By Bhogtoram Mawroh
Recently, I was given the opportunity by my employers, the North East Society for Agroecology Support (NESFAS) and the Rome-based Indigenous Partnership for Agrobiodiversity and Food Sovereignty (TIP), to attend a workshop in Mexico on indigenous peoples’ issues. The workshop, organized at the Universidad Intercultural Maya de Quintana Roo (in Cancun), focused on reaching a consensual definition and identifying principles on ‘inter-culturality’ and the ‘inter-cultural co-creation of knowledge,’ with the goal of developing principles, methodologies, and experiments in a multicultural way to capture both the wisdom of traditional communities and the rigor of contemporary knowledge. Francisco J. Rosado May, the host and a Yucatec Maya professor, is eager to start PhD courses on intercultural co-creation of knowledge.
This gathering brought together scholars and practitioners working on indigenous peoples’ issues from different parts of the world, including myself and another participant from India. The group that participated in the discussion was not composed solely of members of indigenous communities. I shared my room with an American Jewish post-doctoral scholar who had spent the last few years working in Guatemala with the Maya indigenous community. Members from a couple of UN agencies were also present to document the process and participate in the discussion.
The program consisted of a two-day discussion combined with a field visit to the farm of a Maya knowledge holder, Miguel Ku Balam, who had traveled to Rome to receive a certificate from the FAO’s director recognizing the Yucatec Milpa Maya (a form of shifting cultivation characterized by the Three Sisters principle—corn, beans, and squash) as one of the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) sites. These are agroecosystems, 80 in number globally, inhabited by communities (in many cases, by indigenous peoples) that are “characterized by remarkable agrobiodiversity, traditional knowledge, invaluable cultures and landscapes, sustainably managed by farmers, herders, fisherfolk, and forest people in ways that contribute to their livelihoods and food security.” The recognition brought significant attention to the Milpa and to Miguel, who is an ardent practitioner and promoter of this ancient Maya farming system. However, Miguel is not content with merely conserving tradition; he is constantly experimenting to enhance its existing strengths. One way he is doing this is by developing novel corn varieties, one of which has become quite well-known. This corn variety is called Nal Balam. Miguel is truly an extraordinary person and an exemplar for other farmers throughout the world who seek not just to preserve their traditions but also to add more value to them.
The discussions that took place before and after the meeting with Miguel were very intense. The participants debated every point with great articulation and passion. While there were disagreements, those expressing alternative viewpoints did so by referring to their own experiences working with indigenous peoples. At one point, it seemed that there would be no consensus. However, in the final moments of the meeting, Francisco was able to bring together the different viewpoints into an acceptable format. This document is currently being reviewed by a select committee chosen from among the participants before being submitted to the UN agencies. Once the UN has gathered additional input from scholars and practitioners around the world, it will share the final version with different countries for their feedback. Once all parties have agreed on the final draft, it will be presented for adoption and ratification. When that happens, NESFAS will be acknowledged as one of the contributors to the emerging international protocol.
What really impressed me about the whole experience was how knowledgeable and passionate everyone was about the welfare of indigenous peoples. This concern was not expressed in a paternalistic attitude, where indigenous people were treated as an inferior or backward group needing salvation from the outside. Instead, the concern was informed by deep solidarity with indigenous peoples’ experiences and a respect for their agency. As mentioned above, while the discussion included indigenous scholars and practitioners, it also featured many non-indigenous participants who immensely enriched the conversation. There were Canadian, Americans, French, and other nationalities, but they all spoke in Spanish with each other. The other Indian participant and I were the odd ones out, so they made an effort to speak in English for our sake. Quite a few had also learned local indigenous languages. It was very clear that they were fully immersed in the local culture and had great respect for it. The highlight of their careers was the long struggle they had waged for the rights of indigenous communities, even though many of them were not indigenous themselves.
This has parallels in India as well. The fight against casteism and communalism has often been led by individuals from the privileged groups against whom the struggle was targeted. When it comes to the rights of minorities in the country, the role of B.R. Ambedkar is immense. Much of this support came from his loved ones, including his second wife, Savita Ambedkar (formerly Sharada Krishnarao Kabir), who was born into a Brahmin family. The care and support Savita Ambedkar provided to her husband in his activities were acknowledged by B.R. Ambedkar in his book Buddha and His Dhamma, where he mentioned how her care rekindled the “dying flame” and helped him complete the book.
