By Dr. Rekha M Shangpliang
Of late there have been wide speculations about the resilience and future of one of the oldest known kinship institutions in society – Matriliny , as it made headlines in many local dailies and became a topic of discussion amongst academicians and scholars about the emerging issues and challenges to this age-old and much venerated social institution among the Khasi. This leads one to wonder whether the term ‘Matrilineal puzzle’ which was once coined by the British Anthropologist Audrey Richards way back in 1950 to understand and analyze matrilineal norms and principles has some truth behind it.
If one goes by the various theories in Sociological and Anthropological literature such as the Descent, Functionalist, Evolutionary theory etc., these theories have tried to explain the origin and foundation of Matriliny as one of the most unique kinship system which is grounded on a common folk-culture and native ideology and belief that since women give birth to children therefore the ‘mother-right ‘ principle was the first stage in the evolution of human society . In fact, it was Johann J Bachofen, the Swiss thinker and Professor of Roman Law at the University of Basel, Switzerland who in 1861 had proposed a stage called ‘Das Mutterrecht’ (Mother-Right) as being the primary stage of all kinship systems at a time when religious and juridical character was accorded to women in the Ancient world. If matriliny has had such strong foundational roots then it leads one to ponder upon the question as to why this age-old and venerable institution is facing the winds of change and transition as visible today? Do we see this as a gradual development of the universal assumption of pervasive male dominance or patriarchy? These and many other questions have probed the minds of social scientists to dig deeper in understanding the present status of social institutions such as the Family ,Marriage and Kinship which are gradually weakening in many societies. Is it because such institutions are not able to use their adaptive mechanisms to face the external forces such as borrowed world views, modernization, new legislations and intervention of new cultural forces and demands of a new patriarchal order ?
The question of when and why societies have transitioned from matriliny towards other types of kinship systems has been a subject of much debate and more so this is a subject of much relevance in our own Khasi matrilineal society as we see the recent stand by an organization against the District Council’s decision to deny ST status to Khasis using their father’s surname. This news item which made headlines in The Shillong Times on April 28, 2023 is an eye-opener to many of us who belong to this community as well as to the larger network of surviving matrilineal communities across the world. What impact would it have on the institution as a whole? Will the ’Clan’ or ‘Kur’ which is the cradle of Khasi kinship system will lose its importance? What are the gender implications if this system is rooted out? Will such a change be effective in maintaining the balance in population due to its rigid structure ? There have been mixed reactions from members of the community itself and the question stands – Is matriliny at the crossroads ?
A closer look at a few surviving matrilineal societies of the world such as the Minangkabou of Indonesia, the Ashanti of Africa, the Musou of China, the Luapulas of Zambia ,the Malenesians of the Garos, Khasi and Jaintia of Meghalaya reveal that these matrilineal societies have predominantly exhibited strong ‘matricentric’ arrangements where inheritance ,succession and descent follows through the female line and ‘woman’ is the propagator and forebearer of lineage and descent . This enjoins on her the rights and responsibilities of the family at large. The woman nurtures the child in her womb and therefore reserves her right to her lineage. Among the Ashanti tribe, “the basic building block of structural continuity in the lineage is the sibling group born of one mother and not a ‘line of descent ‘reckoned from the father, let alone the individual.” This uterine line followed through the common ‘blood line’ of the mother has been the guiding principle of many primitive societies like the Ashanti who designate this through nomenclatures like ‘mogya koro’ (mother’s blood) as also the equivalent Khasi concept of ‘ka iawbei tynrai’ (the root female ancestress) as the progenitor of the clan.
It is also customary for the Khasi to speak of a family of brothers and sisters who are the great grandchildren of a great grandmother and identify themselves as members of ‘shi kpoh’ which literally means ‘one womb’ and the belief that ‘womb relationships’ are stronger and more important than any other ties. Therefore the one binding factor that has helped to sustain many matrilineal societies today is the lineage traced through a woman .
