By Bhogtoram Mawroh
Recently, I came across the article ‘Tincture to the Matrilineal–Patrilineal Conundrum’ by Melarbor L. Thabah in Highland Post, where he talked about ‘unblemished Khasi genes’ and used terms like genotype (genetic makeup) and phenotype (external makeup) in order to contest the 2024 KHADC Executive Order, which amended the Lineage Act stating that Khasi couples whose children bear the father’s surname will no longer be officially recognized as Khasi, even though both parents belong to the Khasi community.
There are many problems with the article. Firstly, there is no such thing as a Khasi race. Khasis are an ethnic group, but they are not a race, which was a concept used in the early 20th century by European colonialists to perpetuate the myth of the superior white race over other groups, especially those whom they had colonized. Khasis were also considered to be savages by them, and even though they appreciated many converting to Christianity, there is a reason why Shillong has a European Ward and why many from villages, when travelling to Shillong, say that they are going to Laban, not Shillong. Khasis, even though they had become Christians, were still considered an inferior race and therefore were not allowed to live amongst the British.
Race theory was also the reason why the Second World War happened, with the Nazis claiming the superiority of the Aryan race, i.e., tall people with unblemished white genes, blonde hair, and blue eyes. But there are many kinds of white people—not everyone has blonde hair and blue eyes. Southern Europeans are a good example, which includes the birthplace of European civilization, Greece, and the seat of one of the most powerful empires in the world, the Roman Empire. The white civilizing mission was also about spreading Christianity, a religion that is centred around a Palestinian Jew who was not white but came from an inferior race, the Semites. So race is a very confusing and unscientific concept and is not used anymore when talking about human populations. The correct term is ethnicity—people sharing a sense of belonging due to cultural similarities. Does this mean that genotype and phenotype are also made up? No, they do exist, but they don’t define the identity of a community, and the Khasis are the best example of that.
The Lyngngam are a Khasi subgroup found in West and South West Khasi Hills. They look more Garo than Khasi, and even some of their cultural practices resemble the Garo rather than the Khasi. But if you ask them, they will always claim themselves to be Khasi. Based on linguistic evidence, they are the second oldest group among the Khasi, and they had some ancient practices which had disappeared from among the other Khasi groups.
In the past, the Lyngngam would keep a dead body on top of a tree for many days and months until they had enough money to buy a cow to be sacrificed at the funeral feast. This is similar to the hanging coffin culture practiced in South China at least 3,000 years ago. And the people who are associated with these customs belong to the Austroasiatic language family, to which the Khasi belong. Ri Bhoi Nongtung also appeared to have followed this custom and therefore got the name ‘Nongtung’ or foul smell. So Lyngngam are a very ancient group, older than the Pnar, Khynriam, Bhoi, or Maram. They are therefore much more ‘Khasi’ than any of the others. But why do they look like Garo? The answer lies in genetics.
Lyngngam have actually been found to be a mixed population, with the male genetic lineage being traced to the Garo and the female to Khasi, specifically Nongtrai. They speak a Khasi language and follow the matrilineal custom closer to the Khasi rather than the Garo. The Garo had a system where there would be clans with a reciprocal system of ‘bride giver’ and ‘bride taker’, or in simple words, women from a certain clan would always move to another clan and not the other way around. Khasi, on the other hand, don’t have that system. Therefore, phenotypically the Lyngngam look Garo, but they consider themselves Khasi, and linguistically and culturally they are the second oldest Khasi group. So if we were to agree with Melarbor’s logic of ‘unblemished Khasi genes’, the Lyngngam are not Khasi.
