Editor,
The thought-provoking write-up by Albert Thynriang “Is there a George Floyd among us?” (ST June 13, 2020) was timely. Reading the article, I am aroused to share my own thoughts, some in agreement; others not so. As a person born and bred in cosmopolitan Shillong around the Khasi milieu, now settled outside, I thank the writer for touching upon the endemic racism in the world, especially in this part. For obvious reasons, I shall restrict myself to the various forms of racism that exist in the country, including Meghalaya.
Thyrniang is right about the religious racism that is being fanned in the country. The Hindu assertion is a new phenomenon, part political and part as a flagrant response to rise in terrorism in the name of religion. Historically, the Hindus have been a soft target of the jingoistic Muslim marauders. In recent years, Hindus have helplessly borne the brunt of Jihad as repeated terror attacks have left the “weak” and “unorganized” Hindus at the receiving end. Today, after the ascent of Modi, Hindus have begun to assert themselves, quite unlike their known docility. Not just that; the fanatic Hindus seem to be in a mood to catch the bull by the horns. In the process, there are transgressions of the “Lakshman rekha” of secularism and religious tolerance. This uncharacteristic agro of the Hindus has led to the chagrin of the small ethnic and religious minorities which the writer wants to call “religious racism”.
Let me remind Thyrniang that racism always existed in these hills. It was a British policy that led to religious hegemony and division of community on religious line. Can we forget that the British described every non-Christian as “pagan” and “heathen” – words which are highly derogatory. I recall in Shillong when the Pnars of Wathapbru area would take out processions for participating in Behdeinkhlam festival, all decked up in the traditional attires, the British masters would forbid the neo-convert Christians from witnessing such heathen culture!
The writer rightly deplored racism in sports arena in the world. In this regard, Shillong is no exception. Ever since Shillong was built by the British and the Bengali babus, football was the most popular local sport. Players from different communities would form the Shillong District XI. There used to be only merit and no ethnic considerations. After Meghalaya came into being, suddenly it became impossible for non-Khasi players and teams to participate. The ugly scenes in Shillong football league of crowd baying for blood of the non-Khasi players tacitly abetted by the organisers created a hostile, racist atmosphere. Gradually, all the non-tribal players and teams have disappeared from the scene. And, I suspect, with that football itself has been killed in Shillong.
Thyrniang refers to some derogatory terms like “dkhar” and “bongal” the tribes use for the non-tribal plains people. He goes on to add: “Non-tribals would also narrate instances of violence against the community at different points in time”. I am happy that he stoked the ticklish issue of systemic persecution of the non-tribals. I grew up hearing more derogatory expressions like “khar-iap’, “khar-rynjain”, “khun ka pohjait” and what have you. But there was nothing serious about these abuses. I reckon, these were mere banters. Everything began to change with the tribes becoming their own masters. The waves of one-sided pogroms led to ethnic cleansing. How locality after locality in Shillong has been cleansed of non-tribal presence. From 20% non-tribals in 1971, the figure, instead of growing, has plummeted to nearly 10%. Does this tell a story?
During the past five decades, hundreds of non-tribals have been killed, houses burnt, shops looted and not a single criminal has been brought to justice. No compensation, not even a whimper of protest from the Khasis who were always respected for their honesty and simplicity. But it’s not so much the physical violence that bothers. It’s the mental violence and unequal treatment that the non-tribals are being meted out at all possible levels – society, administration and government’s blatantly racist outlook – is what hurts the most. I can write pages to cite specific instances about how the non-tribals have been subjected to ethnic racism in Meghalaya and in the absence of good governance, how living in Shillong has become insecure for them. I refrain from doing so.
To borrow a buzzword across the globe today, I want to remind that “non-tribal lives matter”. After all, it’s their taxes that fill the exchequer of Meghalaya!
Yours etc.,
Sudip Bhattacharjee,
New Town, Kolkata
Of shared taxi episodes
Editor,
There are complaints from taxi drivers and groans from taxi commuters of Shillong and its suburbs. Yes, the fare should be agreeable to both sides and minimum comfort also should be afforded because a taxi is a public service vehicle and the driver is a public service vehicle license holder. One main cause for the drivers’ grievance is the limited number of passengers allowed as per recent government order. But in the present circumstances the formula dictated by the government is perhaps the best possible. We cannot think of the majority of drivers taking responsibility to distance the passengers inside the taxi. For the drivers it is a question of money; sometimes money at any cost. For the government, however, it is a question of life and death of citizens of the state. How unpaying is it for drivers?
Some thirty years ago the DC, East Khasi Hills, as Chairman of the RTA notified the then new taxi rates starting with Rs 6.00 for the first 2 kms. A simple lady negotiated to book a taxi from Laitumkhrah Police Point to Bara Bazar ready to pay as per rate notified. The driver argued that if she joins three other ladies in the same vehicle she would have to pay only Rs 5 per head and not Rs 6, thereby gaining Re 1. Each of the four ladies then paid Rs 5 per head and the driver collected Rs 20 for the trip. This way he collected Rs 14 more by throwing government notification to the winds. Soon it became a new system in Shillong – the so called share-taxi. Now everybody knows that drivers do not carry only four passengers plus driver making it five in all.
Here is an example of a legally shared taxi. Four office assistants, say from Nongthymmai proceeding to DC’s office or Police Bazar start from one point at around 10:00 AM. They pay for the reserved taxi for the given distance. The money they pay is shared among the four of them. They gain but the driver does not lose. He gains in the sense that he got a daily regular trip without undue harassment by police.
Except in the case of proper, legally shared taxis, all journeys by taxis are generally reserved. The above are examples of proper running of taxis. It is up to the department to check and enforce the provisions.
Yours etc.,
Name withheld on request
Via email