hynniew Trep-Hynniew Skum’ (Khasi Race). It is to keep and preserve the traditional matrilineal system of Khasi society.
The Bill might also be seen as a tool to tackle job reservation, quota in courses of study, land and business ownership, etc. Hence forth only ‘pure’ Khasis will get the jobs reserved for them, only ‘Khasi students’ will be eligible for quota meant for the community in various educational institutes in the state and in the country, only Khasis will own land, business and other assets in the region. The Benami practice of land and business ownership will stop the Council hopes. It is claimed that unscrupulous men marry Khasi women to do business, own proxy land and business establishments in the name of their spouse. By default they derive constitutional benefits, concessions and privileges, like tax exemption, conferred on only Khasis.
Though the Bill does not infringe on the rights of women to marry anyone they choose to, the repercussions could be grave. It will create divisions, confusion and splits in families and society. It is best explained by means of an example. Suppose there are three girls in a family. Two of them marry Khasi men. They and their children will be naturally Khasis. The third girl marries a non-Khasi. Here as per the KHADC Amendment Bill, she and her children will be non-Khasis. What will happen to the family? The members of that family will lose the Khasi status. In effect, the mother has no more right over ancestral land and property? Where will the family go? Should they live like refugees? Will the clan, the community, the ‘Syiemship’ and the Council itself readily ostracise such families? In this light, the Bill is a thoughtless Bill.
What about the social customs and practices? Can the Council debar the so-called ‘non-Khasis’ from donning traditional costumes? Can they be barred from observing Khasi customs, practices and laws? Should they be prohibited from attending ‘dorbars’? Or will the Council say, ‘you are welcome to don Khasi outifts, participate in festivals, practice Khasi customs and practices but you are not Khasis. This is sheer hypocrisy. Obviously it is an unwise Bill passed by the ‘wise men and women’ of the district council.
That it is a thoughtless Bill is clear from the fact that there was no consultation whatsoever before the passing of the Bill. Few had any clue that such a Bill would be passed. The 29 MDCs thought they are the wisest. They need no advice from anyone. No wonder the traditional heads have raised objections and reservations against the Bill because they foresee the negative repercussions of the Bill. If passed and implemented the Bill will bring total confusion and even anarchy in the land. The best option is to withdraw the Bill in the present form because the Governor is unlikely to give his assent to such an ill-considered Bill.
Rightly women have also opposed the Bill. It is termed ‘gender biased’. It is alleged it targets women. Others are sure it won’t stand the scrutiny of law. It dares women to marry non-Khasi and lose their tribal status. De-facto, it ‘forces’ women to marry a Khasi man for the love of the tribe rather than for the love of the person they will live with forever!
Speaking about marriage or dating non-Khasi/tribals, of late, pictures and video of tribal females with non-tribal males went viral in Facebook and Whatsapp. They were trolled badly online with hate and demoralising messages. Some were physically abused by individuals and groups involved in moral policing. One woman who was trolled stated, ‘I want to marry a hard working businessman but I can’t find one in my community. What shall I do?’ The problem is much deeper. It cannot be solved by law. As time progresses, with influence of urbanisation and globalisation more and more mixed marriages will happen. A time may come when tribal status will matter little. Women will look for education, profession, entrepreneurship, finance, income, security and the like as criteria for tying the knot. Racial, community and religious affiliation may be secondary or of no consideration at all. The tribal certificate may also be of no value. Life will be comfortable without it. In such an eventuality few will give a damn to the KHADC Amendment Bill. So, looking within might be wiser and more beneficial than expecting an external agency to address our social maladies.