A need to rethink Meitei in sub-section of Chin group in Myanmar census code 402
|
Maheshsana Rajkumar
Contd from previous issue
He further writes, ‘Meithei is the chief language of the Manipur valley and has apparently a long and independent development.’ This remark short as it speaks much as to the age and it’s not borrowing much from other languages. Indeed its age may favourably be compared with many of the languages of India proper.”
The development of Manipuri language could be known from the account of Randy J. LaPolla, a renowned linguist. Randy J. LaPolla writes:
“The Sino-Tibetan (ST) language family enshrines the migratory histories of many East Asian populations, including the Chinese, Tibetans, and Burmese. Its history is intimately associated with Neolithic and Bronze Age developments in China itself, and today it is one of the major world language families in terms of population numbers.
The archeological and linguistic evidence suggests that the ancestors of the Sino-Tibetan speaking people lived in the central plains of the valley of the Huanghe (Yellow River). By at least 4500 BCE, some members of the original group began moving west, then to the south down through the Tibetan plateau or into the valleys to its east. The group that stayed in the central plains, as well as those who moved south and east in early historical times, eventually became the Sinitic speakers of today, while the group that moved southwest became the Tibeto-Burman speakers.
The movements in both directions were not single ones but consisted of larger or smaller waves, often into the same areas as earlier migrations. Government-encouraged migration was practiced in China as early as the 2nd millennium BCE, and has been practiced by all the Chinese governments since then.
There have also been massive migrations due to natural disasters, war, and the pull of new economic opportunities. The movement of the Sinitic speakers has almost never been to an area where there were no people; migration almost involved language contact, either with non-Sinitic languages or other Sinitic varieties, and very often in government-sponsored migrations there was purposeful mixing of peoples. As the Sinitic speakers moved into new areas they often absorbed the peoples already there or, in some cases, were absorbed themselves. From the linguistic evidence, it seems the earliest inhabitants of the southeastern coast of China spoke ancestral Austronesian-related languages, while those in the Yangzi basin and the inland south were speakers of ancestral Hmong-Mien and Tai-related languages. We find influences from these languages in the Sinitic varieties spoken in those areas.”
Given the views of Randy J. LaPolla, it is clearly undeniable fact that the Manipuri (Meitei) language family belongs to Sino-Tibetan language family. The nomenclature of Manipuri (Meitei) language speakers has enough strength to stand as a distinct stream. The Sino-Tibetan language family is the parent of all the streams of the languages of China, Myanmar, and in parts of India, Thailand, Laos and Vietnam. It is also one of the major world language families in terms of population numbers. Therefore the stream of Manipuri (Meitei) language speakers may be put as a separate branch of Sino-Tibetan language family like the streams of Tibeto-Burman speakers and Sinitic speakers. He has further stated as follows:
“In Manipur, there have been Meithei speakers for at least a thousand years, having moved there from Burma. Meithei is written with a Bengali-based Indic orthography and is heavily influenced by Indo-Aryan contact (Chelliah 1997). Aside from being spoken by about one million people, Meithei has become a lingua franca for many other ethnic groups in Manipur, and this has affected the linguistic form that it takes in each area where it is spoken, a situation we see also in the cases of Mandarin Chinese and Burmese.”
These languages that have some currency as a lingua franca or status language in an area (eg. Meithei, Burmese, Tibetan, Mizo, Lahu, Jinghpaw, Mandarin) all show a sort of bidirectional influence: they are influenced by the native languages of the people who speak them.
The regrouping of Meitei in the Chin sub-section in Myanmar had enabled me to come in close contact with renowned linguist Stephen Morey through M. Burhagohain, who is a linguist and also one of the translators of the book “The Manipuri (Metei Kathe) Settlements in Myanmar”. M. Burhagohain, a Tai Ahom who hails from Upper Assam and Nyan Moe Htat, a Myanmar national were responsible for the translation of six chapters into English from Burmese.
The positive outcome of interacting with Stephen Morey and his sound reference I could acquire valuable information on Meitei language written by renowned linguist experts namely Mark W. Post and Robbins Burling on the Meitei language known as Manipuri from their write up “Tibeto-Burman Languages of Northeast India”. The excerpts of their joint write up are given as follows:
Manipur has a more substantial internal diversity. Meitheilon, the language of the ‘non-tribal’ Meithei, is spoken in and around the state capital Imphal. However, the surrounding hills are dominated by ‘tribals’ who speak languages which mostly fall linguistically within Kuki-Chin, but also a few which are seemingly outside it.
