Patricia Mukhim
You may have lived in a particular society all your life and been part of a community but would still not have understood the underpinnings that drive the society’s thought processes; its responses to crises; its reasons for anger; its reactions to provocations. As you grew up, the elders would say that yours was the best society, with an overload of reverence for elders. In fact, we grew up reading aphorisms from Khasi elders that should guide our etiquette and which looked like they came straight out of the nucleus of some benevolent matriarch who can divine the future. But with time you learn that there is a huge difference between an ideal crafted out by your ancestors which could be practiced only if you were born to and lived in a sanitized paradise of sorts, and the blows that your upbringing deals you on a daily basis if you do not belong to that hallowed heritage.
You may be part of a community but divorced from its internal dynamics because of the divisions that shatter the myth of our homogeneity. We are divided by social, economic, educational hierarchies. We may speak the same language but are not communicating because our paths don’t cross. There are neat lines drawn between the haves and have-nots; between those pampered by both parents and those nurtured only by a struggling mother.
We love to indulge in reveries of egalitarianism which I, in all my years never experienced but that’s a different matter. In a truly egalitarian society why would one or two or five clans own all the land and others remain landless? These inequalities are only sharpening. Post Covid the poverty levels would have skyrocketed unless someone has a very practical and sagacious economic plan to lay out which I am doubtful exists at this point of time.
It is to understand these dichotomies of what constitutes community and society that I picked up the book, “Social and Community Development”: An Introduction, by John Eversley. The author rejects the binaries of what constitutes a community and society and the sense of belongingness. In the 19 century, the Nazis and neo-Nazis sold the idea of Blood and Soil which is that ancestry and long term presence in a place are essential to belonging. The other extreme view is that being part of a society or community is either a personal choice or whether people accept you as part of the community. Eversley believes that characteristics of community and society need to be analysed in terms of what holds them together and who they are keeping out. But what interested me most were his sharp analyses that genocide too is an exercise in community building.
French philosopher Derrida says, no community is possible that would not cultivate its own auto-immunity. Derrida saw community being defensive, aggressive and ultimately self destructive through protecting itself. This idea is further expanded by Roberto Esposito who argues that it is the nature of communities to reject outside bodies. Interestingly, Freud too had argued very forcefully that community based on homogeneity or separating people who are different is both impossible and undesirable.
What all these philosophers suggest therefore is that co-existence is the only way forward for a purposeful human existence. Excessive demands for loyalty to the community and setting yardsticks by which to measure that loyalty, which also aims to test “blood purity” (whether one is a child of tribal parents or mixed parentage) is sapping our energies. To consider those that don’t belong to the community by virtue of the vagaries of history and to consistently get into the judgmental mode of tribal versus non-tribal/ Dkhar versus Khasi argument is poisoning our socio-political milieu. Those who for political reasons need to constantly propagate and nurture these differences and also construct the narrative that somebody outside of ourselves is responsible for our economic or educational backwardness need to be exposed. Without this narrative they would have no banner to protest and nothing to call out.
The proclivity to use social media as a tool to shame anyone who has married a non-tribal by downloading pictures and adding sordid comments has become the daily chore of some agent provocateurs. They spread hatred and do that through group Facebook pages that reek of ultra-nationalism. If that love for your community can only be fed by hatred for the other, then it is a very shallow foundation that will crumble and be demolished in a public debate. Unfortunately the authors of such putrid posts live in an echo chamber where they speak among themselves and spew out their toxic narratives through the day. All the complaints to the cyber crime division by various FB victims have not yielded results.
In all these years, it is ironic that no one has attempted to create the space for honest conversations, considering we have experienced ethno-political conflict for over forty years. People whose parents have borne the brunt of the times still carry the hurt and pain. But there are two problems in trying to bring closure to this psychic pain of victims traumatized by political violence. Now, many young people whose parents left with sad memories have assumed the status of victims and have taken on an identity of their own. The problem is that such identities are susceptible to politicization and abuse. The victims need to be identified and acknowledged as victims. They have to be empowered, for justice and reconciliation to take place. Neither victims nor perpetrators can be locked forever into that binary. There are many non-tribals living in Meghalaya today who continue to identify themselves as victims in ways that sabotage their own political agency. There is something about the victim that is disempowering. It is time for victims (and they can be from different communities), to claim their rightful place and demand justice. The very fact that crime takes on a communal colour prevents its solution. A crime is a crime is a crime and the state has to deliver and solve all crimes.
Normally studies have shown that ethnic hostilities are not natural but driven by certain political and socio-economic factors. Those looking for political power need to keep this cauldron alive but should that be allowed? If the genesis of the ethnic conflicts is because of the resistance to share scare resources then the size of the cake has to be bigger. The state and civil societies need to intervene with preventative measures? This would require thinking through on how we form our political communities to begin with. The terms of identity—ethnicity and race in particular—must not be unquestionably assumed. It is not simply an attachment to one’s ethnicity or traditions that necessarily lead to conflict but the use to which ethnic identity is put and its mobilization for political purposes.
The problem with the non-tribal community in Meghalaya is that it is a very diverse group with divergent interests and no common objective. They are divided by petty differences and have not been able to throw up a single leader with the credibility and moral integrity to lead without any political ambitions. Till date one has not heard them petitioning even the State Human Rights Commission to look into the atrocities of the recent past and to seek justice. Why do they not want closure? The business community prefers to keep silent and continue paying protection money with some murmuring, after the extortionists have left. Some are out to appease the tribal political leadership here. This is not how one seeks justice. It’s time for the non-tribal community here to do some serious introspection. The moral superiority of victimhood has its shelf life.
(The views expressed by the author are personal and do not reflect the views of this newspaper. Email [email protected])