Editor,
This is in reference to the letter to the editor written by Dr Omarlin Kyndiah and published in The Shillong Times regarding the remarks made by Danny Khyriem at the KSU General Council.
Dr Kyndiah appears to suggest that because the Jaintia Kingdom had a separate political history, the broader Khasi-Jaintia relationship itself becomes historically invalid. This is a selective reading of history. No one is denying that the Jaintia people possess their own distinct identity, history and political legacy. However, it is equally dishonest to ignore the wider ethnolinguistic and cultural relationship shared among the Khasi, Pnar, War and Bhoi communities.
Scholars such as Hamlet Bareh and several historical writings on the Khasi-Jaintia Hills have long acknowledged these historical linkages rooted in common matrilineal traditions, clan systems and Austroasiatic linguistic origins. The fact that the Jaintia Kingdom was annexed by the British in 1835 while the Khasi states later signed the Instrument of Accession does not suddenly erase centuries of shared cultural and historical connections. Separate kingdoms have existed among related communities throughout history.
Political boundaries alone cannot be used as the sole basis to redefine ethnic origins.It is therefore unfair to portray every discussion on a broader Khasi-Jaintia identity as ignorance or an attack on the Jaintia community. Historical scholarship on this subject did not begin today, nor is it based on emotional rhetoric.
Healthy debate is welcome, but such discussions must remain balanced and intellectually honest rather than reducing a complex historical relationship into absolute binaries.
Yours faithfully ,
Pynkhrawnam L Kurvah
Via email