By Kyrsoibor Pyrtuh
This story is not about the literary association or a literary conference, rather it is about literary debates which occurred during the First Session of the Meghalaya Assembly after the first general elections in 1972. Fifty years ago, the Temple of Democracy in Meghalaya was occupied by men of high degree of intellect and caliber. Also, one should not forget to acknowledge the contributions of Percylina Marak, the lone woman legislator then.
On the election of Prof R.S Lyngdoh to the Speakership, Paiem Jormanick (MLA), who presided the House as Acting Speaker noted in his speech, “we know him (Prof R.S Lyngdoh) for his profound knowledge of Constitutional History, an asset which will go well with him in the exercise of his duties as the Speaker…” Other members who spoke on the occasion minced no words to praise the caliber of the first Speaker. Mr Hoover Hynῆiewta emphasized that they (MLAs) had collectively and jointly reposed the responsibility on the able shoulders of Prof R.S Lyngdoh. He further added, “Sir, you will be laying the foundation of a true parliamentary democracy in these Hills…and you will be the first Speaker of the Assembly of the full State of Meghalaya to keep and draw a firm dividing line between allegiance to a certain party and allegiance to your solemn office. Sir, I believe that you will be the epitome of decorum and decency on the floor of this House as well as outside.” Haven’t the past Legislators established the high principles when the State was formed? They have indeed remained committed to those high principles, until corruption and cronyism set in and de-stabilized not just politics and governance, but destroyed the ethos and ethics of society.
On both sides of the aisle the First Meghalaya Legislative Assembly was filled with knowledgeable, sharp-witted legislators and orators who represented the 60 Constituencies. From the Assembly Reports, it is evident that the debates were exemplary and should provoke academic enquiry. From day one, the first legislators not crossed swords, but spent hours to debate even on the connotations of words and sentences. The debating atmosphere was profound and vibrant as legislators threw their knowledge and wits at each other in the process of building the new found State.
No one has the right nor privilege to judge the capability and standard of debates inside the current State Assembly, but outside it the content of political discourse reeks of mediocrity. It lacks decency and civility, and is bereft of ideology and issues. The discourse is becoming inconsequential and politics is nothing more than a prattling exercise. However, there is a silver lining in the midst of a haze and soon will emerge fresh, committed and gifted personalities who will throw their hats in the electoral challenge in 2023 sans the backing of established political parties (both national and regional). Of course, many so called “educated faces” will be joining the fray and are crying for “change”, and only God knows what change they are talking about under the patronage of political party/parties which have no ideology and principles and whose leaders have become redundant and obsolete. Therefore, let us commit and throw our weight on groups and personalities that have clarity of thought, ideas and issues and whose commitment to socio-economic justice is evident from their consistent struggle and engagement with myriad socio-political and rights-based movements. Be assured that such personalities will relive the prudent past and certainly enliven the debates inside the august House while ensuring that policy and law making precede personal interests.
Let us come now to the story which I want to narrate in this article and it pertains to the debates on the privilege motion against the vernacular daily, Ka Pyrta U Riewlum. After the election of Speaker, the above name Khasi newspaper ran the besmirched report regarding the conduct of the few elected MLAs on the floor of the house during the election of the first Speaker of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly which was held on the March 29, 1972. When the House resumed its sessions in April, Prof Martin Narayan Majaw moved a Privilege Motion on grounds that there was serious breach of privileges of the honorable members of the House. The portion of the news report which was believed to have violated the privileges of elected members of the Legislature is quoted here, “ Ha ka por ba shim ia ka bynta ba nyngkong da u Acting Speaker, Bah Jor Manik Syiem ban jied ia u Speaker, la don ka jingkaw-kaw bad jingpynwit da u Bah D.D Lapang, Bah H.Hynniewta bad Bah M.N Majaw kiba long ki opposition” (At the time when the Acting Speaker, Jor Manik Syiem, initiated the business of the House for selecting the Speaker, there was undignified, unjustified and useless chatter, and obstruction of the proceedings from Mr D.D Lapang, Mr H.Hynniewta and Mr. M.N Majaw, of the Opposition)
What ensued afterwards were the finest literary debates on the connotations of the words and sentences of the news report vis a vis the English translations. One can only imagine how sophisticated the debates were, when the Speaker who was the authority on Khasi language and a renowned historian would listen attentively to the submissions of members who were also no less intelligent, articulate and authoritative in their own right. Intermittently, like the headmaster, the Speaker poked the members with questions and made the debates more interesting and expansive in literary terms. The debates centered around the interpretation and translations of the specific Khasi words and sentences, like the meaning of “Jingkaw-kaw and Jingpynwit” and also the translated words “selecting” and “electing” the Speaker.
To give the readers a sense and liberty to deduce the manner of such significant literary debates which had happened in the first sitting of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly let me quote the proceedings in the abridged form, however citizens can also avail the Assembly Reports, in the following:
The Speaker- “Now Prof Majaw to raise the privilege issue against the local Khasi paper, “Ka Pyrta Riewlum” under the relevant rules and procedures of conduct. Instantly the Speaker poked the mover with the question, “Did not the honourable Member give an English translation?” To which the member replied that the translation was prepared by the staff of the Assembly Secretariat and that he accepted the translation as it was. Again, the Speaker interjected and asked “Who did the translation work because the word “selecting” and “electing” have different meanings. Thence, the debates picked up and Prof Martin Majaw confidently submitted that the words selecting and electing mean the same in Khasi. The Speaker poked further, “From what authority did you translate “Jingkaw-kaw and Jingpynwit” as undignified, unjustified and useless chatter? And Prof Martin replied, “Sir, translation is a matter of opinion because there are two types of translation; one gives the exact sense of the word and the other is the literal meaning. Even in the English language there are synonyms which do not have the identical translation…Mr Speaker Sir, being a Khasi…I do not think it necessary to establish the meaning of a single word “Jingkaw-kaw”. The Speaker retorted, “Even an Englishman has to consult the Chambers Dictionary”.
Mr BB Lyngdoh who participated in the debates had brought along with him two Dictionaries written by A.S Shylla and Nissor Singh respectively. For him the Khasi words stated in the news report are simple ones and submitted, “Mr Speaker Sir… The simple word “Jingpynwit” means obstruction and the simple word “Jingkaw-kaw” means noisy.” There was no need for interpolations and that the mover of the motion had misguided the House, he argued.
In fact, other members, like P Ripple Kyndiah and Maham Singh also participated and added color to the debates. However, Mr Hoover Hynniewta made impressive submissions and elicited peala of laughter with his witty comments. He strongly argued, “Mr Speaker Sir…There is no “Jingkaw-kaw” on that day …And if nature has equipped Mr Majaw and myself with loud voices and you have allowed us to speak, Mr Speaker Sir, that cannot be construed to be noisy. If it is otherwise…people with loud voices should not be allowed to contest the elections…There was no “kaw kaw” to carry the connotations of useless and undignified voice”.
The Speaker made his concluding remark that “this particular matter involves academic discussion” and referred it to the Privileges Committee. If ever the Khasi Language gets recognition under the 8th schedule, it is because of Legislators like these and the State and society will certainly grow and prosper if we elect people who understand the arts, poetry and have a strong sense of history of the place, not the greedy and corrupt.
(Note: Prof R.S Lyngdoh was a profound Khasi writer and the pioneer of Khasi Department, NEHU. Whereas, Prof Martin Majaw taught English in St Anthony’s College and Mr Hoover Hynniewta was an astute orator).