The distinctiveness of the Meitei cultural identity can be seen as shaped through two forces—the forces of sanskritization on the one hand and indigenization on the other. In a way, it balances identification with the Indian mainstream culture and its indigene tribal roots. The demarcation between the two elements can be located at the level of discourse, each speaking a different language.
[ 13 ]
The Hindu discourse speaks in a language orienting itself to the ‘great tradition’, of the mainstream Indian Sanskritic culture positing historical origin within this context. But the non-Hindu discourse emphasises the ‘tribal’ rootedness in the pre-Hinduised state. It draws strength in oral history, native categories of thought and popular consciousness.
Meitei oral history starts with Pakhangba, the mythico-legendary hero to whom the Meiteis trace descent and to whom the establishment of a Meitei state is accredited. He appears in three forms — as the son of Salailel, as the first Meitei king and as a serpent. In the Hindu narrative, he is traced to Babhruvahana, the son of Arjuna and Chitrangada.
Further on, Pakhangba is believed to have waged several wars in the process of establishing his suzerainty over the valley.
One of these was with Poireiton whose sister Laisana ultimately became the former’s wife. Positing ‘Poireiton’ as incomer from the west, he has been put forth as a corrupt form of ‘Purohit’.
Examined in terms of historical layering, there is an acceptance of Vaishnavism as a later phase. The issue is the question of the phase preceding it — the culture of the pre-Vaishnavite valley society. As embodying the tradition of this contested phase, the Lai Haraoba assumes centrality in both discourses.
In Hindu narrative accounts a phase of ‘non-Hindu’ never existed so far as the Meiteis are concerned. It upholds the existence of Shaivism-Tantricism as evidenced in the veneration of serpents, the worship of the mother goddess. The worship of umanglai hence comes to be relegated to Shiva and Devi.
In non-Hindu narratives the Lai Haraoba is perceived as the single greatest key to that remote tribal past. For Parratt and Parratt, this tradition diverts in many ways from the ‘North Indian’ culture while showing distinct affinity towards the Indonesian cultures.[ 14 ]
This affinity is drawn in traditional techniques of rice cultivation, weaving, iron work, flower and boat culture, not to mention the racial stock of the Meitei people.
Further, in the search for history within its text and tradition, myths incorporated in the Lai Haraoba are interpreted as embodying certain facts of historical importance. Herein the theme of conflict occupies centre-stage—be it the conflicts in the origin myths or the antagonism interspersed within love lyrics in the rituals.
These are contextualized within the early stages of Manipuri history. It is questionable how far myths can be read as history. The view of myth as trying to tell us something is but one way of looking at it.
For Roland Barthes, myths are nothing but dominant ideologies of our times while for Levi-Strauss, it does not attempt to tell us anything. It follows its own structure which is located at the level of the sub-conscious and is ultimately linked to the innate mental capacity of the people. Hence, he studies them as structures of transformation.
Studying myths in terms of public domain could perhaps prove to be a fruitful sociological exercise.
Related Articles/Pictures:
to be continued ...
* Rekha Konsam wrote this article for
Eastern Quarterly .
This article was webcasted with written permission from Eastern Quaterly on August 07th, 2007.
|
