The water seems to have cleared up a bit and so maybe it is the right moment to dip one’s feet in the pond – unsettle things. There has been a large amount of correspondence in the Shillong Times – back and forth – around the issue of whether our local “indigenous faiths” (and those following them) should qualify for “minority” status. If they attain the desired outcome, possibly through reservation, then the perks and advantages attached to “minority” would be open to them (more so than before). So there have been various quarters that have taken this up as an issue for debate. There are some who have straight away rubbished such claims, and there are others who have taken to defending them. Few have said that there is no need for ‘reservation’ because there is no such discrimination against the NiamTre or Niam Tynrai followers. This is hardly correct (more on this later). Still others have got around to philosophizing and discussing the nature of religion, definitions of faith and other stuff. Of them, I ask: whether they are religions or faiths or whatever, do we simply belittle the sentiments of a people who feel slighted? Do people care about the definitions or the real material conditions that they encounter in their day-to-day life?
So the key word here is “discrimination”. This main point of contention is very fascinating for our particular context. We have always, supposedly, been at the receiving end of the stick and our entire political discourse is premised on the presumption of “defense” except for this case in question. In January, I along with a researcher friend, Bhogtoram Mawroh, travelled to Mawsynram, in the company of some pastors. As we made our way along the Lyngiong- Tyrsad road, one of them turned to the other and said “Ithuh phi mo, ki jaka bym pat long Kristan” (you can recognize, places which are non-Christian, by the way they look). My friend looked at me, smirked and shook his head. He did this because we had actually talked about something along those lines much before that moment. Much of our respective works involve travelling to and visiting villages in Khasi, Jaintia Hills. Therefore, it quickly dawned on us that development patterns (roads, electricity, sanitation) within these parts of the state seemed more inclined towards one particular demographic than others (namely Khasi Christians). We are currently pursuing means to validate this supposition. This is not in any way a mission to ‘politicize’ “inclusion/exclusion,” it is for the sake of knowledge.
There are many reasons why the ‘indigenous faith’ followers might be sidelined. The major and most obvious one is because they are fewer in number than the Christians. A political representative such as an MLA would sadly be more inclined to help realize the aspirations and ambitions of the majority. Even if she/he belonged to the minority group, ultimately the majority would have to be satisfied if she/he were interested in being re-elected for the next term. To change this would be far and away an extremely arduous but necessary task. However, even if a more “representative” representation were achieved, the systemic discrimination would be harder still to overcome. How would one begin to confront the privileges accumulated over decades that have been enjoyed by the Christians? How would one begin to unwind the ‘power’ cliques and political “spaces” that have become their prerogative? Would a form of reservation really do anything to uplift the plight of the ‘indigenous faith’ followers? Would it be constructive in the long run, or would it tear our community asunder?
The conclusion I surmise is that this is essentially a critique on the very idea of “reservation” itself. I am not against the idea, I think it is absolutely essential for a more just and egalitarian society. However, even as we ‘rejoice’ in the status of being a Scheduled Tribe (ST) we must acknowledge the bitter reality that most of the benefits and advantages of being ST are enjoyed by the middle and upper classes. I doubt that the poorer sections of our society, and especially those in the villages, can claim to have gained much from an ST/SC certificate. This is the danger too with the current plea by the Sein Raij and co. I am sure they would have thought hard upon this as well. If the minority benefits all go to a Niam Tynrai businessman’s family in Shillong and not villagers like those in Lyngiong-Tyrsad then it would have failed in its objective, in my opinion.
I think that the way forward is to reach out to one another, calling out progressive Christians and non-Christians alike to come together and attempt to alleviate the suffering of others. Orthodoxy, on all sides, is the enemy. In this regard, we have to grow bonds stronger than the religious ones. Pressure and lobbying groups that can bring people together rather than pull them apart should be encouraged. For this to happen, we need dialogue. It might be painful, embarrassing even but it must be initiated. We do not need “outsider” organizations to come and perform charity puja. In our need for political allies and powerful friends we seem to forget that we have more in common with each other (Christian and non-Christian) than Right wing nut-jobs who seek to further widen the schism. This is as true for the Hindutva as it is for the Evangelical Fundamentalists. The tragedy could be that these characters might actually come together to vilify and demonize Muslims (the “dreaded” Bangladeshis) O what a big joke that would be! That cannot be allowed to transpire without resistance.
Frankly speaking, the Niam Tre/Tynrai already have a trump card. On the cultural front, they have won and politics and culture are intertwined. Unless they approach the matter with open-mindedness and self-criticism, Christian Khasis can never truly be “Khasi” again. There are many who would raise objections to this statement and they have interesting points to make regarding definitions of identity, language, customs etc. My point, however, is that from within a conservative or orthodox Christianity (which is most of our Christianity!) we cannot ever (through fear or censure) really know what it is like to be “Khasi.” I realize that many might have problems with my investing so much authority with the Niam Tre et al. After all, are they not also modern? Have they, also, not been changed by the times? How could they survive if they were static all this while? The Niam Tre et al have undoubtedly altered as well but in terms of cultural luggage (the folktales, the beliefs, the songs, dances) they are probably our best custodians. They could be actively teaching the Christians a few things about our common past and maybe with that our collective futures would be clearer, brighter. There would be no need for “defense” or preservation then. They can be the initiators of real ‘growth’, but it must be inclusive.
