Features- Ethnicity And Ethnic Fragmentation: The Question Of Bishnupriya

| Wednesday, October 12, 2005 |

THIS WEEK

	Front Page
	Manipur
	Features
	Opinions
	Profiles
	Editorials
	Interviews
	Potpourri
	Photos
	Books
	Links
	Forum

MANIPURONLINE

-	About Us
-	Advertise
-	Feedback
-	Contact Us
-	Classifieds
-	Letters to the Editor

TOOLS

Currency Converter

Stock Calculator

National Stock Exchange

Bombay Stock Exchange

xxx

Step 2: In the <body>, place the

Ethnicity And Ethnic Fragmentation: The Question Of Bishnupriya
By MC Arun
The primordialist explanation cannot explain the development of new identities out of the melting pot. Manipuri society is the collectivity where the primordial attachments of the ethnic groups had been melted down. In order to understand the ethnicity and ethnic fragmentation, we have to look for a new paradigm that will enable us to answer the question of ethnic formation, ethnic interests, ethnic fragmentation that took place during the colonial and post-colonial periods of the Third world. Circumstantialist explanation Fredrik Barth, a student of Edmund Leach, took ethnicity as a type of social process in which the notions of cultural differences are communicated. Barth was influenced by Edmund Leach’s Political System of Highland Burma (1954). According to Barth and other members of this school, the changing identities of ethnic actors are because of rational choice. The ecological, economic, political circumstances make it the instrument. So, ethnic group is rather self-ascription, subjective group. A larger section of Bishnupriyas fled away from Manipur along with a good numbers of the Meiteis (including the Pangal) to Assam, Tripura and Bengal (specially the places, now in Bangladesh), at the wake of Burman occupation and atrocities in 1819. The Burmans installed puppet kings in Manipur and occupied the state for seven years. Out of fear of the tortures inflicted, many Manipuris fled westwards. The Burmans killed thousands of Manipuris and had decimated the population of the state to one-third. Those who fled away settled in various places in these foreign countries and had been living there for about one century. However, they had a strong sense of oneness with the Manipuri identity and had preserved the age-old traditions. The Meiteis in foreign countries did not change their identity though their role model was the’ Bengali Bhadralok. ‘Their language, religion, attitude were highly influenced by the dominant Bengali elements. But, their ethnic identity was unchanged because of an ineffable significance of the primordial attachment, not because of rational choice in a social interaction, as circumstantialists claim. Again the rational ethnic actors could not overcome the myth of blood-tie of the Meiteis. The Manipuris of Surma valley formed together their first formal association, Surma Valley Manipuri Society (later changed its name to Surma Valley Manipuri Association) in 1934. The members included the Meiteis, the Bishnupriyas and the Pangals. But, just after the formation of the Association, the Meitei-Bishnupriya clash started in Cachar, Assam in the second quarter of 20th century. The state of Manipur and the Nikhil Hindu Manipuri Mahasabha (a formal Association in Manipur) tried to resolve the conflict in 1934. One could observe the feeling of the Manipuris in Manipur with the Resolution Number 4 of 30 May 1934 that read as: That the Nikhil Hindu Manipuri Mahasabha feels its deep sense of sorrow at the recent bifurcation of the Meiteis and the Bishnupriyas of the Surma Valley; and it is hoped that such racial division does not exist in Manipur which is the original country of all the Meiteis. The Manipuris of the Surma Valley be requested to abandon this racial feeling, and the representations already submitted to their Government be corrected with deletions on the viewpoints of their racial bifurcation and animosity (the translation is of Karam Manimohan Singh, as reproduced in his Hijam Irabot Singh and Political Movements in Manipur, Delhi, 1989:50). Several attempts had been made from different quarters. But the attempts could not bring a permanent reconciliation. The gash became deeper and deeper. The Bishnupriyas asserted their linguistic identity but they like to be identified in association with the state from where they came to their present locations. They are subjectively Manipuri Bishnupriyas, a distinct group among the Manipuris. The Meiteis of the Cachar District of Assam did not like Bishnupriya to be identified as Manipuri because (a) they speak a different language; (b) they are racially different. But, by doing so, the Meiteis deny (a) the Bishnupriya had been part and parcel of the state system and larger Manipuri (even the Meitei) identity; (b) they still have the Meitei clan organization; (c) they speak Manipuri language as second language, even in these foreign countries. The Meiteis of the Assam also have a fear that they would not get employment facilities and other opportunities given to the OBC by the Government of Assam. This fear is translated into the ethnic fragmentation. On the other hand, they feel sorry when non-Meitei language is recognized as Manipuri by AIR, state agencies including the educational curriculum. This state of mind is shaped by the Indian attitude to the ethnic identity as being associated with language. This division on the basis of language and recognition of linguistic communities as ethnic groups had been shaped and injected by the British and still they play a vital role in division of the peoples into several ethnic groups as colonial hangover. The cleavage was due to the colonial policy prevailing in India that gave the division of the peoples along the linguistic line and is compounded by the economic interest of newly emerged middle class of the society. The politics of opportunists of both the Manipuri sections was evolved out of the unique historical experiences of the Manipuri in the colonial India. The Bishnupriyas, though they speak a language akin to the Bengali, do not identify themselves as one of the Bengali ethnic groups. Is it because of their shared cultures with the Meiteis? One may note that the morphology of Bishnupriya language is similar to Bengali; while the structure of their language is deeply influenced by the Meitei grammar. In spite of common historical experiences and shared cultures, there is clash between the Meitei and the Bishnupriyas in Assam and Tripura today. Is it because of the Meitei chauvinism that denies the Manipuri identity to one of the lower caste in the traditional society? Or is it because of the ethnic relations between the Manipuri and the Bengali and within the Manipuri constituents? To answer these