Is 32,000 years of Meitei civilization a sign of tribalism?
- Part 2 -

Ningombam Bupenda Meitei *

In today's Manipur, after 1949 when Manipur and India were governed by one Constitution called 'Indian Constitution', the notion of dividing the tribe vs the non – tribal is becoming more vivid and explicit. The question is – why? The reason is not only in the Constitution of India that has listed the other tribes of Manipur in Scheduled Tribe category while Meiteis were and are not yet listed as Scheduled Tribe, but more fundamentally important than it is the question of who the descendants of the first original inhabitant of Manipur are.

If the Queen of England does not claim herself to be a tribal, then why should any king of Manipur in Meitei civilization ever claim that he was a tribal? If the Pope of Rome or the Archbishop of Canterbury does not admit that he is a tribe, then why should any ancient Meitei intellectual or a Meitei high priest or ancient Meitei scholar accept that he too was a tribe?

But, the larger question is – if Meiteis claim that they were not tribal, it also means that they were not the same as the other tribes were, and therefore, it is an acceptance of a clear distinction between the two different humans – the Meiteis and the other tribes, who can not be the children of the same common ancestor. If the Meiteis and the other tribes can not be the descendants of the same common ancestor, then who will claim the heritage, rights, ownership, position of heirship of the original first inhabitant of Manipur, the Manipur Pleistocene modern human? Can such claim be rightfully taken only by the Meiteis or the other tribes or rather, which tribe among the other tribes?

But, the Meitei civilization is a testimony of the larger role of Meiteis in the making and safeguarding of the ancient civilization which was sown by the first original inhabitant of Manipur – the Manipur Pleistocene modern human in Manipur. Again, the question does not end here, as the next inquiry is – whether the common ancestor, the first original inhabitant Pleistocene modern human of Manipur, of the Meiteis was a tribal or not.

If that Pleistocene modern human of Manipur, also the first original inhabitant of Manipur, is recorded or discovered to be a tribal, then Meiteis too can not claim that they are not tribal, by looking at their ancestry which was tribal. But, if that Pleistocene modern human was not a tribal, then it shall be an imposition of false history to accept that Meiteis were also tribal in the past. Was the first original inhabitant Pleistocene modern human in Manipur, also considered to be the ancestor of the Meiteis, tribal or not? – is for the modern natural sciences to dissect and research.

To accept that Meiteis should be given Scheduled Tribe status because they were tribal in the past, it could mean that the Meiteis and the other tribes had the first original inhabitant Pleistocene modern human as their only common ancestor, and hence all, including the Meiteis and the other tribes, who are the descendants of the same common ancestor, must be given equal share to every opportunity in Manipur, which was firstly founded by none other than the first inhabitant – the Pleistocene modern human - 30,000 years ago. Therefore, all the tribes – including the Meiteis and the other tribes have every right to have an access to any right, which is constitutionally valid in today's context, in Manipur.

To reject the Meiteis from getting listed as Scheduled Tribe status because they were not tribal in the past, it could mean that the Meiteis and the other tribes did not have the first original inhabitant Pleistocene modern human as their only common ancestor, instead they had different ancestors, and hence, the Meiteis and the other tribes are still different. But, the question - who are the original inhabitants of Manipur? - can only be answered by none other than the original descendants of the original first inhabitant of Manipur, the Pleistocene modern human, who sowed the ancient civilization since 30,000 BCE.

This also could further question whether the other tribes, of Manipur today, who enjoy the status of Scheduled Tribe today under the Indian Constitution have the same right of heirship to Manipur as claimed by the descendants of the original first inhabitant of Manipur – the Manipur Pleistocene modern human. How can the descendants of another ancestor, who is not the first original inhabitant of Manipur, claim as the original inhabitants of Manipur since time immemorial? The time, here, indeed, is not since immemorial, as it began in 30,000 BCE by the ancestor whose lineage and civilization are preserved by the Meitei civilization till today. Therefore, the Meiteis and the other tribes can not have the same right to have an access to every right, which is constitutionally valid in today's context, in Manipur.

Or, there could be a possibility of accepting that all, the Meitei and the other tribes, are the children of the same common ancestor, and they are all tribal, but the Indian Constitution recognizes the other tribes as tribe under Scheduled Tribe List while the Meiteis, also being a tribe, are yet to be recognized as a tribe under Scheduled Tribe List, approved by the Parliament of India. It is in this scenario that the notion of 'the children of the same common ancestor' is accepted and Meiteis too, though accepted by the other tribes as one of them, but can not enjoy the rights and privileges of being a constitutional beneficiary of being listed under Scheduled Tribe category. The larger query is – can such understanding of accepting the two notions: "the children of the same common ancestor, and hence all are the original inhabitants of the same land of Manipur" and "Meiteis were tribal like other tribes in the past but can not and should not be given ST status under the Indian Constitution at present" go together?