Khasi matriliny is one of the oldest surviving kinship institutions in the world. It is based on the ideology “Long Jait na ka kynthei” which when translated means “from the woman sprang the clan.” This deeply rooted ideology provides a valid ground to the very essence of Khasi matriliny that the ‘gendered roles’ of motherhood gives recognition to her status as the repository of family honour and prestige. Significantly, the Khasi ideology of human reproduction describes the father as the provider of stature and form (U kpa uba ai ka long rynieng),while the mother contributes flesh and blood (ka kmie kaba ai ia ka doh ka snam) to the child. This filial bond between the mother and the child is strongly reflected even in familial relations and kinship ties where the term para-kur (mother’s kins ) is used more significantly than the word bakha (father’s kins). Looking closely at the operation of Khasi kinship system at different levels of its segmentation, be it at the level of the ‘kur’ (clan) ,the ‘jait’ (sub-clan) the ‘kpoh’(lineage),or the iing (household or family),one finds that there is an element of unity and solidarity at every stage ,which is a natural response that facilitates in maintaining closer structural ties amongst kin members.
Like any social phenomena that undergoes change and transformation, matriliny as an institution has been vulnerable to public opinion and emerging new trends that have attempted to redefine gender roles and bring change in their customary rules and inheritance pattern. As early as 1961 attempts were made to mobilise public opinion to change the inheritance pattern from matrilineal to patrilineal. In 1978 the Meghalaya Tribal Youth Organization called for suspension of inheritance rights to all Khasi, Jaintia and Garo women married to non-Khasi men. In the same year,another organization urged the government to institute an Inheritance Reform Commission to study the implications of the customary laws on economic development and vice versa. In 2018 the Khasi Lineage Amendment Bill sought to prevent economic exploitation of the state’s land and resources by non-Khasi men marrying Khasi women.
These and many social processes have inflicted stresses and strains to the institution of matriliny as a whole. In this regard ,even social scientists like David Schneider and Mary Douglas have predicted the unstable character of this institution and have tried to draw generalised logical implications that may even lead to a breakdown of clan organization as a whole. Taking the example of one of the oldest matrilineal communities of India the Nayars of Kerela, we have seen how the ‘taravad’ which is a property group comprising of only matrilineal lineages headed by the eldest male called ‘karanavan’ was gradually losing its functional importance finally leading to the breakdown of matriliny as a whole. One therefore cannot undermine the serious implications such changes may have on even gender roles where female rights would be restricted. In fact from what we see , these demands are woven around the idea of knitting kinship rules with ethnicity ,which not only seeks to produce an ideology that puts a constraint on women’s behaviour and choice of mates but also gives legitimacy to the state to extend its control over the family. To cite an example, the customary inheritance rights of the Khasi entitles only the ‘khadduh’ (youngest daughter) to custodianship of all ancestral property but what is often misconstrued is the fact that along with custodianship comes responsibility of care of aged parents and other destitute members as well as duties to uphold the honour and continuity of the clan as a whole. Therefore any legislation that tried to disrupt the Khasi customary lineage system like the the proposed Inheritance Bill 2021 which aims at ‘equitable distribution’ of parental property found a lukewarm response for fear that it may slowly lead to the disintegration of the institution of ‘Ka Khadduh’ and then of matriliny as a whole.
Therefore, since such issues that deal with bringing in reforms in customary practices such as matriliny are usually challenged from various quarters they need to be revisited with proper care and analysis of the pros and cons and implications on the community as a whole.
There is an urgent need to check the erosion of this age-old institution alongside its gender implications on Khasi women and their conjugal rights. This calls for serious commitment both on the part of the State, the District Councils and non-governmental organizations to identify the problems closely and take careful steps for reforms if at all needed. The whole ’matrilineal puzzle’ would become easier to unravel only when we apply wisdom to our decisions and learn to respect our roots.
“ It is in the roots not the branches, that a tree’s greatest strength lies” (Matshona Dhilwayo)
(The writer teaches in the Department of Sociology, NEHU, Shillong)