Articles
History of Manipur
Opinion | Articles | Irene Salam | 15-Nov-2021
Manipur can boast of having a recorded history from 33 A.D. when Pakhangba ascended the throne of Manipur. On the other hand, there is no concrete chronology of the pre-historic culture of N.E. India, except for some sites in Tripura. A few ceramic wares have been recovered from 'Neolithic' sites in Manipur, which include plain wares, stamped wares, incised wares, cord-marked wares with circular spots and applique wares, ring-footed wares, tripod legs wares and spindle whorl of pottery. The pottery of the culture of East Asia and S.E. Asia are remarkably alike the overall homogeneity makes it easy to visualise a common ancestral culture, located quite close in time from which all the descendant culture of the Yellow River Basin originated. It is likely that N.E. India was under the strong influence of these culture during this period. Cord marked pottery making tradition is a living tradition in Oinam (Senapati District). The Nagas make eastern pottery by hand without the use of a wheel.
Contemporary N.E. Indian is a product of British Imperialism and early national formation of Modern India. It is necessary to know how the British Empire of the 19th century impacted upon the subject people of the N. E. The historical experiences of the indigenous people are attempts to respond to two major influences in history: (i) Structural transformation in society and polity in the wake of Imperialism and Colonialism and (ii) The response to the relationship in the context of the modern Indian state.
It is purely by accident in history that N.E. India formed a part of India. The social formation in 'mainland' India and he N.E. must first be explained from the historical perspective of 3 (three) definable phases of period: Pre-colonial, Colonial and Post-colonial. Among societies in mainland India, society took the form of a caste structure and this continues to be so. In this way, they had been linked with one another's culture and polity, as a part of a chain, with the exception of the Meiteis in Imphal Valley and the Assamese in the Brahmaputra Valley, the hill people remained essentially outside the orbit of the Hindu influence and caste-based society formation, while mainland Indian society could evolve pan-Indian homogeneities and Hindu ethos in social formation all throughout the historical period. The hill people in North East India with their divine social alignment and group identities produced a high degree of flexibility and fluidity in their socio-cultural arenas. Mainland India was unified culturally and politically, even before the coming of the British.
This unity was strengthened by colonialism. Result was: - people of mainland India sees Indian History as their common past, sub-ordination to colonial rule as their common lot and its final overthrow their common destination. On the other hand, the colonial secluded policy towards the N.E. retarded the smooth penetration of Indian Nationalism among the marginal and peripheral communities (Lal Dena).
Even when the National Freedom struggle reached its climax under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, the waves of nationalism never crossed the Brahmaputra Valley. H.K. Sareen remarked: those in leadership of the National Movement, paid scant attention to the masses in the hills and valleys of N.E. India (This does not mean that the N.E. had no freedom fighters). That is why they did not, or could not devise any ethos of breaking the barrier created by Imperialistic rules and drawing the masses into the struggle for Independence. This remained the weakness of the National Movement. (Ibid)
Another factor, perhaps more crucial, was the uneven development of the colonial economy, which greatly retarded the uniform growth and maturity of Indian Nationalism among the different ethnic groups of the country. Due to this unequal economic development, national consciousness also developed unevenly. This is because the entry of British Capitalism in colonial form took place at different times in different regions with varying intensity, producing dissimilar effects, Indian port cities were the foremost British Business centres and the centre of capital investment, infrastructure development took place faster in this area. Colonial India experienced two streams, coeval processes as far as its national formation was concerned. First was based on its pan India identity, and the second on its regional, ethnic identity. What actually emerged were two types of Nationalities - Consolidated Nationality and Marginal Nationality. Transformation of Consolidated Nationalism into the Core Nationalism (Indian Nationalism) was automatic and spontaneous. But integration of Marginal Nationalism including Manipuri, with the Indian state structure took place only at the end of colonial rule. (Ibid)
Manipur was an ancient Kingdom, a cradle of human civilisation and creativity which has come under the influence of many cultures of different ethnic groups, who came at different times, and contributed to the growth of civilisation of Manipur. Manipur being a gateway of India to South East Asia was influenced by her geographic situation and ecology in the shaping of her cultural and historical development. Manipur literally means 'The Land of Gems'. Sanamahi Laikan states: Manipur was first officially introduced in the reign of Garib Niwas (1709 - 1748). In the legendary (pre-historical) period, the principality that centred at Kangla, the capital of the capital of the later Meitei Kingdom was known by several names.
