Tag: Notes from Bradford

var addthis_product=’wpp-252′;var addthis_options=”Google+1″By Dr Irengbam Mohendra Singh, 30 June 2011 The Meitei like other humans split from the chimpanzees and evolved into a more human-like form…

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/iA1FXC8nZws/

By: Dr Irengbam Mohendra singh

A mega drought occurred in Africa 5 million years ago and that forced evolutionary change on the apes, ancestral to both humans and chimps.

The population of these ancestor apes was between 50,000 and 100,000, according to genetic calculations. Times then were hard, with dwindling fruit-bearing trees and a shrinking habitat of forests. Generation after generation began to produce offspring who were more and more capable of adapting to the new changing environment.

Two sets of offspring survived. One continued to manage in the sparse forest as it continued to cling to the same old habit. It continued to create the lineage of chimpanzee.

The other managed to venture outside the forest while clinging to the trees at other times. Having learnt to survive on the ground, it managed to walk on two feet (bipedal apes), an evolution towards becoming human. The first walking apes, Astralopithecines, appeared in the fossil record 4.4 million years ago.

According to archaeologists, by 100,000 years ago the human branch of the apes had developed into humans who were anatomically similar to people of today but not behaviourally. By 50,000 years ago our ancestors still in their homeland of
African Northeast began to show signs of modern behaviour.

There are three hypotheses of the origin, evolution and migration of modern humans.
1. Out of Africa model (OA) by Christopher Stringer and Peter Andrews.
2. Multiregional model (MR) by Milford Wolpoff et al.
3. Prehistoric human gene migration (seeking an explanation adaptable
between OA and MR models).

In the 1990s from archaeological evidence, OA or RAO (Recent African origin)
has lent a strong support.

Scientists interested in human prehistory and evolution have made studies by using DNA analysis, of ‘archaic humans’ known as Homo Neanderthals (from a fossil found in the Neanderthal valley in Germany in 1857) who populated Europe and the Near East; and Homo erectus (standing man) who settled in parts of Asia.

Human evolution is characterised by a number of changes such as morphological, developmental, physiological and behavioural, which have taken place since the division between the last common ancestor of humans and the chimpanzees, 5 million years ago after a severe drought in Africa.

Then, 3 to 2 million years ago, there was another long period of cool, dry climate in which Africa’s forest diminished further. Another species called Homo habilis emerged. It retained its ape-like body form. They began to eat meat.

Meat eating allowed smaller gut to grow bigger (that’s how the appendix became a vestige) and provided extra nutrition to develop a bigger brain. The brain requires high quality nutrition that meat but not vegetarian food can provide

About 1.8 million years ago, during a warm interlude before the Pleistocene Ice Age
early humans left Africa in one or more groups. These archaic humans migrated to different parts of the world and followed their own evolutionary paths.

In the course of time they became extinct species known as Homo Neanderthals who settled in Europe and intermittently, parts of the Near East at about 50,000 years ago in the Pleistocene Ice Age. Homo erectus had reached Asia about 1 million years ago and settled in East Asia.

The first Homo sapiens came out of Africa and dispersed across the world 50,000 years ago, at a time when the northern latitudes of Europe and Asia were covered by sheets of ice. From northeast Africa they crossed the Red Sea to Arabia and travelled until they reached India where they split into two groups, each going separate ways.

One group expanded along the coastlines of southern Asia until they reached the foundered continent of Sahul (now Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania, all connected then as a land mass) some 46 thousand years ago.

Another group travelled along the land route, northeast from India and when they reached Europe slowly evicted the Neanderthals from their ancient homeland.

The evolutionary changes continued by events such as extremes of temperature, a variety of diseases, and cultural innovations. The anatomically modern humans were bereft of modern human behaviour and lacked the faculty of speech.

Modern humans in the past 20,000 years since their ancestors left Africa had occupied most of the world and were dependant on hunting and gathering for their existence. (Hunter-gatherers).

The human genome has provided geneticists with the means to trace the journey of the first emigrants from Africa by studying the male-producing Y chromosome and the maternal mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).

The recent knowledge of human migration comes from studies of mtDNA from the existing population. The most ancient human mitochondrial lineages are L1, L2 and L3 specific for Africa. L3’s daughter lineages (northeast African) are M and N that left Africa to colonize temperate zones. Lineage M is of particular interest in tracking the exodus of humans from Africa to India and Manipur.

The genes change in human evolution. Genes are strings of DNA molecules that embody the information to make proteins. Proteins are working parts of the living cell. Each gene comes in a variety of different versions known as alleles.

Alleles pass at random onto the next generation and the next and so on until it becomes ‘fixed’ or ‘universal’. That is when the population is said to have gone through evolutionary change. Thus evolution is the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms.

The genes are replicators. Everyone carries about half of their father’s genes and half of their mother’s. The other halves are discarded along with the genes they contain.

All genes look alike but differ only in their effects on the embryo in the future generations. A phenotype is a term used to the effect of a modified gene. For instance: the green eyes, pale skin, a snubbed Meitei nose, or the different features between Meiteis and Tangkhuls.

The existence of different human races such as Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasian is more phenotypic evidence of evolution due to genetic differentiation. It is believed that the first humans who reached Europe 45,000 years ago would have retained their black skin and
other African features.

The variety of languages, different colours and different physical features of humans we have today are phenotypic evidence of evolution.

During the Last Ice Age about 20,000 years ago, a shift to a more European phenotype had occurred (Holiday 1997). Later changes occurred by about 11,000 years ago to European skin colour, eye colour, and hair colour through allelic changes.

Whitening of the skin through allelic changes at the AIM1 gene occurred at about 11,000 years ago (Soejima et al, 2005). So was the diversification of eye colour alleles at the OCA2 gene (Voight et al, 2005).The diversification of the hair colour alleles at MC1R gene has yet to be dated.

Geneticists believe that the changes were driven by adaptation to the natural environment and by intense sexual competition for mates, especially female-female competition for men, who were in short supply because of their long hunting distances (Frost, 2006).

The existence of different human races such as Mongoloid (Meitei), Negroid and Caucasian is more phenotypic evidence of evolution due to genetic differentiation.

There is no definite evidence for the Mongoloid anatomical change in the Natural Selection Theory. The current hypothesis is that the evolution to the Mongoloids emerged by genetic ‘drift.’ It means a random fluctuation in gene frequencies that occur between generations. It is a revolutionary change rather than evolutionary.

The first use of the term ‘Mongoloid race’ by a German, Christopher Meiners who classified human population into two races: Caucasian, and Mongolian – which consisted everyone else.

Biologists have long theorised that the Mongoloid features occurred during the end of the Last Glacial Maximum as an adaptation to the cold, 20,000 years ago while the Mongoloid skull would have developed by chance alone. The pale skin, the epicanthic folds of the eyes and stockier body are all adaptations for survival in the cold.

Marta Mirazon, the physical anthropologist says: one archaeological data at least confirms that humans from the Mongoloid race resided in North-East during the Palaeolithic era. It is estimated that it was at the end of Last Glacial Maximum, 20,000 years ago that our human ancestors began to settle down in East Asia before the invention of agriculture.

During the late Last Ice Age about 25,000- 20,000 years ago, anatomical change from the original dark African ancestors to the Mongolic phenotype occurred as did to the Meiteis in Manipur, because of ‘drift’ or by Natural selection, as adaptation to cold. The Meiteis were a small population and thus favourable to the force of ‘drift’

As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations (Darwin), the Meiteis, though having some phenotypic similarities to the other Mongoloid tribal people of Manipur and outside, have characteristics that are distinguishable from them by their deep- rooted linguistic, cultural and behavioural history, intrinsic only to them.

The writer is based in the UK
Email: imsingh@onetel.com
Website: www.drimsingh.co.uk

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/SOlN4GjOwWY/

By:Dr Irengbam Mohendra Singh

In the anthropological doctrine, to understand Meitei national character is to study their “bellicose trait”; that is, how it affects public and private life and how it became a Meitei trait.

It is a combative doctrine on moderate provocations, which supersede any other character. This is an obsessive compulsive trait. It has its own virtues and vices, as all national characters have.

In 1953 when I had the madness to beat up a College Professor in Shillong, it was said by college authorities that Manipuri students who came to Shillong were pugnacious because they came from isolated Manipur and because of their inferiority complex they tried to over-predicate themselves. I did not quite believe it at that time. In later life, I had a feeling that might be true. Much later in life, I did some research on it to find out if it was indeed, a part of our culture or a trait we had inherited somehow.

Going back in our history, only as far as Raja Gambhir Singh, I decided to construct a Meitei national character in search of the truth.

