Editor,
The continuing unrest and violence in Bangladesh are deeply worrying for us all being the closest neighbours. Bangladesh today seems to be burning, losing its balance at the cost of humanity. What is happening there is no longer just an internal political issue ; it has a direct bearing on regional peace, border security, and India’s long-term interests.
At such a time, history must be remembered honestly. Bangladesh came into being in 1971 with India’s decisive help and sacrifice. India sheltered millions of refugees, extended diplomatic support, and lost many lives so that Bangladesh could emerge as a free nation. For this, Bangladesh should always but always owe India a lasting sense of gratitude–not out of superiority, but out of shared history and responsibility. Remembering this past is necessary to keep mutual respect alive.
Reports of killings, intimidation, and the breakdown of law and order are deeply disturbing. Mob lynching has no place in a civilised society. Targeting people because of their religious background is a complete denial of humanity and justice. No civilised society in the world can excuse or ignore such acts. Those responsible must be punished seriously, for we know silence only allows such cruelty to grow.
The effects of this unrest are already being felt across the border. Fear and violence often force people to move, placing pressure on India’s bordering states such as West Bengal, Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram. Local administrations and communities in these sensitive regions face added social and security challenges.
In this situation, India’s recent diplomatic engagement and expression of concern are timely and necessary. Voices from opposition leaders and civil society within Bangladesh also show that the crisis cannot be brushed aside.
India must respond with firmness, wisdom, and restraint, guided by both humanity and national interest. A peaceful and stable Bangladesh is not only vital for its own people but equally important for the safety, harmony, and future of the entire region. Peace, safety, and dignity for ordinary people must remain above politics, for without these, no nation can truly move forward.
Yours etc.,
Jairaj,
Via email
A Response to Misrepresentation and Cultural Imposition
Editor,
This response is prompted by the article “Mathematics of the Kur: A Sociological Perspective” by Mankular Lamin Gashnga (ST Dec 16, 2025), which attempts to examine kinship, matriliny, and identity in Khasi and Jaintia society. Sociological discussion on customary systems is both necessary and welcome. However, the article crosses a line when interpretation turns into misrepresentation particularly in its treatment of the Jaintia people. The use of the term “so-called Jaintias” and the assumption that Khasi customs such as Tang Jait can be easily applied to the Jaintia Hills reveal a Khasi-centric approach that ignores the distinct identity and traditions of the Jaintia people.
Referring to the Jaintias as “so-called” is not a harmless choice of words. It amounts to denying their historical and cultural legitimacy. The Jaintias are not an invented or secondary group. They are an ancient Austro-asiatic community with a recorded kingdom, a distinct language, their own indigenous religion (Niamtre), and a political and cultural history that existed long before colonial rule. To dismiss them casually is to erase centuries of lived history and cultural continuity rooted in the Jaintia Hills.
Equally problematic is the insistence that the Jaintias should practice Tang Jait. This is presented as inclusion, but in reality it is a cultural imposition. Tang Jait is a specific Khasi customary rite, recognised by the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council. This practice belongs to Khasi society and Khasi social logic. It has never been part of traditional Jaintia customary law.
The argument that the presence of clan names such as Sari, Bamon, or Dkhar among the Jaintia proves the practice of Tang Jait is misleading. These names may point to historical contact or intermarriage, but they do not prove the existence of a formal ritual similar to Tang Jait.
The claim that clan names like Sari prove the historical practice of Tang Jait among the Jaintias is unfounded. Consider the origin of the Sari clan in Mukhla. Oral tradition recounts that during the time of U Sajar Nangli, three sisters- Ka Na, Ka Doh, and Ka La gave rise to the Suna, Lyngdoh, and Shylla clans. Later, a woman from the War areas of southern Jaintia Hills; a region inhabited by the War people, settled in Mukhla. Because she came from that area, she was identified as “War,” and her descendants formed the War clan. Separately, a girl from the plains came and lived with Ka Doh. Not knowing her name, and seeing she wore a saree, the villagers called her “Sari.” She married a man from the Lyngdoh clan, and her children took “Sari” as their clan’s name. Crucially, no ritual resembling Tang Jait was involved. The clan’s name arose from social identification, not formal customary adoption. This oral history underscores that Jaintia clan formation, even though non-local women, operated through distinct local logic not through the Khasi institution of Tang Jait.
A similar clarification is needed regarding the Dkhar clan, found in both Khasi and Jaintia Hills. Its emergence reflects historical inter-community contact, not the application of Tang Jait. Due to space constraints, I shall address this in a future piece.
When the writer suggests that “new clans are formed unofficially” in cases of marriage between Jaintia men and non-Jaintia women, he confuses social adjustment with customary law. Informal arrangements in individual cases do not amount to recognised tradition. To demand that the Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council formally adopt or “systematise” Tang Jait is not about protecting tradition. It is about replacing Jaintia customs with Khasi ones for the sake of administrative convenience.
This approach reflects a deeper problem: the attempt to absorb Jaintia identity into a Khasi framework under the language of inclusivity. Such thinking denies the Jaintias the right to define their own kinship rules and social institutions. If there is genuine concern for children born to non-Jaintia mothers, the solution does not lie in importing Khasi rituals, but in meaningful dialogue with Jaintia elders, customary bodies, and the JHADC to develop responses rooted in the Jaintia worldview.
Let us be clear. The Jaintias are not “so-called.” They are Ki Jaintia- a people with their own identity, customs, and the right to practice matriliny on their own terms. They owe no one an apology for that.
Yours etc.,
Dr Omarlin Kyndiah,
Via Email
