Tribals – Who are they ?
- Part 2 -

* L Memo Singh

Shri RR Shimray has also quoted TC Hadson in support of his theory, "Since their conversion to Hinduism, the Meiteis have claimed for themselves a Hindu descent. This claim, in his report of the Eastern Frontier, Captain Pamberton rejects, and says, 'We may safely conclude them to be descendants from Tartar Colony from China' For this conclusion I can see no reason and think there is far more ground to conclude them to be descendants of the surrounding hill tribes. The languages spoken by these tribes are in their pristine state. I conceive then that in their spoken language an indication of the descent of the Munnipoorees might be found. Tradition brings the Moirang tribe from the south, the direction of the Kookies; the Koomul, from the east, the direction of the Murrings; and the Meitie and Looang from the North-west, the direction of the Koupooes.

The languages of the Murrings, Kookies, and Koupooees are all very similar and as the Koomul, etc the offshoots of these tribes were as before said, at different period the dominant tribes in the valley, it might be expected that the present language of the people, united under the name of Meitie, would have a very apparent likeness to these languages, and such is the case.

All these tribes have also traditions amongst themselves that the Munnipoorees are offshoots from them. These traditions then, and the composite nature of the language, appear to me to afford more reason for supposing the Munnipoorees to be descended from the surrounding hill tribes than from a Tartar Colony from China. Besides the stories of their ancestors, which at times the Munnipoorees relate amongst themselves, show, that up to a very period, they retained all the customs of hill people of the present day. Their superstition, too has preserved relics, which alone would have led to the suspicion of an originally close connection between them and Nagas".

During the reign of Pamheiba, the king of Manipur in the first part of the 18th century, after his acceptance of the worshipping of Rama, the 7th Avatar (Descent) or incarnation of Visnu as his religious faith which was quite distinct from the other faiths of Hinduism, the Brahmans serving the rulers gave them Kshatriya status, which was later accepted by most Kshatriyas elsewhere also. They began following Jati norms and observing rules of ritual purity. However the king had strengthened the homogeniety character of his subjects inhabiting in both the hills and the valley and built a strong Manipur nation in Asia. As a ruler he curiously adopted the Persian sounding name Garib Nawaz.

Bhagyachandra Maharaja (Chingthang Khomba—18th century middle part), the grandson of king Pamhieba was a Vaisnavite, the devotee of Visnu. He was the founder of the Manipuri Goura Vaisnavism, a religious sect and he had propagated Krsna Bhakti follwong the teaching of Lord Caityana. However he paid equal respect to the age-old belief and traditions of the Manipuris. He protected the self-contained institutional freedom enjoyed by every community. He had initiated intergration over the entire region across the Bramaputra valley, the Surma (Barak) valley and the Imphal valley through cultural bonds and marital ties.

Tripura Rajas had embraced Hinduism and large sections of Tripuris or Tripperas followed them. But such conversion had not created any discrimination among the Hindu Tripuris and the non-Hindu Tripuris who followed the old faiths. Tripura clearly shows the co-existence of Hinduism and old faiths. Tripura illustrates how age-old traditions are enmeshed with the Hindu heritage and the two function together in harmony.

As for Manipur the first quarter of the twentieth century was the period of disorder. After the Anglo-Manipuri war of 1891 was over, while the people were being humiliated and suffering from the unbearable pain due to the defeat and loss of their leaders in the war, the attitude and divisive acts of the British imperialist had given great shocks to them. The British had treated the war as a clash of barbarism and civilization.

The imperialists had stuck to the principle of the Benthamite Liberal School which was giving the message that 'emancipate your colonies', as well as the Benthamite jurisprudence which was giving the doctrine that 'punishment is an evil and can only be justified if it prevents worse evils' in dealing with the case of Manipur. In the House of Commons, Sir John Gorst declared on May 25th that no one would be killed in retaliation, but that those who were convicted of murder would be adequately punished.