Gambhir Singh was recognized as the Raja of Manipur and the Treaty of Yandabo was signed in1826, between the East India Company and the Burmese. That Treaty bound the Burmese to recognize the perpetual independence of Manipur.

This was the starting point of the emergence of Meitei national character as iron entered the soul of the Meitei. The newly released Meitei spirit joined the living and dead – the romantically lost and the living present.

They began to quantify their bull’s eye with daring and persistent energy; the trust in their physical prowess and the ability of their kings to keep their subjects under control.

The unity of the warring seven clans under the Meitei Kings was set off on a chain reaction due to costs and benefits of cooperation, underpinning their social life and providing the foundation of a unified Meitei national character.

The Meitei nation was firmly established because of the biological basis of trusting behaviour to each other clan and the combinatorial system of vocabulary and syntax that led to a common religion of Sanamahi laining.

The common religion and the ritualistic celebration of Lai Harouba (entertaining the gods) of the Umang lai (gods of the woods) bonded them together and catalysed them into a national cohesion.

Further, the Meitei conversion to Hinduism in the beginning of the 18th century offered a way in which all the seven clans could be imagined as shrinking and converging, and thus forming an idea of Meitei national character.

The Meitei national character supports the Darwinian concept of the ‘survival of the fittest’. To survive one must be fit and brave.

Indeed, natural selection promoting genes for courage has probably been more ruthless for the Meitei because of their small group than in more densely populated and politically complex societies.

Following this introduction, my thesis statement is to imply that Meitei aggressiveness links to a superiority rather than and inferiority complex merging with narcissism in the development of Meitei national character.

When I beat up the College Professor in Shillong in 1953 inferiority complex never entered my head. In fact, I felt I was one of the smartest young men in India.

There is the ‘Unicist ontology of human complexes’ (1985) led by Peter Belohlavec (IQ>180) based on the research of Alfred Adler. Human complexes can be classified into inferiority and superiority complexes. Although they always work together, they can be considered different concepts because of different functionality and their different origin.

Inferiority complexes are originated by a physical handicap of an individual. On the other hand superior complexes are compensation attitudes for inferiority complexes or complexes based on extreme talents of an individual that makes her/him superior.

Superiority complexes are based on superior functional intelligence implying a structural different attitude. While inferiority complexes drive towards inaction in order to deny the reality that affects self-esteem, superiority complexes drive towards aggressive active action to destroy the bothering object. That was exactly what I did when trying to destroy the Professor.

On newer research, psychologists found out that there was an indication that persons who have low or high esteem levels are more prone to aggressive behaviour if they have high levels of a trait known as narcissism (excessive interest in oneself).

Narcissism is the personality trait of conceit, or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is sometimes used to denote elitism. Narcissus in Greek myth was a pathologically self-absorbed young man who fell in love with his own reflection in a pool. Freud believed that some narcissism is an essential part of all of us from birth.

Andrew Morrison claims that, in adults, a reasonable amount of healthy (not pathological) narcissism allows the individual perception of his needs to be balanced in relation to others. Some experts believe a disproportionate number of pathological narcissists are at work in the most influential reaches of society, such as medicine, finance and politics.

The Meitei do have genes producing a narcissistic trait that correlates to their aggressive act.

Narcissists have an inflated sense of self-worth and self-love without a strong set of beliefs that support this sense of superiority (e.g., Kernberg, 1975; see also Freud, 1917/1966). Because narcissists have unstable self-esteem, they are extremely sensitive to personal slights, such as insults and criticism.

Narcissism is characterised by a vulnerability to threats to the self-concept. And thus, when ego-threatening situations occur, narcissistic individuals tend to behave aggressively (Baumeister, Bushman, Y & Campbell 2000).

The modern study of human psychology by brain scan shows that social rejection (negative complex) activates brain areas that generate physical pain. It also shows that when we feel or are made to feel socially inferior, two areas of the brain become activated.

One area makes you feel a sense of sinking at the bottom of the abyss; the other area motivates to stave off the pain of feeling second rate, and you are compelled to compensate as a reward.

Richard Dawkins would call this Meitei gene, a “selfish gene”. The ‘Selfish Gene’ is a book on evolution by Richard Dawkins, published in 1975, with a 30th-anniversary edition in 2006. Dawkins is famous for doing research on non-peer view described theories. He uses the “Selfish Gene” as a way of expressing his new ‘gene-centred view of evolution’ – an organism is expected to evolve to maximise its “inclusive fitness”.

In its long journey through generations, this particular selfish Meitei gene had been seeking something equivalent to an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS). In behavioural ecology, an ESS is an equilibrium refinement of the Nash equilibrium – it is a Nash equilibrium which is “evolutionarily” stable, meaning that once it is fixed in a population, natural selection alone is sufficient to prevent alternative (mutant) strategies from successfully invading.

It seems that the Meitei have developed this notable narcissism because of a protective Meitei chromosome that constitutes a single long-lived genetic unit for survival of the fittest.

But how can a single gene determine the aggregate trait of the seven clans of the Meitei nation? The answer is that one gene cannot. But it is possible by the automatic editing achieved by ‘inversions’ and other accidental rearrangement of genetic material, a large cluster of formerly separate genes has come together in a tight linkage group on a chromosome.

Figuratively speaking, the whole is the sum of all its parts. And the character of the parts will determine the characteristics of the whole. The gene which is a piece of chromosome could live as copies for generations and generations as a Selfish Gene.

The genes are immortal. So, the narcissism as part of Meitei national character is determined by the aggregate linkage group of different genes of the seven warring clans, on a chromosome.

Genetics influences personality that accounts for 50% of the variations in many personality traits. Other 50% comes from nurture ie environment. Healthy narcissism and narcissistic responses to stress and trauma are likely to have genetic basis. Study of genetics and narcissism suggested that 64% of the variation was accounted for by genetics (Livesley WJ, Lange KL et al 1993).

The ecosystem and geographical factors of Manipur primarily influenced the genetic development of Meitei narcissism, while history, sociology, philosophy and ethnology gained significance later. Meitei narcissism is thus an adaptive behaviour that has evolved in the Meitei genome for living in today’s society.

In conclusion: My boning up of Meitei narcissism refers to a set of anthropological studies after World War II (ultimately ended) that arose from a variety of approaches with culture and personality studies within psychological anthropology.

Foot note: in an article of 1.500 words I normally avoid citations, but in this article I have inserted a few by way of reinforcement that my views are based on references.

The writer is based in the UK
Email: imsingh@onetel.com
Website: www.drimsingh.co.uk

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/k9r10HhXEIE/

By:Dr Irengbam Mohendra Singh

In the anthropological doctrine, to understand Meitei national character is to study their “bellicose trait”; that is, how it affects public and private life and how it became a Meitei trait.

It is a combative doctrine on moderate provocations, which supersede any other character. This is an obsessive compulsive trait. It has its own virtues and vices, as all national characters have.

In 1953 when I had the madness to beat up a College Professor in Shillong, it was said by college authorities that Manipuri students who came to Shillong were pugnacious because they came from isolated Manipur and because of their inferiority complex they tried to over-predicate themselves. I did not quite believe it at that time. In later life, I had a feeling that might be true. Much later in life, I did some research on it to find out if it was indeed, a part of our culture or a trait we had inherited somehow.

Going back in our history, only as far as Raja Gambhir Singh, I decided to construct a Meitei national character in search of the truth.

Gambhir Singh was recognized as the Raja of Manipur and the Treaty of Yandabo was signed in1826, between the East India Company and the Burmese. That Treaty bound the Burmese to recognize the perpetual independence of Manipur.

This was the starting point of the emergence of Meitei national character as iron entered the soul of the Meitei. The newly released Meitei spirit joined the living and dead – the romantically lost and the living present.

They began to quantify their bull’s eye with daring and persistent energy; the trust in their physical prowess and the ability of their kings to keep their subjects under control.

The unity of the warring seven clans under the Meitei Kings was set off on a chain reaction due to costs and benefits of cooperation, underpinning their social life and providing the foundation of a unified Meitei national character.

The Meitei nation was firmly established because of the biological basis of trusting behaviour to each other clan and the combinatorial system of vocabulary and syntax that led to a common religion of Sanamahi laining.

The common religion and the ritualistic celebration of Lai Harouba (entertaining the gods) of the Umang lai (gods of the woods) bonded them together and catalysed them into a national cohesion.

Further, the Meitei conversion to Hinduism in the beginning of the 18th century offered a way in which all the seven clans could be imagined as shrinking and converging, and thus forming an idea of Meitei national character.