While it cannot be denied that the non-indigenous population, especially the settler population, has committed immense atrocities against indigenous peoples and dispossessed them of their ancestral territories, many people now fighting for indigenous rights also belong to the non-indigenous population. Such commitments are not based on a “white savior complex”—a term used by one participant’s partner to criticize him. He promptly ended the relationship and is now happily in love with a Guatemalan. In the Indian context, this is akin to one partner from an upper-caste Brahmin couple criticizing the other for associating with a Muslim, with the criticized person eventually marrying a Muslim. Mixing, in fact, is the crucible in which humanity and the various ethnic groups found today in the world were born. The Khasi are a good example of this. Genetic evidence has shown that at least 70% of the present-day Khasi population can trace their ancestry to a non-Khasi great-great-grandparent. In many cases, both the maternal and paternal lines are non-Khasi. However, over time, these individuals have been assimilated into the community after adopting the Khasi language and matrilineal culture—two foundations of Khasi identity. I personally believe that we should advocate for more mixed marriages, as they will enrich our culture and generate progressive ideas that will advance the community. If there is one lesson I can take from my experience in Mexico, it is that indigenous and non-indigenous peoples working together is the only way to fight for the repatriation of indigenous rights. This lesson is of great importance to Meghalaya as well.
In Meghalaya, we have a long-settled non-indigenous population whose presence has been steadily declining over the years. From nearly 20% of the population in the 1970s, they now make up just over 10%, and the trend suggests this exodus will continue. Many people may not know, or may have chosen to forget, that the non-indigenous population played an important role in securing Meghalaya’s statehood. They were at the forefront, supporting the indigenous leadership in making the demand. Their role in building various institutions of the state, especially in education and the public sector, is immense and cannot be forgotten. However, they have long been victims of false propaganda.
The claim of uncontrolled illegal immigration is a popular one across the political spectrum, but it is not based on facts. There is no evidence that illegal immigration, or even legal migration, is occurring at a level that threatens the demographic dominance of the indigenous peoples in the state. Such claims would only be true if one assumed that false information was being reported as part of a high-level conspiracy against Meghalaya and its indigenous population. Meanwhile, many problems afflicting the state that could be addressed are hamstrung by the paranoia that has been cultivated over many years.
Both the issues of Assam tourist vehicles taking business away from local taxis and the rise in the price of essential commodities (raised in the Assembly) could be tackled by the introduction of railways. Tourists would be able to come to Shillong directly, allowing prices of essential commodities to come down. Trains would also put an end to the illegal extortion that happens along the highway, for which some people were arrested last year. The introduction of railways will also allow us to remove our dependence on Assam which can no longer intimidate us, as seen in the recent threat of All Assam United Motor Transport Association (AAUMTA) to stop plying of commercial vehicles, carrying daily essentials from entering Meghalaya.
Removing this paranoia would also undermine the legitimacy of many groups that are illegally extorting money in the name of protecting the jaidbynriew. In a recent story about the fall in the state’s GST collection, one trader mentioned that when sales are visibly higher, certain groups and individuals immediately appear, demanding money. Last year, a few members of such groups were arrested for demanding money from shops, and recently, a few more were arrested. These factors contribute to the rise in the prices of essential commodities and create an unfavorable business environment in the state. Political parties will no longer be able to emotionally blackmail the public in the name of the jaidbynriew, and they will have to come up with actual solutions to solve real problems.In the meantime, the lies have contributed to a steady outmigration of the non-indigenous population from the state. Many leave with sadness and bitterness, feeling betrayed by the people they served throughout their lives. I know a few of them, including one whom I consider the best teacher I have ever studied under. His departure, with a broken heart, represents a significant loss not only for the teaching fraternity but for the state as a whole. We need people like him to stay.
My experience in Mexico has taught me that if we want to build a better society, it must be based on mutual respect and a desire to work together for the common good of all. For this, we need the support of both indigenous and non-indigenous populations. Our state is a good example of how living with paranoia has not benefited us—it has left us at the bottom of everything in the country. We need to work together, and that is the only way we can build a just and fair society for all.