As to the common ancestry of 3 (three) autochthon groups viz. the Meiteis, Nagas & Kukis (Meitei Pangal only became a part of indigenous people in King Khagemba's reign (1597 - 1652). T.C. Hodson stated: tradition affords link which makes the Nagas and Kukis Chin tribes and the Manipuri's (Meiteis) descent from a common ancestor, who had three sons, who became the progenitor of those tribes;' the tradition which is widely spread, agrees in its many versions, in assigning the primacy of the descent to the Kukis, the next place being given to the Nagas, while the Manipuris are said to be the children of the youngest of the three brothers.
However, two Meitei writers, Ibudhou Oknarel and Macha Ibemma Khudithibi of Ningthoukhong stated: whatever may or may not be the concept of dichotomies of evolution, the analogy clearly tells know that cosmogony of belief and though of Meitei is that the evolution of human settlements in Manipur originated from Koubru Peak, and later descendants moved downward gradually to the foothills and then to the Valley of Manipur. "Awang Koubru Asuppa - Oh Almighty Koubru Leima Lai Khunda Ahanba - The Guardian of the North, Nongthrei Ma-u Lingliba - where the first Settlement evolved Irik Mapan Thariba - And Nongthrei seeds be sown, Irik Lainingthou-O- The origin of 9 (nine) rivers, .. I pray to thee."
In the misty landscape of the Peak, along with the cloud is the abode of Lord Koubru, the holy place of the people of Manipur, where the various clans and tribes were believed to have been originated (Many members of the Palace Pandit Loisang also believe in this theory). Earlier, there was a vast expanse of water and earth, submerged under water. At the time of Creation, the Taibang Mapu- Creator, draws up earth, to form hills. These hills were Koubru, Nongmaiching, Thangjing and Wangbrel which forms the foundation of the world. Koubru was the first to be drawn and represents the head, in the bio-physical structure of the land. Rivers originated from these hills, from the arteries of the body and Loktak Lake as the pelvic region.
Proto - Meitei Concept of the Origin of Human Beings and their settlement at Koubru mountain. Another school of thought of historians of Manipur is the 'Sanamahi Laining', which was considered as the very beginning of the evolution of the earth from the cosmos. Ibuthou Oknarel extracted the wild rice seeds found inside the crop of the pigeon, and sowed it in the field, together with the peasants of Sadu. The domestication of rice in the valley of Manipur had been mentioned in the old Scriptures (Puyas) of Manipur. Paddy seeds were believed to have been brought first by Poireiton, an immigrant from the Far East and sometimes referred to as the Progenitor of the Clan of Khuman and Luwang.
As regards linguistic affinity, the researchers of the Linguistic Survey of India, enable a comprehensive view of the relationship of the Meitei language to the language spoken by the hill tribes, both in the state and beyond it. Dr Grierson assigns it place in the Tibeto-Burman group: the Kukis Chin language is closely connected with all the surrounding groups of the Tibeto-Burman family i.e., Bodo, Naga, Kachin.
Manipur has been home to several ethnic communities. Various ethnic groups belonging to Tibeto-Burman, Indo-Aryans, a sizeable section of the Tai (Shans) came to Manipur from pre historic times, down to the present days. The present ethnic groups of Manipur viz: the Meiteis, Nagas and Kuki Chin tribes and other Indian communities are the descendants of those migrating people. (Gangmei Kamei). The valley of Manipur has assumed a cosmopolitan character, though the Meitei and Muslims (Meitei Pangal) are numerically preponderant. Non-Manipuri Indian and Nepalis have also settled here. The hills are the exclusive domain of the tribes, as the State's Land Law, does not permit the Meitei, or any non-tribal to buy land in the hills. The hills occupy 9/10th of the territory of Manipur. So, the maximum density of population is found in the valley.
