By Fabian Lyngdoh
There had been debates between the supporters of the Federation of the Khasi States and the supporters of the Sixth Schedule and the District Council. Proper knowledge of the history of the past is necessary to understand the present, and to foresee the future. For the interest of students and young social leaders, let me remind that the primary political community in the Khasi-Jaintia Hills was the Raid or Shnong ruled by the Lyngdoh and the Basans independently as unique city-states. A number of adjacent Raids confederated together to form the Hima, and a Syiem family was adopted, and consecrated as a neutral and common rallying point. The confederation concerned mainly for common judicial administration, and defence purposes, but did not affect the territorial autonomy of the Raids. Hence, the Syiem was not a territorial ruler at all. There was no royalty of Kings or Rajas in being a Khasi Syiem other than the common respect given by the people of the confederate Raid. The Syiem family lived among the people like ordinary citizens. P.R.T. Gurdon too had observed: “to the democratic Khasi, the idea of the Siem (Syiem) living apart from his people would be repugnant.”
We may romantically think that the Khasi Hima were big states with very large armies. Sajar Nangli’s warriors were said to be countless in number, that each, digging once with his bow, is enough to create the Thadlaskeiñ lake. That was not a fact. The Khasi Hima were very small in size and population too. Each abled adult male inhabitant was supposed to serve as a fighter in case of war because there was no standing army at all in any of the Khasi Himas. Let me show here the British officers’ observations in some detail. According to A.J.M Mills’ Report on The Khasi and Jaintia Hills, 1853, the population in the Khasi Hills was only 82,400, living in 564 villages, and 16,450 households. The population in Jaintia Hills was only 36,525, including Mikirs (Karbis) and Lalungs (Tiwas), living in 161 villages and 7305 households. In 1853, Hima Sohra had only 10,300 people, 61 villages, 2060 households. Hima Mylliem: 9200 people,75 villages, 1840 households. Hima Nongkhlaw: 5825 people, 60 villages, 1165 households. Hima Maram: 2765 people, 44 villages, 553 households. Hima Shella: 7995 people, 25 villages, 1587 households. Hima Khyrim: 22,335 people, 118 villages, 4467 households. Hima Nongstoin: 5855 people, 55 villages, 1171 households. Hima Langrin: 910 people, 11 villages, 182 households. Hima Nongspung: 1335 people, 11 villages, 267 households. Hima Rambrai: 2410 people, 16 villages, 482 households. Hima Bhowal: 580 people, 5 villages,116 households. Hima Mariaw: 3005 people, 19 villages, 601 households. Hima Mawiang: 1125 people, 9 villages, 225 households. Hima Mawmluh: 400 people, 1 village, 80 households. Indeed, some of these so-called Hima, did not qualify to be considered even as mini city-states.
In Khasi traditions, the real authority in the Hima was not the Syiem, but it was the Dorbar of the Lyngdoh and Basan of the autonomous Raids of the Hima. They were the heads of the founding clans, and collectively called the ‘Bakhraws’. But this traditional power relation between the Syiem and the Bakhraws was destroyed during colonial rule. British officers misrepresented the Khasi Syiem as Kings or Rajas with supreme territorial authority. They knew the fact very well, but they destroyed the traditional system on purpose for their own colonial interests. Pemberton quoted Robertson’s Report of 1832 which relates to the Khasi traditional political system: “Among the many peculiarities (says Mr. Robertson)” ‘apparent in the form of society and government, existing among the Cossyas, the absence of any recognized organ of supreme power is very remarkable. The nation or horde presents the appearance of a congregation of Little Oligarchical Republics, subject to no common superior, yet of which each member is amenable, in some degree, to the control of his confederates. It was, he adds, to the oversight as to the feature of their political system that the massacre at Nongklow may perhaps be traced, since Teerut Sing seems to have been merely an instrument on that occasion, of executing the will of the confederates, who were displeased at a treaty which he had without their sanction entered into’ (Alexander Mackenzie: The North-East Frontier of India, p. 233). Through agreements, sanads and administrative actions, the colonial rulers reduced the authority and status of the Bakhraws, and unprecedentedly raised the authority and status of the Syiem for their own colonial advantage. Though the Syiem were made subjects of the British, their power over the Bakhraws and the people was largely enhanced and strongly protected by the British government.
