Editor,
The non-inclusion of Jaintia/Pnar language in the recently released State Anthem should have been avoided by the MDA government as it has been widely criticized. While it does not harm our oneness as Bri ki Hynniewtrep Hynniewskum, it is totally uncalled for since Jaintia/Pnar is officially recognized as one of the three major tribes of Meghalaya. There can be no justification not to include it in the anthem; it’s a misadventure of the Cabinet which approved it. No matter how comfortable we are with English, it not our mother tongue and its non-inclusion would have not done any harm but excluding Jaintia language, does hurt the emotions of any Pnar and needs to be corrected immediately to include a line or two in Jaintia/Pnar.
In fact, I would go one step further. Since we are in this modern era and not in the 60s or 70s, why not include War and Bhoi languages as well. After all, the State Anthem is supposed to represent the souls of Meghalaya and there is nothing wrong to showcase our linguistic richness. There is no dearth of scholars who can pen down a line or two in War and Bhoi languages as well. Presently it becomes more important that our linguistic and cultural identities are cherished, conserved and celebrated akin to what is happening across the country. Just as the National Anthem binds us together as Indians or Bharat wasi, our State Anthem should bind us together as a State and that cannot be achieved by aggrieving a major section of the population. It should be a true representation of our spirit, emotions and inclusiveness as Meghalayans. I hope the MDA Cabinet did not give the same bogus logic which was given to our predecessors in the early 70s when one of the three major tribes took the lion’s share while framing the reservation policy through an Office Memorandum in spite of being lesser in number and occupying a smaller geographical area and accordingly having fewer number of seats in the Legislative Assembly compared to the other two combined, which is rightly under review.
This is 2024 and such gimmicks of the government will not be tolerated and need widespread condemnations and immediate correction on the part of the MDA government. Let’s not repeat or ignore the mistakes of the past but rather learn from them for a harmonious future of our beautiful Meghalaya.
Yours etc.
Prof. Lakhon Kma
Shillong-4
Senseless arguments!
Editor,
With reference to the article mentioned above written by a certain Mankular Lamin, I would like to add my two cents on the contents in that write-up. I would like to admit that there are indeed a few points that make sense in an otherwise contemptible article. The writer seems to be of War-Jaintia origin and is scornful of the usage of the term Jaintia. He wants all of us to be clubbed together as Khasis. How lucky of us that scholars do not follow his line of thinking. However, he is more than welcome to do so alone since we are in a democracy.
First of all, contrary to what Lamin wrote, the term ‘Hynniewtrep/Niawwasa’, as the name suggests, actually refers to only the seven (hynniew/niaw) tribes of the Khasi-Jaintia hills and not to the entirety of humans at all. The article is rife with personal resentments and inconsistencies.
The body: Physical features simply aren’t the only parameters employed in distinguishing different ethnicities or races otherwise all brown people would simply be called brown and there would be no such thing as a Bengali or an Odia and so on.
The language: The different subtribes indeed do speak different languages as he himself mentioned that War-Jaintia and Pnar are not at all mutually intelligible. And neither are Pnar and Khasi mutually intelligible. Lamin cherry-picked a few words to make it seem like Khasi and Pnar are extremely similar. Mind you, it can be concluded from another sentence he wrote that he is actually not fluent in Pnar. Hiram Ring, a Singapore-based linguist has indeed written that Khasi, Pnar, Bhoi, War, etc. are not simply dialects of Khasi but distinct languages grouped together as ‘Khasic’ languages under the Austro-Asiatic family.
The hills and the name Jaintia: While it is likely true that the term Jaintia is an exonym, it is simply not true that it was the British who started using the word ‘Jaintia’ to refer to the Pnars and Wars of Jaintia hills. The Jaintia Kingdom is much much older than the British Raj and the term Jaintia would have already been popular among the Pnars by the time the British arrived; a term that is more than 500 years old can be called an indigenous one. Also, he provided evidence contrary to his hypothesis by saying that PRT Gurdon, who was a British administrator, actually called the Pnars as Khasis!
The two ADCs: The move for a separate district council was the wish of the Pnar and War-Jaintia people. He cited two individuals who opposed the move while ignoring the hundreds of our elders who wanted the separation. While the JHADC has a plethora of flaws, its inception was needed in order to safeguard our identity. On the other topic of ‘identity and family relations’, the writer rightly pointed out that Khasis and Jaintias are sibling tribes and no less. However, it is to be understood that the preference of the Jaintias to not be called by a term other than ‘Jaintia’ is to be respected as we are not used to any of the other terminologies. If the term Khasi was actually used by our ancestors, we would not object but sadly there is no evidence that they did in the hundreds of oral traditions that they left for us.
In the article there are other childish ramblings against Hindu gods and the Niamtre religion while he seemed to be favourable towards Christianity; to this I have nothing to say and that it only reflects the personal prejudices of the writer. The one big takeaway from the article is the negligence of scholars, as the writer correctly pointed out, in promulgating the names of the different subtribes of the hills as they too have their own unique dresses and customs.
In all, the writer appears to be disturbed by his personal experiences with certain Pnar individuals and hence he harbours these prejudices. I would like to apologize to him and to others who have been wronged this way. Lastly, let it be known that individuals can write as much as they wish about our identity on newspapers and their Facebook pages, but the Jaintia people will continue to be proud of their own unique identity and we will stand together with our Khasi brethren in our goal towards a brighter tomorrow.
Yours etc.,
Heirtami Paswet
Via email
Jaintia ethnicity in question
Editor,
This has a reference to “Propagating Pnar/Jaiñtia as not Khasi is faulty education and a false woke: Failure of the intellectual community” by Mankular Lamin Gashnga (ST January 23, 2024). The tone and tenor in the article indicate the writer’s attitude. The writer forcibly asserted his views as if he is authoritative of the Jaintia and Khasi history.
The writer, a pastor raises doubts about the historicity of the Jaintia traditions, customs, and religion. I personally consider it offensive, hateful, and bigotry to describe Niamtre as “false- Hinduism”. The bigot pastor owes an apology to the Niamtre communities. Raising doubts about the traditions, customs, and religion of the Jaintias, the writer thinks that just because these are “somewhat flexible” as they can be easily amended and easily discarded, they are therefore imitations of the Hindu practices due to Jaintia people’s long history of contact with the plains. What the writer does not know is that all religious practices, social traditions, and customs undergo changes with time. If the writer had taken pains to know the history of the major religious and social systems of the world such as the Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, and Islam he would have known to what extent all of them had undergone amendments to adjust to the changing times.
Can the writer explain why there were so many sects and cults within such a system? Secondly, all such systems have mutually influenced and been influenced by one another. Look at the Bhakti and Sufi movements in medieval India or at the socio-religious movements in modern India. Was there no interaction between the Brahmo Samaj and the Unitarian Church? The experts have already shown that the three Abrahamic religions- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam had influenced one another.
Loyalty to one’s strongly held religious faith has been a feature of human nature for aeons. Unfortunately, that loyalty has only too frequently been matched by intolerance and hostility towards all other faiths. It is rooted in the negative attitudes, values, and beliefs held towards those of a particular religion by our so-called intellectuals.
Freedom of speech and expression is enshrined in the Constitution of India. However, one should not denigrate the belief of others be it indigenous or otherwise.
Yours etc.,
Dr Omarlin Kyndiah,
Via email