In pre-colonial Manipur under a feudal dynastic system of authority relations, ethnic categories subsisted with frequent interactions, which could be economic interdependence, barter of essential goods and supplies, participation in community rituals, fierce protection of collectivities, village and clan settlement from external threat. Primitive subsistence economy, sexual division of labor (women were the backbone of the economy from the earliest times) ritual participation in hunt or war, and subservience to supra village political organisation, but very little interventions in the internal lived experience and culture, and general mutual trust for peace-keeping, were the norms. Mutual trust was founded on the basis of reciprocity. Social universe was founded on the village system, with local authority relations based on lineage or clan leadership, with elders of the clan community maintaining the peace and equilibrium of the population through customs and traditions, and wisdom and grace were mainsprings of community life. The discovery of the pony and the development of iron technology and the utilisation of communal energy to harness the excess water (refer to the Cheitharol Kumpapa), the new system of irrigation, led to the development of a native elite and an indigenous bureaucratic system to device forms of a developing or evolving ethno state which became a reality in the 16th and 17th centuries. The distinctive difference in the undifferentiated social categories where frequent interaction, assimilations formation of new professional lineages and clans took place was however, the changes in the social organisation of the societies, when the Meiteis in the plains had experience of change and development, leading into Nationhood, through the State formation exercises. Confrontation with external enemies like the Burmese throughout history, the battles with other states and nations, helped develop a sense of identity, unique in the North-East. (Lokendro Arambam).
One of the theories of Meitei Origin is Aryan, an outcome of the adoption of Hinduism by the Royal Family and the Valley People in the18th century, and resultant claim of the descent of the Royal Dynasty from Babhruvahana, a scion of the Pandava hero, Arjun of the Mahabharata. They are neither of Aryan stock or Indo-Aryan, although they absorbed some Aryan elements from Aryan colonisers adventures, and immigrants. The representatives of the Aryan element are Manipuri Brahmins and the Nongchup Haram (those groups who came to Manipur from Tripura, Sylhet, Cachar, Assam and adjoining areas as war captives, part of the dowry of a princess; who married a Meitei Prince, learned persons employed by the King's Court, Muslims who come in King Khagemba's Reign. When the Meiteis became the followers of Vaishnavism a framework of pollution-purity relationship alienated the non-Hindu tribes. The tribes who began to embrace Christianity along with modern education from the last decade of the 19th century, widened the schism that was already existing between the Meitei Hindus and the tribals. This social gap resulted from the mutual alienation, it became wider and wider with the metamorphis of the colonial subjects into free citizens of Independent India, because political democratisation stimulated primordial sentiments. (W. Nabakumar)
Another Theory is the Moi-Tai Origin of the Meiteis. All archaeological and historical evidences point to the relationship of the ancient Meiteis with Mon Khmer and Tai people; but not of Mon Khmer Tai Origin of the people. G.A. Grierson is generally right in presuming that the ancestors of the Meitei were among the Tibeto-Burman speakers in S.W. China, Eastern Tibet and Upper Burma. Ch. Buddhi Singh asserted 'Meitei' or 'Timei' is an outcome of the ethnic blending of people of Mei and Ti tribes of Ancient China. Before the coming of the Tibeto-Burman speaking proto-Meitei tribes, there were Mon Khmer speaking Austroloid Mongoloid, people, late absorbed by the Tibeto-Burman. Indo Aryans and Tais were also absorbed. Ethnologically and linguistically, the Meiteis are the Tibeto-Burman of Southern Mongoloid, with Austroloid, Aryan and Tai admixtures.