questions, one has to examine the historical processes of the colonial and post-colonial periods. The circumstantialist explanation fails to explain the process of ethnic segmentation. As the explanation is a historical by nature, it cannot explain the historical processes that took place in shaping and reshaping the ethnic identities. The ethnic realignment is not a question of interpersonal politics. It is not on the shoulder of individual rational actors, as presumed by the circumstantialists. The circumstantialists cannot explain the historical processes that go beyond the individual actors. We need to examine the power-relation prevailing in a particular historical bloc in order to understand the nature of ethnicity and ethnic processes. National question and ethnic problems Ethnic base of power is becoming stronger in almost all the plural societies of the Third World. In Northeast India, too, the power game has had a paradigm shift. The power inside the state is in the hands of middle class, because the class formation in such peripheral capitalist society as the Manipuri society is not completed. It has the middle class as the ‘upper’ class. As an inherent quality of the structure of such a society, there is high competition among the individuals of the middle class. The Bishnupriya-Meitei fragmentation is not seen in Manipur. In Assam, as both of them are ethnic minorities, competition among the social leaders of these minority communities is obvious. The competition is to gain more power in the power structure of their States. The leaders try to mobilize their bases on the basis of ‘differences’ that had been solidified in the process of melting pot and hence resulting in ethnic segmentation. The dynamics of segmentation attains its momentum over years and spreads the ‘heat’ to other places. Though the political agitations over the Meitei-Bishnupriya issues reach Manipur, so far, we do not see the ethnic cleavage in Manipur. The heat reached Tripura and some areas of Bangladesh. The Bishnupriya leaders go beyond certain limit, of course, out of frustration in the competition, saying that they are the real Manipuri and that the Meiteis had driven them out. But, such propaganda provokes the ‘people’ and the power-base in their community is solidified. Likewise, neglecting the shared historical experiences, the Meitei leaders in Assam and Tripura also play the sentiment of the people by saying that the Bishnupriyas who were Mayangs once claim to be the ‘original’ Manipuri. Some leaders even go beyond limits and say that the Bishnupriyas are not Manipuri because their mother tongue is not Meiteilon. They forget that the test of the Manipuri nationhood is not the mother tongue. Thus, out of the middle class interests in power struggle, employment in Government sectors, the Manipuri identity is reduced to a linguistic identity. The colonial division of Indian people into different linguistic group is extended to the Northeast India. The linguistic division in Assam has to be considered in the analysis of Manipuri fragmentation in Assam and Tripura. The social fragmentation of the Assamese identity into various ethnic groups, the Ahom etc. has a parallelism. The linguistic consciousness of the Assamese middle class alienated lesser linguistic groups. The alienation is aggravated by the rise of ethnic middle class. So, Assam, since the last days of colonial rule, faces various ethnic assertions against the Assamese. The heat of alienation is inverted in case of the Manipuris in Assam. The majority Meitei was, in early twentieth century, educationally and politically inferior in ‘foreign' countries; the minority Bishnupriya was superior in these aspects at that time. Though demographically and economically superior Meitei was superior in the Manipuri society, they were inferior in the State politics of Assam. Hence the social leaders of the Meitei in Surma valley did not like to share a common identity with the Bishnupriyas. With the passage of time, after the emergence of Meitei middle class and Bishnupriya middle class, the power axes of ethnic consciousness become more and more prominent. Keeping the scene of ethnic fragmentation in the total national integrity of the Manipuris, we find that the ethnic interests, arisen out of the middle class competition to get power, threaten the Manipuri nation. To get some political goals, some sectarian historians equate the Manipuri identity as that of the Meiteis. Their claims are fuelled by the Meitei orthodox scholars who deny the post-Pamheiba historical realities and by the linguistic chauvinist scholars as well. Again these sectarian movements and scholarship are originated from the middle class competition to get more power in limited power structure of the peripheral capitalist society. To get power in structure of the peripheral capitalist society, the middle class individuals can no longer use their kinship base. The individuals of well-to-do families in the pre-capitalist feudal (even in the colonial-feudal administration to a larger extent) used the kinship base as an effective instrument. In feudal Manipur, the kinship base was the primary source of power. The base has certain residue in the body politic but the feudal primary source of power is being replaced by ethnic groupings, locality and class. As the peripheral capitalist society is maturing, the base no longer is useful. Hence, the ethnic base is used in the state power game. Thus, ethnicity in Manipur and Northeast India is question of power sharing among the middle class individuals. The competition is within the rules of game in the existing political system. The ethnic fragmentation is thus within the framework of prevailing social and political system. It can be explained from two angles: (a) the nation building of India cannot touch this part of the country and its nationalism cannot operate in the body politic of this region; (b) the national integrity of the Manipuri nationhood disintegrate with the want of central authority and becomes segmented under the middle class pressure using ethnic sentiments. In short, India, like many other Third World countries, fails to develop a nation and a unified people. India is a state having different peoples and it cannot handle the plurality of its peoples. On the other hand, the power in a limited power structure in Northeast India blindfolds the middle class individuals in Manipuri society. Without questioning the entire power structure of larger system, the ethnic groups fight each other in a limited sphere of peripheral capitalist society.
(Courtesy: The Sangai Express)

Copyright © 2005 ManipurOnline. A Virgo Communications Company ALL RIGHTS RESERVED..	\| Privacy Policy \| Contact Us