Let Not History Repeat Itself

Chabungbam Amuba Singh *

Maps showing the hill districts, particularly the Naga dominated districts of Manipur :: Pix - TSE

"What is history, but fable agreed upon?" - Napoleon said.

It now seems that the Government of India with its arrogant wisdom has accepted NSCN-IM's "Unique History of the Nagas" as the proverbial 'fable agreed upon', while it found convenient to ignore the 2000 years' old history of Manipur. True, the early phase of this 2000 years' old history is hazy--often bordering on legends rather than on verifiable/recorded facts. But, from the late fifteenth century onwards (from the reign of King Kyamba 1467 - 1508, to be precise), the history of Manipur emanating from the recorded accounts in the royal chronicle Cheitharol Kumbaba could not be disputed. It would be really sad if the Government of India, in its eagerness to appease the other party, decides to ignore even this part of the history of Manipur. How could the Meiteis rejoice to be good citizens of India if the Government of India decides to 'subordinate' their written history to the concocted "Unique Naga History" of Muivah?

I am, in no sense, a student of history. I had read somewhere an eminent Naga historian writing that the Manipur kings never ruled directly over the hill tribes. But the same is also true of the Burmese kings/monarchs whose direct rule/administration extended only over a small portion of their kingdom.

A few days ago, there was a panel discussion in the Manipur Press Club on "Countdown of India's Political Time Bomb to Destroy Manipur" organised by the Freedom Research Foundation. The next day, a popular Manipuri daily carried a tiny news item on the event under the caption, "Lalhoubagi Isu" (Issue of Insurgency). I was sad! The discussion, which I saw on the ISTV, was not at all on the issue of insurgency. It was a lively discussion by a few resource persons on the issue of Manipur's integrity in the face of the threat of the Naga Alternative Arrangement/Naga Supra State.

In this ambience of Naga-Manipuri conflict (sorry! if it sounds communal), we should recollect how Manipur willingly gave up itself to India by signing the Instrument of Accession on 11 August 1947 and as a logical consequence the Merger Agreement on 21 September 1949. Not a single voice was raised then against these two historic deeds - not even by the much beloved Jan-Neta who was in Manipur at the time of the 1947 events. On the contrary, the Manipuri members of the then Manipur State Darbar, led by M.K. Priyobarta pleaded to the Governor of Assam (Sir Akbar Hydri), when the latter visited Manipur from 29 June to 2 July 1947, that at the lapse of the British paramountcy, Manipur could not remain aloof and independent; and that it was their considered wish that Manipur should join India forthwith.

This is to tell the world that in 1947-49, Manipur gave up itself to India without raising even a meek voice of protest. True, Maharajah Bodhachandra was subjected to duress to sign the Merger Agreement at Shillong during September 18-21, 1949. However, the emotional grief of the Maharajah at Shillong--described in immaculate detail by Anandamohan in his book, 'Shillong 1949'--was not a voice of protest, because in the same breath he was bargaining for his privy purse to be raised to Rs. Four Lakhs per annum from the proposed Rs. Two Lakhs and twenty-five thousand per annum. (Finally, he settled for Rs.Three Lakhs)

Now 65 years later, are the Manipuris going to let India break up Manipur (albeit preserving its territorial boundary) without articulating a strong voice against the move of making an arrangement which singularly favours a particular community? Are we letting history repeat itself?

It is time that the politicians of all hues shed their cocoons of self-importance and come together to have consultative discussions among themselves and with the learned people of the state--over-ground, underground or no-ground, irrespective.