By Bhogtoram Mawroh
Recently, I was invited to a workshop on Agroecology organized by Focus on Global South, an NGO based in Thailand but working across South and Southeast Asia, held at Peren, Nagaland. In the program there was a session by Pamchingla Kumrah, who is the state coordinator of NEN (North East Network), Nagaland, titled ‘Indigenous Farming Systems: Pathways to Agro-ecological Foundation’. She began by asking the participants about what they understood by the term ‘indigenous,’ to which someone replied that it means belonging to the ‘native’ population. She agreed with the answer and then answered how the Nagas are indigenous by placing them into the various criteria given by the UN, which were originally derived from the definition of Indigenous Peoples (IPs) given under ILO 169.
This convention, known as the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention of 1989, puts forward two criteria for identifying indigenous peoples: subjective and objective. Self-identification and community acceptance make up the subjective criterion. The objective criterion is descent from populations who inhabited the country or geographical region at the time of conquest, colonisation, or establishment of present state boundaries and/or retention of some social, economic, cultural, and political institutions, irrespective of their legal status. The objective criterion is most important here because it addresses long-term settlement, which can be simplified to refer to the first settlers. This is also what is colloquially understood as being ‘indigenous’ or ‘native’.
I don’t really have much idea about when the Nagas possibly arrived in the Northeast, but they are part of the larger Sino-Tibetan language-speaking groups that emerged in northern China, around the Yellow River (Huang He) basin (birthplace of Chinese Civilisation). These groups were millet farmers and domesticated what is today known as foxtail millet. Researchers found people cultivated this species during the Late Harappan period (2100-1700 BC) in areas around the periphery of the Indus Valley Civilization. So, around 4000 years ago, the group to which the Naga belong must have already reached the northwestern part of what is today India, or groups living around that area had already established contacts with them and adopted the practice of growing foxtail millets. This would make them the group to whom the Naga belong (Sino-Tibetan language speaking groups) the third oldest in South Asia, after the Dravidian and the Austroasiatic (Khasi), a full 500 years before the Indo-Aryan groups who spoke Sanskrit and brought early forms of Hinduism from Central Asia. So, Nagas are indeed an indigenous people, and there is no debate about it. But the debate becomes muddled when the criterion for defining indigenous is expanded to include arguments that are connected to the idea of the ‘Noble Savage’.
The idea of the ‘Noble Savage’ comes from western philosophy, which preaches the innate goodness and moral superiority of a ‘primitive’ people living in harmony with nature. In this context, various indigenous groups from around the world, whose way of life strongly connects to nature, are identified as the ‘primitive’ people. Most of them live in highly inaccessible areas, such as mountains, tundra, and islands, where biodiversity remains high. Studies have constantly showed that areas where indigenous communities are residing have better forest cover, harbouring a great deal of biodiversity.
India has four biodiversity hotspots which coincide with the homeland of many indigenous groups, viz., Himalayas (Sino-Tibetan groups), Indo-Burma (Austroasiatic and Sino-Tibetan groups), Western Ghats (Dravidian groups), and Sundaland (Onge, Jarawas or the AASI/Ancient Ancestral South Indian groups). So, it would appear that the idea of the ‘Noble Savage’ is correct to some extent. However, people debate whether we should accept the characterization of indigenous people as ‘primitive’, which is how India defines Scheduled Tribes, the official name for indigenous people. I don’t agree with it. But what sometimes gets missed in the discussion on biodiversity hotspots is that while such regions have extremely high levels of biodiversity, they are also under significant threat of destruction from human activities. So, if a ‘noble savage’ or indigenous person is someone who lives in harmony with nature, then who is responsible for the destruction?
Non-indigenous groups carry much of the destruction of the natural environment in indigenous territories out, as seen by what has happened and is still continuing in South America. One factor in the spread of Naxalite ideology in Central India is the perceived failure of the Indian state to provide for tribal/indigenous peoples’ autonomy over their land and natural resources, which is rich in mineral resources. These are the areas where large tracts of areas covered by rich forests are being auctioned for mining or other extractive industries by corporations owned by individuals belonging to non-indigenous communities. Indigenous territories in Dima Hasao, Karbi Anglong and Bodoland are experiencing something similar. But the loss of forest and biodiversity is not always caused by forces external to the indigenous community. Many times, it is they who do the most violence to the environment.
The vast swath of grassland right across eastern Meghalaya stretching all the way from West Khasi Hills to East Jaintia Hills resulted from the deforestation that started around 2000 years ago when the Khasis discovered iron smelting. People used charcoal as the fuel, which led to the felling of large numbers of trees. Without their roots acting as anchors, heavy rainfall washed away the topsoil, making it difficult for the trees to come back. Hardy grasses took their place. Around the same time, another activity was gaining traction among the Khasis, which further sped up the process of degradation. This was the practice of erecting monoliths, which are a quintessential feature of the Khasi landscape. Nagas also erect monoliths, and I saw some while I was in Peren. However, Khasi monoliths are very distinctive from Nagas, the most magnificent among them are the ones found in Nartiang. But how were they erected? And what does it have to do with the deforestation that started 2000 years ago?
According to the 2022 paper ‘Cherrapunjee: An Example of Human Impact on Environment’ by Sukanya Sharma, the “great stones were brought sometimes from considerable distances. After being hewn, the stones were laid on large wooden trolleys and dragged across the country by means of ropes of cane … and then placed in position by means of ropes and levers”. A great number of trees were felled in the process, and according to the author the “whole process of erecting megaliths and iron smelting technology … resulted in the complete destruction of the primary forest on the flat top surface of the plateau where Cherrapunjee (Sohra) is located”. Whatever the cause of the deforestation of the plateau, the perpetrators were the Khasis. We know this because the Khasis had arrived in South Asia around 5000 years ago (could be earlier) and had settled in what is today Meghalaya by around 4000 years ago.
At the same time, Khasis have a lot of practices which are today considered to be the hallmark of conservation – the Law Kyntang, landscape management system and the various ecological practices under agriculture. I don’t want to discuss the contradiction between environmental degradation and environmental conservation found among the Khasis for lack of space, but just want to point out that it has a long history. So, when people talk about the present environmental degradation taking place in Meghalaya orchestrated by the Khasis and question the disconnect with their supposed tribal or indigenous values (embodied by the concept of the Noble Savage) as something surprising, I want to say that it is not surprising at all. Khasis have protected the environment, but they have also destroyed it as well, and they are not unique in it. But that disconnect does not mean they have lost their indigeneity. The reasoning that the Khasis are no longer indigenous because they do not practice a certain ecological value is utterly false and malicious.
Khasis and Nagas are indigenous peoples because they were the first settlers in their land (and beyond from which they were pushed away), not because their culture preaches about living in harmony with nature. Not that those ecological values are not present, but there were times (past and present) when they were also disregarded. Should we try to revive those ecological values? Absolutely! But the contradiction between the two will never affect their identity as indigenous peoples.
(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)