Review of a book written by Dr Irengbam Mohendra Singh
- Title : The origin of the Meiteis of Manipur & Meiteilon is not a Tibeto-Bunnan language -

Sapam Geeta *

Title : The origin of the Meiteis of Manipur & Meiteilon is not a Tibeto-Bunnan language
(Price : Rs 400, Total pages : 271).

The book is divided into four chapters containing many photographs. Sri Khuraijam Dhiren Singh IAS (Rtd) has written the Foreword relating to the first 2 chapters. He says: “What Mahendra has done is to trace the origin of the Meiteis from the exodus of early human ancestors from East Africa, their mutes and evolution, and how the Meiteis came to have Mongoloid features but distinct from other Mongoloid tribes in and outside Manipur, based on DNA studies by a consortium of geneticists from all over the world.”

The first three chapters are a collection of creative writing thesis with expressive English requiring a vast vocabulary with more sophisticated, intricate and accurate descriptive words. In Chapter 1, the author expresses a passionate belief in a distinct Meitei identity. He says that the inclusion of Meiteilon (Manipuri) in the Tibeto-Burman (TB) group of language family by Grierson and Konov in 1903, was racially motivated as they grouped all Northeast Indian Mongoloids as savages. He has a strong point there as in the recent re-classification of TB languages by Prof James Matissoff, he has excluded Meiteilon from the TB family.

In Chapter 2, his hypothesis is that the Meiteis are the original inhabitants of Manipur. They did not have to come from any place in Southeast Asia as there are noarchaeologicalr fossil records. His theory is based on sound scientific premiss:
(1) the genetic evidence of human migration from Africa to India, and the expansion through the land bridge of the Northeast of India to Southeast Asia
(2) the scientific explanation of the evolution in anatomical features of human races
(3) the origin and the evolution of languages and
(4) the development of human behaviour with a change from hunter-gatherer to agriculture.

He argues that the notion that the Meiteis migrated in droves from Southeast Asia is a false observation, planted by the 19th century colonials, Christian missionaries and a couple of half-cooked anthropologists. They habitually included a guesswork description of the migratory origin of the tribe they described.

On the other hand, he believes that the Meiteis were separated from the early human expansion from East Africa 50,000 years ago, arriving in India 20,000 years ago and then to Southeast Asia through the Northeast (Manipur). He provides genetic explanation of how those who settled in Manipur evolved into the Mongoloid features with distinctive features, colour and culture; speaking the present language of Meiteilon.

In Chapter 3, I think Dr Mohendra is the first person ever to have written an essay on the Meitei national character. He points out that it was only in the 18th century that some European nations took an interest in their national characters. By the time of the French Revolution, the idea of “national character” in France and Germany had been formed.

But Britain, because of the nature of the United Kingdom and the Empire, did not have an idea of national character. He describes how the prominent Meitei national characters such as the Meitei aggressive nature have been due to Meitei ancients’ predisposition to warfare, which has genetically evolved into a trait. That is why the Meiteis do not want to be told how to behave and much less how to think.

He attributes another Meitei trait ie factionalism to an automatic editing of genetic material achieved by inversion and other accidental rearrangement when a cluster of formerly separate genes of the seven clans (salais) came together in a tight linkage group on a chromosome. He emphasises the large part played by Meiitei women in shaping Meitei national character. The Meitei women were always more ready than men to exert pressure and take a lead quite spontaneously, in support of their claims and grievances, as the Meira paibis are doing now.

He concludes that there was a distinctive Meitei national character, and it is still going strong with some evidences of it. However, for the future, the Meitei identity for the Meiteis would simply mean a loose Meitei citizenship in Manipur as the Meiteis do not anymore fantasize a Manipur dominated by them.

In the last essay about Meitei Insurgencies he is neither for nor against them though he says: “Personally speaking, I dream of an independent Manipur in recognition of my born-identity as a Manipuri, where I will not feel an alien citizen.” He gives an analytical discussion of the stand-off between the Meitei insurgents and the Government of India and how and why the Meitei insurgency had developed in the way that it did, and whether Manipur could become independent through mechanisms of self­determination. He worries that while New Delhi is blind and deaf to the suffering of the civilian population in Manipur there is a spontaneous course the insurgency is taking by creating a complete anarchy in Manipur.

Having studied the Kashmir separatists’ failure to conduct a plebiscite for self-determination even with the clandestine help of the Pakistani Armed Forces, he thinks a conduct of a plebiscite in Manipur for such a purpose seems to be out of question. In a nut-shell he explains the ambiguity of the UN Charter 1, Article 1: 2 dealing with the right of and to self­determination. According to this Charte, the Manipuris today do have a right to self­determination. But the big problem is that the law on self determination is not settled as to the scope of implementation.

In debating whether Manipur has a legal right to unilateral secession under international law or under the Indian Constitution, he says there is no Constitutional right, but the possibility of an unconstitutional declaration of secession leading to a de facto secession is always there. But the ultimate success of such secession would be dependent on the recognition by the International Community, which is likely to consider the legality and legitimacy of the merger of Manipur to India.

He further contends that under the UN Charter Manipur has other legal rights for self­determination in international law though unclear. According to International law the right to territorial integrity is the right of a sovereign nation.

As Manipur was a sovereign State before India annexed it, she is entitled to continue sovereignty. However, if India does not want to give up control over its territory (Manipur), claiming its right to territorial integrity, there is very little the UN could do. This is what is happening in Kashmir. The general idea is that achieving self-determination through peaceful means is acceptable, but disrupting militarily is not. At the same time when self-determination has been achieved militarily, the international community has generally been reluctant to ‘reverse the gain.

Lastly, Dr Mohendra explains the background, and the procedure, which in itself is vague, if we do want to petition the UN for self-determination. The book is heavy going to read as it is written in Literary English, not in Classical English. But you will get there in the end. Every Meitei should be proud to own one for his home library.