Legitimacy of Illegitmate History: Historical
Difference at the Margin of Ethnonationalism [1]
- Part 1 -

G. Amarjit Sharma *

The present article suggests that the increasing invention of culture and small histories at the local level is not necessarily against the larger global historical changes. Instead, the invention of local culture and histories is with respect to the regional historical change. Much of the regional historical change has been anchored by the politics of ethnonationalism. However, there has also emerged more cultural and historical inventions within a region. Attempt to understand this invention of local culture and history at the margin of ethnonationalism is the focus of the present study.

This study take the case of history writing and identity assertion of the Khoibus, living in the Indo-Mayanmar border area, on the side of Manipur. They have been asserting their independence as a tribe for quite long times. Khoibu tribe is mostly inhabited in the state of Manipur. It needs to mention here that whether it is an independent tribe or a sub-group of a tribe is a point of contention. It has been considered as a sub-group, not tribe, of the Maring tribe in Manipur. This is a status of clan in a tribe, which the Khoibus contest. They have asserted as tribe and, hence, to be recognied as a separate scheduled tribe under the Constitution of India. This has led to clash between Maring and Khoibu. Here I do not go into the discussion of whether Khoibu does constitute an independent tribe or not. Rather what appeals me is the nature of assertion of its own identity as a tribe vis-à-vis the larger regional historical changes that have bearing on the boundaries, identity and history of people who usually falls at the margins of ethnonationalism.

What could historical difference mean to a group of people who resist to belong strictly to any of the larger ethnic groupings in North East India (Kuki-Chin, Naga and Meitei). In this context, as the communities have asserted their identity based on their historical and anthropological knowledge, there is a need to clarify forms of history writings: of the trained historians, on the one hand and sociocultural organizations, ethnic group's representative bodies etc., on the other hand. Our focus is on the later category, which may not strictly fall under the category of trained historian.2

In doing so, however, it is pertinent to discuss the issue of legitimate and illigitimate history; for there may be argument that history writing of the Khoibus, led by Khoibu Union, is not a legitimate history. Going by the trend of scientific history writings or the conventional history writing, Khoibus' history would be illigitimate. It is important, however, to discuss how this issue of legitimacy is decided among the agencies of the ethnic organisations.

The problem, hence, in our context is that at many levels the issue of legitimate and illegitimate is decided within the ethnic politics itself. Two important areas are working in the present study: analysing Khoibus' ways of writing own history to make sense of their culture, identity and boundary; and secondly, attempt to make sense of such history and historical difference within the larger debate of historiography. Cultural and Political (In)visibility of the Khoibu

In studying cultural identities of numerically smaller tribes3 in the region, one seeks to describe them as the Naga or Kuki-Chin or tribes culturally closer to the Meiteis in the valley. The reference point of their identities is always the larger grouping of many tribes. During an interaction with a scholar of tribal studies, it was claimed that the Khoibu - Maring can be understood culturally as "Old Kuki" or in the words of H. Kamkhenthang, former joint director of Tribal Research Institute, Manipur the Marings are "culturally Kuki and politically Naga" (as expressed through my interview).

This understanding of cultural and political identity as either Kuki or Naga is not merely a colonial derivative but also a post-colonial reappropriation of these categories to negotiate tribes' political status vis-à-vis the other community like Meitei or among tribes themselves. However, the problematic part of this understanding of cultural and political identity is the limitation in understanding emergence of smaller histories and identities of the smaller tribes (in Manipur). Small is both in the sense of number and visibility as group in the politics of identities.

Are there already stable Naga or Kuki identities that prevent any possibilty of defining historical difference that challenge such identites? We feel that there has been neither a fixed generic identities (like the above two) nor the impossibility of defining historical difference outside such identities. Although there has been fixation of identity, this involves continous negotiation across the groups. In such a situation, margin of the ethnonationalist culture and history is an interesting location not merely to look at the politics of ethnonations, but also the possibility of looking at the historical difference that does not belong strictly to the ethnonationalist groupings. Manipuri's experience of ethnic nationalism appears to suggest that these affinities have already been shared within the ethnic group.

