Jaintia Identity and the Debate on Reservation: A Historical Perspective

By O.R. Shallam, Retd. Associate Professor & Former HOD, Department of History

Recent developments in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly, where the word “Jaintia” was reportedly omitted from the Khasi–Jaintia category in the reservation policy by an elected public representative, have ignited a heated debate across the state. The remarks, particularly coming from a leader who often projects himself as a champion of the people and proudly invokes the phrase “Maya Jeit-bru” while placing “Jeit-bru” before political agendas, have triggered widespread verbal arguments and literary confrontations.

The controversy has revived an old yet significant question: Are the Jaintia merely a sub-tribe of the Khasi, or are they an independent major tribe of Meghalaya?

In the days following the Assembly statement, newspapers, online portals, and social media platforms have been flooded with opinions. A new breed of what may be called “self-made historians” has emerged overnight. These individuals have spent their metaphorical midnight hours attempting to interpret history through selective references and fragments of academic works. While intellectual engagement is always welcome, historical truths cannot be rewritten to suit political convenience or personal assumptions.

Allow me, therefore, to share a historical perspective on the tribes that inhabit the state of Meghalaya.

If one simply searches the word “Meghalaya” on any online search engine, the most immediate and widely accepted description states that the state is inhabited by three major tribes: the Jaintia, the Khasi, and the Garo.

However, for certain anti-Jaintia commentators, even such basic descriptions appear unacceptable. According to them, search engines have somehow been misled by faulty scholars and inaccurate researchers. Their argument remains fixed on a singular claim—that the Jaintia are merely a sub-tribe of the Khasi.

This perception is historically and culturally flawed.

The Jaintia people constitute one of the distinct and historically significant tribes of Meghalaya. Their presence and identity are deeply rooted in the history of the region. The Jaintia Kingdom, which existed roughly from 500 AD to 1835 AD, extended from the eastern part of the Shillong Plateau across present-day Jaintia Hills, reaching into the plains of Bangladesh and northwards towards the Barak River valley in Assam.

The kingdom maintained two capitals—one in the hills and the winter capital at Jaintia Rajbari in Jaintiapur, located at the foothills of the Jaintia Hills, now in present-day Bangladesh. The kingdom continued to flourish until it was annexed by the British on 15 March 1835.

British annexation did not end resistance. Instead, it sparked a series of uprisings, the most notable being the 1861–1862 rebellion led by the legendary freedom fighter U Kiang Nangbah, a brave and patriotic son of the Jaintia soil. His resistance against colonial rule remains a proud chapter in the history of the region. He was eventually captured and hanged by the British on 30 December 1862, but his sacrifice continues to symbolize the courage and spirit of the Jaintia people.

Recognition of the distinct identity of the Jaintia people is not merely historical—it is also constitutional. The Government of India, acknowledging their uniqueness, included the Jaintia among the Scheduled Tribes and provided institutional recognition through the creation of a separate district and the establishment of the Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council (JHADC) under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. Furthermore, the traditional administrative structure under the chieftainship of the U Dolloi was also formally recognized.

Religion and culture further highlight the distinctiveness of the Jaintia people. Historically, the community follows Niamtre, an indigenous faith centered on reverence for nature, moral righteousness, and devotion to U Trekirot, the supreme God. Niamtre represents a monotheistic belief system rooted in spiritual discipline and ethical teachings. Attempts by certain scholars to portray this indigenous religion as merely a derivative or “fake form” of Hinduism reveal a limited understanding of its philosophical and cultural depth.

The linguistic identity of the Jaintia people also reflects their uniqueness. The community speaks Pnar, an Austro-Asiatic language belonging to the Mon–Khmer linguistic family. While it shares certain historical connections with the Khasi language, Pnar has its own phonetic patterns, dialectical variations, and morphological structures that clearly distinguish it from Khasi.

Those who insist that the Jaintia are Khasi must be willing to accept the reverse claim as well—that the Khasi are Jaintia. Yet such a suggestion would undoubtedly be rejected outright. Why? Because even those who make these arguments understand, perhaps subconsciously, that the Khasi and Jaintia are distinct communities with their own cultural, linguistic, and historical identities.

My intention in writing this article is not to create division among the tribes of Meghalaya. The people of this state have lived together for generations in relative harmony, bound by shared geographical space and mutual respect. However, respect for unity must not come at the cost of erasing the identity of any community.

If the debate continues unchecked, one cannot help but wonder whether the day may come when festivals such as Behdienkhlam and Shad Sukra, deeply rooted in the Niamtre traditions of the Jaintia people, might be casually re-labeled as “Khasi religious practices.” Such intellectual misrepresentation would not only distort history but also undermine the cultural heritage of an entire people.

The Jaintia have a long and proud history—one shaped by a kingdom, a unique language, a distinct faith, and the sacrifices of heroes like U Kiang Nangbah. These are not the characteristics of a sub-tribe; they are the markers of a people with a clear and independent identity.

Therefore, if discussions on reservation policy continue to evoke confusion or misinterpretation, a practical step may be to amend the terminology itself. Instead of the existing “Khasi–Jaintia and Garo category,” the state could consider adopting a clearer formulation: “Jaintia, Khasi, and Garo category,” with equitable or open reservation percentages among the three major tribes of the state.

Such an approach would not divide communities; rather, it would acknowledge their identities with fairness and clarity.

As descendants of the Jaintia ancestors who shaped this land through courage, resilience, religious and cultural wisdom, we remain proud of our identity and our history. We seek neither superiority nor conflict—only recognition of the truth that we are a distinct people among the three major tribes of Meghalaya, living in peace and mutual respect with our Khasi and Garo brethren.

And that identity, earned through centuries of history, should never be diminished or reduced to the label of a “sub-tribe.”