On the concept of Meitei patriotism : A perspective
|
Dr Mangsatabam Jitendra Singh
Manipur, a small hilly State consisting of a centrally located tiny valley, called Imphal valley or Manipur valley, the size of which is approximately one-tenth of the total area of the State and situated on the periphery of India in the North East bordering Burma (Myanmar), in spite of historical vicissitudes, was an independent country founded by the Meiteis, who had a fame for their cultural heritage that played an important role in founding a country of their own initially in the valley and its gradual horizontal expansion over the surrounding hill areas, prior to her merger with the Union of India as a part C State on 15th October, 1949, according to an agreement.
The country, among the Meiteis, however small it may be, signified the land of the mothers, eemaleipak, motherland. The Romans and some Greeks called their country fatherland, whereas some others, motherland. The word, motherland, was used in Crete, a Greek island in the Mediterranean, South-East of Greece, probably a remnant of likely matriarchal Minoan society. These two words, fatherland and motherland, are one and the same, as both the words signified the land of one’s ancestors and native land. The motherland, eemaleipak, of every Meitei was a part of the soil which his traditional religion had sanctified and the land where the remains of his ancestors were deposited and which their souls occupied. It (motherland) was not a vain word. The soil was indeed sacred to every Meitei for his Gods/ancestors dwelt there. The word eemaleipak of the Meiteis was no abstraction, as they are among the moderns; they really represented a group of local divinities with a daily worship and beliefs that had a power influence over the soul. Until today, so far as we know, no one looks at the concept of patriotism of the Meiteis in their historical context and has examined ‘what explains it (the patriotism of the Meiteis). In this article a humble attempt is made to delve into the said subject.
Before entering into particulars of our enquiry on the said topic, we would like to detail you with a few words about the method and order of investigation that seem to be prescribed by the nature of the subject. In connection with the Meitei religion whether antique/traditional religion or Hinduism, we find on the one hand certain beliefs, on the other certain institutions, ritual practices and rules of conduct. Our modern habit is to look at religion from the side of belief rather than of practice. Thus the study of religion of Manipur meant mainly Hindu religious beliefs, and instructions in religion has habitually begun with the creed, religious duties being presented to the learner as flowing from the dogmatic truths he is taught to accept. All this seems to us so much a matter of course that, when we approach the old or traditional religion of the Meiteis, we naturally assume that here also our first business is to search for a creed, and find in it the key to ritual and practices. But the traditional religion of the Meiteis had most part no creed; it consisted entirely of institutions and practices – the rites. The rite, in short, was connected not with dogma but with a myth.
In all the antique religions, mythology takes the place of dogma, that is, the sacred lore of the priests and people, so far as it does not consist of mere rulers for the performance of religious acts, assumes the form of stories about the gods. But, strictly speaking, this mythology was no essential part of ancient religion, for it had no sacred sanction and no binding force on the worshippers. What was obligatory or meritorious was the exact performance of certain sacred acts prescribed by religious tradition. This being so, it follows that mythology ought not to tale the prominent place that is too often assigned to it in the scientific study of ancient faiths. The conclusion is that, in the study of the traditional religion of the Meiteis, we must begin, not with myth, but with ritual and traditional usage.
There can be no doubt that in the latter stages of traditional religion of the Meiteis, mythology required an increased importance. In the struggle of traditional religion with scepticism on the one hand and Hinduism on the other, the supporters of the traditional religion are driven to search for ideas of a modern cast, which they could represent as true inner meaning of the traditional rites. Myth interpreted by the aid of allegory became the favourite means of infusing a new significance into ancient forms. But the theories thus developed are the falsest of false guides as to the original meaning of the traditional religions.
Let it be understood from the outset that we do not have the materials for anything like a complete comprehensive history of the traditional religion of the Meiteis. As done in China, during the reign of Chin-Wang, who reigned from 246 BC to 210 BC, built the ‘Great Wall of China’ (Wan-li-Chang, the myriad mile wall) and was the first to assume the title of ‘Kwang” or emperor, Pamheiba (1709-1748), who was known now by the Hindu or Persian name Garib Niwaz and assumed the title of ‘Maharaja’, great king, for the first time in the history of Manipur determined, as it appears, that the history of Manipur should begin with his reign, and to wipe out the memory of the past events and religious beliefs and the practices, at the instigation of a Hindu fakir (who lived without possessions and survived by receiving food from other people), called Shantidas Gosvai, who came from Sylhet, Bengal, now called Bangladesh, because of apparently forcible mass Islamisation during the Mughal rule, ordered all the literary records, puyas, considered to be sacred, including the Royal Chronicle of Manipur, Cheitharon Kumpapa, to be burned so that no knowledge of past events might be transmitted to history. Thus a great mass of early Meitei literary records, which affords a fair test of the commencement of Meitei civilization and without which neither history nor civilization can properly be said to exist, were destroyed. As all the literary records were newly written and rewritten from time to time, some errors would certainly have found their way and deliberately inserted in them. Besides, religious dissents were treated with same ruthless severity as was meted out to political opponents; wholesale banishment, and execution drove the people into acceptance of the tenets of Hinduism.
In this age of most modern and developed ideas and scientific methods of research or methodology or historiography, no one looks knowingly at the historicity of the said literary records, to which modern scholars are indebted for their researches on the early history and culture of Manipur, and knows, as it appears, ‘what historical criticism is’. It may be worthy of note that historical criticism, which is so important in the history of history writing, is yet to be seen in the historical researches in Manipur. In addition to it, we would like to make a point that in modern times ‘comparative religion’ has become a subject in the west, but in Manipur, nothing considerable has been done towards a systematic comparison of the traditional religious beliefs and practices of the Meiteis with that of the ancients, the people who lived in the ancient times.
