The ontological crisis : Re-imagining the Ideas of Meitei, Manipuri and Kangleipak
|
Dr Abul Khair Choudhury
In the contemporary discourse of North East India, the socio-political unrest in Manipur cannot be viewed merely through the prism of ethnic conflict or law and order. It is, fundamentally, an epistemological crisis involving three distinct yet overlapping cognitive frameworks: The Idea of Meitei (Ethnos), The Idea of Manipuri (Demos), and The Idea of Manipur (The Geo-political State). To chart a path forward, we must move beyond reactive narratives and engage in a scholarly deconstruction of these identities, separating ‘civilizational memory’ from ‘colonial constructs.’
The Idea of Meitei: Civilizational Continuity vs. Tribe
The ‘Idea of Meitei’ is often reduced to a mere ethnic category in modern political parlance. However, historically, it represents a sophisticated process of State formation and civilization building that predates the Westphalian concept of Nation-States. The Meitei identity is not monolithic but federal in nature, rooted in the ‘Salai Taret’ (Seven Clan Confederacy).
This civilization demonstrated advanced adminis- trative capabilities as early as the 11th century. The ‘Loiyumba Shinyen’ (1110 AD), the royal edict of King Loiyumba, functioned as a proto-constitution that codified the division of labor, social duties, and guild systems. This challenges the colonial narrative of “tribalism” by establishing that Meitei society was organized on a functional hierarchy (Lallup) rather than a rigid caste system.
Furthermore, the indigenous belief system, Sana- mahism, operates as an ‘Ecological Cosmovision.’ The ritual of Lai Haraoba is not mere worship but a performative reenactment of the creation myth (Leisemlon), enshrining the concept that the body and the land (Leipak) are intrinsically linked. The current crisis can be seen, in part, as a friction between this endogenous worldview and the exogenous structures of the modern state.
The Idea of Meitei-Pangal: Deconstructing the ‘Settler’ Narrative
In the complex and often contested tapestry of Mani-pur’s history, identity is frequently painted in broad, reductive strokes. For the Meitei-Pangal (Manipuri Muslim) community, this historiography has largely been narrowed down to a single, polarizing hue : that of the ‘religious other’ or the ‘settler.’
In contemporary socio-political discourses, a prevalent and overly simplified narrative suggests that the community originated solely from foreign Muslim soldiers and artisans marrying local women in the 17th century. While the migration of Muslims during the reign of King Khagemba (1606 AD) is an undeniable historical fact, framing the entire identity of the community on this single pillar is a historiographical error. To reduce the Meitei-Pangal identity to a mere “settler” narrative is to obscure a far more profound reality. It ignores centuries of cross-pollination, royal patronage, and State-sanctioned assimilation.
The Four Pillars of Ancestry
To truly understand the “Idea of the Meitei-Pangal,” one must look beyond the initial 17th-century settlements. The genesis of the community is not singular but is an amalgamation of at least four distinct populations, woven together by history.
The historical nucleus was indeed formed during the reign of King Kha-gemba. The descendants of the Muslim soldiers and artisans who settled in the valley brought with them skills, technology, and faith, establishing the founda-tional clans (sageis) that are well-known today, such as Aribam, Efam Mayum, Fundrei Mayum, Makak Mayum, Tampak Mayum, Thoubal Mayum, Khullak-pam, Sajabam, Yumkhai- bam, Chesam, and Moinam. However, if the community were solely descendants of these men, the population dynamics would be vastly different. The demographic expansion of this group was structurally similar to the assimilation of the Nongpok Haram (Easterners) and Nongchup Haram (Westerners) into the Meitei fold—a process of absorption and indigenization.
Indigenous Meitei Roots: A Genealogical Merger
A critical, yet often understated, dimension of this identity is the assimilation of the indigenous Meitei population into the Pangal fold. This was not merely social integration but a genealogical merger. Clan names such as Oinam, Yangkhubam, Maibam, and Thangjam within the Mei-tei-Pangal community are not borrowed nomenclature; they are ancestral markers evidencing indigenous roots. These families carry the same genetic heritage as their Meitei bre- thren, distinguished only by faith.
