By Kitdor H Blah
The debate over Khasi and Jaintia identity has been made to bear upon all of us yet again with some intellectuals and public persons voicing their discontent over the non-representation of the Pnar dialect in the recently released State anthem. While representation of Pnar dialect is one issue, this issue has allowed more incendiary elements to use the issue to again question whether Pnars and other Khasis have one identity. One poster was forwarded to me on WhatsApp which even says, “I Ymtoh Ki, Ki Ymtoh I.” And this is the fear of those on the other side of the debate – that the concerted efforts by many intellectuals to emphasise the differences between the Pnars and other Khasis will lead to a misconception about the very identity of the Khasi folk. This article aims to show that the Khasi Tribe is one ethnic identity, including the Pnars. And therefore, it is an unnecessary exercise to continue to accentuate our differences, when we have the opportunity to unite under a shared history.
On what grounds shall we establish the identity of the Khasi folk? The chief bases would be ethnicity and history. But of course, ethnicity is inseparable from history, especially in our context, as we shall see. In truth, all of the arguments and counter arguments put forth by various writers on both sides of this issue are based on the same principle, i.e. an appeal to history. The differences amidst the clamor are simply due to the fact that each writer appeals to his selected facet of history. Some writers have appealed to British or colonial historians. Other writers have appealed to our own historical traditions. Still we have others who have appealed to the history of the Jayantia kingdom, on the basis of the Jayantia Buranji.
The article which appeared on January 29, 2024 stated that Jaintia is not just an idea. Indeed, it has a lot to teach us about the history of the Jayantia kingdom and how the name Jaintia is derived from that kingdom. But on that note, Khasi identity itself is not just an idea, because when we speak of Khasi identity, we are in fact speaking of ethnic identity, as we shall see. And our ethnic identity is inseparable from our common, yet diverse, history. So, both ethnicity and history are inseparable as the grounds of Khasi identity whether that history is sourced from the British, the plains or from our own traditions.
Some have appealed to one facet of history, namely, the administrative demarcations of the British, to distinguish between the Pnars and the Khasis. They would appeal to the presence of Jaintia Hills and Khasi Hills, or the presence of Khasi autonomous district and Jaintia autonomous district, as the evidence that we have different identities. But apart from the administrative demarcations of the British, we were in fact divided into various traditional provinces or himas and elakas. Shall we then further divide our Khasi tribe according to these provinces and elakas? So, an appeal to just one facet of history cannot be sufficient ground to base our identity on. If, as one writer has claimed, that Kiang Nangbah fought for the Jayantia kingdom, not for the idea of a Khasi country, then on the same note, did not Tirot Sing fight the British for the interest of Hima Nongkhlaw? So, then is Tirot Sing to be remembered as a Khasi freedom fighter or shall he be restricted to one facet of our shared history, namely the history of Hima Nongkhlaw?
I could also put forth the question, as to why Kiang Nangbah should be viewed as a freedom fighter of the Jayantia kingdom when the British had annexed the Kingdom in the year 1835 and the King had settled for a pension of Rs. 500 and spent his retirement in the plains of Sylhet. Secondly, the Jaintia uprising from 1860 onwards, led by Kiang Nangbah, was a rebellion of the common Pnar people against the house tax and income tax imposed by the British, who used the traditional institutions themselves, through the Doloi, to impose taxes and bring economic exploitation. Therefore, it is important to observe both the role of external forces as well as the proxy role of internal factors in such a civil unrest. Similarly, in the present scenario, it is pertinent to ask who the external factors are who will benefit if the differences between Pnars and other Khasis are accentuated, and whether this difference is something that is being imposed on the common people, and is actually alien to our identity as Khasis.
So, how can the history of one kingdom, that was ruled by Brahmin rulers, and that practiced a Hindu form of religion, be imposed on the identity of all Pnars, from different elakas, who practiced a different form of religion? But I am not writing this article to delve into the historical claims of each writer, but to counter the very principle of all these writers – that is, that to select a specific facet of our diverse history, and base the identity of a whole group or sub group on that one facet of history, and furthermore, to use that to undermine our collective Khasi identity.