(To be contd)
Manipur, a small hilly State consisting of a centrally located tiny valley, called Imphal valley or Manipur valley, the size of which is approximately one-tenth of the total area of the State and situated on the periphery of India in the North East bordering Burma (Myanmar), in spite of historical vicissitudes, was an independent country founded by the Meiteis, who had a fame for their cultural heritage that played an important role in founding a country of their own initially in the valley and its gradual horizontal expansion over the surrounding hill areas, prior to her merger with the Union of India as a part C State on 15th October, 1949, according to an agreement.
The country, among the Meiteis, however small it may be, signified the land of the mothers, eemaleipak, motherland. The Romans and some Greeks called their country fatherland, whereas some others, motherland. The word, motherland, was used in Crete, a Greek island in the Mediterranean, South-East of Greece, probably a remnant of likely matriarchal Minoan society. These two words, fatherland and motherland, are one and the same, as both the words signified the land of one’s ancestors and native land. The motherland, eemaleipak, of every Meitei was a part of the soil which his traditional religion had sanctified and the land where the remains of his ancestors were deposited and which their souls occupied. It (motherland) was not a vain word. The soil was indeed sacred to every Meitei for his Gods/ancestors dwelt there. The word eemaleipak of the Meiteis was no abstraction, as they are among the moderns; they really represented a group of local divinities with a daily worship and beliefs that had a power influence over the soul. Until today, so far as we know, no one looks at the concept of patriotism of the Meiteis in their historical context and has examined ‘what explains it (the patriotism of the Meiteis). In this article a humble attempt is made to delve into the said subject.
Before entering into particulars of our enquiry on the said topic, we would like to detail you with a few words about the method and order of investigation that seem to be prescribed by the nature of the subject. In connection with the Meitei religion whether antique/traditional religion or Hinduism, we find on the one hand certain beliefs, on the other certain institutions, ritual practices and rules of conduct. Our modern habit is to look at religion from the side of belief rather than of practice. Thus the study of religion of Manipur meant mainly Hindu religious beliefs, and instructions in religion has habitually begun with the creed, religious duties being presented to the learner as flowing from the dogmatic truths he is taught to accept. All this seems to us so much a matter of course that, when we approach the old or traditional religion of the Meiteis, we naturally assume that here also our first business is to search for a creed, and find in it the key to ritual and practices. But the traditional religion of the Meiteis had most part no creed; it consisted entirely of institutions and practices – the rites. The rite, in short, was connected not with dogma but with a myth.
In all the antique religions, mythology takes the place of dogma, that is, the sacred lore of the priests and people, so far as it does not consist of mere rulers for the performance of religious acts, assumes the form of stories about the gods. But, strictly speaking, this mythology was no essential part of ancient religion, for it had no sacred sanction and no binding force on the worshippers. What was obligatory or meritorious was the exact performance of certain sacred acts prescribed by religious tradition. This being so, it follows that mythology ought not to tale the prominent place that is too often assigned to it in the scientific study of ancient faiths. The conclusion is that, in the study of the traditional religion of the Meiteis, we must begin, not with myth, but with ritual and traditional usage.
There can be no doubt that in the latter stages of traditional religion of the Meiteis, mythology required an increased importance. In the struggle of traditional religion with scepticism on the one hand and Hinduism on the other, the supporters of the traditional religion are driven to search for ideas of a modern cast, which they could represent as true inner meaning of the traditional rites. Myth interpreted by the aid of allegory became the favourite means of infusing a new significance into ancient forms. But the theories thus developed are the falsest of false guides as to the original meaning of the traditional religions.
Let it be understood from the outset that we do not have the materials for anything like a complete comprehensive history of the traditional religion of the Meiteis. As done in China, during the reign of Chin-Wang, who reigned from 246 BC to 210 BC, built the ‘Great Wall of China’ (Wan-li-Chang, the myriad mile wall) and was the first to assume the title of ‘Kwang” or emperor, Pamheiba (1709-1748), who was known now by the Hindu or Persian name Garib Niwaz and assumed the title of ‘Maharaja’, great king, for the first time in the history of Manipur determined, as it appears, that the history of Manipur should begin with his reign, and to wipe out the memory of the past events and religious beliefs and the practices, at the instigation of a Hindu fakir (who lived without possessions and survived by receiving food from other people), called Shantidas Gosvai, who came from Sylhet, Bengal, now called Bangladesh, because of apparently forcible mass Islamisation during the Mughal rule, ordered all the literary records, puyas, considered to be sacred, including the Royal Chronicle of Manipur, Cheitharon Kumpapa, to be burned so that no knowledge of past events might be transmitted to history. Thus a great mass of early Meitei literary records, which affords a fair test of the commencement of Meitei civilization and without which neither history nor civilization can properly be said to exist, were destroyed. As all the literary records were newly written and rewritten from time to time, some errors would certainly have found their way and deliberately inserted in them. Besides, religious dissents were treated with same ruthless severity as was meted out to political opponents; wholesale banishment, and execution drove the people into acceptance of the tenets of Hinduism.
In this age of most modern and developed ideas and scientific methods of research or methodology or historiography, no one looks knowingly at the historicity of the said literary records, to which modern scholars are indebted for their researches on the early history and culture of Manipur, and knows, as it appears, ‘what historical criticism is’. It may be worthy of note that historical criticism, which is so important in the history of history writing, is yet to be seen in the historical researches in Manipur. In addition to it, we would like to make a point that in modern times ‘comparative religion’ has become a subject in the west, but in Manipur, nothing considerable has been done towards a systematic comparison of the traditional religious beliefs and practices of the Meiteis with that of the ancients, the people who lived in the ancient times.
(To be contd)