The Meitei national character supports the Darwinian concept of the ‘survival of the fittest’. To survive one must be fit and brave.

Indeed, natural selection promoting genes for courage has probably been more ruthless for the Meitei because of their small group than in more densely populated and politically complex societies.

Following this introduction, my thesis statement is to imply that Meitei aggressiveness links to a superiority rather than and inferiority complex merging with narcissism in the development of Meitei national character.

When I beat up the College Professor in Shillong in 1953 inferiority complex never entered my head. In fact, I felt I was one of the smartest young men in India.

There is the ‘Unicist ontology of human complexes’ (1985) led by Peter Belohlavec (IQ>180) based on the research of Alfred Adler. Human complexes can be classified into inferiority and superiority complexes. Although they always work together, they can be considered different concepts because of different functionality and their different origin.

Inferiority complexes are originated by a physical handicap of an individual. On the other hand superior complexes are compensation attitudes for inferiority complexes or complexes based on extreme talents of an individual that makes her/him superior.

Superiority complexes are based on superior functional intelligence implying a structural different attitude. While inferiority complexes drive towards inaction in order to deny the reality that affects self-esteem, superiority complexes drive towards aggressive active action to destroy the bothering object. That was exactly what I did when trying to destroy the Professor.

On newer research, psychologists found out that there was an indication that persons who have low or high esteem levels are more prone to aggressive behaviour if they have high levels of a trait known as narcissism (excessive interest in oneself).

Narcissism is the personality trait of conceit, or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is sometimes used to denote elitism. Narcissus in Greek myth was a pathologically self-absorbed young man who fell in love with his own reflection in a pool. Freud believed that some narcissism is an essential part of all of us from birth.

Andrew Morrison claims that, in adults, a reasonable amount of healthy (not pathological) narcissism allows the individual perception of his needs to be balanced in relation to others. Some experts believe a disproportionate number of pathological narcissists are at work in the most influential reaches of society, such as medicine, finance and politics.

The Meitei do have genes producing a narcissistic trait that correlates to their aggressive act.

Narcissists have an inflated sense of self-worth and self-love without a strong set of beliefs that support this sense of superiority (e.g., Kernberg, 1975; see also Freud, 1917/1966). Because narcissists have unstable self-esteem, they are extremely sensitive to personal slights, such as insults and criticism.

Narcissism is characterised by a vulnerability to threats to the self-concept. And thus, when ego-threatening situations occur, narcissistic individuals tend to behave aggressively (Baumeister, Bushman, Y & Campbell 2000).

The modern study of human psychology by brain scan shows that social rejection (negative complex) activates brain areas that generate physical pain. It also shows that when we feel or are made to feel socially inferior, two areas of the brain become activated.

One area makes you feel a sense of sinking at the bottom of the abyss; the other area motivates to stave off the pain of feeling second rate, and you are compelled to compensate as a reward.

Richard Dawkins would call this Meitei gene, a “selfish gene”. The ‘Selfish Gene’ is a book on evolution by Richard Dawkins, published in 1975, with a 30th-anniversary edition in 2006. Dawkins is famous for doing research on non-peer view described theories. He uses the “Selfish Gene” as a way of expressing his new ‘gene-centred view of evolution’ – an organism is expected to evolve to maximise its “inclusive fitness”.

In its long journey through generations, this particular selfish Meitei gene had been seeking something equivalent to an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS). In behavioural ecology, an ESS is an equilibrium refinement of the Nash equilibrium – it is a Nash equilibrium which is “evolutionarily” stable, meaning that once it is fixed in a population, natural selection alone is sufficient to prevent alternative (mutant) strategies from successfully invading.

It seems that the Meitei have developed this notable narcissism because of a protective Meitei chromosome that constitutes a single long-lived genetic unit for survival of the fittest.

But how can a single gene determine the aggregate trait of the seven clans of the Meitei nation? The answer is that one gene cannot. But it is possible by the automatic editing achieved by ‘inversions’ and other accidental rearrangement of genetic material, a large cluster of formerly separate genes has come together in a tight linkage group on a chromosome.

Figuratively speaking, the whole is the sum of all its parts. And the character of the parts will determine the characteristics of the whole. The gene which is a piece of chromosome could live as copies for generations and generations as a Selfish Gene.

The genes are immortal. So, the narcissism as part of Meitei national character is determined by the aggregate linkage group of different genes of the seven warring clans, on a chromosome.

Genetics influences personality that accounts for 50% of the variations in many personality traits. Other 50% comes from nurture ie environment. Healthy narcissism and narcissistic responses to stress and trauma are likely to have genetic basis. Study of genetics and narcissism suggested that 64% of the variation was accounted for by genetics (Livesley WJ, Lange KL et al 1993).

The ecosystem and geographical factors of Manipur primarily influenced the genetic development of Meitei narcissism, while history, sociology, philosophy and ethnology gained significance later. Meitei narcissism is thus an adaptive behaviour that has evolved in the Meitei genome for living in today’s society.

In conclusion: My boning up of Meitei narcissism refers to a set of anthropological studies after World War II (ultimately ended) that arose from a variety of approaches with culture and personality studies within psychological anthropology.

Foot note: in an article of 1.500 words I normally avoid citations, but in this article I have inserted a few by way of reinforcement that my views are based on references.

The writer is based in the UK
Email: imsingh@onetel.com
Website: www.drimsingh.co.uk

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/k9r10HhXEIE/

By: Dr Irengbam Mohendra Singh

Meiteis are arrogant and aggressive by nature. There is a common Meitei phrase; mana kari khangdana; eina khangibasin?; mamaida khudumna pop thajilaga loir?. In English: he doesn’t
know anything, I know better; I’ll just smash ‘pop’ on his face with my clenched fist.

In an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been achieved this is not actually sophisticated behaviour.

Meiteis have inherited aggressive trait though it is scientifically incorrect to say that human evolution brought on aggressive behaviour more than for other kinds of behaviour. However, in the course of Meitei evolution there has been a selection for aggressive trait.

The Meitei aggressiveness is not the same thing as bravery. Bravery is when you do something that frightens you, but you do it anyway because your gut feeling tells you that it is
right.

The pre-modern Meiteis possessed an unconquerable ‘notion of superiority’ over each other and over their neighbours – a conceited trait – not false Meitei self-esteem.

In my later life I had a sneaky feeling that this arrogant Meitei character had something to do with an ‘inferiority complex’, which we have inherited.

In my younger days I had doubt regarding the certainty of truth that I had an inferiority complex or at least my comprehension of it, could be said to be socially constructed.

In my undergraduate studies I did learn that people with inferiority complex, suffer from an unrealistic feeling of general inadequacy, caused by real or supposed inferiority in one sphere. It is sometimes marked by aggressive behaviour in compensation.

Ancient Meitei men did not regard most of what passes for tolerance today as tolerance at all, but rather intellectual or physical cowardice and those who hide behind that word are often afraid of intelligent or physical engagement.

Even now the Meiteis find it easier to hurl an insult than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it. They are unwilling to be challenged by alternate points of view, to engage contrary opinions, or even to consider them.

A recent example: an educated Meitei, true to our inherited trait of inferiority complex, sent me an email disagreeing with what I wrote in my article – “How did the Meiteis come from Africa?”

He wrote haughtily: “Your research seems to be at the initial stage, do not assume that other people will accept easily your hypothesis; I feel that you need to review it in the light of the fossil finds in China and Southeast Asia, and also I suggest to acquaint with the formation of …”

“Further you have also mentioned that phenotypical (sic phenotypic) similarity does not indicate genotypic relationship of the people. But in genetics phenotype is the outward
expression of the inherent gene. By writing such unfounded information are you trying to divide the people of Manipur?”

In normal non-Meitei decorum, he would have simply asked me to cite references. Or, he could have rephrased it like: “I would have thought your hypothesis is not in keeping with the fossil finds in China (??which) and genetics”.

Perhaps he also overlooked that in advanced genetics, not all organisms that look alike (phenotype) necessarily have the same genotype. Phenotypes of organisms are produced by complex interactions between genetic and environmental information.

For a vivid imagery of this Meitei character, I as a genuine representative will describe two true, personal stories from my experience.

A young Meitei man: during my teenage years I always decanted with pleasure by a relative peculiarity of Meitei character. It was a fighting creed on moderate provocations, which superseded any other character. It had its own virtues and vices, as all national characters have.

In Meitei anthology, this character is considered the most profound, from the several angles of the conditions of its existence and its symbolic capacities.

Having graduated from the rough-and-tumble fights of my school days, for which I was not cut out physically but through sheer Meitei narcissism, the fighting trait filtered through my university days, with paroxysmal scraps.

