History and subjective slogans
- Hueiyen Lanpao Editorial :: September 09 2015 -
A closer look at some of the engagements by historians in a State like Manipur throws up interesting developments.
At least three trends can be easily identified.
First, there are those who have inherited a written culture primarily based on the construction of history from royal chronicles like the Buranjis for the Ahoms and the Cheitharol Kumbaba for Meeteis.
Second, with the advent of the British colonial rule, numerous other communities who had no such sources but a strong and an equally vibrant oral tradition also began embarking on the enterprise of writing history.
Over a period of time, traditional royal chronicles and other sources also began to be supplemented by colonial records and data. This resulted in the production of queer and mixed trend with no intended methodology.
While those that have solely relied on colonial texts have had their share of issues with the understanding and construction of the very idea of history. Then came, the protagonists of the “nativist” approach, attempt to set the record straight. This is the third trend.
Those who propounded the nativist approach also could not help but unwittingly rely on superfluous colonial interpretations. The nativists say that the ‘fabricated history’ of Manipur has misled many and the trend needs to be countered, rectified and corrected.
The political content of their work can be gauged from the stance taken after reviewing the sensitive burning of the Puyas some 285 years ago. From within the same school of thought, there are those who not only seek the ‘truth’ but also make an attempt to see the ‘truth’ in the light of reason informed by the indigenised “enlightenment project.”
Many have tried to look at the enterprise of writing history through an outdated view that all these activities are part of a revivalist movement. The rise of the ‘nativist’ history was made possible via the exclusion by the dominant discourse on history.
However, one also realises that most often certain stances taken on writing history have been preceded by “subjective slogans.” And the engagement that flows from these stances not only questions representation but also gives a hint to the process of knowledge production.
However, there is a hesitation borne out of the intricate relation between current ethno-political situations on one hand and the “ought to be” of history, on the other.
While rejecting the imposed and “fabricated” grand history and trying to write “unique” histories, there has been a failure to ask whether or not one adheres to the established norms of constructing a collective history of the people.
While making an attempt to infuse meanings to history, there has been a strong tendency to recover the “self” often trapped in the whirlpool of confusion that has been projected as stance.
Here, one just needs to invoke the spirit of empirical falsification while distancing from the task of proving the correctness of past events.
* Comments posted by users in this discussion thread and other parts of this site are opinions of the individuals posting them (whose user ID is displayed alongside) and not the views of e-pao.net. We strongly recommend that users exercise responsibility, sensitivity and caution over language while writing your opinions which will be seen and read by other users. Please read a complete Guideline on using comments on this website.