By Patricia Mukhim
Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly, question assumptions, and make well-reasoned judgments. Critical thinking also questions past narratives that are embedded in the present despite the fact that the present requires an ecosystem that relies on logic and reasoning to meet new challenges. However, not everything about the past was wrong or illogical. I believe our ancestors were invested in ecological balance. They had a reverence for nature and the British actually defined our indigenous faith to be animistic meaning that we found spiritual uplift and resonance with nature. Hence, we would not harm nature the way we do today where nature is commodified and measured by rupees (lakhs and crores). So wherever and whenever it suits us we talk about our Niam Tynrai (indigenous faith) as if we live in a pristine past even while our relationship with nature has changed irrevocably.
The extractive economy knows no religion or faith. It’s not as if those who converted to Christianity are the only ones who exploit nature. In fact, that would mean that Christianity has no respect for the environment and that the church has failed to inculcate in its adherents a healthy respect for our forests, rivers, birds and beasts. Rivers and forests are the very basis of life yet the vengeance we have wreaked on our rivers is abominable. Yet the same people attend churches, temples and celebrate culture as if cultural symbols are reduced to songs, dances, dresses and ornaments. Normally church services and rituals of the indigenous faith should introspect on the interdependence between humans and nature. But that’s far from happening. This is again because the critical thinking mind is switched off when one enters a church or a jingleh niam (rituals) of the indigenous faith. To question any of the elders and custodians of culture or religion would be disrespectful. That’s what has been drilled into our not so common sense. So, no questions allowed. You follow what’s told. That’s how we lose touch with our critical thinking faculties.
In Khasi society we don’t allow questioning at home. Elders believe they are the repositories of all wisdom and younger members are passive recipients of that received wisdom. How then do we expect these same individuals to express curiosity and ask questions on what they are being taught in the classroom? In most classrooms again, teachers ‘teach’ and don’t allow questions, much less an animated debate on a range of issues which is what real education is supposed to mean. In fact, each time someone dares to raise questions on existential issues they are told to shut up. More so if the question/questions come from a woman. We are reminded not to overstep our limits because the ancestors have stated what many consider a gospel truth – that a woman who speaks out of turn and especially one who raises questions on politics is a “hen that crows” which is a sign of perdition. In Khasi the saying goes “Ka kynthei kaba kren laplah, kaba bun ktien bad mushlia ia ka kam rangbah – ka kam sain pyrthei – ka dei ka iar kynthei kaba kyn-ih kum u iar ryngkuh.
This sort of societal gate-keeping has actually pushed women to the margins of politics because they are given that ‘honorific’ of being the keepers and progenitors of the clan. Hence women are raised to a pedestal but told in no uncertain terms to stick to their domain – give birth, look after domestic responsibilities and allow the men to think of issues outside the four walls. In this sort of societal mooring why do we expect women from the margins of society who experience poverty first hand to raise their voices and use that agency of VOICE to bring change to their miserable existence?
Make no mistake but the self appointed custodians of Khasi culture today belong to the upper crust of society. In a covert manner some of them have an under-stated affinity with the proponents of Hindutva which is clearly different from Hinduism. Hindutva is a weaponised version of Hinduism. So, are there any parallels between Ka Niam Tynrai (indigenous faith, not the Seng Khasi which is a later derivative and which sought to institutionalise the adherents of the indigenous faith as a buffer against Christianity) and Hinduism? Ka Niam Tynrai never set limits or rules or a list of commandments for its adherents as Christianity does. Its principle teachings were “Tip Briew, Tip Blei” an aphorism that conveys the meaning that respect for God must begin with respect for fellow humans. In short, the teaching boils down to one simple truth – only when you know your fellow humans would you know God..almost like saying that God resides in every human soul. Perhaps what the ancestors meant also was service to humanity so that no one is impoverished as to have to beg. It means sharing resources.