The trait showed up only when I felt that I was either intimidated or my character was defamed.

Like everybody else, I was born without built-in mental content (Tabula rasa or clean-slate).
My personality, social and emotional behaviour, and intelligence come from my inherited genes.

In the formative years of my life I had a few serious near-misses in my tryst with destiny that links my behaviour to this Meitei trait. One such incident almost ruined my life. Had I been
imprisoned (as could have been), I would not be what I am to day. And that was not the only time.

As a student at St Edmund’s College in Shillong, I beat up a College Professor for his act of “injustice” that was done with my character. I was not a hero who stood out a mile in the narrow confines of my time. It was aggressive Meitei character.

An elderly Meitei man: one evening while I was doing my stint as a doctor at Churachandpur, the Chief Minister at that time visited Churachandpur with his two younger Meitei colleagues and the mayang Chief Secretary. They were having a drink of whisky at the mayang SDO’s bungalow. I was also invited.

During the merry party there was a heated argument between the CM and a colleague. I was having a drink in a corner with CS and SDO. Suddenly we heard the CM challenging the other in true Meitei style.

Karino ibungo nangna hairibasibo? Mapanda hekta thoknarushi. In Englsih: how dare you say this? Let’s go out and have a fight. The CS said to me – ‘Mohinder let’s go to the other room’ and we went.

Fortunately nothing had happened, but had the other chap obliged, the CM would have had a brawl on the lawn of the Bungalow. In civilisational terms this was unthinkable.

I have been doing some research about this Meitei social-behavioural model as an
evolutionary adaptation.

Human aggressive behaviour is inherent. We did not evolve in the environment we have now created for ourselves. In stressful situations they revert to aggression, as this was necessary response to a threat or survival

Meitei national character can be conceived as the inherent Meitei spirit or the primary agency of their historical change. It is a collectivistic national character that pursues conjoined objectives. It refers to properties that pluralities display in Meitei national communities.

In medieval times, the warlike states of antiquity, educated a race of Meiteis as soldiers; exercised their bodies, disciplined their courage. It was then possible to maintain the traditional virtues of the Meitei national character as a fit-to-fight and fighting-fit nation.

Meitei men who were trained for fighting in war and traditional farmers in peace time had no tolerance skills. Decreased tolerance or lack of self-confidence developed into aggression.

Meiteis have inherited this aggressive trait though it is scientifically incorrect to say that human evolution brought on aggressive behaviour more than for other kinds of behaviour. However, in the course of Meitei evolution there has been a selection for aggressive trait. Fighting for survival needs aggression.

This character accrued from a combination of dense intellectual quirkiness and their fighting talent, with an ever present desire to show how brave they were. It was the period of a more conservative idea of patriotism, a culture of sentimentalism and awareness in their perceived fighting ability.

The Meitei character and mind were often whipped up by frequent wars and skirmishes with the neighbouring nations and tribes. And because the population was sparse, the Meiteis, like the Spartans of Greece, were taught in their boyhood to be tough, and were trained to be good soldiers.

The Meitei nation was a historically evolved stable community of economic life, language, territory and psychological homogeneity and always ready for war like India is today.

Given the stringency of their fighting ability, self-reliance and self-sufficiency, the Meitei national character undoubtedly wrenched them into a new genetic unit, which eventually mutated by what is called ‘inversion’ producing a phenotype of Meiteis with arrogance and aggressiveness.

The forces needed in the handling of the central features of Meitei national character
were moral and physical courage and readiness for combat either individually or socially.

It would not be inappropriate to say that the Meitei is a well-balanced person, responsible and capable of recognizing his own true self- interest, in obedience to the law and co-operation with others.

In the inimical environment they lived in, also in such a small community, they evolved by natural selection into a fighting community for survival. Our biological trait of aggressive behaviour became inherited by natural selection as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers.
Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic heritable basis of any phenotype which gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population like the ancestor Meiteis because of the milieu (Charles Darwin on Sexual selection).
The writer is based in the UK. Email: imsingh@onetel.comWebsite: www.drimsingh.co.uk

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/yCAFs3_rxNA/

By Dr Irengbam Mohendra Singh
December 6 2010

This is an article of thinking about thinking. Everyone thinks. It is human nature to do so. But
much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased and distorted.

We all love our children to distraction. Then hope is not enough for their future. Children
consider themselves to be important people with rights and no responsibilities (80% in long
running American personality tests in the 1990s). Even unborn children have rights according
to anti-abortionists.

Going through the archives of internet articles of E-Pao it seems that certain insurgent group
or groups banned the screening of Hindi films in cinema halls in Manipur for the past few
years.

I have good reason to believe that the revolutionaries in question, were then engaged in re-
moralising the Meitei society from the bottom up – from a mayangised society to a meiteied
socio-cultural group. They must have thought about it critically and decided to strike the right
note.

The Spartan simplicity in the thinking does not need much explanation as the intention was
altruistic. It sounds like a condescending statement on my part but it is not. I honestly believe
the decision was prompted by a concern to preserve a Manipuri cultural identity.

But the driving force was on a collision course with the future of our grandchildren
who have a right to learn the Hindi language, as will be followed up later.

My essay is an attempt about putting a spoke in the revolutionary wheel against railroading
the children into doing things that would leave them hungry and inadequate.

It is a peace-offering debate on the reasons of discontinuing the ban on Hindi films, now that
so much has happened in the socio-political structure of Meiteis in particular, and Manipuris
at large. It is all about shifting sand in the winds of time from the cliché of hating Hindi to the
cliché of accommodating it for the benefit of our grandchildren.

We will have plenty of time for societal reforms once independence has been restored.
In the interlude, our children have rights, which the grown-ups should see that they are
honoured.

To quote Dwight Eisenhower: “The older I get the more wisdom I find in the ancient rule of
taking first things first.”
The ban on Hindi films has been a culture shock to our children as if they have needed an
infusion of a much-needed paradigm shift to define their culture. There are other ways of
instilling such a culture.

Instead of being fixated on primordial dress, dance or language, the children would be better
taught to see their culture from a socio-historical perspective and in the light of the existing
Indo-Manipuri political conflict.

(2)

The revolt generated, partly by the coercion to hate Hindi films has forced many well-to-do
parents to send their children to schools outside of Manipur to learn Hindi among other
subjects and to see Hindi flicks. One cannot blame these parents. Darwin’s “survival of the
fittest” was not just hot air.

It is a vast amount of dough spent in “alien” India, which could be kept in Manipur by
sending some of the children to good private schools in Imphal. There are so many.

Our grandchildren should have liberty, meaning to be free to do something. Thomas Jefferson
declared: “Liberty is one of our inalienable rights.” They should be taught the meaning of
freedom, meaning free from something. The limitation of liberty should always be the guiding
principle for the children and not shoved down their throat.

As water always finds its way our children will find their way for themselves. No
revolutionary group has forced the new generation of Meiteis to change their Hindu names
back to the original Meitei names or to change Hinduism to Sanamahism, or Christianity.

We live in Manipur which is hell on earth. All the same, our children like everybody else in
India are entering an era of postmodernity ie living beyond the modern ways, ideas, beliefs,
and paradigms. They need to learn Hindi to enter the socio-economic continuum of India,
whether we like it or not.

We live in India and sleep in India. We breathe and eat a little bit of India everyday. Look
at what happened when All Naga students’ Association, Manipur (ANSAM) blocked the
National Highway 39 for 52 days in June 2005. We were without India and almost starved.

Our young people have to keep up with the Joneses. They have to adapt to the rapid changing
times of modern technology and be able to freely communicate with the mayang Indian
population.

The Manipuri children should be provided with better facilities to improve their Hindi
language skills and confidence so that they have a better opportunity to compete in India.
Seeing Hindi films is a stepping stone.

The south Indians were once anti-Hindi from the time of C Rajagopacharia. They are now
producing Hindi films much more than Bollywood. We may perhaps take our cue from the
Keralite Christians. Delhi is full of Keralite businessmen and professionals because of their
fluency in Hindi.

One of my best friends from early college days at St Xavier’s in Bombay died on February
16 2007. He was bed-bound for about 11 months at his home, needing intensive nursing care.
I went to see him in Mumbai in November 2006. He was nursed day and night by 2 nurses
from Kerala, who would communicate with me in Hindi better than English.

In the fiercely competitive India where we are already disadvantaged by 50% because of
our Mongoloid looks, the future of our grandchildren without glibness in Hindi is very bleak
indeed.