The article also mentions the Bhoi custom, where a Bhoi Khasi can get married to a non-Khasi and give his surname, and asks why such a custom should not be allowed among other Khasi groups. Just like the Lyngngam, the Bhoi are also a mixed group, and in fact, Bhoi are not Khasi but Karbi. Over time, many became Khasi by adopting the Khasi language and matrilineal customs, but they maintained past connections through the interesting phenomenon of equivalence of surnames. Karbi clans like Ingti, Ronghang, Hanse, Be, Ingleng, Timung, and Teron are considered to be blood relatives of Khasi clans like Muktieh, Markhap, Khymdeit, Muker, Lamare, Syngkli, Umbah, and Mynsong, respectively. This means that these clans cannot marry each other for fear of committing sang (taboo). This happened because when a Karbi became Khasi, they would join the sister clan among the Khasi so as not to marry within the same bloodline.
Karbi also have a custom of admitting non-Karbi into their community by performing rituals. So the Karbi population in Ri Bhoi is around 15%, but if we were to follow this practice, the number could grow to over 30%. Using Melarbor’s logic of ‘unblemished Khasi genes’, even the Bhoi would not qualify as Khasi. And the irony is that many of the Karbi were living under Hima Jaintiapur for a very long time but left to live under the Ahom because the Khasi were forcing them to accept matrilineal customs. But why would the Khasi of olden days want the Karbi to become Khasi? Were they not concerned about genotype and phenotype? For this, we have to go back 5,000-6000 years to when the Khasi first arrived in South Asia.
The Khasi are part of the larger Austroasiatic language family, whose members include larger groups like the Cambodians and Vietnamese, with smaller groups like the Palaung (linguistically the closest to the Khasi), Khmu, and the Semang. The origin of this population lies around the Yangtze River valley in South China, where they became the first people to domesticate rice. This group carried the Y-chromosomal haplogroup O2a1-M95, which is the genetic signature of the Austroasiatic population, originating in southern China among the Daic-speaking populations around 20–40 thousand years ago. They then started migrating to Southeast Asia, where they mixed with Southeast Asian hunter-gatherer populations who are closely related to the Onge and Jarawa of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. One group kept moving south and is today known as the Semang in Malaysia, who speak an Austroasiatic language but look Negrito. Another group kept moving west and arrived in South Asia 5,000 years ago. These were the Khasi, and there are archaeological sites in Lum Sohpetbneng and Myrkhan with tools similar to those found in South China, around 4,000 years old. This is also the time when one group kept moving west and mixed with the local population, becoming the Munda. These are the Adivasis of today, and some Khasi families have children from such families working in their homes. They come from the Assam tea tribes community, but they don’t look like Khasi at all. So maybe Khasi are the ones who have kept most of the ‘unblemished Khasi genes’. But that is also not true. Only 30% of Khasi males carry the O2a1-M95 genetic marker, with the rest coming from different sources. In comparison, around 40% of Khasi women carry mtDNA from Southeast Asia. This means that even if there is overlap between the male and female lineages, less than 20% of today’s Khasi have ‘unblemished Khasi genes’, and based on Melarbor’s logic, more than 80% of the Khasi today are not Khasi.
So genotype or phenotype cannot define a Khasi. Instead, it is only matrilineal customs that can do so. This is the original custom that the Khasi brought with them from South China and which distinguishes them from other groups in South Asia. It is well known now that matrilineal customs were widespread throughout central and southern China, and even groups like the Austronesians (today’s Taiwanese aborigines, Malays, Indonesians, and Pacific Islanders) followed them. A few years ago, I met a Minangkabau woman and a tribal chief from the Solomon Islands – both from matrilineal societies – in Rome: one looked Southeast Asian, the other looked Negrito, but both were proud of their matrilineal traditions.
A Khasi is a Khasi because of their matrilineal traditions, which are the basis of the kur (tip kur tip kha) and the social and cultural practices of the community. But if one uses genotype and phenotype as markers of identity, they will run into problems, and the majority of the Khasi will be considered non-Khasi—perhaps even Melarbor L. Thabah. So we must have genetic tests of those asking for the adoption of patrilineal customs or questioning matrilineal customs. It could very well be that they are originally non-Khasi and therefore want to destroy this custom so that they can impose a non-Khasi custom on the Khasi. So let us be aware of such 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)
