'Us' and 'Them': A standard measuring of who we are
- Part 2 -

Kh. Ibomcha *

Manipur on India Map

Then, who are Kangleichas and how should we define the idea of kangleiness? Critical posers. Yet, it is more than sure that the answer to the posers would be the same, without having a slight change in essence, as had been heard of as often enough in seminars and conferences in past few decades.

Scholars and academics have only echoed that Kangleichas are Tibeto-Burman speaking mongoloid stock, populated in a specific geo-body called Kangleipak having a written history of more than 2000 years and a proto-history of more than 4000 years. The same old wine in same old bottle. Now is the time for a paradigm shift in rewriting and understanding our own history.

Sure, we are of mongoloid stock but how do we differentiate between being of Chinese mongoloid stock and Vietnamese Mongoloid. Is there no marked difference between Chinese national identity and for that matters Kanglei national identity because of the simple fact that we both belong to the same racial category called Mongoloid? Another poser worth inquiring.

How should we define what otherness is? In the context of present socio politico scenario of Kangleipak, what constitutes the term 'We' will constitute a significant question.

A Kangleicha, according to me belongs to a group of people representing a nation constituted through the amalgamation of a considerable number of other people from the east and west of the country at different period of time after seven Salais (independent principalities) were united under the leadership of Pakhangba of Ningthijasalai during 33 AD.

If so, the shared sense and sensibility of all those people who have been living in the geo political body of Kangleipak since time immemorial will represent the collective feeling of Kangleicha, feeling of oneness or Kangleiness. And this very feeling however subjective splits away the 'US' from 'THEM'.

When we observe the composition of the people, inhabited in the present geo political space of Kangleipak, it is seen crystal clear that Kanglei population is composed of people of different ethnic and sub ethnic groups who profess different religions, faith and practices. They are whom we usually call "eikhoigi Meeyam" (our people)-people who represent the term "we".

Kanglei society have traversed through different historical phases and witnessed loads of changes in terms of social, political, cultural and economic. So while drawing the picture of Kanglei national identity and in attempts to delineate Kangleiness, we should not keep a historical landmark or a particular point of time down the history to avoid delusional pictures as to what and who we are now.

Does the thought process of a revivalist that counts only those who follow Sanamahism as Kangleicha make any sense when it comes to the idea Kanglei nation or building of a nation? A misplaced idea of Kanglei nation, I presume.

Out of more than 27 lakh people of present Kangleipak, could those few lacs, who represents Sanamahi religion, represent Kanglei people as a whole? In that case where will they locate people who fall in the fold of other ethnic and sub ethnic groups following religions other than Sanamahism.

Appearance of Meitei Pangal and their further acculturation in Kanglei societal fold, advent of Meitei Bamon in Kanglei social order, adoption of Hinduism by valley people in the early part of 19th century and the conversion of hill people into Christianity towards the end of nineteenth century are fallout of some historical compulsion or rather the historical necessity. The process goes on and the same needs to be recognized. Turning a blind eye to these facts could cause distortion of our identity like looking in the broken mirror. The mirror will reflect you as "another you"- the one who is not you.

One should not also forget the territorial imagery of where Kangleichas inhabit besides treating the roots of the core as inseparable and inerasable.

When Kanglei female pugilist L. Sarita, by a wrong refereeing, was handed the loser's tag in the semifinal bout against Jina Park of South Korea, in the Incheon Asian games, 2014, and by repeating the same refereeing when L. Devendro was handed a 0-3 loss verdict in the quarter final against his Korean rival Shin, both hill and valley people of Kangleipak cutting across religious or ethnic boundary came out to protest against the biased umpiring of Korean Authority.

The collective action was more than a protest against the biased refereeing. The act reflected collective Kanglei feeling – the fount of Kanglei national identity.

Here, I think, it will be worth remembering a conversation between a Thai Ambassador in Canberra and Thai students in mid-February 1987 about Asian people in Australia. In that conversation the Thai Ambassador instructed the students not to behave like the Vietnamese. The students were not clear whether he meant the Vietnamese in Australia or the communist Vietnamese in Vietnam or both. And the ambassador was also not clear about that.

Almost certainly it was because of the fact that he did not care about what these term specifically meant. In that case, the term Vietnam here represented a sort of otherness or Un-Thainess. In short, what the ambassador wanted to instruct the Thai young minds was resisting the adoption of Vietnamese character as opposed to Thainess.

In Thai, the word "Farang" is used to refer to Western people without any specification of nationality, culture, language, religion or whatever. Likewise we also use word "Mayang" referring to those Indians who are different from us without any specification. It refers to all Indians who are different from us. They are what we call "THEY".

When we are said not to behave like "Mayang", it points finger to who we are. Unfortunately, the notion of Kangleiness has never been clearly defined. But we all know what is un-Kangleiness traits like.

Concluded...