Keeping our children away from watching Hindi movies which is a good audio-visual
medium of learning Hindi is against the Universal declaration of Rights for Children. One
clause reads: ‘we the children of the world must live with justice, but above all, with the
dignity we deserve’.

(3)

While Hindi is spoken by 800 million people in the world, the Manipuri children are left
fumbling in the dark through the maze of Hindi speaking India.

Hindi has evolved by a natural process for communication in day-to-day India. Nothing can
stop this. We need to involve our children to take part in this evolution. Otherwise, they will
be left behind as “chimpanzees” as some of our ancestor apes that did not take part in the
human evolution.

Hindi language is a part of the political and ideological power of the rulers in New Delhi, who
mostly speak Hindi. Speaking Hindi is an advantage. It would be a greater advantage if our
children could speak Hindi in Received Pronunciation as spoken in Hindi movies.

The majority of Bollywood actors and actresses are Punjabis. They have to take courses in
speaking Hindi/Urdu with the posh pronunciation.
.
Modern Bollywood films have nothing in common with Indian culture. They are modelled on
musical Hollywood films except that the hero and heroine chase around a tree and roll down
the snowy mountain slopes of Kulu Manali.

Educations are the birth right of all Manipur children and why ban their right to watch Hindi
films? It is obligated to us to let them see Hindi films in as much as they have a birth right to
be tucked into bed every evening by their parents.

Every Indian whether a Punjabi, Gujarati, Marathi or Bengali does not speak English or
Hindi. Hindi however, is a common language with which we can communicate with each
other.

Our children must be taught not to speak in foist Hindi. Speaking like ‘Ham khata hai;
tum kiya mangta hai’ – will no go very far in explaining one’s longings and fears in the
competitive world of Hindi speaking India. Watching Hindi films will improve their accent.

Talking logically and persuasively, the Manipuri youths across the tribal divides should have
the rite of passage to Hindi, to be able to compete with mayang Indian youths. Hindi should
not be made as rare as hen’s teeth for Manipuri youngsters.

My article is a proposition about lifting the ban in the light of the argument I have given, by
showing an astute sense of strategic innovations required to deliver a solid foundation for the
future of our children.

Whether the Manipuris, 2.5 million people in 1 billion India, watch Hindi films or not, it is of
no more importance than a flea or a louse to the government of India, or mayang Indians who
know nothing about Manipur. It is our loss, our children’s loss.

We are not a candle in Manipur to show light in New Delhi. It is in the interest of our
grandchildren to open up to India for our economic prosperity with a salubrious diet of Hindi.

The writer is based in the UK
Email: imsingh@onetel.com
Website: www.drimsingh.co.uk

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/OmpazEyjd1g/

By: Dr Irengbam Mohendra Singh

For whom the bell tolls? It tolls for the. For whom the Meitei insurgents are fighting? They are fighting for us. Or, are they?

Since the Vietnam War ended insurgencies have evolved all over the world and become more sophisticated and hard to defeat.

In Manipur, Meitei insurgencies have erupted for a noble cause: to fight “the illegal occupation” by India and to restore Manipur’s independence.

The late Sardar Patel who responded to Governor Prakasa of Assam and his adviser Rustomji: “Isn’t a Brigadier in Shillong?” meaning to put the knife in Manipur, will eat his heart out to find so many Brigadiers, Major Generals and Lieutenant generals in and out of Manipur.

When the Meitei insurgents first began their lese-majesty they warmed the cockles Meitei hearts. Where are they now? Having entrusted them with the stewardship of the nation have they lost their ways in the mist of political time, almost defying belief?

After opening Pandora’s Box they seem to have taken the line of least resistance. Might it be that a raging sixty three year-old obsession with the “Indian occupation” and the factional clutter of the many insurgent groups have blinded revolutionary strategists to the old verities?

Have these revolutionaries who have begun the insurgency following Chairman Mao’s ideology, got no more shots in the locker?

Rather than intimidating New Delhi (GOI) are they pointlessly stirring Indian occupation to life in Manipur with 50,000 Indian solders protected by AFSPA, shooting or arresting various cadres day in and day out?

It is not my intention in this paper to catalogue all the anti-social activities of the various insurgent groups in Manipur by injecting a little political hand-wringing in my writing repertoire.

In the scales of history, the Meitei revolutionary activities would appear to be there to stay until Manipur becomes a sovereign state, as it is the avowed aim of some major Meitei insurgent groups. They may appear to have subjugated all personal desires to the dictates of a cause or ideology.

However, in the sanguinary Meitei liberation movement, judging from the precedents in the short history of Independent India, measured across time and space, the freedom day if there comes a day at all, is over the hills and far away.

The existence of so many insurgent groups is baffling for Joe Public as he/she cannot grasp which one of them will form the government of ‘free’ Manipur and judging from Meitei factionalism, would they end up fighting it out among themselves, for, ‘the winner takes all’?

The scenario can be mimicked from a scientifically studied two-headed snake found in Spain not so long ago (2002). Often the two heads will fight over which head will swallow the prey. They have a good deal of difficulty deciding which direction to go and are highly vulnerable to predators.

The Meitei revolution with low level protracted violence with its ‘ideological’ and ‘commercial’ agenda though an enduring security problem, is becoming vegetated. The various Meitei insurgent groups are now locked into a stalemate with the overwhelming Indian security forces. A revolution especially by a congeries of small armed groups cannot go on forever.

From the tumultuous initial hurly-burly there is hardly any revolutionary activity now except promulgating curfew around school perimeter during examination times with warning to school children of befitting punishment for cheating and to invigilators for conniving. I won’t have thought it to be top priority in a revolution.

The universal thesis of a revolution is that nation-building cannot start until the national security is established by a successful revolution. Mao Zedong began social organisation only in 1949 after he came to power.

The only visible signs of revolution for the grassroots are extortion notes followed by signature tunes of Chinese made hand grenades thrown in unexploded as a warning.

On the ‘constitutional’ side of some Meitei insurgencies there is the plebiscite option for mechanisms of self determination for an independent Manipur. There have recently been a few inchoate whines following RK Meghan’s call for plebiscite on February 7 2011.

The application for a plebiscite is to ascertain under which authority the “Manipuri nation” wishes to live – India or Manipur. But is there a Manipuri nation? A nation is a group of people who have decided to live together. In Manipur there are many ‘ethnic nations’.

A plebiscite in Manipur must necessarily include the majority Meiteis and all the tribes in Manipur as all the tribal people have equal rights and opportunities as the Meiteis.

As Oscar Wilde wrote in ‘The Importance of Being Earnest’, we should treat all the trivial things of life seriously, and all the serious and studied things of life with sincere and studied triviality.

For a wide range of reasons the Meitei revolutionary march remains a mere fragmentary because of the peculiar concatenation of circumstances. One aspect is Meitei disunity, which is the badge of our tribe. The other is the ‘commercial’ clubs of the sons of anarchy – a hateful and licentious lawlessness.

While pondering how we can architect our way out of the mess, the nonchalant GOI leave us at our own devices as our affliction does not impact on them. In evolutionary terms they cannot feel our angst in their brain, which they would have done if it had happened in Allahabad or Bangalore.

The GOI strategy is straightforward: to tire the insurgents out, sow discord in their ranks, raise public discontent and force them to the negotiating table for a political settlement within the framework of the Indian Constitution.

To put it bluntly, the unwritten message reads: ‘give up violence, give up arms, give up any claim for sovereignty, we are willing to hold talks’. It means in lay man’s words – ‘either you toe the line or you can get lost’.

This is where not only the Meiteis but all the Manipuris want an answer from the Meitei insurgents. Whither goes Meitei insurgency?

There are many imponderables. Though the anatomy of revolution can be deceptive, if it does not go forward, it can go backwards. Every revolution is conditioned by where it starts and
where it is moving.

Equally, what needs to be factored is that the surgical intervention by the Indian security forces is awakening up a veritable reality among the villagers. They are making a massive groundswell of public opinion against the insurgents in these areas, by their social activities.

Indian Army is just following the Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, which was developed by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, respected by the US and the UK during their recent occupation of Iraq. It says that an occupying power must restore and maintain public order and civil life, including public welfare, in an occupied territory.

Meanwhile, all the peace loving Manipuris especially the Meiteis are in a state of disquietude and apprehension about future uncertainties, threats and risks.

While the ‘Machiavellian’ leaders of Meitei insurgency, with a mix of cynicism and idealism are lying low, dreaming how to get on the road to power and retain power, Indian Army’s sophistry in controlling insurgency is visible all over Manipur.

