Legitimacy of Illegitmate History: Historical
Difference at the Margin of Ethnonationalism [1]
- Part 4 -

G. Amarjit Sharma *

Khoibu History & Debate on History writing

….While the above analysis has shown that history writing by the khoibu is very much the result of their understanding with the present reality, their history may be, to the professional historians, considered as lesser important. For, to the trained historians, it is conceived within a community circle, among the non-trained intellectuals–whether traditional or modern educated. This is further because of the larger dominant perception of the so-called 'other history' that it is colored with the notions of sectarianism, secessionism, etc. that do not prepared us for either democracy or citizenry practices.

It is because of this perception that this 'other history' is considered as history, which is not based on the deployment of the 'reason in public life.'24 Now this perception can be problematic in two ways: one is that it has generalized the characteristics of 'other history', and secondly it has argued against the use of tradition/ mythic past in the public life.

The first problem can be seen in the words a scholar: 'When community sentiments of pain and hurt become the ground on which we rework our past, when we rewrite history to cleanse it of all that we seek to disown, then we are witnessing a practice of rewriting that is disturbingly problematic. These are moves that attack the very discipline of academic history.'25 This is exactly what is meant by the claims of professional historians that any expressions of community sentiments of pain and hurt in public life are nonsensical or is not based on the deployment of reason in the public life.

This is where the tasks of the historian, especially trained historians, are limited in their engagements with the issue of emancipatory politics, especially of the weaker sections of the society. This non-engagement on the parts of the trained historians may be because these politics have all sorts of prejudices, no authentic evidences, facts or documents. Further this may because community beliefs/ traditions if displayed in the public life are merely beliefs of some community, which does not have any scientific basis.

If the history writing of the Khoibu doesn't stand the tests according to what professional historians perceived of history, their history also faces the problems of recognition from a dominant ethnic ideology. That the history of Khoibu needs approval by a certain dominant civil society organization is proven by the fact that when Khoibus submitted their historical facts and documents to the Naga civil society organizations like Naga Students' Union Delhi and Naga Student s'Federation, it was the Maring organizations like Maring Uparup Assembly, Maring Literature Society and Maring Students' Union that disputed the manner of representation to Naga bodies.

The Maring organizations contested that they should approve these facts about the Khoibu before given to the higher Naga bodies. One can feel from this episode that it is largely the socially and politically dominant bodies representing dominant ideology, which decide what is to be called history. We normally called certain events and deeds as historic but we care less about the question as to who decides this adjective 'historic', who nominates these events and deeds as historic, lastly, why any event or deeds should be regarded as historic and not others?26

Hence, in our context, it is the dominant Naga ideology that determines the legitimacy and illegitimacy of history. The mythic past of the Khoibu remains in the form of oral records. But it should be mentioned here again that the question of what constitutes as right documents/evidence to be called as khoibu is very much restraint by the nonrecognition of those evidences by the Maring tribe. So what constitutes as right or wrong evidence or document to be called as separate Khoibu tribe is very much depend how far the Maring tribe allow the Khoibu to assert themselves as an independent tribe. Further Naga apex body like Naga Hoho (an apex body of all the Naga representatives from different constituent tribes) decides what constitutes a right history or evidence.

In conclusion, the present study suggests that the assertion of the Khoibu identity from the Maring tribe is not merely a case of conflict between the two. Again the case study of history writing by the Khoibus is not merely a case of constructing identity through history.

Exploring history writing by the Khoibus is a case of how the marginal community articulates their identity within the contesting concepts of community of the Meiteis and Nagas in Manipur. In Meitei's search for historical and cultural affinity with the tribes and the Nagas' negation of the concept of Manipur as community, the idea of community appeared to be defined long before political mobilization of these dominant identities occur.

Notes and References:

1 This article is an abridged form of a bigger article under the same title which is published as one of the chapters in the forthcoming book entitled Fixity and Fluidity: History, Politics and Culture of North East India, edited by Lipokmar Dzuvichu, G. Amarjit Sharma and Manjeet Baruah, (Inhouse publication of the Centre for the Study of North East India, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi).

