By Bhogtoram Mawroh
The upcoming Autonomous District Council elections provide an excellent opportunity to strengthen the matrilineal customs. These institutions protect and strengthen the customary laws of the indigenous communities. Since Khasis are a matrilineal community, the principal aim of KHADC and JHADC is to act as a bulwark against threats to its customs and traditions. But if any individual does not follow the matrilineal traditions, it raises doubts as t whether they are contesting these elections not to protect but to weaken the District Councils, the traditional institutions, i.e., Hima and Raid, and the customary laws of the Khasi community. Some individuals have argued that matrilineal traditions are outdated and advocated for adopting patrilineal customs to modernise. But what is that modernity that they are alluding to?
Many advocates of patrilineal customs argue that the emergence of nuclear families—where the father, rather than the uncle, plays a more important role in providing for the family—should lead to a change, granting the father the right to pass on his surname to his children. There are a couple of assumptions that are embedded in such an argument. First, it assumes that nuclear families are a modern invention and therefore their growing importance causes a reciprocal change. Second, the argument claims that the right to give a surname should correlate with income-earning capacity, which they believe is greater for men than for women. The first one is very easy to refute. There are documentary evidences to prove that nuclear families were a common feature in the Khasi society.
In PRT Gurdon’s 1914 book ‘The Khasis’ there is an description of Khasi family under the marriage section: Amongst the Khasis, after one or two children are born, and if a married couple get on well together, the husband frequently removes his wife and family to a house of his own, and from the time the wife leaves her mother’s house she and her husband pool their earnings, which are expended for the support of the family. This is the quintessential example of a nuclear family because the couple moves out of the extended family home and they live independently with their children. Chie Nakane’s 1967 book ‘Garo and Khasi: A Comparative Study in Matrilineal Systems’ reveals the identity of such families. These are families where a woman who is not the heiress, i.e., the youngest daughter or the khatduh branches off after her marriage and lives with her husband. Although she will remain a member of her mother’s iing (a descent group comprising the grandmother, her daughters, and the daughters’ children living together under one roof), an independent iing will form from the third generation onwards. This also reveals the origin of the multitude of clans and the custom of teh kur among the Khasi. This process begins when a non-heiress moves out of her mother’s home to start a new iing. Over time, the iing becomes more independent, eventually forming a new kur that remains connected to the original lineage. The clan narratives of the Laloo (Jowai), Pariong (Mawiong), Diengdohbah (Sohra), and Diengdoh Kylla (Nongkhlaw), all trace their ancestry to a common ancestress, Ïawchibidi, serve as strong evidence of a process that must have been repeated multiple times over at least in the last 5,000 years (in South Asia) forming numerous kur.
Gurdon wrote his work shortly after the British contacted the Khasis, and Nakane wrote hers shortly after the British departed. Unless we assume the Khasis adopted their matrilineal customs after the British, we must acknowledge that nuclear families have always existed among the Khasi. In fact, they are the very foundation of the present matrilineal clans.
Now, let’s address the second argument, which asserts that economic capacity should determine lineage rules—specifically, that people with higher earnings (presumed to be men) should preferentially pass down the lineage. Foremost, if earnings were to determine lineage, various complex situations would arise, making such a framework highly impractical and difficult to manage. Inheritance of ancestral property passes through the youngest daughter or the khatduh in the family, which leaves the other daughters and the sons with no inheritance. If the logic of linking lineage with earnings is being followed, this will create a situation where the khatduh will follow matrilineal customs while the others will adopt patrilineal customs. What happens to the rule of incest or sang, the most crucial factor for the Khasis in determining whom they can marry? What is sang for the khatduh will not be sang for the other members of the family. Maybe for this very reason equitable distribution of property is being suggested by some who advocate a change from matrilineal to patrilineal traditions. But assuming that equitable distribution takes place, will it automatically result in men somehow outperforming the women in terms of their economic capacity simply because they also have a share in the inheritance? I am not sure and I will use anecdotal evidence to illustrate my point.
In Iewduh one can find many shops being run by women. The men are usually engaged in daily wage or other activities, which would not bring a comparable income like the women who are manning those shops. The street vendors selling their wares in different parts of the city are also mostly women. Having worked with them for many years I know that the earnings from sitting on the footpath are their main source of income for the family. Since women have traditionally been highly active in the local economy, many times their earnings will exceed those of their husbands. I have friends (men) whose earnings are lower compared to their wives. And this is not because of the women’s sole proprietorship of the ancestral property. These women have jobs that are much higher paying than their husbands’. So, to maintain male supremacy, women must be prevented from participating in economic activities. If not, there will be occasions where women will earn more than men, which will violate the principle that lineage should follow from men because they earn more than women. Or should families where men earn more, follow patrilineal customs and where women earn more follow matrilineal customs? Since nuclear families are supposedly becoming more prevalent, it is highly likely that, in such a case, families of the same lineage will follow different lineage rules. What happens if the earnings of men and women are equal? Should lineage be determined by the toss of a coin then? This is turning into a highly confusing situation.
There’s another situation that will further complicate the situation. Recently there was a news report which revealed that 15% of the children in Meghalaya grow up in fatherless homes, which is higher than the national average of 13.8% or approximately 14%. This is similar to the figures arrived at in 2022 by the Meghalaya State Commission for Women (MSCW). What is most surprising is that the national average at that point was 7% as reported by a UN agency. In just over a decade, the national average has doubled while the figures for Meghalaya have remained the same. That’s a highly remarkable jump. Assuming for the time being that the figures are correct, the fact that Meghalaya’s figure for fatherless children is only 1% less than the national average suggests that either some states have similar figures or a few states have significantly higher percentages of fatherless children, pulling the average up. Therefore, Meghalaya may not be an outlier. Furthermore, data from the Pew Research Center (a respected Washington, D.C. research group) has already shown that some Christian-dominated, patrilineal countries have higher rates than Meghalaya. So, this high percentage of fatherless children is most probably because of introducing patriarchal Christian values into a matrilineal Khasi society. But coming back to the present discussion, what happens to such fatherless households? Since the mother is the sole bread earner of the family, should such families follow matrilineal customs then? Patrilineal customs will be observed as long as the husband is alive or present; however, in the event of his death or divorce, matrilineal customs will take effect. It’s getting highly confusing.
I hope the argument to change to patrilineal customs is not a religious one, i.e., a change to a Christian family where the head is the father. Religion is a personal choice, but should we permit a foreign religion to destroy traditional Khasi values—values older than Christianity—especially since members of indigenous faiths remain in the community? Is this not akin to Christian fundamentalism, reminiscent of the killings and destruction of indigenous cultures worldwide during the colonial era? I thought there was now a consensus that this was a dark period in human history. Are we going backwards then?
Having looked at the arguments of the pro-patrilineal groups, I can say that they are highly childish and display a lack knowledge and understanding of the history and culture of the Khasi community. I cannot understand how anyone can take such childish demands seriously and imagine that flimsy arguments will dismantle these time-tested customs, thousands of years old. Therefore, once the District Council elections end, we should demand that whoever wins must strengthen matrilineal traditions instead of weakening them. I have some suggestions which I will share after the elections. For the time being, one thing which I would like to ask readers to reflect on the fact that Article 371 and the Sixth Schedule are designed to safeguard customary traditions and institutions. Since the Khasi have traditionally followed a matrilineal system, a shift to patrilineality would mean that these traditions are no longer customary, and institutions would undergo modernization. In such a scenario, would Article 371 or the Sixth Schedule still be applicable?
(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)