In the history of revolutionary warfare, insurgents normally capitalise on societal problems, often called “gaps” inciting sea of discontent of the population they wish to control, against the ruling administration. In Manipur the insurgents themselves are causing the gaps, ignoring Mao Zedong’s aphorism: the guerrilla must swim in the people as the fish swims in water.

Unlike the revolutions experienced by other countries, the Meitei revolt against the GOI was never pulled into an organized assault. In the long run, the lack of centralized leadership will cause the revolution to create more problems for Manipur than there had been under the Delhi administration.

It is however, unfair to blame the insurgents wholly for the political, social and economic chaos in Manipur. Many of them are genuine revolutionary people who have shunned the comforts of life and family. They get killed and leave young widows and children. Where there is a revolution, the people have to share some casualties.

If we tackle the whole raft of past events in the light of modern sensibilities, it is the political leadership in New Delhi, which has forced the revolution in Manipur. They have for over half a century, ignored the Manipuris with no effort for their genuine constitutional integration with their hearts and souls until the explosion of Meitei insurgencies.

In the stand off between GOI and Meitei insurgents my concern is the spontaneous course the ‘revolution’ is taking. It has parallels with the failed Mexican Revolution of 1910, led by Villa and Zapata – a disorganized reform movement that encompassed over 10 years of history.

I can only surmise how historians eventually label Meitei insurgencies will be the entire stock of abysses, maelstroms, meltdowns and apocalypses to describe the horror of the last half of the 20th century in Manipur.

The writer is based in the UK
Email: imsingh@ometel.com
Website: www.drimsingh.co.uk

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/T6kOIfXpVP4/

By: Dr Irengbam Mohendra Singh

Civilisation is an advanced development in human society, including intellectual, cultural and material development in a certain region or an epoch such as the oldest Egyptian, Roman, Inca, Aztec and Indus valley civilisation. It also includes politeness or propriety, measured by the level of advancement, especially the founding of the cities. Hong Kong city is a hall mark of human civilisation.

This word that comes from the Latin civil – meaning citizen could also mean ‘modern society along with its conveniences’ as in the development of Imphal city.

What makes people civilised? There are no set of answers. In terms of Manipur, the Second World War effectively opened the eyes of the Manipuris on the way to civilisation. Western civilisation was brought about by the Greek and Roman antiquity.

The Second World War started on September 1 1939 and ended on August 14 1945.
The first Japanese bombs fell in the Imphal town, especially upon the bazaar and the cantonment areas on May 10 1942.

Seventy civilians were killed and another eighty wounded. Most brick and mortar buildings in the town centre, built by wealthy Marwaris, were levelled to the ground and they all fled to Calcutta.

When the War ended the Meiteis who moved to the villages, began to surge back to Imphal. The experience of the War and of the returning peace revived a demoralised Manipuri nation.

The ingenuity of the mayangs who came as refugees from Burma, and seeing the strange civilisation of Calcutta from a Manipuri civilisation in a crocodile belly, easily accessible with affordable air flights at that time, endowed the Manipuris with a knowledge that would hold the answer to the mockery of their fallen lives.

The immediate aftermath of the War – a time of economic, social and ecological crisis brought to the Manipuris a feeling that a new start ought to be made, in politics and society as much as in economics, science and art. That was the beginning of an idea of civilisation in Manipur, both in the plain and hills.

It was a dream that would appeal to those who were braced to meet the challenges of the modern world. The smart, flamboyant and easy-going character of American GIs during the War began to anatomize the Manipuri youths who were marked by vigorous growth and cultural creativity.

Some of the returning Meiteis began to reconstruct buildings in the town- centre with funds amassed during the War and sold merchandise in them. A few Marwari people returned to Imphal.

The introduction of daily air travel in the early fifties from Calcutta to Imphal and back and with a stop over at Gauhati, by the Birla Airlines brought the Manipuri youths, especially the college students, into more contact with mayang Indians and their culture. This helped them to broaden their horizon.

When the War came to the sleepy town of Imphal from faraway Tokyo, the focus of Manipuri national consciousness began to drift away. This came to a halt in the post-War period with an energised Manipuri spirit, which became a constitutive factor of the historical consciousness of a Manipuri nation.

The experience of the War and the sight of a variety of nationalities from all over the world lessened the consciousness of ethnic difference in Manipur.

The new winds of change that began in the Imphal town, wafted to the remote hill districts of Manipur. There was awakening of social and political thinking among the educated Meiteis as well as the tribals.

The jeepable roads constructed to Ukhrul, Tamenlong and Churachandpur, by the Public Works Department at Imphal, brought the hill people down to Imphal for education, sports and bartering of farm produce. This brought them into improved social contact and congenial relationship with the emerging ‘new’ Meiteis with new beginnings and rejections of the past.

It was in 1950 that I visited Ukhrul with my eldest brother who was then an Executive Engineer, in his jeep.

The first Arts College, which later became DM College (1948), was started in 1946, just before Independence by a few enterprising people. The first Principal was Dijamani Sharma MA. The first batch graduates included E Sonamani Singh IAS (Rtd) and the late M Gojendra Singh MA LL B, who was the first legal Adviser to the Legislative Assembly of Manipur.

In 1947 the First Manipur Olympic Games were organised by RK Madhurjit Sana and N Binoy Singh as the president and the secretary respectively. It continued up to 1954.

In 1950 Sagolsem Indramani Singh introduced body building, weight lifting and boxing. Manipur Man Building Institute was established in 1955. About the same time L Manaobi Singh and others organised Mr and Miss Manipur contests offering cows and things as financial inducements.

In the 1950s, Imphal became the hubbub of the converging Manipuri nation. There were modern consumer goods, cinemas, restaurants and theatres. The tribal people and the Muslims were welcomed in the little Brahmin-run ‘hotels’ (tea shops) in Imphal.

Football tournaments were regular features in which the Tangkhuls and Kukis took part. A feeling of Manipuri nationality was generated. There were annual exhibitions where all the tribal people exhibited their wares and culture.

There were regular hockey and volleyball tournaments in which the hill people did not take part.

All the major roads were surfaced with tarmac. Few households in Imphal had built in modern flush toilets with septic tanks. There were increased water and electric supplies for the consumers. Bicycling was the smartest mode of transport in Imphal.

Almost all the young Manipuri Meitei men changed into European long trousers instead of dhotis. So did their counterparts from the hills. The Meitei girls changed their old hair style to modern civilised one.

The Manipuri Dance became popular world-wide though nobody knew where Manipur is.
The emerging Manipuri nation was based on a kind of psychological homogeneity with all the different communities living together side by side in peace and harmony, sowing the seed for civilisation in Manipur.

While the neo-Meiteis were edging into a new civilisation, the relics of Sanamahi cult and Lai haraoba began to work their impassive influence on the Meiteis through an identity crisis of their Mongoloid look in the vast sea of Indo-Aryan mayangs who just about managed to accept the Dravidians as Indians.

The revival of Sanamahi worship in the plain had parallels in the hills where Christianity began to flourish despite early reluctance. This was the beginning of the coming of civilisation among the Manipuri tribes in the hills.

Conversion to Christianity first began in the Lushai hills in 1916 and then affected the Kukis in the first decade of the 20th century. By 1920s it had spread to Manipuri Nagas.

The Protestant Christianity in the hills of Manipur was established by the American Baptists who are evangelists and thus believe the Bible as the words of God.

The first Christian conversion among the Tangkhul Nagas was in Ukhrul, and among the Kukis at Kangpokpi. The Christian education produced intellectual tribal people with a longing for civilisation.

The born-again Meitei youths and their fellow tribal mates in Imphal High Schools began to yearn for affordable higher education.

With the increasing turn-out of graduates in Manipur there was a surge of intellectual energy. More private colleges especially for teaching Arts subjects began to sprout in make-shift buildings, not only in Imphal but in the hill districts.

The sudden burst of education mania touched the lives of all men and women in the hills and the plain. The Meitei and other tribal parents worked to their bones for their children’s higher education.

Higher education was no more only a reality for the relatively privileged. To provide a good education for their children with the prospect of a good job in later life was the only insurance the parents could have for their old age.

Those students who were educated outside of Manipur began to usher in the concept of modern civilisation, though not in material terms.

The modern awakening began to ping the primitive Meitei desire for literature into overdrive.
They began to develop Manipuri literature and establish Manipuri theatre. Drama Halls such as the Manipur Dramatic Union, Rupmahal and the Aryan Theatre sprang up.

The wartime experience, especially the American influence, raised the awareness among Manipuri youths for an understanding of what was going on in the world. They bestirred themselves with disorienting vistas of the world and reinforced their perception of how backward they were.