interesting write Kong Pariat….and a much needed reflection on fundamental issues that plagues the khasi reality….and made much more efficacious by publishing in raiot rather than shillong times. While i read shillong times often i do not take the newspaper too seriously as most writings and debates lack both sophistication and objectivity….its like a pedestrain slugfest at times and makes for tiring reading…. Sometimes i feel the ST is perpetually fumed by a sense of ‘shillong arrogance’ that is high on reaction and less on substance…. and like a friend recently pointed out to me… the ST was started in 1945 with the sole agenda of articulating middle class (bhadralok) bengalee positions on fast changing shillong realities, overtly formulated to counter and fragment khasi assertion against bengali dominance….(in 1945 the khasis were junglees in the eyes of bengalees and the bengalees held the reign of perpetual babus)…and it has lived up to its core agenda to this very day with the exception of the 1970s….she concluded that when we read ST… we are reading a bengalee bhadralok position on khasi reality soaked in politics of historical hate stemming from few shillong centric social elite spaces only. Anyways i will forgive my friend for distorting my relationship with ST forever and instead turn to your well written article.
About some of the issues you have raised…that is the minority debate pertaining to seng khasi/sein raij….i will posit some points in response to your article that i opine should be further problematised to unravel more complex layers of the arguments put forth by you plus identify boundaries of knowledge on the subject….
-on the framework of a ‘minority’ status as defined by the indian constitution: Article 29 of the constitution protects the cultural and educational rights of minorities ……any section of citizens residing in the territory of india or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own have the right to conserve the same….
Article 30 of the constitution gives the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions…
in this regard there is a general agreement that the above definition is vague and clarity on this subject is emerging over time more from various court judgments rather than the constitution itself. At most it suffice to argue that the concept minority refers to a state of being dominated or under the threat of domination of a particular group by a ‘majority’ population in domains of culture and educational rights….within this framework am pondering where would i situate the notion of ‘discrimination’ -a fundamental category in your argument. My position on this is- if discrimination does exist and is felt by us in the seng khasi it is mostly in the domain of education. However i would hesitate to extend the discrmination argument into the realm of culture…On education we all know that khasi christains enjoy both ST and minority status together across the country in all educational institutions run by christian missionaries and this is also a practice in christian schools and colleges in meghalaya. There is no hiding the fact that most of us in seng khasi discuss these issues openly and there is hurt generated on this ground. There are plenty of examples that one can cite related to this very concrete condition, but for lack of space i would assume that the argument itself at the level it is pitch will suffice.
However about discrimination on the cultural front….i would be a bit restrained to conclude that those in seng khasi carry any such feeling. Instead i argue that it is the other way round. It is the khasi christian who carry this feeling of unease, being perpetually forced to look into a social mirror that reflects their distorted locations….be it the origin story, women centered social system, clan relationship, etc. Nonetheless, having argued in the manner as above i would still point out that the issue is complex…very complex… and i would fail in my endeavor to enlighten if i reduce arguments to such simplistic formulations…. so much to write on the subject….but will end here…my response is already too long….but a point needs to be made on this count…religion does set its adherent into different social trajectories and forgive me for pointing this out….a religion such as christianity in what ever form it has come and been adopted by the khaisis has to a certain degree destroyed social structure, introduced group rivalries through selective patronage and fragmented social reality on political and economic lines….sounds harsh when written but please take the same only as a critique to amplify arguments and nothing more. I hold no ill feeling towards my fellow khasis no matter what religion they choose to follow.
before i conclude…just one last point….about the conclusions made on the lyniong tyrsad area by your friend….it is interesting to note that this is one of the few himas where the chief still remains within the fold of the seng khasi and one of the few areas in west khasi hills where seng khasi still has its presence. The last time i heard the chief speak, he reminded us that as long as u ryngkew u basa remains alive in our lifeworld we restrain from harming, exploiting or misusing nature. We are one with it and within it dwells our consciousness. nature gives us enough to live a decent life but its misuse will harm all of us…dont know if such a view is upheld or even revered by a very fast evolving khasi community, but that such a narrative is still alive among us is itself significant. As i read your article, what struck me was not the concept of development that the pastor espouses to articulate contrasting it to more developed areas of the region, but a sense of false superiority of belief that in my opinion is the new fault line and a key reason for social conflict within the khasi community that will be a fundamental cleavage that right wing groups will seek to manipulate, exploit and widen. Am ending on a depressing note …but from my location there seems no way out from this emerging contradiction….
Yes you are right. To blame others or to point out something negative is all we are good at, even me! Rather than blaming Christianity, Bengalee, Muslims, Hindu, Khasi or whoever and whatever the reason can we just get along and allow things to just happen!? Yes we all have stories of our ancestors and if we go really that back no one’s seems to have answers who we really are except humans, because even Khasi come from somewhere, Christianity start by someone same for Hindu, Muslims. Even India, Shillong, Asia, are names given to them by someone because of something. The languages itself are just sounds we create by our mouth. New words are made everyday. This is our life our world. Instead of pointing out what is wrong just know the fact that it is a survival of the fittest situation. If you’re rich then it’s your action if you’re poor it’s your responsibility too. If you want to unite people it’s because you are scared and you want company. A real hero/leader helps people, he’s a giver. He don’t care whose fault is it. He just do what is right because if you really think about it we have to fight to get what we want especially if the resources are less and the demand is more but again why try to kill each other when life itself will end anyday. Just be happy then you will live in paradise and if you are not happy you will live in hell, your choice. If you’re bad you will attract bad situation, good then good things.