By Dr Omarlin Kyndiah
The ongoing controversy surrounding the appointment of the Syiem of Hima Sohra and the recent suspension of the Syiem of Hima Mylliem by the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) has sparked an important debate about the relationship between traditional governance, customary law, and indigenous religion in Meghalaya.
While political parties and various groups continue to debate issues of procedure, legality, and governance, one important question remains largely ignored: Can a traditional chief who is required to perform indigenous Khasi religious rites and sacrifices be appointed if he does not follow the indigenous faith?
This is not just a political question. It is a question that has already been addressed by the Supreme Court of India.
In the landmark case Ewanlangki-E-Rymbai v. Jaintia Hills District Council (2006), the Supreme Court upheld the exclusion of Christians from contesting the office of Dolloi in Elaka Jowai. The Court ruled that this exclusion was not based simply on religion, but on the duties and responsibilities attached to the office itself.
The Court noted that a Dolloi is not merely an administrative head. The office carries important religious responsibilities that are deeply rooted in the indigenous faith and customs of the Jaintia people. Since the Dolloi is required to perform traditional religious ceremonies, sacrifices, and rituals, the Court held that a person who does not follow the indigenous religion may not be able to carry out these duties in accordance with customary law.
The Supreme Court also emphasised that the Constitution protects not only individual rights but also the collective cultural and religious rights of indigenous communities under Articles 25, 26, and 29. Preserving tribal customs and traditional institutions was recognised as a legitimate constitutional objective.
Relevance to Khasi Traditional Institutions
The principle laid down by the Supreme Court has direct relevance to Khasi traditional governance.
In several Khasi Himas, the Syiem is not merely a secular administrator. The Syiem performs religious ceremonies, offerings, sacrificial rites, and other customary functions associated with the traditional Khasi faith, commonly known as Niam Khasi or Niam Tynrai.
These rituals are not optional. They are an essential part of the institution and have been practised for generations as part of Khasi customary governance.
If the reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court in the Dolloi case is applied consistently, then the office of a Syiem who is required to conduct indigenous religious ceremonies should necessarily be held by someone who follows the indigenous faith and is capable of performing those duties according to custom.
The issue, therefore, is not about discriminating against any religious community. Rather, it is about preserving the integrity of a traditional institution whose authority is rooted in customary law and indigenous religious practice.
The Sohra Question
The current dispute in Hima Sohra has largely centred on the issuance of a sanad, electoral procedures, and the role of the KHADC. However, the larger issue concerns the preservation of the traditional structure of the Hima itself.
If the office of Syiem in Sohra continues to carry religious obligations under Khasi customary law, then any process of appointment or succession must also take into account the customary qualifications needed to perform those duties.
Traditional institutions cannot be separated from the customs and beliefs that gave rise to them. Retaining the title while removing the customary responsibilities would fundamentally change the nature of the institution.
The controversy has also raised concerns among traditional leaders and custodians of Khasi customs, who fear that political considerations may increasingly influence institutions that have historically functioned according to customary law and indigenous traditions. The debate, therefore, goes beyond the question of who should become the next Syiem. It also concerns how traditional governance can be protected in a rapidly changing political environment.
Lessons from the Mylliem Controversy
The controversy surrounding Hima Mylliem similarly highlights the growing tension between administrative governance and traditional authority. While the current dispute focuses on financial and administrative issues, it also raises broader questions about how traditional institutions are regulated and preserved.
The survival of these institutions depends not only on legal recognition but also on the continued observance of the customs that define them.
Adding to these concerns are reports that the VPP-led Executive Committee of the KHADC is also considering action against the Syiem of Hima Khyrim. Although no final decision has been formally announced, these reports have intensified public discussion about the relationship between the Council and traditional institutions. With controversies already surrounding Sohra and Mylliem, the possibility of similar action involving Khyrim has led many to wonder whether a pattern of increasing intervention in traditional governance structures is emerging.
Supporters of the Executive Committee argue that the Council is simply exercising powers vested in it under the law and customary regulations. Critics, however, contend that repeated confrontations with traditional institutions risk undermining the autonomy and dignity of offices that have existed for centuries and remain central to Khasi identity.
Whether one agrees with the actions of the Council or not, these developments highlight the urgent need for a clear framework that balances accountability with respect for customary institutions. Traditional offices should not be viewed solely through the lens of modern administration. They must also be understood as custodians of culture, religion, and community identity.
Preserving Indigenous Identity
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ewanlangki-E-Rymbai serves as an important reminder that tribal institutions are not merely political offices. They are cultural and religious institutions that embody the identity, heritage, and traditions of indigenous communities.
The Constitution, through the Sixth Schedule and Articles 25, 26, and 29, recognises the importance of preserving these unique institutions.
Therefore, where the office of a Syiem requires the performance of Khasi religious rites, sacrifices, and customary ceremonies, the holder of that office should be a practitioner of Niam Khasi. This is not a question of religious exclusion. It is about ensuring that the institution remains faithful to the customs and traditions it was created to uphold.
The principle affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Dolloi case establishes that qualifications linked to the performance of indigenous religious duties are constitutionally permissible when they are essential to preserving the institution itself. The same reasoning deserves serious consideration in discussions concerning the succession and appointment of Syiems in Khasi Himas where traditional religious responsibilities remain inseparable from the office.
As Meghalaya navigates the current controversies in Sohra, Mylliem, and the reported developments concerning Khyrim, the focus should remain on safeguarding the integrity of indigenous institutions rather than allowing them to become battlegrounds for partisan politics. The preservation of Khasi customary law, traditional governance, and indigenous faith is not only a cultural necessity but also a constitutional one. The future of these institutions will depend on whether society chooses to uphold the customs and traditions that have given them legitimacy for generations.
