A White Paper on Kangla and Sanamahi faith
- Part 4 -
H Dwijasekhar Sharma *
3. Why reopen the wound?
On the score of religious tolerance in the then Manipur one may recall what Prof Gangmumei Kabui emphatically cites in his: A Note on the Phayeng Copper Plate of King Khongtekcha (763-773) that some Brahmins who came over to Manipur during the 15th century might have been worshipping Vishnu (and thereby implicitly allowing to practise the Vaishnavite religious life), although no Manipuri king at the relevant time or times did adopt Vaishnavism or any other Hindu sect.
Read with the generally reported influx of a large number of Brahmin refugees from mainland India during the Muslim period, such an inference seems plausible.
But then, should one now keep recalling past dissensions, or hurt sentiments which were committed under compelling (pressure-cooker) situations. Need the current generation 6/7 generations down the line trace back history just for the sake of revenge?
Far more importantly, should we leave behind further testimonials of hurt sentiments for the future generations 4/5 generations hence? If at all, revenge is accomplished, who gains and who loses? If gain equals loss, the net macro benefit is a zero (win-loss=zero).
Rather, if gain can be brokered, and loss be negated (and converted into gain), both parties to the conflict gain (win-win situation) and the peace homeostasis survives.
Far more notable was Manipur king's moderation and positive tolerance towards the non-Hindu hill subjects, whereas he deemed, and referred to, all foreigners as mleccha, ie impure, with whom any connection was forbidden: intermarriage, or any kind of relationship, including sitting, eating and drinking with them.
In contrast, hill brethrens were employed in king's service or admitted in the palace for ceremonial, religious or customary purposes. At least the popularity of Mera Haochongba over centuries/millennia should evidence a close interaction, disproving any marginalisation.
There is another way of looking at continued baiting of some hurt sentiment-bordering on malice. Somebody finds a way to cast aspersion on another; perhaps he found it justified from his perspective of hurt sentiment-even if wrong or exaggerated from another's perspective.
Admittedly, all such cases are 'half-truths' -a la half-full glasses. For instance, the Burmese justify their rampages on medieval Manipur as justified in view of Manipur king Garib Niwaz's repeated attacks on Burma.
Perhaps a one-off citation seems well-justified for the sake of informing the uninformed. But stressing twice or even thrice no longer sounds justified from third party stance.
For then it gets down perhaps as determined effort on the part of an 'elite predate' to justify revenge on the 'imagined' infiltrator or 'enemy'. This seems as preeminently inexcusable as in case of out-and-out terror mercilessly perpetrated on innocent victims:
"How many times do you reopen the wounds?" said Charles Wolf, whose wife, Katherine, was killed at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 10 Sept 2001. After attending the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 twin-jet crash onto the twin towers of the WTC in 2008 at zero ground, Wolf was conjecturing: "We've kept it alive too long." Finding it "more painful especially to stand in silence for the moment that a plane crashed into the tower" where his wife worked, Wolf evinces: "It's one thing to remember, but it's another to relive it."
- (Imphal Free Press: Sept 12, 2008)
* H Dwijasekhar Sharma wrote this article for The Sangai Express . This article was webcasted on November 12, 2008.
* Comments posted by users in this discussion thread and other parts of this site are opinions of the individuals posting them (whose user ID is displayed alongside) and not the views of e-pao.net. We strongly recommend that users exercise responsibility, sensitivity and caution over language while writing your opinions which will be seen and read by other users. Please read a complete Guideline on using comments on this website.