By Melarbor L Thabah
First, it is an honour and a privilege to be clarified by probably the only Meghalaya native to publish in the most prestigious scientific journal in the world “Nature”. I truly appreciate the details that the highly respected contributor had gone in depth to explain. He has given his views on the number of years of our origin, our traversing to land up where we are today, the mode of origins of the Khasi ethnicity which respectfully, I do not subscribe to all of them since they lack multiple types of quantitative hard substantial evidences with only genetic markers to contend with. We Asians, be it the Mongolian, Indo-Tibetan, Austro- Asiatic share commonalities in genetic markers. Maybe I have not visited museums in Shillong enough that I had failed to see the implements dating thousands of years excavated from Lum Sohpetbneng and Myrkhan. In my personal opinion, I do not agree that we migrated to where we are today, which is all hypotheticals based on marker commonality but believed that we originate here itself and got incorporated in order to recuperate for the loss of Bangladesh. On all these above matters, from my part, I agree to disagree.
I will not digress but address straight to the matrilineal-patrilineal conundrum. Through his clarification, I am clarified that genotype and genealogy should not be the only determinants because genotypically, all Khasis especially in Shillong and in a number of rural areas have shared mixed blood with other ethnic and racially different groups through their parents or through their lineage. I agree that Bhoi people originate from Karbi and in Western Bhoi potentially from Rabha and had later adopted the matrilineal custom and Bhoi dialect. Genealogy is also discounted post clarification since there is no documentary and substantial evidence to prove this. I concur that traditional customs constitute one of the determinants with special emphasis to the incorporation of the Bhoi people as one of the branches under the Hynñiewtrep family tree.
I subscribe that there are still people in the rural areas in the 6 districts of the Khasi Pnar hills who have not had mixed lineages which cannot be discounted. What I do stand no matter what the clarification might be is the distinct phenotype which we all Khasis have and can recognize each other in our own land which is the other determinant besides customs.
Since this new law deals with the present and applies prospectively, the lamentation that I have and am stating is twofold namely: (1). That Khasi women who had pro-created with other races of the world have children with phenotypes not resembling those of the distinct Khasiphenotype especially those who pro create not from the Austro-Asiatic or Indo-Tibetan ethnicity and that their children look exactly like Caucasian, African, Chinese, Arab, people from mainland India et. al which can be evidently noticed but are recognized and rewarded with the Khasi / Jaintia ST certificate whereas Khasi / Jaintia parents who have children bearing the distinct Khasi phenotype are not recognized as Khasi because the parents did not follow the matrilineal Khasi custom.
There are two ways to solve this conundrum:
(a). This law should be amended because it is an imposition of the tyranny of the majority which goes against the fundamental rights of freedom of thought, belief, expression, privacy and decision of the couple on whom to grant the surname of their children.
(b). If the law applies, then it should “apply equally” in fairness, in a democracy to both sexes which is that any Khasi woman who pro creates with a non-Khasi man will “not” be awarded the ST certificate just as children of Khasi couples who adopt the father’s surname with not be awarded the ST certificate. I am in anticipation to see that this misandrist KHADC law be amended.
(The views expressed are entirely of the author and do not in any way attempt to influence no entity)
