The Federation of Khasi States: History, Epistemology and Politics

490 Pages·2019·3.336 MB·English

by  Kharshiing, J & Bodhi S.R

0
The

Federation of Khasi States

History, Epistemology and Politics

by
John F. Kharshiing
&
bodhi s. ranee
The Federation of Khasi States: History, Epistemology and
Politics
COPYRIGHT: @2019 The authors and Tribal Intellectual
Collective India
COVER AND BOOK DESIGN: Subodh N.W
COVER: Governor of Assam Province Akbar Hydari and the members of the
Federation of Khasi States taken on 16 August 1947 in the Office of the FKS.

Book edition 2019: ISBN 978-81-942059-1-3
Published in India by Insight Multi Purpose Society, Maharashtra in
collaboration with the Tribal Intellectual Collective India
The Tribal Intellectual Collective India (TICI) is an Imprint of the
Insight Multipurpose Society (IMS). The Tribal Intellectual
Collective India endeavours to promote Tribal literature and writers.
It aims to further the tribal/Adivasi discourse through publishing
academic and scholarly works. It is driven by a sincere desire to
deepen a ‗perspective from within‘ in Tribal history and theory. This
book series comes under the Dialogical Historiography Project of
the TICI and attempts to propel the ‗writing of histories from
within‘ around a new framework called Decolonial-Historical
Approach.
No part of this book may ne reproduced, retrieved or transmitted in
any form, by any means without the prior permission of the
copyright holders.
For more information: www.ticijournals.org.
Dedicated
to
Paiem (Dr.) Balajied Sing Syiem
and all the
Khasi Chiefs
from
Dorbar Shnong, Dorbar Raid and Dorbar Hima
Contents
Foreword by Virginius Xaxa i
Preface viii
Introductory Note: Laying the Context and Frame
Part I 1
Part II 11
Part II 19
The Khasi Chiefs
Section One Before 1835 38
Section Two From 1836 to 1862 95
Section Three From 1863 to 1913 111
Section Four From 1913 to 1946 163
The Federation of Khasi States
Section Five From 1923 to 1949 176
Section Six From 1949 to 1998 237
Section Seven From 1999 to 2017 278
Additional Resources 471
Foreword