Like the break of a crisp dawn, the Manipuri youths were suddenly transformed into Western culture, not only in their dress style but in diet, attitude and behaviour. It was a cultural shock for the Meiteis.

In the sunny fifties the ingenious Meiteis began to assemble military vehicles from salvage depots. Imphal was soon transformed into a semblance of a modern town, with jeeps, trucks,
lorries and motor cycles plying all around.

This was when civilisation came to Manipur for the first time.

The writer is based in the UK
Email: imsingh@onetell.com
Website: www.drimsingh.co.uk

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/9K94bQvMeOs/

ITS NECESSITY TO KEEP MANIPUR UNVIOLATED, Economic disparity is not the cause of Naga-strife
By: Dr Irengbam Mohendra Singh

The Meiteis always had a concept of ‘Manipuri nation’ – Manipur sana leibak, encompassing groups of ethnic people who have different cultural, traditional, ritualistic and religious traits, all living together.

A “Manipuri nation” describes a geographical place that is defined by its borders and/or by a variety of cultures and a shared language. With the ascendancy of a new concept, Manipur is now a “proposition nation” ie groups of ethnic people who are united by a common ideology rather than a common ancestry.

Ethnicity means the status of belonging to a particular group having a common cultural tradition. There are such 36 ethnic groups in Manipur.

The English word ‘nation’ is related to birth, not merely geographic or political boundaries. You are ‘native’ of the land of your birth. Manipur has a geographical boundary and any ethnic group born in Manipur is a native of Manipur. Nationality is a legal concept while ethnicity is a cultural concept.

This thesis examines the ethnonationalism and the influences that sustain it. I have selected Manipur and the Meitei ethnonationalist movement. It is a short historical reconstruction touching on historiography- theorising parts of history and relying on idealistic epistemology.

As the birth of Meitei ethnonationalism is fairly new, I am trying to write a bit of its history without an inventive approach to the truth. Like many, I am an amateur historian who is coping about trying to figure out to make a ‘good article’.

Historians repeat one another, but the history of Meitei ethnonationalism is pristine. These are things known to have occurred in the recent past without twists and turns as old histories might have.

Old histories might change over time. At the physical level, truth is absolute. But the account of human affairs that we call History, and that we make the subject of college courses, has little to do with truth. It is information that our rulers want us to have.

Example: there is now enormous literature disapproving the traditional Aryan migration history because of lack of archaeological findings. The “Indigenous Aryanism” as it is called, is an expression of Indian nationalism. It is to negate the notion that Indian civilisation was brought about by white Europeans from the Steppes of south Russia.

Likewise, I have written about “Indigenous Meiteiism” as an expression of ‘Meitei ethnonationalism’, to refute the old anecdotes of Meiteis coming from China or near about, based on the absence of archaeological evidence of any group of these people migrating to Manipur.

Walker Connor invented the word “ethnonationalism” for ethnic nationalism where the ‘nation’ is defined in terms of ethnicity, incorporating ideas of culture and shared language.

Connor is one of the great scholars of nationalism and ethnic conflict. Ethnonationalism denotes both the loyalty to a nation deprived of its own state and the loyalty to an ethnic group, embodied in a specific state, particularly when the latter is conceived a “nation-state”.

Ethnonationalism is thus conceived in a broad sense and may be used interchangeably with nationalism.

The central tenet of nationalism theoretically is that each ethnic group like the Meiteis, Nagas or Kukis is entitled to self determination for an autonomous entity or for an independent sovereign state.

Compact OED defines “nation-state”: a sovereign state of which most of the citizens or subjects are united also by factors which define a nation, such as language or common descent. The nation-state implies that a state and a nation coincide. Manipur was a nation-state united by a common language.

Broadly speaking, nationalism is a term that refers to a doctrine that holds a nation, usually defined in terms of culture and language though consisting of a number of ethnic groups. Ethno-
nationality is thus a breakdown of nationality.

The Meitei ethnonationalism was born by a break-up of the ethnic components of Manipur, creating a lot of tension by the ethnic activists who try to have a historical construction of their activities.

The educated post-War Meiteis began in earnest, to secularise and adopted the principle of multiculturalism based on a notion of ‘social reform’ in which programmes were introduced to redress the disadvantages of minority communities. This included the present titular king Leishemba Sanajaoba of the Manipuri nation.

Nationalism is one of the most persistent forces in history, as components of political and cultural self-determination in the search of a unifying ethic. But from the study of world history, the idea (nationalism) can be sustained only if it avoids a descent into tribalism and intolerance of other ethnic groups.

‘Naga nationalism’ of Nagaland has accrued from their desire to carve out a Naga identity in the post-independent India. They rightly feel that they are not Indians, ethnically and culturally.

But nationality is a question of feeling that the person belongs to a particular nation, in spite of colour, caste or creed, though in legal terms, nationalism is a legal relationship involving allegiance on the part of an individual and usually protection on the part of the state.

In the beginning, the Meiteis were not bothered whether the Nagas of Nagaland were independent or not. It was just a distant drum. But the drumbeat became deafening when their demand of a greater Nagaland or Nagalim, incorporating four districts of Manipur and bits from Assam and bits from Arunachal, came to a head.

The break-up of Manipur is not negotiable to the Meiteis who have an embryonic concept of Ima (mother) Manipur embracing the hills and the plain. To them it is not like a marriage bond, where there is a legal frame work with which a spouse can divorce the other whenever he or she feels like it.

The Manipuri Naga ethnic challenges have shattered genuine Meitei pluralism and increased the tension between the need for cultural-ethnic distinctiveness and integrative tendencies. Meitei ethnonationalism was kick-started. They began to think in terms of Meiteis cum Manipuris.

It was at a time when the ethnic concept of nationalism was far outweighed by the pluralistic multicultural concept because of the ever changing population in the Imphal valley. This was also a crucial time when the territorial integrity of Manipur was seriously threatened as never before, with internal ethnic politics and the territorial ambition of Nagaland.

The Meitei ethnonational identity suddenly became fundamental to their sense of Meiteiness. They needed to re-establish their cultural history and began looking at their history backwards.
They were aware that behind their bravado lurks one of the great political challenges of the next decade in this extra-ordinary diversity of ethnic identities and political views in this erstwhile nation-state of Manipur.

Manipur is inhabited by the Meiteis, Kukis, Tangkhuls, Kabuis, Marings, koms and other smaller tribes, altogether 36, plus a sizeable community of Pangals. The question of what it means to be a Manipuri and how far there are overriding values to which all can and must subscribe has moved on since the ethnic Naga ethnonationalism.

The Meitei liberal policy has been unable to coax the tribal groups into a Manipuri national identity. They have demanded plural political identities, tolerance and openness from all the ethnic peoples. That has included intermarriage.

The struggle for ethnic Nagas to disintegrate Manipur began to crystallise the Meitei resolve to keep Manipur intact. Various civil organisations such as AMUCO, UCM have sprung up to shore up a united Meitei, tribal and Pangal opposition.

Manipur is as much for the Meiteis as for all the tribes and Pangals living in it from times immemorial. The Meiteis thus felt that they had to reinvent themselves with a search for their
indigenous origin in Manipur, first in the hills and then in the plain.. This was how Meitei nationalism or ethnonationalism was born.

The high-octane pursuit of Meitei ethnonationalism and to safeguard the integrity of Manipur
were reflected by the greatest sacrifice given by 18 Meiteis on the June 18 2001 uprising.

There is no end of being vigilant against Naga nationalism and Manipuri Naga ethnonationalism to show that the Meiteis are still in business, especially because (1) their demand has nothing to do with economic disparity but ethnicity; and lately (2) the NPF’s Constitution, Article II (21) reads: “To work for integration of all contiguous Naga inhabited areas under one administrative roof…”

Daniel Conversi, who introduced Connor’s work on ethnonationalism, challenged the dogma of economism as the cause of ethnonationalism. During much of the Cold War, conflicts were customarily explained as a consequence of backwardness, economic crisis, uneven development or relative deprivation. The prescription coda was hence that ethnic conflicts could be cured by addressing economic grievance.

Conversi substantiates Connor’s article (198b) that ethnonationalism appears to operate independently from economic variables and that perceived economic discrimination can merely work as reinforcing variable, as a ‘catalytic agent’, exacerbator, or choice of battle ground. The economic issues at the centre of the analysis means to miss the primary point, namely that ethnic movements are indeed ethnic and not economic.

The writer is based in the UK
Email: imsingh@onetel.com
Website: www.onetel.co.uk

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/HGvvrsqLz34/

By: Dr Irengbam Mohendra Singh

There is an ongoing tripartite talk to discuss the demand of the UNC for the separation/secession of Naga inhabited areas of Manipur from Manipur itself.

