|
In our State the socio-politico-cultural discourse boils down to the question of what is the identity of the state. In fact the intense struggle to determine the identity of the State by various ethnic groups - each seen from a pathetically, and perhaps also pathologically ethno-centric prism - has come to such a pass as to threaten the very existence of the State - in its present form. So much so that present political discourse revolves around the question of territorial integrity of the State - even to the extent that this issue has overshadowed the basic bread and butter concerns.
This only shows the seriousness with which each group has taken the issue. Needless to say the present trend of unifying within the group by defiling others, if remain unchecked, could prove to be disastrous for the state and for the people living in the state. The ethnic-based identity construction which is in vogue should be made to give rise to a (re)construction of an identity based on the historically evolved plural structure, as Manipur has always been but distorted by vested interests, of the State. An effort to save the state from its distorted construction and to bring back to its essence which reflects the underlying common grounds for each group is necessary. Such a complementary structure, where each group is grounded in the values held dear by each yet perfectly fits into the concerns of other groups, is perhaps need of the hour. Or are we already late?
One’s identity is so important that Francis Fukuyama (The End of History and the Last Man, 1992), invoking Hegel’s thymotic drive (meaning "struggle for recognition"), argues that the "struggle for recognition" and the efforts to dominate are the driving forces of history which had driven the First Man to act - an opposite of Marx’s First Economic Man.
The struggle to construct the identity of the state in a more pronounced form had started in the 18th century when Hinduism with the conversion of King Pamheiba (1709-1745) was declared state religion, and with it a process of conversion drive among the traditional followers of Meitei religion had also started. The chronicle of Mangangs, later known as Ningthoujas (W. Ibohal Singh, 1986), the Cheitharol Kumbaba records that clan genealogy of Meiteis had started in 1731 under the supervision of Haobam Pukhranba (G. Kabui, 1991). Almost at the same time "another genealogy of the ruling dynasty known as vanshavali was prepared with its mythical connection with the sages of India, especially with Arjuna of the Mahabharat (Ibid). This struggle to construct different "identities" was the reflection of the religious tension between traditional Meitei religion and State religion Vaishnavism which was patronized and encouraged by the then king. According to Sanamahi Leikan the Hindu gotra-system was superimposed on the traditional Meitei social structure based on the seven-salai division by Shanti Das with Pakhangba being given a Hindu name Javistha. This was an attempt to hang Manipur in a Hindu frame. Not surprisingly there was an equally determined attempt to counter this move from the followers of the traditional Meitei religion.
This conflicting characterization of the state received a jolt when Hijam Irabot Singh - a progressive son of Manipur - came into the scene of pre-democracy Manipur politics. Meitei-Hindu identity duel slowly gave rise to the emergence of politically conscious Hindu elite who formed Nikhil Hindu Manipuri Mahasabha, modeled after the Hindu Mahasabha founded in 1915 by Madan Mohan Malviya and others, and worked for the unity among the Hindus.
V.D. Sarvarkar of Hindutva fame (written in 1923) and which serves as the ideological foundation of present politics of Sangh Parivar was a towering leader of Hindu Mahasabha. The Nikhil Manipuri Hindu Mahasabha was founded in 1934 and held its first session at the palace compound itself. With the support from the king the Mahasabha worked for awakening Hindu, as opposed to Manipuri, consciousness not only in the state but also beyond. Hijam Irabot Singh, despite his full-time devotion to the Mahasabha in its early phases, took an important decision in its Chinga session in 1938, dropping the word "Hindu" from the Mahasabha. The immediate cause for this decision was the serious notion of mangba and sengba that was sweeping across the state leading to the outcast of Irabot Singh himself by Brahma Sabha on the charges that he had dined with some "Mlechchas" (N. Lokendra, 1998).
Being a man of intellect and conscience, he had sought to transform the social appeal of the Mahasabha from being confined to Hindus to other categories as well by dropping the word "Hindu".
