By Bhogtoram Mawroh
The article ‘The Meghalaya State Anthem’ by PM Passah was quite an interesting read and made some claims that have often been repeated elsewhere. This is the claim that the name Jaintia is actually not derived from Jayanti Devi but from the first state called Jaintia formed by the Monkhmer or Austric-speaking race in Kopili (Kupli) valley, where they settled after fleeing Kamrupa before 500 A.D. (BCE). So, the claim is that the name ‘Jaintia’ is more than 1500 years old, and therefore it should have precedence over the name ‘Khasi’. The author did not inform the source of this information and assumes that it should be treated as an authentic version. A search online, however, did reveal information on the Jaintia Kingdom, which was supposed to have started around 600 BCE.
The particular Wikipedia page mentions four phases of the Jaintia kingdom, viz., the old dynasty, the partitioned dynasty, the Brahmin dynasty, and the new dynasty from 1500 CE. A look at the names reveals a very interesting pattern. None of the names before the New Dynasty had the suffix Syiem Sutnga attached after the first name of the ruler, after which it became common. The earlier names appear all to be Hindu, with the most obvious being ‘Kamadeva’, who is supposed to have ruled between 1100 and 1200 CE. Kamadeva is actually the Hindu version of cupid. Knowing that the early forms of Hinduism had a close connection to Greek mythology as they were both part of an earlier Indo-European mythology, this resemblance is not surprising. Interesting information given on the page is that around 630 CE, one of the older rulers, Guhak, divided the Jaintia Kingdom into three parts, giving each to one of his three sons: Jayantak got the northern hills, which continued to be known as the Jaintia Kingdom; Gurak got the southern plains, which came to be known as the Gour Kingdom; and Luddak, the third son, got the western plains, which became the Laur Kingdom. A search of the last two kingdoms reveals that both were petty kingdoms of the medieval Sylhet region, speaking Sanskrit and Prakrit, both of which belong to the Indo-European language family, and following Hinduism. The modern north Indian languages, in fact, are derived from the various Prakrits that were used in the Indian subcontinent from around the 3rd century BCE to the 8th century CE. There are some interesting ramifications of this information.
If the word Janitia has always been understood to refer to the same group of people for the last, at least 1500 years, it means that the present Jaintia people were initially speaking an Indo-European language and practiced Hinduism. But sometime in the past, connected maybe to the migration story of fleeing Kamarupa, they came to the hills, where they started speaking an Austroasiatic language and gave up Hinduism for local animistic beliefs (unless, of course, it is argued that Niamtre is nothing but an offshoot of Hinduism). They must have adopted these new changes after coming into contact with an already existing group that spoke an Austroasiatic language (today known as the Khasi) and had their own belief systems. But this raises another question, that of the origin of Hima Sutnga and its relationship with the Jaintia Kingdom.
In chapter 4 of Betty Laloo’s PhD Thesis there’s a section titled ‘Reconstructing the Early Jaintia State through Oral Traditions’ which mentions the story of U Loh Ryndi and Ka Li Dokha under the section ‘Origin of the institution of Syiemship or tribal chieftainship of the Jaintias’ suggesting the connection of the story to the early state formation among the Jaintias. There are multiple versions presented with one of them stating that the Sutnga clan came from the youngest daughter Ka Nga, and it is from this clan that the Syiem or traditional chief of the Jaintias originated. The next section in the chapter is about the annexation of Jaintiapur to Hima Sutnga. This particular kingdom was a petty Hindu Kingdom in Sylhet and its annexation, according to Betty Laloo, is one of the best preserved legends of the Jaintias. There are quite a few versions but it is clear the people from Hima Sutnga who conquered this kingdom were not the same people who were living in it. But based on the story of the 1500 year old Jaintia kingdom it appears that they are actually the same people. This is quite confusing. How can people who speak a different language (Austroasiatic vs. Indo-Aryan) and follow different culture (Niamtre vs Hinduism) be considered to be the same? Is it the same argument that at one point of time we all came from Africa and therefore we are all Africans? Maybe those who claim that the name Jaintia is 1500 year and refers to the same people today known as Pnar can clarify in their future submissions.