The murder of Jubraj Tikendrajit (Senapati-Commander in-Chief, British version) by hanging unto death, the deportation of Maharaj Kullachandra (Jubraj-Heir, British version) and another prince, Jilangamba for life to Andamand Islands in accordance with the final judgment in the trial given to them and further the denial to reinstate Maharaj Surchandra to the throne of the country were the firm policies of the imperial Government to close down the lineage of Maharaj Gambhir Singh thereby curtailing the rights of the members belonging to this lineage to claim for the throne for ever. Manipur was, in fact, in the transition period.

No member of the royal blood came out to claim for the throne. While Narasingh's eldest son Borajaoba, Senapati revolted against Maharaj Surchandra, which was Popularly known as "Revolt of Yaiskul Lakpa". Chaobiyaima, father of the future king of Manipur took site of his uncle and went to Cachar with the pain of peng of separation from his wives, children and the motherland. The Senapati was defeated and deported to Hajaribak. Chaobiyaima had not returned to Manipur considering the conflict between Manipur and the British. He took his last breath in Cachar. The nobles had also remained utterly nonplussed.

On September 13th the Imperial Government's decision regarding the future of Manipur was announced. A collateral relation of the ex-maharaja Chura Chand aged five years, was selected to fill the throne with the inferior title of Raja, during his minority the State to be administered by a British officer, tribute and other incidents of feudatory relationship being established, the title to be hereditary descending in direct line, provided that each successor should recognize the British Government.

The British had abolished the customary system of succession to the throne among the brothers which continued from pre-histories times (ages before the birth of Christ). The division of the Pakhangba dynasty into two clans as the Karta clan and the Narasingh clan had become distinct. Although Manipur was not so important to the British after the whole of Burma was put into their complete grip, they thought of the necessity of Manipur to be included only into the integration process to build up the aggregated Indian empire by consolidating England's imperial possessions and by pushing her imperial frontiers as far back as they would go. In such circumstances the war broke out with the feeling of anti-British imperialism on the part of the Manipuris and the war came to the end in favour of the British.

However, Manipur was on the whole viewed by the British with much ignorance, considerable bias and hostility. They had taken steps for reform measures with the idea which was contributory to the imperial outlook, ie belief in the superiority of the white race. This feeling of superiority of the British had developed from the beginning of the nineteenth century onwards over other parts of the world. This consciousness was a blend of a variety of ideas. Christianity was the purest of faiths and those beyond the holy pale were either infidels doomed beyond redemption or the merely ignorant who lived in darkness. In fact, racial feeling was a potent element in the composition of the Imperial mind till the close of the era of empires. Evangelical movement of England was thus accompanied with the Utilitarian thought of imperialism wherever the British Imperialists had reached. The Utilitarian and the Evangelical became allies in the cause of saving the soul of the Indian. That was the same to Manipur.

It is easy to see why Christianity was always quoted in support of imperialism. Christians believed that their faith was the vanguard of human progress. Imperialists were convinced that imperialism was the instrument through which the message of progress could be transmitted to the uncivilized world. Christianity thus came to be seen as a hand maiden of imperial rule. It was enough to believe that Christianity meant progress.

Imperialists thought that Manipuris were backward and Christianity was a force for progress and thus Christianity would make them progressive. The official machinery in India had already withdrawn recognition of Indian religions and a Christian Memorial to Queen Victoria in 1885 gratefully acknowledged that the voice of Christian men prevailed. The missionary bodies in Manipur and their supporters took the advantage of this situation and clamoured for a clear-cut and forceful policy of undertaking a vast and serious programme of proselytisation. Besides, the British had refused to understand the people of Manipur.

This attitude and outlook of reluctance of the English had created a bitter feeling of inferiority and resentment to the ruling elites of Manipur. The Anglo-Manipuri war of 1891 was over. But the war of the Anglo-Manipuri racial feeling, racial prejudice and racial superiority continued. The ruling elites of the country claimed that they too had a civilization of their own, which was better than or at least equal to that brought by the feringee and everything could be better than what the foreign ruler recommended for any sort of the benefits of the Manipuris. This is the historical background of the Anglo-Manipuri counter and encounter. During the encounter the ruling elites of Manipur had created racial and social barriers to show their racial purity and national pride on the basis of the caste system of Chaturvarnas ie Brahmans, Kshetriyas, Vysyas, Sudras etc which were introduced by the Vedic Aryans according to Upanishat.