The timing of Irabot’s decision to that effect was significant in the light of the fact that in the same year (i.e. 1934) the Hindu Mahasabha president VD Sarvarkar in its Nagpur session thundered, "We Hindus are a nation by ourselves.... Hindu nationalists should not at all be apologetic to being called Hindu communalists" (Sumit Sarkar, 2001). Sustaining and feeding one another Muslim and Hindu communal politics led to the partition of the country in 1947.
But in Manipur the slide into a potentially dangerous situation was saved by an enlightened son of Manipur. That’s how he was truly a Jana neta (leader of the masses). The fact that the word ‘Hindu’ was dropped and transformed Nikhil Manipuri Hindu Mahasabha to Nikhil Manipuri Mahasabha reflected the genius and far-sightedness of Hijam Irabot Singh. More so when he transformed it even in the face of disapproval from Government and Maharaja. Under pressure from the Government, many members of the Mahasabha resigned but Irabot Singh reacted not by abandoning the call of the collective identity of the State but by resigning from the Government post he held. That, in short, Irabot halted a trend of going communal in constructing the identity of Manipur. And in the process he may be in my opinion identified as the first known figure who consciously worked for a plural Manipuri identity reflective of the very colors of the various groups that constitute this land.
However, the effort to construct the identity of the State in terms of ethno-religious basis was not confined to Meitei-Hindu community alone. Exposure to the wider world (as members of the Labor Corps that served in France) during the first world war and encouraged by other factors, a section from the Nagas formed Naga Club in 1918 at Kohima. That was the seed of Naga consolidation. But in Manipur the Naga consolidation began to come to fore around 1965 with the "celebration of Aug. 14, 1965 as Naga Independence day" (BG Verghese, 1996). The process of consolidation picked up after the Shillong Accord in 1975 and by 1988 the process began to gather considerable momentum (Ibid) in Manipur.
Since this process is an ethnic-based movement it inevitably doesn’t address the concerns of the wider society. Likewise, as S.K. Chaube (1999) contends that "in the sixties three distinct groups emerged in the non-Naga Hill politics of Manipur - the Kuki, the Chin and the Hmar. The Hmar want the consolidation of the Hmar areas of Manipur and the Mizo and north Cachar hills." This ethno-based construction of identity, and by extension "everything" - is at the heart of the present problem Manipur is struggling with. And the state has entered a very delicate and critical stage.
Asserting that a particular phase of our history belongs to a particular group does more harm than good. The British writers characterized Indian history in terms of "Hindu past", "Muslim medieval" and "Modern British" (not "Christians", interestingly) led to a categorized almost water-tight division of history which in turn resulted in the glorification of one’s phase of history at the expense of "other’s phase". This form of self-image and identity search led to the partition of the country. Even after the partition the ideology that had pushed the country to divide itself on communal lines is still active, if not thriving with much vigor and strength in recent years.
We should not fall ourselves into the trap of those who are bent upon copying the disasters that had already afflicted other parts of the country and the world. Every group in the State needs to resist the temptation to serve only itself at the expense of others. After all beneath the facades of Naga, Meitei, Muslim, Kuki, Paite etc. that we wear by accident or choice we are the same, have the same emotion, aspiration and the same longingness for peace. But it has been projected that the conflict we have been driven into today is to attain these concerns. But it’s important for all of us to plant and water the socio-cultural and material context for peace to develop and grow.
Intrinsically related to ‘solving’ the conflict is to construct a plural history as opposed to composite identity which implies fusion and synthesis of groups and cultures but nevertheless failed in India. The thesis of composite identity was developed in response to communal politics during the freedom struggle in India, but failed, despite noble intentions, to halt the partition. Since the fusion thesis (T.K. Oommen, 2000) implies that we can’t be united without losing one’s identity, it was doomed to fail. In a plural structure every group can maintain their distinctive identity yet they are part and parcel of the socio-political and cultural set-up.
To construct such a history it is all the more important to infuse the core identity of the state not with an identity of a particular group, but with pluralistic values based on the compassionate, tolerant and courageous strands of our past which could be reflective of the superstructure that is sought to be built on those values.
May be Chinga Paradigm of Hijam Irabot Singh could serve as a model to that effect. May be that paradigm could serve as an alternative to the ethnic-based consolidation that has the potential of wrecking havoc in the state.
|