The name Jayantia itself may be proper, when referring to the Jayantia kingdom, but it is an exonym when used to refer to the ethnic identity of the Pnars. As the British annexed Jayantia, they associated the term Jayantia with the inhabitants of the Jayantia kingdom. The imposition of the misnomer Jayantia on the ethnic identity of the Pnar people has become so entrenched in the minds and the culture of the people, that it is now seen as part of their ethnic identity. This could have presented an opportunity to the British administration to pursue a policy of divide and rule, the consequences of which we still see to this day.
Now, when we speak of chieftainship or Himas, it is not dissimilar to speaking of a State, because when we speak of a State or chieftainship we are speaking about territory and its administration, and not ethnic identity. So whether we source our history from the British, the plains, or our own traditions, it is not intellectually honest to impose the history of one Administration, or Hima, or State, on the identity of the people, because as stated above, Khasi identity is grounded on both ethnicity and a diverse history.
One fact that testifies to this is our clan system that speaks of clan bonds or jingiateh kur. This bond transcends the geography of administrative demarcations, elakas, himas, or states. This bond transcends even sub Khasi groups of Khynriam, Pnar, Bhoi or War. And this bond is not based on religion, political affiliation, place of birth or territory, but on blood relation and a shared historical bond between the clans. This fact itself shows that there is one Khasi tribe. As the tradition goes, we call ourselves “Ka Ri tip kur tip kha.” So, the question is, can one find a Kur or a Kha from amongst the other tribes in the Northeast, or from amongst the other tribes in the state, or from amongst the plains people or dkhars, in case of cohabitation between a Khasi and a person from these other people groups?
But this idea of Kur and Kha is inseparable from our identity as Pnar, or Khynriam, or Bhoi, or War, or Lyngngam. And the clan bonds are still upheld today by orthodox Khasis. So, the question is, what is the ‘Ri’ in the tradition “Ka Ri tip kur tip kha.” It is the Khasi tribe. It is one tribe. It is a shared ethnic and historical identity that precedes and transcends any one facet of history, whether British, traditional or from the plains. This identity transcends the geography of diverse himas and elakas. Another transcendent factor in our identity is our tradition, specifically our creation myth, which is centred on Lum Sohpetbneng, which is located not in the Jaintia Hills districts, or Khasi Hills districts, but in Ri Bhoi district. Therefore, colonial history or the history of the Jayantia kingdom cannot be imposed on the identity of all Pnars, while disregarding the different elakas that existed in what is called Jaintia hills and that preceded the colonial administration or the Jayantia kingdom. May I be bold enough even to suggest that “Jaintia is geography, but Pnar is identity.”
In view of the above, while we should all be proud of each of our own facet of history, yet we cannot also disregard our shared history. That the Sohra dialect has become a uniform and standard tongue is a part of our shared history. The different churches that span these hills and elakas, all have the same Scriptures, which is in the Sohra dialect. The schools, colleges, and various departments in the universities use the same Khasi language. The Ri Khasi anthem, rendered in the melody of the Welsh anthem, is in the Sohra dialect. There is no reason to disregard this common Khasi language, and the unity which it brings in our literature, religion, administration, and communication, just for the sake of one facet of history.
In conclusion, I would respectfully state that to disregard our ethnic identity as one Khasi tribe, ka Ri tip kur tip kha, and to disregard our traditional historical identity based on a shared creation story, and to disregard the common Khasi language that has become a cohesive and unifying force, just for the sake of one facet of this diverse shared history, is nothing but a case of special pleading, that is not necessary, and that will do more harm than good. Our intellectuals must be more responsible, and I appeal to them to be wary of damages that may arise if we are too eager to accentuate our differences.