Their attitude towards the British was full of ambivalence against the British. They hated the foreign ruler because he was a foreigner, because he was the ruler, because he was white and alien. The combination of so many grounds of hatred was too strong to allow any softening of feeling.

Their contempt for the English grew so strong that they had not thought of the far reaching consequences of their practice which was devised to keep themselves aloof from the supporters of the English and to isolate those who were patronized by the English. The final outcome of such practice of the Vedic Aryan principle of castism was the confusion and intricacy in the mind among the people belonging to the same stock, i.e., the Mongoloid stock.

At the same time, as the century advanced in years, there had developed a clear cut distance of the British administrators from the missionaries. The official lack of interest in religion became a factor in running the administration of the empire. The administrators did not really care about the war of faiths and devoted their energies to administering to the needs of the only Mistress they knew- the Empire. How much more exciting and rewarding was the conquest of a province or the transformation of a district than the preaching of the Gospel ! The administrators valued stability and law and order above everything else. The slightest threat to peace was a nightmare to their official conscience. Thus the administrators decided in favour of toleration and adopted neutrality more as an expediency than out of respect for religions.

However it could not prevent or curb missionary activities. The official neutrality encouraged the missionaries to greater activity by depriving them of official support. While the administrators were insisting on the policies and programmes for development the missionaries were doing much good by their educational and philanthropic undertakings. They spread education through schools where government enterprise was absent or weak.

During the British rule the map of India was divided into red and yellow colours. The red colour showed territories of the British Indian Provinces which were directly governed by the British Government. The yellow colour indicated territories of the Indian States, which were ruled by the Indian Princes. The two parts were usually called the 'British India' and the 'Indian India', or simply the Provinces and the States respectively.

The relations of the British Government with the Indian Princes, at the initial stage were the policy of neutrality and nonintervention in the affairs of the Indian States. On seeing the utility of the States during the days of Mutiny, the British Government, by the Proclamation of 1858, assured the Princes that their territories would not be annexed any further and that the British Government would respect the "treaties and sanads" entered into with them in the past. In fact, the actual relation of the States with the British Crown had remained a matter full of indefiniteness and was often summed up in the word, "Paramountcy". In a Government of India Pronouncement of the year 1877, it was declared, "Paramountcy is a thing of gradual growth, established partly by conquest, partly by treaty and partly by usage".

However Lord Curzon (1899-1905) had reintroduced rigid internal and external control over the States. This rigid policy and the infinite vagueness about the term Paramountcy had always been a cause of great irritation and resentment for the sensitive and progressive Princes. They were often puzzled at the arbitrary manner in which the British Government interfered in the affairs of the India States. In actual practice, the British Government claimed all kinds of powers over them. Some of the princes, therefore, began demanding that the rights of Paramountcy should be stated clearly.

In 1916, Lord Harding started the policy of consulting the Princes and in 1921 the Chamber of Princes was introduced as a Paramount advisory body on behalf of the Princes. Consequently they welcomed the setting up of the Butler Committee in 1927, which was asked to investigate the affairs of the Indian States and to report as to the extent of power possessed by the British Crown over the Indian States. But the report was a mere repetition of the position taken up in the Government of India Pronouncement of 1877. According to the report of the Butler Committee the number of the Indian States was put at 562.

Manipur was included in the list of these Indian States. Just like other places in India, the divide and rule policies of the British had affected Manipur, too. In India, the term "Tribe" was used by the British for those groups of human beings, who were not included in Varna Vyavastha of the Aryans in Indian society. British are credited with initiating the task of tribal development. But they never concealed their motive in following the 'tasks of mercy!' The aim was either to keep the tribals isolated from the 'national' mainstream, or by the same process, to convert them to the religion of Christ so that they could identify themselves more with the Crown and its interest in the country. Several laws were enacted and regulations were passed to exclude tribal areas from the general administration.

The same thing had happened in Manipur. The division of the tribal and the non tribal had created a distance among the people of the country.

To be continued ...