By Bhogtoram Mawroh
In the last few weeks, there have been a lot of discussions on the issue of whether the matrilineal system of the Khasi-Jaintia has outlived its usefulness and a change to the patrilineal system is much more desirable. This is not a new issue; it has been raised in the past and most probably will be raised in the future as well. Surrounded by patrilineal societies, the pressure to conform to what is considered ‘mainstream’ is very strong. Whatever the arguments made by those who are advocating for the change, behind all that is the desire to ‘fit in,” which drives the demand. The KHADC has opposed such a move and directed that the ST certificates should only be issued to those who use their mother’s surname, as mandated by the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Khasi Customs Social Lineage Act, 1997. The reason given for this strong move is the need to protect age-old traditional customary practices. While I think the move is a bit strong, I do support the need to protect our matrilineal system. This is not only for maintaining the identity of the Khasi-Jaintia as a distinctive ethnic group, but as an indigenous group as well, which could have ramifications beyond just confusion in the kinship rules.
In India, the word indigenous is not considered synonymous with tribes, first peoples or nations, aborigines, ethnic groups, Adivasi, or Janjati. The official position is that tribals survive but not as indigenous people. Instead, in India, the official term used to categorize such groups is ‘Scheduled Tribes’ (ST), based on Article 366 of the Indian Constitution, which gives power to the President of India to notify any group as Scheduled Tribes in relation to a particular state or union territory. Though not spelled out in the Indian Constitution, Scheduled Tribes have been identified to have the following features: (i) indications of primitive traits; (ii) distinctive cultures; (iii) geographical isolation; (iv) shyness of contact with the community at large; and (v) backwardness. This is not far from how the erstwhile colonists view the indigenous communities in the Americas, Russia, the Arctic region and many parts of the Pacific. Discrimination and harassment subsequently follow. And it is here that the international framework for indigenous peoples becomes very important.
The International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169 puts forward two criteria for identifying indigenous peoples: subjective and objective. The objective criterion is descent from populations that inhabited the country or geographical region at the time of conquest, colonization or establishment of present state boundaries, and/or retention of some social, economic, cultural, and political institutions irrespective of their legal status. The subjective criterion is self-identification at the individual level and being accepted by the community as a member. Let’s first look at the objective criteria to try and understand the antecedent of the Khasi-Jaintia in the history of the sub-continent.
The 2013 paper ‘Two thousand years of iron smelting in the Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, North East India’ by Pawel Prokop and Ireneusz Suliga has revealed that iron smelting, an important industry for the Khasis during the pre-colonial period, has been practiced in these hills for at least 2000 years. According to the authors, the manufacturing technology appears to be of indigenous origin, which means that it was developed by the Khasi-Jaintia on their own. This, of course, must have taken a lot of time, and therefore the date of arrival of the Khasis in the region is much earlier than 2000 years, maybe 3000–4000 years ago. In fact, the same paper also mentions that, based on previous studies, it is assumed that “the Khasi and Jaintia groups, belonging to the Austro-Asiatic language family, migrated from Southeast Asia and spread up to the lower Ganges around 3000 BC,” or 5000 years ago. The date is confirmed by other studies as well. In 2015, Arun Kumar and his colleagues published their paper, ‘A late Neolithic expansion of Y chromosomal haplogroup O2a1-M95 from east to west’. It was on the origin and dispersal of Y-chromosomal haplogroup O2a1-M95, which distributed across the Austro Asiatic speaking belt of East and South Asia, i.e., it is found among the Khasi-Jaintia. The study found that O2a1-M95 carrying people spread to the sub-continent from the East, most probably from Laos, arriving in the North East (i.e., most probably with the Khasi-Jaintia now mostly found in present day Meghalaya) in the late Neolithic period, i.e., around 4000 BCE and 2000 BCE, or 6500 and 4000 years ago. The latter is a critical date since it was around 4000 years ago, that the Munda and the Khasi-Jaintia shared a common ancestor. These dates are very important.
It was around 2600 BCE (4600 years ago) that the Indus Valley Civilization was beginning to gain prominence. But by 3500 years ago, i.e., it had declined, and then there is record of the arrival of the Indo-European language speakers who gave rise to the 16 Mahajanapadas, kingdoms or oligarchic republics that existed in ancient India from the sixth to the fourth centuries BCE. It was during this time Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism emerged as important religious ideologies. The Mahajanapadas in turn gave rise to the Mauryan Empire, the Gupta Empire, and the like. Then the Delhi Sultanate rose as a powerful political force during the 13th Century, culminating into the Mughal Empire, followed by the arrival of the British, and the birth of the modern state of India post-1947.
Through all these changes, the Khasi-Jaintia and their Austro Asiatic cousin, the Munda, endured. They held on to their own social, economic, cultural, and political institutions with some influences from the surrounding region, no doubt. For the Khasi-Jaintia, the pressure to conform must have been more immense since they are matrilineal and distinct from other groups, whether indigenous or not. A very common experience of indigenous peoples all over the world is the discriminatory, patronising, and paternalistic attitude of the dominant groups towards them because of their distinctive identity. But despite that, they have decided to maintain that identity, as have the Khasi-Jaintia. This is what is meant by the subjective criterion of self-identification, which, in simple words, means a group and its members identifying themselves as being indigenous despite the negative connotations associated with it in terms of political, social, and cultural aspects. And it is here that the danger lies in the demand for changing the lineage system from matrilineal to patrilineal, the loss of indigenous identity, and the memory of the ancestors who, despite all challenges, decided not to fit in with the mainstream.
It is, however, not the case that Khasi-Jaintia were not aware of the patrilineal traditions. In fact, they did use them to enrich the system but not to break it, something that is being proposed by those who want to change the system from matrilineal to patrilineal. In the Bhoi region, there is a type of matrimonial alliance known as Shim-Bhoi. In cases where a family has only male children, in order to keep the property within the same clan, brides are sought from the Karbi clans (who follow the patrilineal system) rather than the matrilineal Bhoi clans. The children get the father’s surname, and if they in turn have female children of their own, the matrilineal system is adopted. So the patrilineal system is used, but in relation to a Khasi-Jaintia man marrying a non-Khasi-Jaintia woman, not for marriages between members of the same group. This innovation was to ensure that the resources of the community were not appropriated by other groups. Is there a similar threat that compels those members of the Khasi-Jaintia community who want to adopt a patrilineal custom? That is something only they can answer. Even if that were the case, I don’t believe a system that has lasted around 6,000 years (in this region at least) is so fragile that it has to change now because some people want to hold on to some more property.
The matrilineal system is the bedrock of Khasi-Jaintia identity as indigenous people. It is also a homage to the ancestors who kept hold of their identity despite the many challenges they faced throughout many generations. And it is imperative that this tradition be kept alive, for without it, I am afraid we will be a people without identity and without history. That, I hope, is not the fate of our people.
(The views expressed in the article are those of the author and do not reflect in any way his affiliation to any organization or institution)