Deep social and psychological divide Two different folks ?

Deep social and psychological divide. Present problem is the product of two different people living together. History the root cause of every issue and problem. There shall be confrontation on every issue, whether big or small. This is the United Naga Council and though it fell short of actually naming who the two different people are, it does not need a genius to work out that it was referring to the Meiteis and the Nagas. Qualify that with the term-Nagas of Manipur. Going by the argument put forth by the UNC, if the Meiteis and the Nagas of Manipur are two different people living together, then does the UNC mean to say that the Nagas of Manipur and the Nagas of Nagaland are one people ? Or better still are the Tangkhuls closer to the Aos and Angamis of Nagaland than the Meiteis of Manipur ? What history do the Tangkhuls of Manipur share with the Aos, Angamis, Semas and Lothas of Nagaland ? An answer to this from the UNC would be highly welcome and The Sangai Express would be more than happy to re-produce whatever can be given in writing. Not a challenge this is, but an approach to make things clearer for the people to digest and perhaps make future dialogues more meaningful and knowledgeable. Or is the UNC of the opinion that the Mera Hou Chongba held every year some time in October is a latter day creation ? A fictionalised account of the history of the land ? How about the historical accounts of Meitei Kings marrying damsels from the hills ? Are these all cooked up, fabricated stories or do they tell something of the history of the land and hence the two people ? How is it that during the time of coronation of Meitei Kings, they are always attired in the Tangkhul traditional dress ?
Aren’t these part of the history of the land and the people, which the UNC refrained from naming ? On the other hand one may well raise the question what history do the Tangkhuls or the Kabuis share with the Aos and Angamis of Nagaland ? Again an answer on this from the UNC would be highly appreciated. The very fact that the UNC took the trouble of stressing the deep social and psychological divide between the people says something very significant of the centrifugal forces at work to dilute the understanding of Manipur. On the other hand, it also stands that the statement from the UNC should prick the intellect of the Meiteis and let them go back to the not so distant past to study why the voice of ‘separation’ has been raised with such a conviction at the moment. A sincere look inwards, not clouded by slogans such as Ching-Tam Amattani, and get down to the business of acknowledging that somewhere down the line the social relationship between the Meiteis and the Tangkhuls, between Meiteis and Maos, Marams, Poumais etc took a nose dive with practically no social contacts between them. Why has the term Hao come to denote something derogatory ? These are some points which the Meiteis should sincerely try to address instead of taking cover under some coined slogans. Perhaps it would be in the best interest of all to acknowledge the past and admit that what one sees today is a result of what happened in the not so distant past and hence start mending that with a purpose.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.