A review note of the book entitled 'History of Hao-Meitei Haoleipak Kangleipak'

Dr O Kumar Singh *

A book entitled 'History of Hao-Meitei Haoleipak Kangleipak' written by Dr MT Laiba was published by Kangleipak Kanba Lup (KKL) in June 2024 at the Press Club, Imphal. The book contains five major chapters under the headings – Introduction, Mythological Background, Pre-History and Protohistory, Ancient period and Modern period, with a forwarding note by Luwangcha Urikhimbam Ngamkheingakpa, the Secretary General of KKL.

In the Introduction chapter the author of the book tries to give the geographical location of the present Manipur and her historical course as the land of seven city States or the land of seven Kanglas. It is also claimed that Manipur (Kangleipak) was the birth place of Sagol Kangjei (Polo) being introduced during the reign of king Kangba (3,100 BC).

The inhabitants of Manipur are grouped by the author as Meitei, Hao (Naga) and Khongjai (Kuki). The indigenous people are originated from Koubru and other caves in about 40,000 BC. Besides these indigenous people, there were immigrants from the west (Nongchup Haram) and East (Nongpok Haram).

Here we may put a question 'What will be the cultural level of these people and how the date is fixed ? It is also noted that in the early historic period of Manipur her territory was larger than the present, it extended to Sibsagar (Assam) in the north, Naojeeree hills in the south, Ningthi river (Myanmar/ Burma) in the east, Barak valley (Khong-nang Tampak) and Chandra- pur (Assam) in the west. After the merger of Manipur with India in 1949 her territorial boundary has decreased.

One remarkable observation of the author in this chapter is that the industrious habit of the Meiteis women has changed after adoption of Hinduism.

In the Prehistory and Protohistory chapter several sites in the world have been cited with absolute dates without quoting any authority, as if the author of the book had done the research work. Then the author swiftly concluded as "Likewise, some historian of Kangleipak believe that pre-human ancestors were migrated from Upper Burma to Kangleipak where fresh water lakes existed during Great Ice Age (ie 1.8 million years to 10,000 years old of pleistocene period).

During those days "genetical drift" of a small group of population, might be happened to migrate from Kangleipak to Africa by chance. Becuse, the birth place of the human race is Asia, our earliest ancestors came to Asia in a huge migration 37 to 38 million years ago, before they evolved into present day apes and humans."

The term civilization in archaeology is used not before the Neolithic Culture (say Neolithic Civilization), but in this book Palaeolithic Culture is described as civilisation, such terminological mistakes must be corrected. Another mistake committed by the author is the close comparison of the Palaeolithic findings from Kangleipak with those of the Neanderthal man of Europe.

These two cultures exhibit quite different characters. The author's intention seems to assert his bias opinion as written on page 131 'Nowadays, some scholars also believe that the first appearance of man might have occurred in the mountain's caves of Kangleipak. That is why, they think that they had come out from the caves of Koubru mountain chains.

Again on page 138 it is also recorded that the excavation of Khomunnom cave in Chandel district of Kangleipak revealed the existence of Palaeolithic culture dating to a period from 20,00,000 years to 12,000 B.C. Such way of fixing the date is nothing but exaggeration without justifiable evidences.'

On pages 141 and 142 of the book it is stated that " .. Imphal valley might have begun to dry up since 20,000 BC to 4,000 BC making it suitable for human habitation during the Pleistocene Ice Age." In this connection we may say that valley was under water even up to the late stage of the Ice Age as indicated by the C-14 dates ( c. 23,000 B.P) of peaty clay soil sample from Imphal river valley at Bashikhong.

More-over his hypothesis seems to have been based on the stratigraphic and lithology of the Kangla that had been done by boring technique of sample collection, not by the actual archaeological excavation.

Therefore the association of the dated soil sample, say the silty clay/ sand with the controversial potsherd is very doubtful. Therefore the date 19.299+_2.097 ka BP of the soil sample at the depth of 9.8 – 11 ft. from the surface may not be considered as that of the cultural material (Potsherd).

On page 145 the author stated that the Megalithic monuments at Mao area of Manipur existed since prehistoric Stone Age, and contradictorily again it is also written as " These remains of the Megalithic culture is still a living culture of the Mao tribe of Kangleipak."

On page 146 the author again attempted to project the Kanglei scripts were invented during the year C.5000 BC by citing the stone inscriptions found around Tharon cave assuming to be of Mesolithic Stone Age period.

But actually these are stone engravings not inscriptions of recent origin contemporary to the modern Kabui culture. In short, it seems, the author's hypothesis is to push back the antiquity of the culture and civilization of Manipur to the time period not later than those of the rest of the world.

Chapter four deals with the ancient history of Kangleipak (Manipur). The author states that this period is "more or less proto historical in nature. So, the protohistory of Kangleipak is full of myth specially before Christ upto 33 AD." It is also written that "According to archaeological findings, Imphal was settled by a civilized group of people during C. 20,000 BC" .

Here we may argue that until the association of the potsherds in that dated soil layer is confirmed by the actual archaeological excavation and also detail characters of the potsherds are properly studied it will be absurd to believe as confirmed document for human settlement at Kangla by that period.

Therefore the projection of the age of seven salais, say Mangang, Luwang, Khuman, Angom, Moirang, Khaba-Nganba, Sarang Leisangthem/ Chenglei to 20,000 B. C. will also be absurd. If this date is accepted the Protohistory existed earlier than the Prehistory in Manipur, since he mentioned on page 145 the age of the Neolithic culture (Prehistoric Stone Age) at Nongpok Keithelmanbi is as old as c.4460+-120 years B.P.

According to the book Khui Tompok who is at the 11th generation from Lilla Pakhangba, the progenitor of Mangang Salai, is dated to 154 – 264 AD. Then the time gap of about 20,264 years during the time period of 11 generations will not be scientifically justifiable. This argument will also be applicable to all other remaining Salais.

However, the lists of the generations of the Salais will be a good data for future research. The last chapter five entitled Modern Period covers the history of British Period up to the last king Budhachandra in Kangleipak.

At last it will also be relevant to suggest that citing of proper references in the text is needed for the authenticity of the statements in the book.