On the Future of Indigenous Traditions - Munin

Syiems system of the Khasis in Meghalaya is not very different from the Parha,
Munda Manki, Doklo Sabha system of Adivasis of Jharkhand but the ‘legitimacy’ of
their access to their own land and forest resource makes a big difference. As in the 5 th
and 6 th Schedules, the state governments can only introduce their rules and not impose
them given the level of autonomy in these schedules. Khasis of Mehgalaya being in
the 6 th Schedule has been able to maintain their customary system through which they
not only manage their community affairs but their resources too. Syiems, however, is
neither a perfect system nor are the Parha, Munda Manki, Doklo Sabhas and others,
especially when those representing it change their orientation or, changes their
subsistence or “tribal economy” character to the profit and “market economy”
orientation. This aspect in the customary system can also be considered to be on the
cross road of traditional vs. modern, subsistence usages vs. commodity usages. If the
customary system is still representative of the collective identity of the people, then
the said principles that make it function as a system must also have its own corrective
mechanism. However, if these customary institutions also become institutionalised
they would encounter problems as any bureaucracy faces. This emphasis can be
understood better with the following explanation.
If we recall the reference made to the report of the Deber Commission earlier in
chapter four, the Adivasis have their philosophy “which has kept these people free
from greed of material wealth…” this needs to be understood here. The same
philosophy in their traditions has enabled the Adivasis to codify their social, cultural,
and economic life with certain guiding principles. It can be seen in their unique
religious traditions and practices which are centred on the forces of nature and the
forest. Like many indigenous traditions, their religious practices indicate a belief that
the natural universe is continuous with the human world of interactions and
sentiments. The human, nature, and supernatural are all bound in mutual
relationship. 146 However, this collective and communitarian approach represented by
the customary system in the respective states (provinces) where we see growing
market economies, comodification of all the resources, conversion of Adivasi
indigenous territories into commercial estates and industrial cities. How can the
146 Pradip Prabhu , “In the Eye of the Storm; Tribal People of India,” in Indigenous Traditions and
Ecology by Surajit Chandra Singh ( Cambridge: Harward University Press, n.d.), 57.
104