Historical records, specifically the Cheitharol Kumbaba, provide documentary evidence of this State-sanctioned integration. Intensive study of the chronicle identifies at least three distinct instances where Meitei individuals were merged into the Pangan society by royal decree—often as punitive or corrective social measures (dandi/sasti).
Furthermore, this composite nature permeates the highest echelons of social stratification. Oral traditions and clan histories assert that specific lineages trace their descent directly from the Royal Family. As noted by scholar Dr Soibam Ibocha Singh in his seminal work ‘Community Policing : Principles, Practices and Perspectives in the Context of Manipur’ (p. 116), the Moijing Mayum clan has royal antecedents: “Moijing (Sheikh) Muhammed, the founder of the Moijing Mayum, was converted from one of the Raj-kumars.” This royal connection further cements the community’s status as an intrinsic part of the Manipuri social hierarchy.
The Ethno-Linguistic Shift: Rediscovering the Naga Lineage
Perhaps the most significant contribution of recent ethnographic inquiries lies in uncovering the indigenous Naga lineage within the Pangal identity. Historically, unlike other groups assigned specific clan names by the Kings, many Naga converts were categorized under generic descrip- tors. Research conducted in the Cachar district of Assam has shed vital new light on this connection.
The history of the Meitei-Pangal is inextricably linked to the “Seven Years Devastation” (Chahi Taret Khuntakpa, 1819–1826). Among the refugees who fled to Cachar were significant populations of Kabui (Naga) converts who had integrated into the Meitei-Pangal fold. Today, in areas like Bhagha and Joypur in Assam, there are surviving villages that trace their lineage to this group. While they may phenoty-pically retain distinct Naga physical features, they have undergone a complete linguistic acculturation, adop- ting Meiteilon as their mother tongue. This reveals a unique anthropological phenomenon : a group that is genetically Naga, religiously Muslim, but linguis- tically and culturally Meitei-Pangal.
The Idea of Manipur: From Kangleipak to Colonial Cartography
While ‘Meitei’ is an ethno-civilizational category, ‘Manipur’ is a geo- political construct that has undergone radical shifts.
The Sanskritization Rupture
The transition from ‘Kangleipak’ to ‘Manipur’ during the reign of King Pamheiba (Garib Niwaj) in the 18th century marked a ‘Cultural Rupture.’ The imposition of Vaishnavism and the burning of sacred texts (Puya Meithaba) in 1729 created a “double consciousness” within the Meitei psyche. While it integrated the State into the “Indic civilizational sphere,” it simultaneously created a caste-based purity-pollution barrier (Mangba- Sengba) between the valley dwellers and the hill tribes. This religious stratification is the historical fault line that modern identity politics continues to exploit.
Colonial Fracture and the Hill-Valley Divide
The ‘Idea of Manipur’ as a unified geo-political entity faces its greatest challenge from the colonial legacy. Pre-colonial relations between the hills and the valley were defined by tributary relations, trade, and ritual bonding (e.g., Mera Hou Chongba). However, the British adminis- tration (post-1891) institutionalized a separation through the ‘Excluded Area’ policy, which administratively severed the hills from the King’s direct jurisdiction.
This colonial cartography laid the foundation for the current crisis. Today, the ‘Idea of Manipur’ is caught between the Meitei assertion of historical integrity and the Hill tribes’ (Kuki-Zo and Naga) narrative of distinct administrative history.
Conclusion: Towards a Third Narrative
The current violence suggests that the old ‘Idea of Manipur’—based on hege-monic integration—is fraying. However, the solution does not lie in the disintegration of the State.
We need a “Third Narrative” that moves beyond the binary of “Indigenous vs. Settler.” The Meitei-Pangal history serves as a potent model: it proves that identity in Manipur has historically been fluid, assimilative, and defined by loyalty to the land (Leipak) rather than just blood purity.
For the ‘Idea of Manipur’ to survive, it must evolve from an ethnic federation into a Civic Nation. This requires the Meitei community to confidently reclaim their role as the custodians of a civilization that once absorbed diverse streams—Naga, Kuki, and Pangal—into a cohesive whole, while simultaneously addressing the genuine anxieties of hill communities regarding land and identity. The responsibility lies in preserving the “Idea of Manipur” not by force, but by recognizing the complex, interwoven tapestries of our shared history.