Often the sharpening of ethnic divides in Manipur is seen as the political expression of deep-seated cultural differences. Yet the boundaries between the groups appeared to have been marked long before political mobilization of people on group identity takes place. Perhaps, the statement about the Khoibus as the "culturally Kuki and politically Naga" can be understood through this nature of political mobilization

While exploring the contesting identity discourses in Manipur, the cultural boundaries between the Kuki and Naga or between the Naga and Meiteis appear to be existed long before the conflicts among these communities started. It is because of this assumption of cultural affinities, already been shared among the constituent units, that tribes like Anal, Moyons, Monsang, Marings etc. are being claimed as 'Old Kukis' or Naga Tribes.

However, tribal cultural and political orientations change with their mobility and geographical location in which they inhabit. The Khoibus despite their historical fact of genealogical linkages to Haka, Falam, and Tedim Chins in the Indo-Mayanmar region, they appear to forget these links. One would interpret this forgetting as a result of the influence of Naga nationalism because the area where they are inhabiting not only shared a geographically contiguous territory with the Tangkhul in the north (Ukhrul District of Manipur), but also the areas south of the Ukhrul district have been under the influence of the Tangkhuls to propagate the ideology of Naga nationalism.4

But what fails to notice here is that culturally the Khoibus also share with the Meiteis in the valley. The Khoibu till now preserve their cultural relationships with the Meitei King. Legend tells that they are called Khoibu because they were the supplier of honey to the king. They also claimed that the original Meitei script is with the Khoibus.

It is true that the general tendency among many of the small tribes has been their assimilation or absorption to the bigger neighbour. However, one needs to go beyond this. How do the smaller tribes while being assimilated to the bigger neighbours negotiate their cultural autonomy? Many interpretations concerning the process of assimilation suggest loss of cultural autonomy.

Culturally invisibility of certain group of people becomes apparent when the possibility of their cultural autonomy being negotiated while remaining under the fold of the bigger tribe is not explored. Cultural invisibility does not mean that one does not have culture, but the condition that disallowed this culture to flourish makes that culture invisible.5 Despite the political and cultural invisibility of the smaller tribes in general and Khoibus in particular, generation of ethnographic works have ignored this blindspot of invisibility. R.K. Das's work6 on the Maring tribe ignored the impending crisis within the Maring society.

The then office of the Dewan of Manipur State in its letter dated 6th June 1949 had recognized the Khoibu as an independent tribe. However, the Government of India in its Amendment to the Constitution (Schedule Castes and Schedule tribes List Modification Order) 1956 dropped Khoibu from the list of schedule tribes. While R.K Das's work mostly confined to kinship system, religion, etc he ignored the assertion and problem of recognition of the Khoibus as different tribe. Similar is the work on Maring tribe by P. Binodini Devi.7

While these works mostly look for an orderly social structure, they ignore the problematic parts within the social structure. If there is any attention to crisis within the structure, it is treated as the sign of modernisation that these crisises are merely the problems created as a result of transition of a tribal society—economic integration with the larger society and increasing state's control through local village level administration are particularly mentioned as main factors.

Khoibu and Marings conflict cannot be simply sidelined as the problems within the Maring tribe. Khoibu was earlier recognized as the independent tribe by the then Dewan of Manipur in 1949. It is a problematic part of the larger historical and political changes that is responsible for the non-recognition of the political and cultural rights of the Khoibus….

( This article is an abridged form of a bigger article under the same title which is published as one of the chapters in the forthcoming book entitled Fixity and Fluidity: History, Politics and Culture of North East India, edited by Lipokmar Dzuvichu, G. Amarjit Sharma and Manjeet Baruah, (Inhouse publication of the Centre for the Study of North East India, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi).

To be continued.....