2 Chatterjee distinguishes two forms of history: old social history and new history. Partha Chatterjee, 'History and the domain of the popular', Seminar 522, February 2003.

3 We take smaller tribes synonymously with the marginal tribes.

4 During my fieldwork in the Chandel district I was told that most of the tribes in the district become Naga through the Tangkhul pastors.

5 Similarly the Pathans even after being merged with the Baluch identity maintained their identity autonomously in different settings. See Fredrik Barth, 'Pathan Identity and its Maintenance', in Fredrik Barth (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, The Social Organization of Cultural Difference, (Bergen-Oslo: Universitets Forlaget, London: George Allen & Unwin), 1969, pp. 117-134.

6 Rajat Kanti Das, Tribal Social Structure: A Study of the Maring Society of Manipur, (Delhi: Inter-India Publication).

7 P. Binodini Devi, A Monograph on the Maring Tribe of Manipur, Directorate for the Development of Tribal and Backwards Classes, Tribal Research Institute, Imphal, 2002.

8 Khoibu Union, Historical Background of Khoibu Tribe, Unpublished privately circulated small booklet among the Khoibu mostly

9 Ibid

10 Maring is one of the recognize tribes of Manipur. State's classification of the Maring tribe has included Khoibus as the constituent group of the Maring tribe. Khoibus, however, has recently asserted as an independent tribe struggling for their recognition in the state classification of tribe.

11 Maring Student Union, Souvenir, 2004.

12 Craig Calhoun, (ed.), Social Theory and the Politics of Identity, (Blackwell Publishing), 1998, p. 17

13 See K. Paomei, 'Haichingbawng, A ritual Dance of Khoibu Community', Paper presented in a Seminar on Intangible Cultural Heritage of Manipur, 2005, June 20-22, Organized by Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manar Sangraharaya, Bhopal & Department of Arts & Culture, Imphal.

14 This is supported by the perspective of ethnic group as organizational type, given by Fredrik Barth. Barth says that there is no simple one to one relationship between ethnic units and cultural similarities and differences. The features that are taken into account are not the sum of objective differences, (or similarities), but only those which the actors themselves regards as significant. Hence the basic orientation of any group is determined by the socially effectiveness of those orientations. See Fredrik Barth, 1969: 'Introduction', in Fredrik Barth (ed.), Ethnic Group and Boundaries, The Social Organization of Cultural Difference, (Universitets Forlaget and George Allen & Unwin), 1969.

15 Such divide continues even after efforts of the Meiteis' civil-society organizations to bridge the gap between the hills tribes and valley non-tribal population. 16 However the secular tendencies among the socio-cultural organizations are also doubtful as far as their intentions are concerned. I have dealt this problem in the Chapter II of my thesis, 'Culturalism in the "Search for Affinity": Meitei Discovering Affinity with the Tribes', with special reference to some of the socio-cultural organizations' efforts to look for affinity with the hill tribes. It was shown that though these organizations sought to bridge the gap between the Hill tribes and the Meiteis through public rituals, it is always the Meiteis' worldview that is propagating.

17 Recently a public ritual called 'puya mei thaba ningshing numit' (day of remembering the burning of puyas, holy books of Meiteis) was celebrated in Imphal, with huge publicity. It is claimed that the process of Sanskritization that started in Manipur in the 12th century had stopped the spread of Meiteis' traditional religion and script. It was during the height of Vaisnavism in Manipur that these sacred books called puyas were burned down in order to propagate the Hindu religion.

18 This perception of being sidelined is in fact become a reality when I interview a publicity secretary of AMESCO, a socio-cultural organization in Imphal that works towards bridging the gap between the Hill tribes and Meiteis. I questioned about their organization's approach to the recent conflict among the Khoibus and Maring. I was disturbed by the report that they are infact trying to bring the Maring tribe more closely to Meiteis, because this tribe has in the recent times been closer to larger Naga's collectivity, which according to their perception is more threatening to Manipuri integrity. Further as far as the Khoibu is concerned the organization takes for granted that khoibus are already closer to Meiteis, which, I feel, do not help anything in distancing the fear of being threaten by the Maring youths for asserting as an independent tribe.

