Refuting Makakmayum Baadshah’s statements in the article ‘Remembering Dr Abdul Ali and Tracing Genealogy’

MA Hashim
The article, written by Makakmayum Baadshah, "Remembering Dr Abdul Ali and Tracing Genealogy," was published in The Sangai Express (E) on Sunday, the 3rd of November, 2024. I have gone through the article by Makakmayum Baadshah. I appreciate that he spent his valuable time discussing Shah Shuja, but there are some incorrect statements regarding Shah Shuja, Sunarful, and Luki-yarphul. Additionally, the statements about Dr Abdul Ali are also questionable. The incorrect statements are: "...and he was the Assistant Secretary (Home) of India to the Govt of Mani-pur from 24-5-1956 to 16-3-1956."
The issues are:
- The dates are inconsistent: The start date (24-5-1956) is after the end date (16-3-1956).
- Dr Abdul Ali died on 16th March 1956, so he couldn't have held the Assistant Secretary position from May 1956.
How could Dr Abdul Ali, a respected medical doctor, have served as the Assistant Secretary (Home) of India to the Government of Manipur from May 24, 1956, to March 16, 1956 (note the date format) ? It is important to highlight that he died on March 16, 1956. We know that there was no Assistant Secretary's post at that time; instead, a Chief Commissioner was present, namely PC Mathew, ICS, who served from January 3, 1955, to May 22, 1958.
Furthermore, how could Shangkushung have been Shah Shuja, according to the writer ? Is this assertion based solely on the fact that Shangkushung begins with the letter "S" similar to Shah Shuja ? If so, this comparison is akin to equating "Dalmia," a brand of cement, with "Dali Mia," a Muslim name. According to the article, written by Baadshah, both individuals reached Kangla in 1660/1661, and one of them was referred to as Shah Shuja.
However, he died in 1679, which implies that he remained hidden in Kangla for 18 years—an assertion that seems implausible.
According to the Chei-tharol Kumbaba, Shang- kusung and Makanshung arrived in the year 1661. This information is indeed accurate according to the best interpretations of the book, Cheitharol Kumbaba; however, it notably does not provide any detail regarding the horses and elephants (as the writer mentioned) that were utilized by Shah Shu-ja, as the writer mentioned during this journey. In contrast, the article indicates that horses and elephants were supplied for the expedition to Manipur, which suggests that Shang-kusung and Makanshung traveled with a sig- nificant number of guards—an important detail that is absent from the chronicle, the Cheitharol Kumbaba. Why ?
I would like to inquire of the writer where B Klachandra Sharma has stated that Lukiyful and Sunarphul were the sons of Shah Shuja. Could the writer kindly provide me with the title of the book and the specific page number where this information can be found ?
"In the year 1679", RK Sanahal, in his work titled Pangal Thorakpa, mentions that “Prince Sunarphul and Lukiyaphul, along with a traveller named Milia Seikh, arrived in Manipur. Among the 37 individuals mentioned, Seikh Chari and Seikh Isman were inclu-ded.” However, nowhere in his book does it states that Sunarphul and Lukiyarphul were the sons of Shah Shuja.
In the article, it is noted that Shah Shuja made two significant visits to the region, which are of consi- derable historical interest. The first of these visits occurred when he arrived from Tripura, accompanied by a grand entourage that included a magnificent display of horses and elephants.
This particular event is intriguing because there is no historical record of such an occurrence in the annals of Manipur's history.
While one might argue that this visit took place with the consent of the reigning king at the time and that the details of the arrival were kept secret, it raises an important question : Why is the name Shangkushung (Shah Shuja according to the writer) recorded in the Cheitharol Kumbaba if it was indeed a silent event ? There should not be such significant silence or concealment in Meitei history. Above that, Manipur's rich history and cultural heritage are indeed well-documented and have been the subject of extensive research and explora- tion. The Meitei people, who are indigenous to Manipur, possess a unique and intricately detailed recorded history that is both fascinating and remarkable. This historical narrative reflects their traditions, customs, and the evolution of their society over the centuries. It raises intriguing questions, such as how Shah Shuja, who arrived with a retinue of guards, horses, and elephants, (according to Baadshah) could have remained concealed for such an extended period of approximately 18 years. This situation invites further investigation into the socio- political dynamics of the time and the factors that allowed for such a significant figure to remain hidden from the public eye for so long.
This absence of evidence leaves a notable gap in our understanding of Shah Shuja's movements and activities during that time period, making it challenging for historians to piece together a complete narrative of his journey and the events surrounding it.
We know from history that Shah Shuja died in the year 1661. However, Ma-kakmayum Baadshah wrote that Shah Shuja came to Manipur in 1661 and died in Manipur in 1679. There's a historical inconsistency: Shah Shuja died in 1661 in Rakhine Myanmar (Burma) not 1679. Rakhine was the historical name of Arakan. Therefore, the article written by Makakmayum Baad- shah is baseless and completely refuted.