By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, Aug 7: The Synjuk ki Rangbah Kur ka Bri u Hynniewtrep, a federation of Khasi clan elders, has urged the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) to challenge the public interest litigation filed by the Syngkhong Rympei Thymmai (SRT) against the Council’s decision not to issue Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificates to Khasis who use their father’s or husband’s surname.
Members of the Synjuk on Thursday met KHADC Chief Executive Member (CEM) Shemborlang Rynjah, urging the Council not to lose faith or back down in the face of the PIL.
The Synjuk maintained that the KHADC must do everything within its power to safeguard the age-old matrilineal tradition of the Khasis.
Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Synjuk spokesperson RL Blah said the Council must ensure that groups attempting to alter the matrilineal system into a patrilineal one are not allowed to succeed.
“We fully support the KHADC in opposing the PIL filed by the SRT,” he asserted.
Blah emphasised the vital need to safeguard the age-old matrilineal traditions of Khasi society, noting that these customs are intricately woven into various aspects of tribal life—from inheritance and land tenure systems to the election of traditional functionaries, which is mandated to be based on matrilineal clan representation.
He cited the legal chaos that followed the 2014 High Court verdict, which had earlier questioned the authority of headmen and village councils. He recalled that the traditional institutions were only restored after a successful appeal in the Supreme Court, which reaffirmed their authority—thereby underscoring the importance of preserving indigenous customary frameworks.
Addressing the rationale behind SRT’s demand for ST certificate eligibility under patriarchal lineage, cultural commentator Raphael Warjri pointed out that the organisation seeks to reform Khasi customs in alignment with the mainstream “general category” structure of mainland India.
Warjri argued that such aspirations run counter to the spirit of constitutional protections for tribal communities.
He further stated that customary law is the product of a society’s collective conscience and should not be diluted by the liberal choices of a minuscule patriarchal minority, especially when they contradict the deeply rooted matrilineal mandate of the Khasi people.
The KHADC has consistently advocated for the preservation of the Khasi matrilineal system, under which children inherit their mother’s clan name. The Council believes that this tradition, passed down by the ancestors, should not be tampered with, warning that any deviation could lead to social confusion.
However, the SRT has challenged this stance, citing a 2020 notification from the Social Welfare Department. According to the SRT, the notification states that any Khasi individual, regardless of whether they carry their father’s surname, is entitled to ST status, provided they meet other necessary criteria.
Earlier, the SRT had filed a Right to Information request, seeking clarification from the Deputy Commissioner of East Khasi Hills on whether there is any legal provision to deny ST status to Khasis using their father’s surname. The DC’s office reportedly clarified that a no-objection certificate is not required from any Seng Kur (clan association) for such individuals.
The SRT argued that the Seng Kur holds no constitutional authority to issue clan certificates. Furthermore, it claimed that the Deputy Commissioners of East Khasi Hills, West Khasi Hills, and South West Khasi Hills have been refusing to issue ST certificates to children of Khasi parents (both Khasi father and Khasi mother) who choose to adopt their father’s clan.
SRT adviser Keith Pariat criticised the KHADC for imposing traditional customs in modern times.
“Are these traditional customs still relevant today? Why should we blindly follow them? Anything irrelevant must be discarded,” he said.
The High Court of Meghalaya admitted the PIL filed by the SRT against a government decision that effectively halted the issuance of ST certificates to certain categories of applicants.
The PIL challenges the Social Welfare Department’s May 2024 withdrawal of a 2020 policy that allowed ST certificates for Khasis who adopted surnames from either parent or for non-Khasi wives who took their husband’s surnames.
Chief Justice Indra Prasanna Mukerji and Justice Wanlura Diengdoh, while hearing the PIL on June 27, expressed concern over how surname choices could impact tribal certification.
“We would like to understand how the option of a person to adopt the surname of one’s mother or father could change the obligation of the authority under the said Act to register a Khasi and grant him or her the tribe certificate,” the bench observed.