By Bhogtoram Mawroh
By Bhogtoram Mawroh
The recent tussle between the Hima Sohra and the KHADC over the issue of succession may seem like a local event explained by issues that are contextual to the functioning of the pres-ent VPP-led KHADC and its relationship with traditional institutions. However, that would be grossly misjudg-ing the implications that any deviation from customary norms might have on the entire Khasi community. Ac-cording to custom, it is the Syiem Khynnah who has to succeed the deceased Syiem and, by that logic, Maremdor Syiem should have succeeded to the position after the death of Paiem Freeman Syiem. I am very concerned about the disturbance in the Hima, and, in light of the legal issues surrounding Scheduled Tribe status in the Constitution, I think all Khasis should also be deeply concerned about what is happening in Hima Sohra.
On March 24, 2026, the Supreme Court, in its judg-ment in Chinthada Anand v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reasserted that Dalit individu-als lose their Scheduled Caste (SC) status upon converting to Christianity or Islam. This has come as a big blow to the Dalits, who are among the most oppressed groups in Indian society, and dis-crimination against them has continued to this day. The animosity against them has its antecedents in the caste system, which divides Hindu society into four groups, with Brahmins at the top, followed by Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras. Brahmins wrote the religious scriptures, so it is no surprise that they gave themselves the top position, and their attitude towards the Shudras was one of derision and disgust. For example the Manusmriti (a classical Hindu law code) recommends that if a low-caste person were to place himself on the same seat as a high-caste person, he should be branded and ban-ished, or his buttock should be gashed, i.e., a long deep cut should be made into the skin. Shudras today are known as the OBCs, while the Dalits were considered to be even lower than them. They were known as untouchables and one practice is frequently cited which highlights the discrimination against them is that during the Peshwa’s orthodox Brahmanical rule of the Maratha Empire, Dal-its were made to tie brooms behind their backs to sweep away the dust of their foot-prints. The discrimination against lower castes was ini-tially thought to be a product of religious interpretation, where ritual purity or impurity based on profession was the criterion for one’s position in the caste system. However, genetic studies have revealed that the lower castes (OBCs and Dalits) generally have South Asian ancestry, i.e., Dravidian, while the upper castes have Steppe ancestry, i.e., Indo-Aryan. Thus, the caste system was not based only on profession but also on ethnicity.
Post-independence, the In-dian state enacted the Sched-uled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atroci-ties) Act, 1989 (known as the SC/ST Act or Atrocities Act) to protect Dalits and tribals against caste-based violence, discrimination, and humili-ation. However, with the 2026 judgment, those Dalits who converted to Islam and Christianity will no longer be protected under this law. This is based on the assumption that these two religions do not believe in caste and therefore caste-based discrimination does not exist within them. The absence of caste in these religions is contested by many because, in Indian society, a change of religion does not always erase caste. When upper-caste Hindus converted to Islam, they became known as Ashraf, while lower castes came to be known as Ajlaf. This is also the case with those converting to Christian-ity. Furthermore, the case of Chinthada Anand v. State of Andhra Pradesh demonstrates that, despite the complainant, Chinthada Anand, having served as a pastor for ten years, he was still subjected to caste-based slurs and vio-lence. Therefore, the judgment has not been welcomed by all, although technically it is cor-rect because the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 originally included only Hindus within its ambit but has since been amended to in-clude Sikhism and Buddhism, though not Christianity. Once a constitutional amendment is made, that may change. But there was another component of the judgment that came as a relief to another oppressed group, i.e., the tribals or indig-enous peoples.
In the same judgment, the Supreme Court stated that the rules governing Sched-uled Tribe (ST) status are diametrically opposite. Un-like the Constitution (Sched-uled Castes) Order, 1950, the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 does not prescribe religion-based ex-clusion, i.e., a ST can belong to any religion. Also to retain ST status after converting to a new religion, individuals must continue to possess the essen-tial attributes of tribal identity, continue to follow their cus-tomary practices and rituals, maintain their social organi-zation and community life, and continue to be accepted by the concerned tribal com-munity. For such individuals to forfeit their ST status, they must completely abandon their customary practices, rituals, and traditional traits by fully assimilating into the new religion. Those who would like to verify this can read the judgment, which is available online, and refer to paragraph 55(g).
The Court is well aware that a large number of indig-enous groups have converted to Christianity while continu-ing to adhere to their cus-tomary practices, especially relating to laws of succession inheritance and marriage. For example, although many Kha-sis have converted to Chris-tianity, while others have adopted Hinduism or Islam, they continue to observe tra-ditional lineage rules based on matrilineal customs and main-tain indigenous socio-political institutions such as the Hima Dorbar and its corresponding bodies at different levels of the traditional political struc-ture, namely the Hima, Elaka, Raid, and Shnong. Once these practices and institutions cease to exist, the connection to tradition is severed. The community would then be re-garded as having assimilated into the customs associated with their new identity and, consequently, as no longer belonging to their former tribal identity.
In a 2025 PIL filed by Syngkhong Rympei Thym-mai (SRT), the Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Khasi Social Custom of Lineage) Act, 1997 is being challenged in the Meghalaya High Court, advocating for the freedom to adopt patrilineal customs, which are non-Khasi prac-tices. In light of this Supreme Court judgment, it is quite likely that the 1997 Act will be upheld. What could also transpire is the Court asking for the ST status to be stripped from individuals who have taken their father’s surname. I do not see how those advo-cating for patrilineal customs will be allowed to retain their ST status, since that would mean that they have completely abandoned their customary practices.
In his article âSeparating Facts from Political Misinfor-mation,â Alan West Kharkon-gor implicitly suggests that the KHADC might be prop-ping up Paiem Syiem, nephew of Late Paiem Freeman Sing Syiem, as a contender. Based on customary practice, he does not qualify because he has converted to Christian-ity, and there is fear that the KHADC could be trying to reinterpret this traditional practice of Hima Sohra. If that happens, the Hima Dorbar will no longer be a traditional institution but will instead become a modern institution, meaning that the traditional social organization of the Khasi no longer exists. After Sohra, the next target could be Hima Khyrim, which also allows only those of the indig-enous faith to hold the office of the Syiem. Therefore, the stakes for the identity of the community are very high, and I am convinced that if the KHADC attempts to override the Hima and impose its own candidate, the matter will be taken to court, where any decision will have to be made in accordance with the condi-tions established in the 2026 judgment. The demolition of traditional institutions and customary norms would dis-enfranchise a huge number of Khasis, especially those who have converted to Christian-ity. If that happens and a large percentage of the population ceases to be classified as Scheduled Tribe, the Sixth Schedule may no longer apply to the state, since it would no longer be considered a tribal-dominated area. In a scenario where constitutional protec-tions are removed, the restric-tions on the sale of land to the non-indigenous population will no longer be applicable and, over time, demographic change would also become a possibility. Is this entire affair about disenfranchising the indigenous community and taking over the land and re-sources? I, sincerely hope that those demanding these chang-es are completely unaware of the legal implications of their actions. Or maybe they are not, and they know exactly what they want? Whatever the case may be, since at least one of the matters has reached the court, i.e., the PIL on chang-ing matrilineal traditions, and the other might eventually join it, we will know soon enough what the fate of the Khasi people will be.
(The views expressed in the article are those of the author and do not reflect in any way his affiliation to any organisa-tion or institution)