Perhaps this is why the British found the Khasi society to be egalitarian. But are we an egalitarian society today? The very fact that we have folklore of the “Thlen” is to caution us that those clans and individuals who rear this imaginary python because of greed for wealth were excommunicated from their villages. It was a Khasi way of driving out those with excessive greed and who wanted to hoard more then they needed – something that the Khasi society was averse to in its early days. Today Khasi society comprises a small number of land owning elite who cut across all faiths. We have land sharks but also a huge chunk of landless Khasis. This landless population too cuts across all faiths. But do we discuss these critical issues today? Of course not. Where is the platform to discuss landlessness and how to ensure that every Khasi owns at least a plot for a home and a kitchen garden?
Interestingly the issue of land and how it is to be distributed is not really documented in our customary laws. In 1975, Mr RT Rymbai headed the Meghalaya, Government, Land Reforms Commission for Khasi Hills and wrote a report. But the Report classified land into so many grades that it was more confusing than bringing clarity. How can a society be egalitarian when the very basis of equity in land ownership is missing? The claim is that a few clans own entire villages but over time that ownership passed over to the more powerful tribals. If we take the case of the New Shillong Township (NST), most of the landowners are from a few clans from whom the land was acquired to create the NST and for building roads etc. Large chunks of Khasi clans don’t own land even in their own villages. Since there is no data on land ownership because of the absence of cadastral survey, there is public knowledge as to how much land has passed into the hands of the tribal elite. So who is against the cadastral survey? Should the Khasi people have gone against it if the idea is to bring about equitable distribution of land? Do the local villagers even know what a cadastral survey is? Late Mr Hopingstone Lyngdoh was against cadastral survey on the plea that people would have to pay revenue to the government for their land. That was a sham argument probably put into Lyngdoh’s mind by land sharks. Hence while BB Lyngdoh as Chief Minister proposed the cadastral survey, his Home Minister Hopingstone Lyngdoh blocked the process. That’s Meghalaya’s sordid history. Now why do you think there’s resistance to the cadastral survey project? Its because the few individuals of privileged clans who own entire villages fear that their extensive land ownership details might become public.
For crying out loud, our hypocrisy is all to visible and discernible to the eye of any social scientist. Late Dr Ricky Syngkon had shared his anxieties about the growing poverty in the Khasi-Jaintia Hills.
After all this, it is amusing to note that the Khasis still eulogise Khasi culture as being enlightened, democratic and equitable. It is none of these. Today resources are not shared by the community but are owned by a few individuals? Are coal mines a shared resource or individually owned? So too the limestone mines and the quarries. What do people get out of these environmentally degrading activities? Their rivers are degraded and some even poisoned but they don’t have the platform to take up these issues except in rare cases.
Its time for the Khasi people to come out of this carefully curated bubble where everything is made to look hunky-dory. There’s nothing romantic about the growing poverty that prevents parents from sending their kids to school and to feed them nutritious food. Think of a family of five that earns barely Rs 300-500 a day. Meat, especially beef today costs Rs 600-700 a kg. Dal is beyond reach. Fish and eggs are unaffordable. So, what does a family really consume to get enough proteins and vitamins? Its really time to do a reality check. Isn’t this what universities and other academic institutions are meant to do? Is NEHU a public funded university doing research on these critical issues or is there more politics and mud-slinging than real scholarship?
As a people if we continue to shy away from interrogating into the decadent nature of our culture and how far we have moved from what our ancestors envisaged, we are heading towards an uncertain future. We no longer live in the pristine ecosystem we have deceived ourselves to be in. The Khasi value systems have long since eroded irrevocably. Let’s hear the learned custodians of culture explain to us what “Kamai Ia Ka Hok (Earn righteousness or earn though honest means), actually implies.
Khasi society needs to reflect on these issues and step away from the mud-slinging partisan politics that we have grown used to. For a change let’s hear what the VPP has to say on the landlessness in Khasi society. We are waiting and watching!
