Bhattacharjee (J.B. Bhattacharjee : Op. Cit.) was also emphatic to say that emergence of States from indigenous and immigrant tribal social bases in the medieval history of the North-East region was significantly common as could be evidenced in the cases of Koch, Kachari, Meitei, Jaintia and Tripuri who were settlers since early times in the region.(Ibid).
On the other hand, in the case of Mizo society, in particular and all the tribal societies in Manipur in general, it is not so. Sources are limited, shallow and often controversial enough to establish their exact state of antiquity though they may be so.
The limitation is more apparent in empirical study when there is no material evidence to authenticate probable findings. Whatever scanty, written materials available are from the British bureaucrats and anthropologists. We find that they do not go deep into the traces beyond their time of putting the records in writing.
And these are the only documents available at our disposal to rely upon which unfortunately do not go beyond the 18th century, when the term ‘Kuki’ from which the word ‘Mizo’ was derived, first appeared according to Reid (A.S. Reid : Chin Lushai Land, Calcutta : 1893; pp. 5 – 7), when Mir Kasim, the chief of Chittagong, ceded the district to the British under Robert Clive in 1760 A.D. applying at the same time for a detachment of Sepoys to protect its inhabitants against incursions of the ‘Kukis’ as they were then called.
This was soon followed with the first open attack against the British and their subjects dated as far back as 1777 A.D. since the days of Warren Hastings by the ‘Kukis’ when the Chins, the Thadous, the Lushais, etc. were included by the British under the said term mainly considering their distinctive similar characteristics.
Bhattacharjee said that they enjoyed considerable local autonomy, the Chiefs retaining their full traditional authority over their respective tribes and rules according to their own customary laws (J.B. Bhattacharjee : Op.Cit, p.72.) and that the Rajas did not interfere in the internal affairs of the Chiefs, living under cordial relationships (Ibid).
Dynamics of Chieftainship and Chiefdom :
The synthesis that emerges from discussions of the various aspects of chieftainship and evolution of their chiefdoms, and the views of eminent scholars on the subjects, clearly recognizes the extreme complexity and interdependence of the sources of power in society and the forces of instability and division that constantly threaten to tear it apart.
Of particular interest are long-term local and regional patterns of expansion and collapse. It goes without saying that to understand the development of chiefdoms, the ways in which finance, control and ideology empower an emerging ruling class has to be thoroughly examined.
While the linear causality that was once felt comfortable with, has certainly outgrown, the new synthesis offers a rich and varied interpretation of socio-political process. The Meitei society offers a fertile field for necessary interpretation and analysis.
Loosely defined a chieftainship is “a centralized polity that organizes a regional population in the thousands” said Carneiro, and Earle (Robert Carneiro, and Timothy Earle : A Theory of the Origin of the State : Science: 169: and Earle Timothy : Chiefdoms in archaeological and ethno-historical perspective : Annual Review in Anthropology, 1987 : 16 : pp. 279-308).
The main characteristic is attributed to some degree of heritable social ranking and economic ratification. Origin of this polity, their development and their eventual collapse or transformation into states are its main features.
Kirch and Kristiansen (Patrice Kirch: The evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdom : Cambridge, California University Press: 1984, and Kristian Kristiansen: The formation of tribal system in later European Pre-History “In Theory and explanation in archeology : The Southampton conference; Northern Europe, 1982 : 4000-700 BC) have opined that research is imperative to focus on sequences of long-term socio-political, economic changes documented archeologically and historically and that chieftainship vary in complexity and scale of development, simple and complex.
Steponaitis (Vincas Steponaites: Locational Theory and Complex Chiefdoms : A Mississippian example : “in Mississippian Settlement Patterns” : Edited by E. Smith, 1978 : pp 417-453, New York, Academic Press.) convinces us that mode of financing is an important aspect for understanding the dynamics of Chieftainships. It is sine-qua-non.
Related Articles:
to be continued ..
* Dr. (Mrs.) Priyadarshni M Gangte wrote this article for The Sangai Express .
This article was webcasted on January 26 , 2008 .
|