Any construction or reconstruction of history must be done after taking all kinds of evidence into consideration, along with mention of the sources and their authenticity. Till the clarification arrives from PM Passah and those who subscribe to the 1500-year-old version, it appears that there is an attempt to conflate the history of the Pnars with that of a kingdom that for sure must have existed 1500 years ago but was one influenced by Indo-Aryan culture and not an Austroasiatic kingdom as claimed by some. This kingdom was then annexed by Hima Sutnga, founded by the War Amwi based on the legends of U Loh Ryndi and Ka Li Dokha. After its annexation, the original legend was modified to make it amenable to Hindu beliefs and connect it to one of its rulers from the Brahmin dynasty, Jayanti Devi. This then allowed some to claim connection to another legend, which asserts that the Jaintia kingdom (conquered by Hima Sutnga) is 1500 years old. In the process, the history of the kingdom has been made to appear to be the history of the Pnar. But linguistic evidence points to a different story.
According to the 2013 paper by K. S. Nagaraja, Paul Sidwell, and Simon Greenhill, ‘A Lexicostatistical Study of the Khasian Languages: Khasi, Pnar, Lyngngam, and War’ all languages under the Khasian branch of the Mon-Khmer languages (this includes the languages and dialects of Khynriam, War, Bhoi, Jaintia, Maram, and Lyngngam) are connected, and they emerged from a common ancestor, with their closest relative being the Palaung found today in the Shan state of Myanmar. Based on the glottochronological dating of divergences, War was found to be the closest to Palaung, which means that the earliest Khasian language must have been one that sounded like the War-Lamin. This divergence, or splitting from Palaung, happened around 4000 years ago. Then, around 2000 years ago, Lyngngam diverged from War. Then, around 1400 years ago, Pnar diverged from Lyngngam, and finally, around 700 years ago, Khasi (standard Khasi) appeared on the scene. The Pnar of today are associated with the Hima Sutnga, who conquered Jaintiapur and ruled over it until the British annexed it in the early 19th century. The origin story of Hima Sutnga in turn points out that it was the War Amwi who founded the Hima, which matches with the linguistic evidence that the War language predates the Pnar language with Lyngngam being the intermediate language. So from the point of view of oral history and linguistics, the link between the War Amwi and Pnar has been confirmed. The fact that the War Amwi is the oldest group among the Khasi was also accepted by Hamlet Bareh in his 1967 book ‘The history and culture of the Khasi people’ quoted by Alfons K. Weidert in his 1975 ‘Itkong Amwi. Deskriptive Analyse eines Wardialekts des Khasi’ as mentioned in the 2009 book ‘Classifying the Austroasiatic Languages: History and State of the Art’ by Paul Sidwell, a world-renowned expert on Austroasiatic languages. His statement on the War Amwi, is reproduced below:
The idea is entertained that the Amwi dialect of Khasi group is more Mon-Khmer than Khasi (which includes Pnar) in construction. This dialect prevails in the southern Jaintia Hills, and we suggest that it constitutes a proper link between Khasi and Mon-Khmer. Is it not possible to assign the true parentage of Khasi to Amwi itself? This suggestion finds support when we remember that the first Khasi tribes settled in the Eastern parts of Jaintia Hills.
How does the story of the 1500-year-old Jaintia kingdom account for the War Amwi? Where do they fit in this narrative? Or is there a possibility that the 1500-year-old ‘Jaintia’ had never referred to the Pnar but were actually an Indo-Aryan-speaking people who had their own kingdoms in Sylhet, one of which was then conquered by the people of Hima Sutnga, who today are known as the Pnar? And the attempt to build a connection between the Pnar and this 1500-year-old ‘Jaintia’ group is actually a case of misidentification. Today, the Pnar are known as Jaintia, and there is absolutely no problem with that. What names a group calls itself is not always the name it gives itself but also what others call it; a very important example is Indians or Hindus, which are actually names given by others and not the people to whom they refer today. But that name has stuck, and it will remain so because of historical reasons, and that’s perfectly fine. Same is the case with the name Jaintia.
But all this depends on whether the 1500-year-old history of the Jaintia kingdom, as claimed by PM Passah, is the one that is connected to the Gour Kingdom and the Laur Kingdom. Or maybe I am mistaken, and the Jaintia kingdom mentioned by him is a totally different one altogether. In that case, it will be helpful if he can share the sources from which he is getting that information and maybe explain how that is connected to the evidence found through linguistics, oral history, and genetics. That will bring much clarity to the issue. Personally, I would very much like to learn more about it, and if PM Passah and those who claim the 1500-year version can enlighten all of us, I will be most grateful. I know we all will be.
(The views expressed in the article are those of the author and do not reflect in any way his affiliation to any organisation or institution)