Sir Athelstane Baines’ classification of caste Meithei (Meitei/Meetei) in Hill tribe group
|
Maheshsana Rajkumar
Contd from previous issue
The British political Agent did not consider the hill areas as an integral part of the Manipur State although this was never declared view of the British Raj.
The separation of the hill areas from the valley was not at all acceptable to Maharaja Churachand Singh, who did not see any compelling reason for separating the surrounding hilly area of 7000 square miles out the State’s total area of 8000 square miles with a population of about 1, 50,000.
The impact of British policy to segregate the hills from the plains was profoundly reflected on social and political developments in Manipur. As a result of the experience of segregation, there were severe disagreements between the Maharaja Churachand Singh and the British Government. When the British House of Commons debated the Government of India Act of 1935, the arguments for separating the hill tracts from the plains areas became even more vociferous.
Interpretation of Section 311 (1) of Government of India Act of 1935:
311.–(1) in this Act and, unless the context otherwise requires, in any other Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:-
“British India” means all territories for the time being comprised within the Governors’ Provinces and the Chief Commissioners’ Provinces;
“India” means British India together with all territories of any Indian Ruler under the suzerainty of His Majesty, all territories under the suzerainty of such an Indian Ruler, the tribal areas, and any other territories which His Majesty in Council may, from time to time, after ascertaining the views of the Federal Government and the Federal Legislature, declare to be part of India;
“Burma” includes (subject to the exercise by His Majesty of any powers vested in him with respect to the alteration of the boundaries thereof) all territories which were immediately before the commencement of Part III of this Act comprised in India, being territories lying to the east of Bengal, the State of Manipur, Assam, and any tribal areas connected with Assam;
“British Burma” means so much of Burma as belongs to His Majesty;
“Tribal areas” means the areas along the frontiers of India or in Baluchistan which are not part of British India or of Burma or of any Indian State or of any foreign State;
“Indian State” includes any territory, whether described as a State, an Estate, a Jagir or otherwise, belonging to or under the suzerainty of a Ruler who is under the suzerainty of His Majesty and not being part of British India;
“Ruler” in relation to a State means the Prince, Chief or other person recognized by His Majesty as the Ruler of the State.
Census of 1941
Census Commissioner Hutton going a step further in the 1941 census the tribal people were shown as a separate community irrespective of the religions they follow with the comment that,
“….Community and religion may seem to many as one and the same and inseparable and intact in many areas. But when there are tribes, community and religion need not always be the same and in the present census they have all been classified on the basis of community and not religion.”
In the absence of caste or religion sorting, the 1931 practice would have meant that there is no record of the number of person of tribal origin, which is so important a matter in Assam and represents one of the reasons for the extensive reserved areas in that province.
Sir Athelstane Baines’ report “Ethnography (Castes and Tribes)”, 1912, holds great importance in the present context to the Meitei/Meetei inhabitants of Manipur valley. The hilly state of Manipur, the hills area constitutes more than 90% and the valley area less than 10% of Manipur’s territory. This development entails no further delay in enlisting Meitei/Meetei people of Manipur with the tag of Scheduled Tribe (ST) with the other hill tribes of Northeast India who were already categorized as Schedule Tribe (ST) under article 342 (1) of the Constitution of India.
The writer is an independent researcher & joint author of “The Political Monument: Footfalls of Manipuri History”
Contd from previous issue
The British political Agent did not consider the hill areas as an integral part of the Manipur State although this was never declared view of the British Raj.
The separation of the hill areas from the valley was not at all acceptable to Maharaja Churachand Singh, who did not see any compelling reason for separating the surrounding hilly area of 7000 square miles out the State’s total area of 8000 square miles with a population of about 1, 50,000.
The impact of British policy to segregate the hills from the plains was profoundly reflected on social and political developments in Manipur. As a result of the experience of segregation, there were severe disagreements between the Maharaja Churachand Singh and the British Government. When the British House of Commons debated the Government of India Act of 1935, the arguments for separating the hill tracts from the plains areas became even more vociferous.
Interpretation of Section 311 (1) of Government of India Act of 1935:
311.–(1) in this Act and, unless the context otherwise requires, in any other Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:-
“British India” means all territories for the time being comprised within the Governors’ Provinces and the Chief Commissioners’ Provinces;
“India” means British India together with all territories of any Indian Ruler under the suzerainty of His Majesty, all territories under the suzerainty of such an Indian Ruler, the tribal areas, and any other territories which His Majesty in Council may, from time to time, after ascertaining the views of the Federal Government and the Federal Legislature, declare to be part of India;
“Burma” includes (subject to the exercise by His Majesty of any powers vested in him with respect to the alteration of the boundaries thereof) all territories which were immediately before the commencement of Part III of this Act comprised in India, being territories lying to the east of Bengal, the State of Manipur, Assam, and any tribal areas connected with Assam;
“British Burma” means so much of Burma as belongs to His Majesty;
“Tribal areas” means the areas along the frontiers of India or in Baluchistan which are not part of British India or of Burma or of any Indian State or of any foreign State;
“Indian State” includes any territory, whether described as a State, an Estate, a Jagir or otherwise, belonging to or under the suzerainty of a Ruler who is under the suzerainty of His Majesty and not being part of British India;
“Ruler” in relation to a State means the Prince, Chief or other person recognized by His Majesty as the Ruler of the State.
Census of 1941
Census Commissioner Hutton going a step further in the 1941 census the tribal people were shown as a separate community irrespective of the religions they follow with the comment that,
“….Community and religion may seem to many as one and the same and inseparable and intact in many areas. But when there are tribes, community and religion need not always be the same and in the present census they have all been classified on the basis of community and not religion.”
In the absence of caste or religion sorting, the 1931 practice would have meant that there is no record of the number of person of tribal origin, which is so important a matter in Assam and represents one of the reasons for the extensive reserved areas in that province.
Sir Athelstane Baines’ report “Ethnography (Castes and Tribes)”, 1912, holds great importance in the present context to the Meitei/Meetei inhabitants of Manipur valley. The hilly state of Manipur, the hills area constitutes more than 90% and the valley area less than 10% of Manipur’s territory. This development entails no further delay in enlisting Meitei/Meetei people of Manipur with the tag of Scheduled Tribe (ST) with the other hill tribes of Northeast India who were already categorized as Schedule Tribe (ST) under article 342 (1) of the Constitution of India.
The writer is an independent researcher & joint author of “The Political Monument: Footfalls of Manipuri History”