By Bhogtoram Mawroh
There’s been some debate as to whether indigenous status is tied to cultural practices and that those who no longer follow them should lose the status. Culture, in this case, is thought to be synonymous with religion. However, this creates a complication because even if members of an indigenous community convert to a new religion they may still hold on to other cultural practices. The best example of this is the continued adherence to the matrilineal system by the Khasi, who have converted to Christianity. The Khasis take great pride in the fact that they are one of the few communities in the world that are still following a system that must have been quite widespread in the past. A very good book to understand the various kinds of matrilineal cultures in different parts of the world is ‘Matriarchal Societies: Studies on Indigenous Cultures across the Globe’ by Heidi Goettner-Abendroth. Personally, I had the opportunity to meet the chief of an indigenous peoples group from the Solomon Islands, who informed me that they also follow a matrilineal system. The fact that Austroasiatic speakers (to which the Khasi belong) are the oldest group in Southeast Asia means that in their journeys both westward (to the subcontinent) and southward (to the islands of Southeast Asia), they must have carried the matrilineal culture with them. Some groups within the Munda, like the Bonda, in fact have some cultural practices that suggest that they must have followed a matrilineal system in the past.The indigenous peoples of the Solomon Islands, however, are not Austroasiatic but an Austronesian group. So, their matrilineal custom must be something that is either original to them or most probably they must have adopted it after coming into contact with Austroasiatic speakers. The latter is very much possible, considering the Garo are part of the Tibeto-Burman-Kok-Borok linguistic group (Bodo, Tripuri, Dimasa, and related to Kachin and Konyak) but are the only matrilineal group among them. It appears that they must have originally been following a patrilineal system and switched to matriliny after coming in contact with the Khasis, which must have happened at least 4000 years ago or a little later. The most fascinating feature of all is that the largest matrilineal community in the world is the Minangkabau, an indigenous group from West Sumatra, Indonesia (I happen to know someone from that community), and they are a Muslim community.So, matrilineal customs are not bound by religion or language, and for the Khasis, if anything, adherence to them should be the basis of their identity. In fact, matrilineal customs must have been the oldest cultural practice in SE Asia and the eastern part of the sub-continent (today East and NE India). But let’s assume, for the time being, that religion is the most important and the rest (like matrilineal customs) are secondary. Since Khasis are not special, this rationale should apply to all groups as well. So, let’s accept this and see what kind of results we get.
Right now, nations in Southeast Asia are either Buddhist or Muslim-dominated. This religious identity, which is very strongly mixed with nationalism, has had some appalling results on the ground. The Rohingya Muslims are today one of the most discriminated groups in the world, and in Myanmar, their persecution has the backing of the dominant sections of the Buddhist clergy led by Ashin Wirathu, who is known for inciting violence against Muslims. He and others profess a Buddhist identity for the country and for all those who live in it. The same is the case in Sri Lanka.
But Buddhism is not indigenous to either Sri Lanka or Myanmar. The religion actually began with Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha, who was born in Lumbini, in present Nepal, and must have lived during the 6th or 5th century BCE. So, the people in these countries are actually fighting in the name of a foreign religion, having forgotten their own true roots. Then we have the case of Bali in Indonesia, which is a Hindu-dominant region of Indonesia, and they are very devoted to this foreign belief system, which they have adopted by giving up their own original religion. So, all these people are not just fools but traitors to their own traditions (i.e., religion), and they don’t have the right to claim themselves as Burmese, Sinhalese, or Balinese. I think someone should go tell them that and see how they react to it.
We also have the European nations, which not only colonized a large part of the world but fought two great wars over those colonies. Millions of people were killed, and some of the worst atrocities in human history, like the Jewish Holocaust, were perpetrated because of that. These European nations fought against each other, and their people made supreme sacrifices or committed horrific crimes in the name of their national identity. Christian faith was a very important component of that, and their justification for colonialism was to spread civilized values, which included imposing Christianity on the subjugated peoples. But Christianity had its origin in undivided Palestine, which is now under the occupation of illegal European and American immigrants who are now committing genocide against the indigenous population. So, all the wars and hardships the people of Europe faced or inflicted on others were over a lie because they didn’t do them in the name of Odin, Thor, Zeus, Jupiter, or Perun. Europeans are still largely Christian, which means they are still living a lie and their entire identity is a farce. I think someone should also go and tell them that and see how they react to it.