The state of Manipur differs from the other ‘hill’ states of the northeast in having a large central plateau. This permitted wet rice to be grown, supported a denser population, and allowed a more complex political and social system to develop than was possible until the modern era anywhere else among the indigenous populations of the present hill states. The inhabitants of this plateau speak a Tibeto-Burman language, but they are Hindus, and several centuries ago they developed an Indic-inspired script for their language.
They are the only Northeast Indian Tibeto-Burman speaking people with a literate tradition that predates the colonial period. Their language, known as Meitei, Meithei or Meitheilon (or, often, as ‘Manipuri’) shows some lexical resemblances to Kuki-Chin languages and some to Tangkhulic. These resemblances are not great enough to make the assignment of Meithei to one of the groups obvious; furthermore, they may be a result of borrowing (as in the case of Karbi). None of the earlier classifications include Meithei within one particular group of ‘Naga’ or Kuki languages, though it has often been taken to be a member of the larger Naga-Kuki grouping. As with Karbi, it seems safest to leave Meithei by itself (as is also proposed in Chelliah 1997).
On the other hand, there is also a popular version in respect of the identity of the Manipuri (Meitei) language speakers which is not to be ignored. Distinguished historian Jyotirmoy Roy in his book “History of Manipur”, page 176, and has written as follows:
The Manipuris have a language of their own with a growing literature. It was first recognised as one of the vernaculars upto B.A. by the Calcutta University in the early thirties. In 1972 for the first time a Department of Manipuri was established in the Jawaharlal Nehru University Centre at Imphal for the Post graduate studies in Manipuri literature. Earlier to that Sahitya Akademi accorded its recognition to Manipuri as one of the Major Indian languages. Dr. Grierson has placed the Manipuri language in the Kuki-chin branch of the Tibeto-Burmese family of languages. Once it had a separate script which is long out of use. Bengali script is used for writing books in Manipuri language. Attempts are now being made to bring the old script into use again.
However different versions and policies of several authorities at the political levels and/or at the common parlance have been carrying on in such a way that Meitei or Meitei language speakers belong to Chin-Kuki-Mizo ethnic group on the one hand and the Meitei language (Manipuri) belongs to Tibeto-Burman language family on the other. In such circumstances the Meiteis have suffered setback due to disadvantages created by different groups or authorities on their own accord.
The Meiteis would like to make a fervent appeal to the Myanmar Government to rethink on Myanmar census code 402 in the regrouping of Meiteis in Chin sub-section and show sensitivity on the policy of granting citizenship to the Kathes and Ponnas. The war extracts Kathes and Ponnas have played immense role for centuries at the times of war and peace. Their vital contributions in the making of present Myanmar economy should be acknowledged and due recognition be given for their loyalty and services offered to the nation.
A fresh appeal in regard of regrouping of Meiteis in the sub-section of Tai tribes, the Myanmar authorities should consider taking the factual account of Meitei affiliations with Tai/Shan ethnic. Several western writers and Myanmar scholars have shown affinity of Meitei with Tai/Shan ethnic in their write ups namely; Major Simon Fraser Hannay, Ney Elias, Edward Harper Parker, G.E. Harvey, Gazetteer J. George Scott, Mrs. Leslie Milne, Sai Saimong Mangrai and notably Sai Aung Tun, who detailed the migrations of Tai/Shan in Myanmar, Manipur and Assam in 6th century CE. Some other Tai sources also hints at probable arrival of Tai/Shan migrants in Upper Burma before Common Era and its highly probable the existence of Tai/Shan settlements in Kabaw Valley of Manipur in that period.
In the Tai Journal in new Shan script, “Tai in the World” written by Mahamung (Muse), 2005, there is mention of 83 Tai sub-tribes in the world and Meitei/Meetei of Manipur as one of the Tai sub-tribes known by the name “Tai Moy or Kassay”. Meitei belongs to Southwestern Tai people’s Northern branch. The term Pong is used by the Manipuris to denote Mao Shan. Tai Khamti/Khamti Shan refers to the Manipuri Meitei people as “Katai” or “Kathai”. The meaning behind this word is the race that broke away from wider Tai group.