19 Local people's perceptions sometime equate this organization with RSS, though ideologically they differ. They are equated in terms of using religion as an instrumentality for certain socio-cultural goals and the ways they function with lots of followers, having particular dress code for all them. Sajal spread out in different directions of Manipur, having their branches in different places.

20 See Kabui, Gangmumei. 1985: Anal a Transborder Tribe of Manipur, Mittal Publication, Delhi-35. The myths of cave origin also found among the neighboring tribes like Mayon and Monsang. For these myths also see Directorate for Development of Tribals and Backward Classes, Government of Manipur, 1981: Folk Tales of Mayon-Monsang.

21 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak has talked about historiography as a strategy. See Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, in Ranajit Guha (ed.), Subaltern Studies IV, Writings on South Asian History and Society, (Oxford University Press), 1985.

22 This need for coming together among the tribes can be interpreted as the phase of 'simultaneous reinforcement and reinterpretation of traditions.' B.K Roy Burman wrote ideas about this phase when he talked about the Adi tribes of Arunachal Pradesh in the late fifties and early sixties. The Gallong, Padam, Minyong and cognate tribes who have traditions of origin from a common ancestor–Aboteni–moved closer to one another. There was a bid to give positive content to their common identity. The old myths and legends started to be looked upon in a different ways. The differences were glossed over and common elements were highlighted. However my study marks some differences from what B.K. Roy Burman had talked about the 'reinforcement and reinterpretation of traditions' among the Adi tribes. For the Khoibus what is more important at the moment is to assert its difference from the Maring tribe. However it has to simultaneously negotiate for belongingness to another larger category, say in our context similarities with the rest of the neighboring tribes for it still perceives the threat from the other neighboring non-tribal population or may be from the other tribal collectivity like Kuki-Chin group (but former threat perception is clearer in the context of Khoibu's assertion). In addition to that the Khoibu needs to decide its belongingness in larger pan-tribal collectivity. So in our context 'reinforcement and reinterpretation of traditions' takes a different route. Another difference from B.K. Roy Burman is that the needs for sharing certain commonalities do not arise mainly from the extension of the market economy into the tribal areas. In our context, it is rather the perceived threat of cultural homogenization from the non-tribes' socio-cultural organizations, mentioned can be made of Meitei script movement in the valley and the spread of socio-cultural organization like Sajal. For B.K. Roy Burman's ideas, see Burman, B.K. Roy, 2002: 'Challenges and Responses in Tribal India', in M.S.A. Rao (ed.), Social Movements in India, Studies in Peasant, Backward Classes, Sectarian, Tribal and Women's Movements, (Delhi: Manohar), 2002.

23 Fredrik Barth said that cultural difference could still persist despite inter-ethnic contact and interdependence. See Fredrik Barth, 'Introduction', in Fredrik Barth (ed.), Ethnic Group and Boundaries, The Social Organization of Cultural Difference, (Universitets Forlaget and George Allen & Unwin), 1969.

24 For detail on how Enlightenment tradition had influenced the Historiography see Kurt Mueller-Vollmer (ed.) The Hermeneutics Reader: Texts of the German Tradition from the Enlightenment to the Present, (Basil Blackwell), p. 108.

25 Neeladri Bhattacharya, op.cit. p. 18

26 Ranajit Guha, 'The small voice of history', in Shahid Amin & Dipesh Chakrabarty (ed.), Subaltern Studies IX: Writings on South Asian History and Society, (Oxford University Press), 1997.

( This article is an abridged form of a bigger article under the same title which is published as one of the chapters in the forthcoming book entitled Fixity and Fluidity: History, Politics and Culture of North East India, edited by Lipokmar Dzuvichu, G. Amarjit Sharma and Manjeet Baruah, (Inhouse publication of the Centre for the Study of North East India, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi).

Concluded.....