Available documents show that after Independence, the process of integration of the Khasi Himas to the Indian Union had passed through a tug-of-war between two parties with opposing ideologies. They were commonly called the Federation party and the Federated party. On one side, the Federation of Khasi States led mostly by the Syiems, argued that from time immemorial, the land has been ruled by democratic Syiem, Lyngdohs, and Sirdars who were elected by the people. Is that true? Are the Syiem and Lyngdohs elected by the people at large, and not by the clans? Hamlet Bareh had rightly pointed out that the Syiem is neither a representative of the people nor a democratically elected one. Therefore, both the Syiemship and myntriship are not democratic institutions (Bareh, 1964:329). The Federation of Khasi States was only a voluntary association of the Syiem of the Himas with few eminent persons. It was not a politically binding traditional entity. Any Hima can opt out of the Federation any time.
The British government took over the controlling authority of the Dorbar of the Bakhraws over the Syiem. The Bakhraws lost their territorial authority and became mere electors for electing the Syiem, and as Myntris (Mantries) to be appointed by the Syiem, and only to assist the Syiem. Under this new found position, the Syiem had been enjoying all the newly invented rights, authorities and privileges under the British Rule, and they presented that as a Khasi democratic tradition! They sought constitutional protection for the continuance of their sacred rights and special privileges bestowed by the British. From 15th December, 1947 onwards all the Khasi Syiems signed the Instrument of Accession on behalf of their own respective Himas. Were the Syiems authorized according to Khasi tradition to accede the lands of the Raids to the Indian Union? In his Report of 1832, Mr. Robertson had observed that there was an absence of any organ of supreme power in the Khasi political system. The Hima was only a congregation (confederation) of the Raids which he called ‘Little Oligarchical Republics’ which were subject to no common superior, yet each Raid was amenable, in some degree, to the common good of the Hima. Robertson also pointed out that the cause of the Nongkhlaw massacre could be traced to an oversight or misunderstanding of the Khasi traditional political system by the colonial rulers. He pointed out that u Tirot Sing was merely an instrument for that bloody massacre. He was compelled to fight to execute the will of the Lyngdoh and Basan of the Raids, who were displeased at a treaty which he had entered into without their consent. Hima Nongkhlaw was originally formed by the confederation of eight autonomous villages or Raids, each under the rule of the respective Lyngdoh. The road that Mr. David Scott constructed on the basis of the treaty that u Syiem Tirot Sing entered into was passing not through the property of the Syiem, but through the properties of the inhabitants of the Raids under the independent rule of the Lyngdoh. Through oversight, the British perceived and considered these Lyngdohs merely as village headmen, not knowing (or intentionally disregarding?) that they were actually the de jure and de facto territorial rulers of the ‘Little Republics’.
Rev. JJM Nichols Roy was aware of this fact very well. Though he belonged to the Syiem clan of Hima Nongkhlaw, he chose to champion for popular democracy. He knew that the Syiem through the Federation of the Khasi States did not want real democracy, but they wanted a direct constitutional recognition of their own power and status gifted as a legacy of British rule. So, he formed and led the United Khasi Jaintia Federated National Conference advocating for the union of the Khasi States and the British Areas into one United Khasi Jaintia State through a popularly elected democratic structure under the Constitution of India.
The Federation party wanted constitutional recognition of an autonomous territory under the rule of the association of the hereditary rulers of the Himas, while the Federated party wanted a constitutional recognition of an autonomous territory under the rule of a council of popularly elected representatives. The end result is the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India which provides for the formation of an autonomous district council (ADC) of popularly elected representatives called Members of the District Council (MDCs) within the State of Assam. Through the ADCs, the Sixth Schedule guarantees the preservation and protection of traditional institutions and customs of the tribals of North East India and allows them to develop their own system of administration at the local level, as per the prevailing practices and customs within the framework of the Constitution. Before the advent of the British, the Khasi Syiem were always under the control of the Dorbar of the Bakhraw. Today, through the door of the District Council, the Khasi Hima and their traditional clan-based hereditary rulers found an indirect constitutional recognition, and they were placed under the supervision of a democratically elected Council which is even more democratic than the traditional clan-based Dorbar of the Bakhraw.