(To be contd)
Contd from previous issue
He further writes, ‘Meithei is the chief language of the Manipur valley and has apparently a long and independent development.’ This remark short as it speaks much as to the age and it’s not borrowing much from other languages. Indeed its age may favourably be compared with many of the languages of India proper.”
The development of Manipuri language could be known from the account of Randy J. LaPolla, a renowned linguist. Randy J. LaPolla writes:
“The Sino-Tibetan (ST) language family enshrines the migratory histories of many East Asian populations, including the Chinese, Tibetans, and Burmese. Its history is intimately associated with Neolithic and Bronze Age developments in China itself, and today it is one of the major world language families in terms of population numbers.
The archeological and linguistic evidence suggests that the ancestors of the Sino-Tibetan speaking people lived in the central plains of the valley of the Huanghe (Yellow River). By at least 4500 BCE, some members of the original group began moving west, then to the south down through the Tibetan plateau or into the valleys to its east. The group that stayed in the central plains, as well as those who moved south and east in early historical times, eventually became the Sinitic speakers of today, while the group that moved southwest became the Tibeto-Burman speakers.
The movements in both directions were not single ones but consisted of larger or smaller waves, often into the same areas as earlier migrations. Government-encouraged migration was practiced in China as early as the 2nd millennium BCE, and has been practiced by all the Chinese governments since then.
There have also been massive migrations due to natural disasters, war, and the pull of new economic opportunities. The movement of the Sinitic speakers has almost never been to an area where there were no people; migration almost involved language contact, either with non-Sinitic languages or other Sinitic varieties, and very often in government-sponsored migrations there was purposeful mixing of peoples. As the Sinitic speakers moved into new areas they often absorbed the peoples already there or, in some cases, were absorbed themselves. From the linguistic evidence, it seems the earliest inhabitants of the southeastern coast of China spoke ancestral Austronesian-related languages, while those in the Yangzi basin and the inland south were speakers of ancestral Hmong-Mien and Tai-related languages. We find influences from these languages in the Sinitic varieties spoken in those areas.”
Given the views of Randy J. LaPolla, it is clearly undeniable fact that the Manipuri (Meitei) language family belongs to Sino-Tibetan language family. The nomenclature of Manipuri (Meitei) language speakers has enough strength to stand as a distinct stream. The Sino-Tibetan language family is the parent of all the streams of the languages of China, Myanmar, and in parts of India, Thailand, Laos and Vietnam. It is also one of the major world language families in terms of population numbers. Therefore the stream of Manipuri (Meitei) language speakers may be put as a separate branch of Sino-Tibetan language family like the streams of Tibeto-Burman speakers and Sinitic speakers. He has further stated as follows:
“In Manipur, there have been Meithei speakers for at least a thousand years, having moved there from Burma. Meithei is written with a Bengali-based Indic orthography and is heavily influenced by Indo-Aryan contact (Chelliah 1997). Aside from being spoken by about one million people, Meithei has become a lingua franca for many other ethnic groups in Manipur, and this has affected the linguistic form that it takes in each area where it is spoken, a situation we see also in the cases of Mandarin Chinese and Burmese.”
These languages that have some currency as a lingua franca or status language in an area (eg. Meithei, Burmese, Tibetan, Mizo, Lahu, Jinghpaw, Mandarin) all show a sort of bidirectional influence: they are influenced by the native languages of the people who speak them.
The regrouping of Meitei in the Chin sub-section in Myanmar had enabled me to come in close contact with renowned linguist Stephen Morey through M. Burhagohain, who is a linguist and also one of the translators of the book “The Manipuri (Metei Kathe) Settlements in Myanmar”. M. Burhagohain, a Tai Ahom who hails from Upper Assam and Nyan Moe Htat, a Myanmar national were responsible for the translation of six chapters into English from Burmese.
The positive outcome of interacting with Stephen Morey and his sound reference I could acquire valuable information on Meitei language written by renowned linguist experts namely Mark W. Post and Robbins Burling on the Meitei language known as Manipuri from their write up “Tibeto-Burman Languages of Northeast India”. The excerpts of their joint write up are given as follows:
Manipur has a more substantial internal diversity. Meitheilon, the language of the ‘non-tribal’ Meithei, is spoken in and around the state capital Imphal. However, the surrounding hills are dominated by ‘tribals’ who speak languages which mostly fall linguistically within Kuki-Chin, but also a few which are seemingly outside it.
