By Avner Pariat
I must say that I find Facebook a terrible thing. That is my opening remark. I think one could do a nice study about the incidence of its arrival and the polarisation of politics. There’s a nice Ph.D topic for someone (though I think someone must have already done it by now). The reason I say this is because of the number of extremely offensive screen-shots which have been flying into my phone’s photo folder over the course of the past week. All of them have originated from Facebook, and their targets have included Agnes Kharshiing, Angela Rangad and Patricia Mukhim. All women. Many of the male opponents of the KHADC bill have gotten off with a slight scolding or a stern berating. Isn’t this indicative of something? It seems that men can debate all they want, but women who debate get called sluts, whores and traitors. Mind you I am sure these vociferous people wouldn’t dare utter even a single word if they came face to face with any of these people. This is what Facebook has done. It has created little crevices for people to crawl into and there they breed amongst themselves. Everyone is now a “khraw-pyrkhat” (great thinker) and a Facebook “khlawait” (warrior). The algorithms written for Facebook ensure that these people always get an audience and it is always an approving one.
Personally I believe that if you are always getting praised, you must be doing something wrong. It might sound cynical but that is the world we live in today: sheltered, insular and instantly gratifying. So rather than preaching to a captive following, I would like to talk to the other side(s). I am sure they are not bad people, maybe our strains of reason are at odds but perhaps meeting each other can make us a bit more civil if nothing else. After all, how can a profile encapsulate a personality? I extend a hand to all detractors and opponents. My email is at the bottom, please contact me. If you have something to say, I’d like to hear it in person. Also kudos to T7 for broadcasting the debate on the KHADC bill, it was a wonderful step in trying to bridge the gaps created by platforms like Facebook. This shows us why local content is still so important in spite of the priority on “national” news. Because of that broadcast we, as a public, are better informed now and much more nuanced opinions are emerging from all sides. This is good news.
So on to the main course, this KHADC bill. What does one say about it that hasn’t already been said before? The main issue here revolves around protection, i.e. the protection of the Khasi people from exploitation by outsiders. The opponents on the T7 broadcast threw different arguments at each other around this very topic. On one side you had the “our women are being exploited, our people are being exploited” argument to which the other side tried to offer different alternatives to the Bill. It was informative. I have a very simple premise for any law-making: whatever the case is, empirical facts are sacred. Emotions have no place in such procedures. That being said, is it a statistical fact that Khasi women are marrying non-tribal men by the droves? That can be found out through research into marriage records and so on. Now out of this set of inter-racial, inter-cultural unions how many are “exploitative”? Can we really find this out? It would be difficult but surely some attempt at it must be made if we propose to make laws upon the matter. What would the number be like? Would it be as high as the bill supporters hope for or would it be minuscule? And can we make laws if the case is the latter? These basic questions are left unanswered while the whole world burns down based on rumoured assumptions.
So the key to this whole argument about exploitation rests on the role of the women within these unions. Many people allege that non-tribal men seduce the apparently simple-minded and large-hearted tribal women and then fool them into allowing the use and abuse of their ST privileges. For example, if a business is registered under the Khasi wife’s name, the non-tribal husband can escape the payment of any annual income tax. I am sure this has happened and is happening today, I do not deny that, and many people have offered (non-KHADC bill) solutions to this before. Obviously there must be a bevy of cases like this in order for people to take this issue to heart in the way they have. But here’s where the argument often takes a sexist turn for the worse. It is assumed that the woman, ‘being a woman’, is a mere pawn in this war game between tribal and non-tribal man. That somehow she is helpless, and incapable of her own decisions, that she is the husband’s puppet. I agree with this to an extent but I see this as something beyond a tribal versus non-tribal issue. The bigger question that emerges from this is: Are our women really as independent as we like to believe? Forget India and its uber-patriarchal societies, can our women compare favourably with the rest of the world in this regard? Are there many who are truly capable and emancipated? And are we ready to call them boss?
Many friends (and foes) from various pressure groups actively think that “ngi dei ban iada ia ki kynthei jong ngi” (we must protect our women) is a much more common slogan than “ngi dei ban pynhikai ia ki” (we must teach them). To the latter, I agree. Why not teach women (and men to be perfectly honest) how to manage money and resources better by themselves? Our women need to be re-skilled for the future, not shut out from it. In spite of the fact that women outperform men time and again in various lines of education, they are still shunned from being given real responsibilities. That is a crying shame. Many say women have too much power in our society, I want to antagonise by saying that they, in fact, need more of it!
People from all over the world have come to Meghalaya to research and inquire into our system. When the rest of the world is looking for alternatives to the rigid confines imposed by “patriliny” some here are thinking about ways to do away with it and have us join the “Mainstream”. Matriliny is not at fault here. It is a system which is under extreme stress from external factors and in spite of this it is coping quite well if we are to be fair in our assessment. People say this system as we have it is unfair to men. But what we have today is not “matriliny” but a watered-down version of it. In the old days, the youngest daughter could not do anything without first consulting the uncles especially the eldest one. This is what “matriliny” meant to our forerunners. It places an emphasis on “kur” (clan) and clan encompasses everyone. Is there inequality in this? I am totally in favour of any bill that considers a way of strengthening and reinvigorating our ancient system.
Pnar model of assimilation
No bill can substitute for our loss of community; we all raised children to become Khasis, we encouraged people to turn into Khasis
The writer can be reached at [email protected]