Coming back to India, almost 80% of the people in India today follow Hinduism, but it is confirmed that the basic features of the religion—the Sanskrit language, the Varna system, and the Vedas—have their origin outside the subcontinent. It arrived with the Indo-Aryans around 3500 years ago and co-opted what we now call tribal religions to create this eclectic faith we know today as Hinduism. If the Sanskrit language, the Varna system, and the Vedas are removed from Hinduism, then a lot of it can be termed indigenous. But if these three are the fundamental foundations of the faith, then it is of foreign origin. So, how many people today who follow Hinduism are doing so after giving up their original faiths? That can be answered by looking at the castes and ethnic identities of the people.
In India, tribals (or more correctly, indigenous people) are mostly Austroasiatic (Khasi, Munda), Sino-Tibetan (Kok-Borok, Tani-Mishmi, Kuki-Chin-Mizo), or Dravidian (Gond). So any tribal who identifies as a Hindu has actually betrayed their own original religion to adopt a foreign religion. Then there’s the SC (Schedule Caste) and OBC (Other Backward Class), who have a very low level of Steppe ancestry (0% to single digits), which is the group that brought the Sanskrit language, the Varna system, and the Vedas to the subcontinent. Only the upper castes, whose members have almost 70% Steppe ancestry, can be termed those whose original religion was Hinduism. When the number of people who have non-Steppe ancestry is combined, they make up 74.5% of the Indian population. This figure comes from Indira Sawhney and etc. v. Government of India, 1992, which reported in its judgment that “excluding Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes constitute nearly 52% of the Indian population.” Therefore, they decided on the 50% ceiling because, by population logic, reservation will then have to be for 75.5% of the seats, and this violates the main basis of their judgment that adequate representation does not equate to proportionate representation. The Constitution provides for adequate, not proportional, representation. So now that VPP wants implementation of proportionate representation in the case of Meghalaya, and if done so, this will definitely go to the courts, let’s see what happens to the reservation policy of Meghalaya. Since Khasis are not special and the court will not reverse its judgment for them, I feel they are in for a big shock once the matter lands up in court.
But coming back to the question regarding who the original Hindus were, that number will be less than 30%. From this must also be excluded the Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis, and Jains who were also following something else in the past. So, the identity of many groups who are today devout and proud of their religious identity is based on a lie. Worse, many are actually traitors to their own religion, which they have abandoned for a foreign one. This includes the Meitei, who, ostensibly are fighting an existential crisis. Most of them follow Vaishnavism (a subset of Hinduism), while some are still holding to their original faith, Sanamahism, which many have discarded for a foreign religion. I wonder, if someone goes and tells this to the Meitei, how they will react to it.
These complexities are well understood, and therefore, when internationally indigenous peoples are defined, it is not culture per se but their habitation over a region for a long period of time that is considered. This is what the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169 objective criteria for being considered indigenous means: descent from populations who inhabited the country or geographical region at the time of conquest, colonization, or establishment of present state boundaries and/or (emphasis on OR) retention of some social, economic, cultural, and political institutions, irrespective of their legal status. People, not culture, is given importance, which makes sense since culture is not independent of people. Otherwise, it would mean that culture is a supernatural entity that comes into existence on its own and is then adopted by a community, giving the latter its identity. The Indian Constitution is also well aware of this fact, and it gives the right to freedom of religion under Articles 25, 26, 27, and 28 of the Indian Constitution. So, constitutionally, the rights of a community, indigenous or non-indigenous, cannot be taken away in the name of religion. So, those who make the argument that indigenous peoples should lose their rights if they have converted to Christianity or some other religion are doing so in ignorance of international and national laws. Or perhaps they are aware, but their aim is to spread disunity among the indigenous communities. Why would they do that? That’s the million-rupee question.
(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)