There is another popular theory of Origin. i.e., the Meitei are the descendants of the Supreme God Atiya Guru Sidaba. While researching the Meitei origin, a research scholar interviewed a learned Pandit of the Pandit Loisang, who asserted that the Meitei are a very ancient people, who first settled at the Koubru Hills when Atiya Guru Sidaba was the ruler. The ruler decided to move to the Valley i.e. to the foothill of Nongmaiching. Another Pandit stated that they were settled in Manipur in the Paleolithic Age, but this cannot be corroborated by the limited archaeological findings in Manipur. The Theory of Divine Origin propounds that Atiya Guru Sidaba, the Creator had two sons, Asiba also known as Kuptreng or Sanamahi, and a younger son, Konjin Tuthokpa, also known as Sentreng or Pakhangba. Atiya Guru Sidaba gave life to the Human Being and all creatures made by his son Asiba. After Creation of the Earth, Atiya Guru Sidaba wanted to choose a King from among his two sons who were believed to be an Incarnation of God. He tested them twice-first by taking the form of a dead cow floating in the river. Asiba did not recognise his father, but Konjin Thuthekpa did, and because of this; he was known as 'Pakhangba' (he performed the funeral rites of his father). In the second test, he asked both sons to go around the Universe. Whoever completed the journey would be King of the Earth. Sanamahi left immediately, but Pakhangba was a weak boy, so his mother Leimaren Sidabi, advised him to go around the throne of his father, which was akin to going around the Universe. So he won the race and was made King of the Earth. When Sanamahi returned and found that his brother was already the King, he wanted to kill him. To pacify him, he was given the status of an Important God to be worshipped in every household. From this emerged the tradition of Pakhangba as the Divine King of Earth and Sanmahi as Spiritual Deity of the Meitei. (Gangumei Kamei)
It is not clear how the name 'Naga' originated. It is an old name popularised by the Ahoms and British. The latter gave the generic name 'Naga' to the present Nagas of Nagaland, Assam and Manipur. In Manipur, Naga are known by their tribe name, Naga legend (Oral History and Tradition) tells of their migration and settlement in Manipur. It is reliable believed that these tribe were in occupation of the present habitat in the early centuries of the Christian era or even before that According to B.B. Ghosh, Nagas belong to the Mongoloid stock of human races. It is believed that the Mongoloid people originated in the upper reaches of the Howangho River in the Sinkiang Province of China and then migrated in 2000 B.C. One group migrated south, and were divided into different tribes of Indo-China. One of the tribes of this last group is the Karens, who are new living in Burma. It is likely that the Nagas belong to this group. According to the Folklore of the 'Hao' communities, ancestors of the Nagas migrated from China in search of a safe place for settlement. In those days war was common among the tribes, the strong exploited the weak, who were confined in a big area, surrounded by a concrete wall, resembling a big cave. (Lunglo) This corroborates other Oral Tradition that purports that the Nagas emerged from a cave in the subterranean world. N.K. Shimray stated that most of the Naga tribes believed that they came from a 'Khur' or 'Khol' or 'Hole' in the earth. The ancestors came out one by one, but a large tiger that was watching them devoured each of them. Different Naga tribes have different interpretations as to how their ancestor finally prevailed over the tiger. The people emerged from the earth hole and spread over the open space around a hill. A tiger head (Banee- the Mao Naga) engraved on the stone monolith erected at Makhel considered to be a point of dispersal for different Naga tribes, is indicative of the fact that a tiger has a significance in the early history of the Nagas. According to Shupfomei myths and legends, they had their origin at Makhel-Makhrufu. The concept of cave dwelling should not to taken literally. At one point of time, the Nagas did make their exodus from some place to their present homeland. Modern historians and scholars have drawn a conclusion on the Origin of Naga Migration, dating back to the Emperor of China, Qin Chin Haunghi, who built the Great Wall of China about 215 B.C. To escape his cruelty, the Nagas made a mass exodus along the rivers through South East Asia. Elders of the Kashung clan of Kabomi (Tangkhul Hundung Village), narrated that their ancestors settled in Hakwang Village (the present habitat of the Karen) of Burma but were forced to migrate because of war and strife. Folksongs support this theory.
Some Kuki tribes migrated to the Manipur hills in pre-historic times, but greater migration occurred in the 18th century. Their origin used to be shrouded in myths and mythologies, although one such traditional account handed down through generations, is that the Kukis come out of the bowel of the earth, or a cave called 'Chinlung', 'Sinlung' or 'Khul' whose location was believed to be somewhere in China, although others claimed its origin in Tibet. (T.S. Gangte)
With regard to the Kukis, Than Tun claims that Tibeto-Burman groups of the Burman come down into present Burma viz the Salween and Nmaikha Valleys, and reached the Northern Shan State before 713 A.D. The Chin according to Gordon Luce, descended from Western China and Eastern Tibet. There is ample evidence that the Chins were the first to settle in the Chinwin Valley. The Pagan Inscriptions, dating from the 11th Century onward refer to these Chins. Prof. Luce suggested that this Chin settlement began in the middle of the 8th Century.
(The Author is a retired Professor of History, and could be reached on drsalamirene@rediffmail.com. The Article is an excerpt from her forthcoming book)
Leave a comment