The state of Manipur differs from the other ‘hill’ states of the northeast in having a large central plateau. This permitted wet rice to be grown, supported a denser population, and allowed a more complex political and social system to develop than was possible until the modern era anywhere else among the indigenous populations of the present hill states. The inhabitants of this plateau speak a Tibeto-Burman language, but they are Hindus, and several centuries ago they developed an Indic-inspired script for their language.
They are the only Northeast Indian Tibeto-Burman speaking people with a literate tradition that predates the colonial period. Their language, known as Meitei, Meithei or Meitheilon (or, often, as ‘Manipuri’) shows some lexical resemblances to Kuki-Chin languages and some to Tangkhulic. These resemblances are not great enough to make the assignment of Meithei to one of the groups obvious; furthermore, they may be a result of borrowing (as in the case of Karbi). None of the earlier classifications include Meithei within one particular group of ‘Naga’ or Kuki languages, though it has often been taken to be a member of the larger Naga-Kuki grouping. As with Karbi, it seems safest to leave Meithei by itself (as is also proposed in Chelliah 1997).
On the other hand, there is also a popular version in respect of the identity of the Manipuri (Meitei) language speakers which is not to be ignored. Distinguished historian Jyotirmoy Roy in his book “History of Manipur”, page 176, and has written as follows:
The Manipuris have a language of their own with a growing literature. It was first recognised as one of the vernaculars upto B.A. by the Calcutta University in the early thirties. In 1972 for the first time a Department of Manipuri was established in the Jawaharlal Nehru University Centre at Imphal for the Post graduate studies in Manipuri literature. Earlier to that Sahitya Akademi accorded its recognition to Manipuri as one of the Major Indian languages. Dr. Grierson has placed the Manipuri language in the Kuki-chin branch of the Tibeto-Burmese family of languages. Once it had a separate script which is long out of use. Bengali script is used for writing books in Manipuri language. Attempts are now being made to bring the old script into use again.
However different versions and policies of several authorities at the political levels and/or at the common parlance have been carrying on in such a way that Meitei or Meitei language speakers belong to Chin-Kuki-Mizo ethnic group on the one hand and the Meitei language (Manipuri) belongs to Tibeto-Burman language family on the other. In such circumstances the Meiteis have suffered setback due to disadvantages created by different groups or authorities on their own accord.
The Meiteis would like to make a fervent appeal to the Myanmar Government to rethink on Myanmar census code 402 in the regrouping of Meiteis in Chin sub-section and show sensitivity on the policy of granting citizenship to the Kathes and Ponnas. The war extracts Kathes and Ponnas have played immense role for centuries at the times of war and peace. Their vital contributions in the making of present Myanmar economy should be acknowledged and due recognition be given for their loyalty and services offered to the nation.
A fresh appeal in regard of regrouping of Meiteis in the sub-section of Tai tribes, the Myanmar authorities should consider taking the factual account of Meitei affiliations with Tai/Shan ethnic. Several western writers and Myanmar scholars have shown affinity of Meitei with Tai/Shan ethnic in their write ups namely; Major Simon Fraser Hannay, Ney Elias, Edward Harper Parker, G.E. Harvey, Gazetteer J. George Scott, Mrs. Leslie Milne, Sai Saimong Mangrai and notably Sai Aung Tun, who detailed the migrations of Tai/Shan in Myanmar, Manipur and Assam in 6th century CE. Some other Tai sources also hints at probable arrival of Tai/Shan migrants in Upper Burma before Common Era and its highly probable the existence of Tai/Shan settlements in Kabaw Valley of Manipur in that period.
In the Tai Journal in new Shan script, “Tai in the World” written by Mahamung (Muse), 2005, there is mention of 83 Tai sub-tribes in the world and Meitei/Meetei of Manipur as one of the Tai sub-tribes known by the name “Tai Moy or Kassay”. Meitei belongs to Southwestern Tai people’s Northern branch. The term Pong is used by the Manipuris to denote Mao Shan. Tai Khamti/Khamti Shan refers to the Manipuri Meitei people as “Katai” or “Kathai”. The meaning behind this word is the race that broke away from wider Tai group.
(To be contd)