(The author is an researcher/scholar on Manipuri Folk and Modern literature. Views expressed are personal and based on historical and ethnographic analysis)
In the contemporary discourse of North East India, the socio-political unrest in Manipur cannot be viewed merely through the prism of ethnic conflict or law and order. It is, fundamentally, an epistemological crisis involving three distinct yet overlapping cognitive frameworks: The Idea of Meitei (Ethnos), The Idea of Manipuri (Demos), and The Idea of Manipur (The Geo-political State). To chart a path forward, we must move beyond reactive narratives and engage in a scholarly deconstruction of these identities, separating ‘civilizational memory’ from ‘colonial constructs.’
The Idea of Meitei: Civilizational Continuity vs. Tribe
The ‘Idea of Meitei’ is often reduced to a mere ethnic category in modern political parlance. However, historically, it represents a sophisticated process of State formation and civilization building that predates the Westphalian concept of Nation-States. The Meitei identity is not monolithic but federal in nature, rooted in the ‘Salai Taret’ (Seven Clan Confederacy).
This civilization demonstrated advanced adminis- trative capabilities as early as the 11th century. The ‘Loiyumba Shinyen’ (1110 AD), the royal edict of King Loiyumba, functioned as a proto-constitution that codified the division of labor, social duties, and guild systems. This challenges the colonial narrative of “tribalism” by establishing that Meitei society was organized on a functional hierarchy (Lallup) rather than a rigid caste system.
Furthermore, the indigenous belief system, Sana- mahism, operates as an ‘Ecological Cosmovision.’ The ritual of Lai Haraoba is not mere worship but a performative reenactment of the creation myth (Leisemlon), enshrining the concept that the body and the land (Leipak) are intrinsically linked. The current crisis can be seen, in part, as a friction between this endogenous worldview and the exogenous structures of the modern state.
The Idea of Meitei-Pangal: Deconstructing the ‘Settler’ Narrative
In the complex and often contested tapestry of Mani-pur’s history, identity is frequently painted in broad, reductive strokes. For the Meitei-Pangal (Manipuri Muslim) community, this historiography has largely been narrowed down to a single, polarizing hue : that of the ‘religious other’ or the ‘settler.’
In contemporary socio-political discourses, a prevalent and overly simplified narrative suggests that the community originated solely from foreign Muslim soldiers and artisans marrying local women in the 17th century. While the migration of Muslims during the reign of King Khagemba (1606 AD) is an undeniable historical fact, framing the entire identity of the community on this single pillar is a historiographical error. To reduce the Meitei-Pangal identity to a mere “settler” narrative is to obscure a far more profound reality. It ignores centuries of cross-pollination, royal patronage, and State-sanctioned assimilation.
The Four Pillars of Ancestry
To truly understand the “Idea of the Meitei-Pangal,” one must look beyond the initial 17th-century settlements. The genesis of the community is not singular but is an amalgamation of at least four distinct populations, woven together by history.
The historical nucleus was indeed formed during the reign of King Kha-gemba. The descendants of the Muslim soldiers and artisans who settled in the valley brought with them skills, technology, and faith, establishing the founda-tional clans (sageis) that are well-known today, such as Aribam, Efam Mayum, Fundrei Mayum, Makak Mayum, Tampak Mayum, Thoubal Mayum, Khullak-pam, Sajabam, Yumkhai- bam, Chesam, and Moinam. However, if the community were solely descendants of these men, the population dynamics would be vastly different. The demographic expansion of this group was structurally similar to the assimilation of the Nongpok Haram (Easterners) and Nongchup Haram (Westerners) into the Meitei fold—a process of absorption and indigenization.
Indigenous Meitei Roots: A Genealogical Merger
A critical, yet often understated, dimension of this identity is the assimilation of the indigenous Meitei population into the Pangal fold. This was not merely social integration but a genealogical merger. Clan names such as Oinam, Yangkhubam, Maibam, and Thangjam within the Mei-tei-Pangal community are not borrowed nomenclature; they are ancestral markers evidencing indigenous roots. These families carry the same genetic heritage as their Meitei bre- thren, distinguished only by faith.
Historical records, specifically the Cheitharol Kumbaba, provide documentary evidence of this State-sanctioned integration. Intensive study of the chronicle identifies at least three distinct instances where Meitei individuals were merged into the Pangan society by royal decree—often as punitive or corrective social measures (dandi/sasti).