How can there be a simultaneous acceptance and agreement of two contradicting premises: "All the children, the Meiteis and other tribes, of Manipur are of the same common ancestor" and "Meiteis can not come under ST as they are not a tribe like other children, who are tribes, of the same common ancestor"? What could be the conclusion of such contradicting premises? The inherent fallacy in the argument itself is evident merely because there can not be an acceptance of two contradictions, because such acceptance will only tantamount to the inconsistency of the logical arguments, therefore, either of the two premises has to be taken and both can not be chosen either simultaneously at the same time or even differently at different points of time for a convenient use in different contexts and background.

Two such antagonistic premises can not be forcefully joined as the truth of Manipur. The truth can never be two. The truth has to be only one. The choice of the truth may be uneasy. But, the truth has to be true only because it can not be false. Hence, truth, which is not the sum of two false, has to bring a light to the present scenario of whether to accept that Meitei civilization of 32,000 years is true, and if true, then whether the civilization was of tribal in nature, and if yes, then, Meiteis should be given a constitutionally recognized tribal status, and if no, then Meiteis should, in fact, be also not given the status of 'Other Backward Classes' as Meitei civilization can not be a product of the world of 'other backward classes' in its civilizational, linguistical, cultural, sociological, economic and educational sense.

Therefore, Meiteis should demand for going back to its pre – OBC category era, or Unreserved category, which is popularly known as 'General category' in 2016. Why should Meiteis allow themselves to be in OBC when Meiteis have such a great ancient civilization of 32,000 years? If Meiteis have accepted themselves as 'backward' in OBC, does it mean that it is far more honourable to accept the status of 'backwardness' instead of taking the tag of 'tribal' in 2016?

Have Meiteis forgotten the 32,000 years old of their ancient civilization, which exists till today, when they were listed under OBC category under the Indian Constitution? If the same logic of great Meitei mental, physical, cultural, economical and social calibre is applied and appreciated, and therefore, the Meiteis should not claim for Scheduled Tribe category, then the same logic should also not be forgotten and hence be applied equally, with the same motivation and pride, to the present Meiteis who are under OBC, as Meitei is a community which is constitutionally recognized as 'backward' by the Constitution, and therefore, Meiteis, instead of enjoying the rights and constitutional privileges of being in OBC, should protest against the inclusion of the Meiteis in OBC, afresh in 2016, so that the pride and history of Meiteis is retained in the 21st century.

Therefore, the Meiteis should again demand not for ST, but rather to remove OBC from the community and get back to the pre – OBC era category called 'Unreserved' or 'General' category for the Meiteis because the Meiteis, of the 21st century, can compete anywhere in the world, and therefore, the same Meiteis too can compete anywhere in India, which is governed strictly by its reservation policy, which is not a regressive but an affirmative policy of a vibrant democracy.

So, where should Meiteis go? Whether should they demand ST (Scheduled Tribe) because they were tribe like any other tribe, who is now under ST category under the Indian Constitution, of Manipur? Whether should they protest against the inclusion of Meitei as ST because Meiteis were never a tribe in the past? Whether should they demand for the reversion of OBC category of backward Meiteis to the Unreserved or General category of forward, progressive and highly competent Meiteis? Whether should they accept the 32,000 years old Meitei civilization bereft of tribalism? Whether should they consider that the first original inhabitant of Manipur, the Pleistocene modern human who sowed the 32,000 years of Meitei civilization, was tribal? Whether should they accept that all the children of Manipur had a common ancestor? Are Meiteis the descendants of the first original inhabitant of Manipur in 30,000 BCE? Should Meiteis realize the 21st century scenario? Should Meiteis live with its ancient civilization for the coming hundreds of centuries in future?

Is the question – "Is 32,000 years of Meitei civilization a sign of tribalism?" - a source of pragmatism in today's world economy and fast moving and shifting domestic national and regional politico-administrative and social fabric? Could there be a middle path which takes both the ancient civilization and the realities of the 21st century together in harmony? Can such middle path be possible in a democracy? Can such middle path exist in today's world of rationalism, logic and science?

Can Meitei's philosophical quest of logic and science resolve the classic argumentative inquiry of whether Meitei should be given Scheduled Tribe category or not under the Indian Constitution in the 21st century? Is today's demand of Meiteis for ST also a litmus test of accepting the same common ancestor of Manipur and hence all its children are the original inhabitants of the land of Manipur? The people, in a democracy, and its democratically elected government in Manipur can not choose to remain silent like Buddha's noble silence when Buddha was asked transcendental questions.

But, both the people and the government of Okram Ibobi Singh must, democratically, farsightedly, pragmatically and maturedly, look forward to Buddha's middle path in such a critical juncture of a history in making for the future generations of Manipur so that the future generations of the state live in their best possible harmony among themselves with Mother Nature.

The silence of Manipur Chief Minister Okram Ibobi Singh, in this case, can not be equated with that of Buddha's noble silence, as the silence of the elected Leader of Manipur will only help in building trust deficit among the people and therefore, the Chief Minister must proactively discuss the issue in its utmost seriousness without any delay, whether the state Cabinet should recommend Meitei for Scheduled Tribe or not in 2016.

Concluded...