The Federation of Khasi states is a study of the traditional political
system prevalent among the Khasis of Meghalaya. It provides an
important site for interesting theoretical discussions on the nature
of the state or political system in a traditional tribal society and its
engagement with the larger world. Such studies have remained
unexplored in the context of tribes in India. The monograph is a
pioneering venture in this sense.
The conceptual distinction between state and society emerged in
European thought in the 18th century. Before this period, the term
state and society were in use but there was no distinction made
between the two. Writing on the state was considered as writing on
society and vice versa. Since the making of the distinction, the state
has been a subject of much engagement in European thought and
scholarship. The scholarly concern with the state has spread to
other parts of the world as well. The prominent role the state has
come to play in the lives of the people in modern times may be the
reason for such attention on the state. Needless to say, much of the
concern has been with the modern state.
The writings on the state in social science literature concern with
various aspects of the state. Some of the key aspects of concern has
been with the nature, role, and character of the state. Since the
distinction between state and society, there has been much attempt
to delineate as to what the state is. The state has thus come to be
thought of as an institution that is concerned with the maintenance
of order in society and to this end, it has the monopoly of the
legitimate use of physical force. Further, the modern state has been
studied from several angles that broadly fall into three categories.
One of these sees the state as an independent and autonomous
entity with its own rules of action. Others see it as tied to the
interests of the dominant class but within this too there are variants
i
of thought. Then there are still others who regard the state as a
partly independent force that the different political interest groups
may influence via the democratic political process and mobilization
at different points of time. Although a lot is written about the
nature and character of the modern state, not much is known about
the nature of the state in historical societies and much less on
societies described as tribes by social anthropologists. The value of
the present monograph lies in this endeavour. This is one of the
rare studies which attempts to study traditional political systems in
the context of tribes in India. The study describes the system
prevalent among the Khasis as the state. There have been some
studies in the context of tribes including Northeast India that have
addressed the question of state formation before tribes were
incorporated into the colonial state. The pre-colonial state here is
referred to the principality or kingdoms that have emerged among
tribes before the entry of the British rule. The traditional Khasi
political system does not however fall in the genre of the kingdom.
These kingdoms were predominantly territorial entities. In contrast,
the traditional political system prevalent among the Khasis, though
had a territorial jurisdiction, was not autonomous of the institutions
of kinship, the hallmark of tribal society. It may not be out of place
here to situate the study of tribes in Africa that have been studied
from the lens of the state. In keeping the focus on state, tribal
societies in Africa have been classified into state and stateless
societies. Tribes with a distinct and centralized authority for
maintaining peace and order in the society have been described as
societies with state and others as stateless societies. However, tribes
even without state-like institutions did maintain order in society. In
bearing this in mind, the distinction has been drawn between the
state and political system in understanding the maintenance of
peace and order in society. The tribes may not have the state but
they did have a political system. Hence in the understanding of the
polity in tribal society, often the term political system has been
preferred to the use of the term state. Thus the study of the Khasi
ii
state can be the site of an interesting theoretical discussion on the
aspects of the political systems of the tribal society.
The Khasi traditional political system is strikingly different from
other tribal traditional political systems of tribes in Northeast India
including its matrilineal tribal communities such as the Jaintias and
Garos in the state of Meghalaya. Most tribes in Northeast India had
a political system that did not go beyond the village. At the level of
the village, the political system was either visible in the institution of
the village council comprising the elders of different clans in the
village. The council was headed either by a headman or a chief who
was either autocratic or democratic in the sense he took decisions
on the issues in consultation with the members of the council. The
Khasis unlike other tribes had developed a political system that
went beyond the village. That is, a number of villages formed a
larger configuration or confederation which was referred to by
distinct names; Syiem, Lyngdoh, Wahadadar and Sirdar. The
territorial structure so developed was headed by a person chosen by
the assembly of the elders who comprised of the village‘s headman
of the larger territorial unit. In this design of the political, the Khasi
political system very much resembled the manki system of the
Mundas, manki-pir of the Hos, paraganait of the Santhals, and
parha of the Oraons. It is somewhat intriguing that except for the
Oraons all those tribal groups that have such political systems
belong to a linguistic family ( Austro-Asiatic) as the Khasis. The
Oraons as per the existing linguistic classification belong to the
Dravidian linguistic family. The Oraons and Mundas have been
living side by side for centuries and it is possible, they may have
adopted the system from the Mundas. Of course, this needs further
investigation.
Notwithstanding such commonalities, there seems to be a
difference. Unlike the Mundas and Santhal who had two tiers
system, the Khasis had developed the system even into the larger
unit, that is, of syiemship (chiefship). The traditional Khasi political
iii
systems comprised of three interconnected sets of institutions viz
shnong (village), Raid (elaka), and syiem (chiefship). Each of these
systems was intricately related to clans at the appropriate level.
Hence unlike the other states or political system, which were
primarily territorial, viz primarily centered around the territory and
its inhabitants without any other social institution, the Khasi
political system at each level was intricately connected with the clan
system. This means that states were not autonomous as it was
thought about, rather it was related intricately to the kinship system.
How to explain the distinct feature of the Khasi political system is
difficult to explain. Probably this may have to do with ecology,
demography, and technology combined with the kinship. While the
role of ecology, technology, and demography is yet to be
ascertained, the role of the kinship and its relation to the Khasi
political system seems certain. Its presence is visible at the village,
raid, and more importantly at the state or syiemship. Not only is it
related to kinship but it is also intricately related to religion. Thus,
the Khasi state needs to be explored in the context of kinship and
religion.
As to how the Khasi political system would have evolved in the
absence of intervention by the British in the Khasi Hills territory is
a hypothetical question and can only be speculated. The fact is that
the intervention by the British did change its route. This is evident
in course of events that the Khasi political system had to go
through following the winds of change that colonial India
including Northeast India was going through since the 1930s. The
emergence of the Khasi National Dorbar in the 1920s and later in
the 1930s into the Khasi States Federation was an attempt to
rethink their political status at these backdrops. Its agenda was to
work out its future in the event of the shaping of a new political
configuration in British India. The tribal communities on the eve
of India‘s independence were located in different kinds of political
and administrative arrangements. The large size of tribes formed
part of the princely states and hence was not part of British India.
iv
The rest was part of British India but they were organized around
different administrative arrangements such as the excluded and
partially excluded areas following the Govt. of India Act of 1935.
At the eve of independence, the Khasi Federation of states aimed
at a different route to their participation in the Indian union. This
was evident in a memorandum submitted to the Viceroy, Lord
Willingdon who visited Shillong in 1933. Its stated objective was
to act as a representative and executive body for all the 25 Khasi
States and put forward a claim for securing greater judicial power
from the British. The chiefs wanted more administrative powers
from the government and the transference of some departments
under the Deputy Commissioner to the management of the states.
It also carried on negotiations with the government for recognising
the KSF as the body to speak for the Khasi states when any
alteration of policy and administration was planned.
It signed the Instrument of Accession (IoA) and Annexed
Agreement (AA) with the Dominion Government of India
following which a Khasi States Federation Court was set up. Also,
some departments of Administration were opened. The Federation
using powers prescribed under the IoA and AA operated like a
government. The Federation of Khasi States had its own flags with
25 stars (representing 25 States) side by side with the Indian
National Flag.
As per the Indian Independence Act 1947, two dominions were
formed; India and Pakistan. Many princely states signed the
Instrument of Accession (IoA) and the Instrument of Merger with
the Indian Union. The Khasi States are the only native state within
the India Union who did not sign the instrument of merger,
although all of the 25 Khasi states did sign the IoA in phases either
individually or collectively. The first was signed on15 December
1947 and the last on 19 March 1948. The last to sign was the
Nongstoin state. It did so only at the threat of an army contingent
which was sent to pressurise the chief.
v