Furthermore, this composite nature permeates the highest echelons of social stratification. Oral traditions and clan histories assert that specific lineages trace their descent directly from the Royal Family. As noted by scholar Dr Soibam Ibocha Singh in his seminal work ‘Community Policing : Principles, Practices and Perspectives in the Context of Manipur’ (p. 116), the Moijing Mayum clan has royal antecedents: “Moijing (Sheikh) Muhammed, the founder of the Moijing Mayum, was converted from one of the Raj-kumars.” This royal connection further cements the community’s status as an intrinsic part of the Manipuri social hierarchy.
The Ethno-Linguistic Shift: Rediscovering the Naga Lineage
Perhaps the most significant contribution of recent ethnographic inquiries lies in uncovering the indigenous Naga lineage within the Pangal identity. Historically, unlike other groups assigned specific clan names by the Kings, many Naga converts were categorized under generic descrip- tors. Research conducted in the Cachar district of Assam has shed vital new light on this connection.
The history of the Meitei-Pangal is inextricably linked to the “Seven Years Devastation” (Chahi Taret Khuntakpa, 1819–1826). Among the refugees who fled to Cachar were significant populations of Kabui (Naga) converts who had integrated into the Meitei-Pangal fold. Today, in areas like Bhagha and Joypur in Assam, there are surviving villages that trace their lineage to this group. While they may phenoty-pically retain distinct Naga physical features, they have undergone a complete linguistic acculturation, adop- ting Meiteilon as their mother tongue. This reveals a unique anthropological phenomenon : a group that is genetically Naga, religiously Muslim, but linguis- tically and culturally Meitei-Pangal.
The Idea of Manipur: From Kangleipak to Colonial Cartography
While ‘Meitei’ is an ethno-civilizational category, ‘Manipur’ is a geo- political construct that has undergone radical shifts.
The Sanskritization Rupture
The transition from ‘Kangleipak’ to ‘Manipur’ during the reign of King Pamheiba (Garib Niwaj) in the 18th century marked a ‘Cultural Rupture.’ The imposition of Vaishnavism and the burning of sacred texts (Puya Meithaba) in 1729 created a “double consciousness” within the Meitei psyche. While it integrated the State into the “Indic civilizational sphere,” it simultaneously created a caste-based purity-pollution barrier (Mangba- Sengba) between the valley dwellers and the hill tribes. This religious stratification is the historical fault line that modern identity politics continues to exploit.
Colonial Fracture and the Hill-Valley Divide
The ‘Idea of Manipur’ as a unified geo-political entity faces its greatest challenge from the colonial legacy. Pre-colonial relations between the hills and the valley were defined by tributary relations, trade, and ritual bonding (e.g., Mera Hou Chongba). However, the British adminis- tration (post-1891) institutionalized a separation through the ‘Excluded Area’ policy, which administratively severed the hills from the King’s direct jurisdiction.
This colonial cartography laid the foundation for the current crisis. Today, the ‘Idea of Manipur’ is caught between the Meitei assertion of historical integrity and the Hill tribes’ (Kuki-Zo and Naga) narrative of distinct administrative history.
Conclusion: Towards a Third Narrative
The current violence suggests that the old ‘Idea of Manipur’—based on hege-monic integration—is fraying. However, the solution does not lie in the disintegration of the State.
We need a “Third Narrative” that moves beyond the binary of “Indigenous vs. Settler.” The Meitei-Pangal history serves as a potent model: it proves that identity in Manipur has historically been fluid, assimilative, and defined by loyalty to the land (Leipak) rather than just blood purity.
For the ‘Idea of Manipur’ to survive, it must evolve from an ethnic federation into a Civic Nation. This requires the Meitei community to confidently reclaim their role as the custodians of a civilization that once absorbed diverse streams—Naga, Kuki, and Pangal—into a cohesive whole, while simultaneously addressing the genuine anxieties of hill communities regarding land and identity. The responsibility lies in preserving the “Idea of Manipur” not by force, but by recognizing the complex, interwoven tapestries of our shared history.
(The author is an researcher/scholar on Manipuri Folk and Modern literature. Views expressed are personal and based on historical and ethnographic analysis)