By Bhogtoram Mawroh
Ever since the state anthem was announced, there has been resistance from a section of the Khasis, the Synteng in particular, who insist that the lack of the inclusion of Pnar (the language spoken by them) words amounts to discrimination and ignores the history of the Jaintia, who are a community distinct from the Khasi. The question, therefore, is whether the Synteng constitute a group distinct from the Khasi, and what is meant by the term Jaintia, another name by which the Synteng identify themselves. At least from a linguistic, genetic, and cultural perspective, the Synteng form part of the larger Khasi group. The question of including them under the term Khasi, however, is also a political one. Since the Khasi maintained an oral culture, it is only the colonial documents that can help in this regard. We will go through some of these colonial documents to understand how the British viewed the people living in what today constitute the districts of Khasi Hills, Jaintia Hills, and Ri Bhoi.
The first document is the latest among them, History of Assam, written by E. Gait and published in 1926. This was almost a hundred years after the British had come into contact with the Khasi. The book has a chapter devoted to the Jaintia, titled “The Jaintia Kings.” In the second paragraph of the chapter, Gait writes: “The dominions of the Raja of Jaintia include two distinct tracts of country, namely the Jaintia Hills which is inhabited by a Khasi tribe called Synteng, and the plains country, south of these hills and north of the Barak river, in the Sylhet district, now known as Jaintia parganas, the inhabitants of which are Bengali Hindus and Muhammadans.” A few sentences later he also states that “There is practically no difference between the inhabitants of the Khasi, and those of the Jaintia Hills … they speak the same language – Khasi …” As far as Gait is concerned, the Synteng are part of the larger Khasi tribe, and there is no distinction between them.
We now turn to an earlier publication, and perhaps the most famous one, The Khasis by P. R. T. Gurdon, first published in 1907. This was less than fifty years after the rebellion of U Kiang Nongbah, the last great revolt against British rule in the hills. In the introduction to the book, it is stated that the languages of the “Khasi nation” are four in number: “the standard literary form, founded on the language of Cherrapunji, the Pnar or Synteng, of Jowai, the War, spoken in the valleys on the southern face of the hills, and the Lyngngam, spoken in the tract adjacent to the Garos on the west.”
Later in the book, Gurdon identifies the locations where the different groups are found. He writes that “the Syntengs, or Pnars, (inhabit) the Jaintia Hills … (which) take their name from the Rajas of Jaintia, the former rulers of this part of the country, who had as their capital Jaintiapur … which now falls within the boundaries of the Sylhet district.” From this it becomes clear that the Synteng (with the word Pnar also being used interchangeably to describe them) are a linguistic group. We also get an idea of the origin of the word Jaintia, which comes from the capital Jaintiapur, where the inhabitants were mostly Bengali Hindus and Muslims.
Thus, Jaintia is not a Khasi word but most likely a Bengali one. In fact, the Jayantia Buranji reveals that it was derived from the name of the Hindu goddess Jayanteshwari (supposed to be an incarnation of Durga), the patron deity of the Hindu kingdom of Jaintiapur before it was conquered by Hima Sutnga in the sixteenth century. Jaintia was therefore a term used for everyone who lived in Hima Jaintiapur, meaning that even the Bengali subjects would refer to themselves as Jaintia. It was not a term used exclusively to identify the Synteng.
We now come to perhaps the most interesting of all the colonial documents, Papers Relating to the Disturbance in Khasi and Jaintia Hills, published in 1864. It is a record of the correspondence between British officers as they attempted to suppress the rebellion led by U Kiang Nongbah. It is a fascinating document and even contains references to the places that took part in the rebellion and to the bravery of the Khasi warriors who fought for their independence. According to one of the letters, the reason for the rebellion was “the interference with the religion of the Khassyahs (Khasis).” In another letter, it is stated that “the hope … that the Khassyahs (Khasis) of Jynteeah (Jaintia) Hills would accept the offer of pardon … has now passed away.” Those who rebelled under the leadership of U Kiang Nongbah were referred to as Khasis, and the same terminology appears in several other letters as well.
Perhaps the clearest example that those who rebelled against the British were regarded as Khasi is found in the following sentence: “I am directed by the Governor General in council to request that His Honor the Lieutenant-Governor will favor this Government without delay, with a detailed statement of plan operations which his honor proposes to adopt with a view to the suppression of the Cossyah (Khasi) rebellion in the Jynteeah (Jaintia) Hills.” For the British, U Kiang Nongbah was therefore a Khasi rebel from the Jaintia Hills, and his rebellion could, from a Khasi nationalist perspective, be regarded as the second war of Khasi independence after the earlier struggle led by U Tirot Sing. He was captured with the help of “a party led by a Khassyah (Khasi) of the name Oollong (U Long) Sattoonga (Sutnga), a resident of the village of Nurteng (Nartiang?).”
The document also contains the testimony of U Kiang Nongbah, descriptions of the various battles with the British, and indications of the respect the British held for the bravery and determination of the Khasi warriors. There is even a description of how the present institution of the Dorbar Shnong came into being, as a system designed to help the British keep the local population under control. The description of the capture and testimony of U Kiang Nongbah is particularly interesting, and the British acknowledged that he accepted his fate without showing any fear. There is also mention of his widow and two children, and one wonders whether his descendants might still be traced after such a long period.
It is therefore clear that the British consistently regarded the inhabitants of the Jaintia Hills as belonging to the Khasi community. But does that mean it is appropriate to use Jaintia as a synonym for Khasi? This question is addressed in an earlier document, Report on Khasi and Jaintia Hills by A. J. M. Mills, published in 1853.
According to Mills, the Khasi are a tribe of people who inhabit the portion of the hills bordering Mymensingh and Sylhet on one side and Assam on the other. In his section on the Jaintia Hills, he states that “the inhabitants of the Jaintia Hills consist of Lalung (Tiwa), Mikirs (Karbi), and Khasias.” Thus, Jaintia did not refer only to the Synteng but also included the Mikir and Tiwa. He also describes how the Jaintia Hills came to be administered separately from the Khasi Hills, which ultimately was a matter of administrative technicality.
Thus, there is little doubt, at least from the colonial documents, that the Synteng or Pnar formed part of the larger Khasi group. The term Jaintia did not refer exclusively to the Synteng but also included non-Khasi groups. Will those advocating a separate identity also allow these non-Khasi groups to enjoy the same benefits they claim under the label Jaintia, such as reservations and rights relating to land ownership and transfer, since these groups would also fall under the umbrella of Jaintia? If not, is that not inconsistent with the historical meaning of the term?
The term Jaintia was never of Khasi origin and therefore, in this interpretation, cannot be used interchangeably with Khasi. There is no Jaintia tribe or ethnic community as such. Rather, there are the Synteng or Pnar, along with the War, and other non-Khasi groups such as the Tiwa, Karbi, and Biate, all of whom were subjects of Hima Jaintiapur. Thus, if the term Jaintia is used as a geographical or territorial designation referring to people from the former Hima Jaintiapur polity, its use may be acceptable. It is, however, not appropriate to use the term as an ethnic designation. Therefore, only the term Khasi is the historically legitimate ethnonym for the community. Any other interpretation reflects a misunderstanding of the history and culture of the land and its people.
(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)
