Editor,
My attention is drawn to Bhogtoram Mawroh’s article (S.T Feb. 10, 2024) captioned “Constructing/reconstructing Jaintia History.” At first I was not inclined to respond as the write-up is self-contradictory and confusing. The mistake was detected in the first two paragraphs. This writer never mentioned that the first state formed by the Monkhmer-speaking race was called the Jaintia kingdom; Bhogtoram cannot put words into another person’s mouth. The real name of the State was given as JAINTA from which the name Jaintia was derived. He must be told that the two names are different in both spelling & pronunciation – while JAINTA is a six-letter word, Jaintia is a seven-letter word. His statement that the Jaintia kingdom started around 600 BCE is a figment of his own imagination. He must also be told that JAINTA did not last long as the State passed over into the hands of the Pator-Chutia clan of the Bodos. He can refer to this writer’s research article on “Nari-Rajya or Women Kingdom & the Name ‘Jaintia,” published in “Golden Jubilee Souvenir” 2020 of the Moosalyngkat Dorbar Chnong, Jowai.
Bhogtoram speaks about the Jaintia kingdom being divided into three kingdoms. But according to history it was Sylhet kingdom that was divided into three kingdoms, one of which was called Jayantya kingdom. It is erroneous to associate this kingdom with the Jaintia kingdom which originated in Jaintia Hills. Of course, one good historian did make this same mistake. We wish to add that Sylhet was later reunited but split again into two kingdoms. After three generations thereafter, it was again united under Gauda Govinda who organized the State most successfully though ultimately it fell successively to the Mughals and the English.
Owing to the above errors in Bhogtoram’s article, his subsequent arguments, criticisms and queries collapse, one upon the other, like a house of cards. It is difficult for this writer to guess the discipline to which he belongs – whether history, anthropology or linguistics. He seems to belong to neither of these three disciplines, so it is not possible to organize this letter to suit his purpose and it will not be possible to respond to his future queries in a newspaper column or letter. If he is a researcher/research student, he could always consult his own guide about the manner of seeking data/information for his thesis.
Apparently Bhogtoram could not comprehend this writer’s article and had to write a postscript/letter (S.T. Feb. 12,2024) raising/repeating his three issues: One, he referred to U Shyllong (& U Sajar Nangli); he must be told that Khasi Hills was not populated by only these two migrations of the Jaintias but by four to five before the British took over these hills. About iron smelting in these hills much has been written by many authors including Prof. David R. Syiemlieh. Two, he referred to Betty Laloo’s thesis which is not accessible to this writer right now, but he must be told that behind every thesis there is an anti-thesis, and there is even a synthesis. Three, he referred to different dialects including that of the Lyngngams and we are already familiar with their existence. If he wants to know more about the Lyngngams he can refer to a comprehensive research Paper on ‘The Lyngngams of Meghalaya’ in a Journal called “Northeast Researches, Vol.XII, March 2021” published by the Institute of Northeast India Studies, Kolkata.
Bhagtoram also queried whether at one time we all came from Africa. This is a question that still baffles many anthropologists and other scholars who are investigating the ethnology of the Khasis and Jaintias. Guilio Costa in the conclusion of his important article referred to earlier, has this to say: “Many of the peoples who speak Austric Languages still possess the physical features of the Negroid Race. (They) must have had the same racial basis as the other peoples who for the same reason belong to the same linguistic family, that is, a race belonging to the Negroid ethnic type.” Bhogtoram may like to follow up this trend of discussion among concerned scholars today. I wish him all success!
Yours etc,.
Prof. P.M. Passah,
Moosalyngkat, Jowai
Farmers in distress
Editor,
While the Father of the Indian Green Revolution, the agricultural scientist (Late) MS Swaminathan was awarded the Bharat Ratna, his recommendations had ironically been put into cold storage. The Swaminathan Commission had recommended that the Minimum Support Price (MSP) should be at least 50 per cent more than the comprehensive cost. This is one of the main demands of the protesting farmers.
What his daughter, economist Madhura Swaminathan said on February 13 in an event held at the Indian Agriculture Research Institute to celebrate the Bharat Ratna for her father, highlighted the irony of honouring MS Swaminathan while ignoring his suggestions and treating our farmers like enemies. She said, “The farmers of Punjab today are marching to Delhi. I believe, according to the newspaper reports, there are jails being prepared for them in Haryana, there are barricades. All kinds of things are being done to prevent them from reaching Delhi. These are farmers, they are not criminals. You have to find some solutions. They are our annadatas. I request, if you have to honour MS Swaminathan, we have to take the farmers with us with whatever strategy that we are planning for their future.”
Apart from MSP, another important recommendation of the Swaminathan Commission was land reforms. The Commission suggested that the diversion of ‘prime’ agricultural land and forests to the corporate sector for non-agricultural purposes should not be allowed. It also recommended setting up of a mechanism which would help regulate the sale of agricultural land, based on a few conditions.
MS Swaminathan in his report said, “Land Reforms are necessary to address the basic issue of access to land for both crops and livestock. Land holdings inequality is reflected in land ownership. In 1991-92, the share of the bottom half of the rural households in the total land ownership was only 3 per cent and the top 10 per cent was as high as 54 per cent.”
Land reforms made China such a strong country in spite of its huge population. Professor PC Joshi rightly said, “Land reforms in India have not assumed the form of gigantic revolutionary upheaval as in China, or that of a dramatic change brought about from above as in Japan.”
Land reforms can boost inclusive growth in many ways. First, it will enhance the productivity of land by improving the economic conditions of farmers and tenants. Second, it will ensure distributive justice and eliminate exploitation. Third, it helps create a system of peasant proprietorship. And fourth, it can distribute income of the few to many which will enhance the purchasing power of the masses and thus energise the market and generate employment while alleviating widespread poverty among small farmers and tribals. Indeed, it can heal the wounds of inequality, poverty, hunger and malnutrition to some extent.
Land reform is a constitutional directive. Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India states : “The ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good.” Moreover, Article 39(c) says, “that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.”
The recommendations of the Swaminathan Commission regarding land reforms and MSP should be implemented. It will heal the agrarian crisis that made many farmers take their own lives. The 2022 National Crime Records Bureau annual report shows alarming distress in the agriculture sector. It says 154 farmers and daily-wage labourers die by suicide in India every day and there is around 4 per cent increase in overall suicide rate from 2021.
Yours etc.,
Sujit De,
Kolkata