I have a gut feeling that whatever the outcome of the talk, the boundary of Manipur is inviolable.
‘Manipur’ is for all the Manipuris while archaic ‘Kangleipak’ is for the Meiteis, incorporating the Imphal valley. It was the water-filled Imphal valley that dried up, not the hills.

The equally archaic word ‘Meetei’ of the Poireiton period should be replaced by the smarter modern ‘Meitei’ (Meithei in old English), in the same way ‘Yumphal’ is replaced by Imphal. ‘Meitei’ is not a phonetically corrupted ‘Meetei’. It is a word inducement – an act of bringing a desired result in phonetics. All school children should be taught to use the word Meitei, because it is modern. If you type Meitei on a computer it will recognise it, but it will not recognise Meetei. Language is constantly evolving by natural selection and by omitting language that is not articulated. Examples are Archaic English, Old English and Modern English.
Old is not always gold. Old age is not synonymous with intellectual maturity. It may be the other way round because of senility. But what has this tripartite talk got to do with my “gut feeling”?

Gut feeling is intuition, meaning looking inside. It deals with our innate sense of right or wrong. The energy created by the ‘Chakras’ (wheels in Yoga) and the way they channel it is felt as odd sensations in our body.
Knowledge of the Chakras was first formalised by Patanjali about 3,000 years ago. The third centre (chakra) in our subtle system is called “nabhi” or “Manipur” chakra. Its physical location is at about the level of the navel. It looks after several important aspects of our being, primarily with the organs of digestion but also with our sense of right or wrong – an odd sensation that we feel in our gut. This is the gut-feeling. This is all I have about the end-result of the tripartite talk. You may call it intuition.

“Gut Feeling”
I have full understanding of the UNC challenge. Their demand arose from an innate desire to identify with their gut feeling and a longing to maintain a good social order with fellow ethnic Nagas of Nagaland. But my empathy does not play a role in judgement of the subject of disintegration of Manipur or alteration of its boundary.

My article argues logically why the “territory” of Manipur that covers the hills and the plain can not be transgressed. That is, it must stay in status quo forever.

Since the fag end of the crisis-ridden 20th century, everyday, the political and ethnic dissonance continues to mount secessionist movements all over the world, either to achieve politically independent governments or ethnically homogenous communities – from Bosnia and Chechnya to Sri Lanka; from Francophones in Quebec, Canada to Basques in Escudo, Spain.

Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union there are more than 60 countries, one-third of all the members in the United Nations that are operating either for full sovereignty or lesser degrees of political self-determination.

Even the disgruntled taxpayers on Staten Island want to secede or demand greater autonomy from New York. A lot of progressive Americans started talking seriously of secession, such as the Texas Nationalist Movement.

Attempts at or aspirations of secession from the United States have been a feature of the country’s politics. The United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

The swelling number of secessionist movements has evoked a vigorous response from political philosophers but with no right political answer in sight.

The basic concept of ‘territory’ concerns itself with water, food, shelter, clothing and economics for survival though there are variable concepts of territory. With these in mind I intend to build up a valid argument from true premises, and arrive at a true conclusion through inference that the territorial integrity of Manipur could not be violated.

Under international law ‘territorial integrity’ is the principle that nation-states should not attempt to promote secessionist movements or to promote changes in other nation-states.

In recent years there has been tension between this principle and the concept of ‘humanitarian intervention’ under Article 73.b of the United Nations Charter – “to develop self-government to take account of the political aspirations of the peoples.”

However, territorial integrity and humanitarian intervention collided head-on in the Kosovo War in 1998-99 between ethnic Albanians (Muslim) and Serbs (Christian) causing the death of 150-250,000 people.

The history of the Concept of Territory and its evolution is a vast subject with varying degrees of agreement and disagreement and newer concepts such as “Palestine” territorial concept, which simply refer to one’s native home, place and birth.

The territorial concept is a spatial concept. Space has long been studied in relationship with geography, economy, and management. Though some effort has been made to define space there is still lack of definition in a world where spatial actions are more and more global.

The newer concepts complicate the environment of Manipur where relationship with space for a composite Manipur (Hills and valley) is no longer a simple question of preserving space but a legitimate proposal to keep the right conditions which emerge from proximities (Gael Le Boulch).

The concept of territory is not only spatial but also a product of human imagination and beliefs. It is closely linked with sovereignty. This is the Meitei territorial concept of Manipur.

The territorial concept endorses a set of properties attached to a complex system (Monk 2000), referring to structure and dynamics, putting forward the question of time irreversibility and its necessity to be taken into account.

The Territorial concept of the Meiteis also means an embryonic territorial awareness, though reference to social awareness rather than to political one, which has been accepted and defended from time immemorial and is irreversible.

In the history of redefining territory with political integrity by many political units claiming a definite territory by intrusion into another territory where there are a co-ethnic settlements, was regarded as an act of war. This is similar to the current territorial redefining
of the NNC (IM) with an intrusion in Manipur’s territory where there are ethnic Nagas.

The question of Manipur’s territorial integrity claim must be viewed from the perspective of Indian constitution, age-old boundary of Manipur (as in the present map) demarcated in 1881 by a Boundary Commission under James Johnstone, and “the state of Manipur”, the sovereignty of which was handed over to Maharaja Bodhchandra at 12 midnight, Thursday August 28 1947, including the Hills that had been under British control.

Thus the territorial claim by the NNC (IM) like the ‘Chinese Irritable Border Syndrome’, with collusion of some Nagas of Manipur (UNC) is in international law, an act of aggression, to the Meiteis, Kukis, Pangals and the smaller tribes who have been living peacefully in Manipur for a few thousand years.

When the right of self-determination is invoked by secessionist ethnic groups, the state almost always invokes the principles of the territorial integrity of the state and the inviolability of its borders. It is a violation of international law to recognize unilateral declarations of independence by secessionist groups and territories against the wishes of federal or central governments who are engaged in resisting the separatists.

While the Constitution of India does not allow Indian states to secede from the union, a large percentage of the population in India would choose to secede from their respective nation states if given the opportunity. This is not a simple option.

In the continuing wind of change for secession all over the world the government of Manipur
should tread softly-softly by seeking a formula to appease the UNC at the tripartite talk, perhaps an ethnofederal relationship without disintegrating Manipur. They need to formulate conflict-sensitive approaches that enable mediation and dialogue to take place.

In conclusion, we must resist the well-known view of German anarchist Gustav Landauer (1870-1819): “The state is a condition, a certain relationship between beings, a mode of
behaviour; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently.”

We are all together in this land of Sana leibak Manipur and we will keep the integrity of Manipur intact forever.

In order to present my line of reasoning in a logical and consistent fashion I have approached my arguments with such a strong attitude without ignoring evidence that contradict other people’s thinking.

But as TS Eliot pointed out, between the thought and action falls the shadow as does between idea and reality. I find it easy enough to will the end but can I will the means?

The writer is based in the UK
Email: imsingh@onetel.com
Website: www.drimsingh.co.uk

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/uCpTp5TE4k8/

By: Dr Irengbam Mohendra Singh

Plebiscite is an unholy word for India, the opposite of “Om”. While Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir was reluctant to join India or Pakistan, having already signed a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan on August 15 1947, Pakistan sent Pathan tribesmen on October 20 1947. Maharaja Hari Singh Dogra requested India to send troops. India did after he signed the Instrument of Accession to India on October 26 1947.

On October 27 1947 the Indian troops were flown in. The Pathan invasion halted just outside of Srinagar at Bara mullah where these tribesmen were busy ransacking, looting and raping women. It was a lucky break for India. Otherwise Srinagar would have been in Azad Kashmir. Ultimately they were defeated by the Indian Army.

Nehru promised a plebiscite in due course, and persuaded Maharaja Hari to hand over the reigns of government to Sheikh Abdullah, the leader of the National Conference, to appease
the Kashmiri majority Muslim population.

Not knowing which way the plebiscite would go, India has since obstructed all attempts at holding a plebiscite on the ground that much water has run under the bridge.

An open war broke out between Pakistan and India. Nehru sought UN arbitration. On January 1 1949, both India and Pakistan signed the ceasefire pact in Karachi and the Line of Control (LOC) was drawn.

Determined Kashmiri and Pakistani militants have been trying to force India to conduct a plebiscite in Kashmir without success. America refuses to intervene as India claims it is an internal matter.

Within the Charter of the UN, there is an explicit prohibition on the world organization from interfering in the domestic affairs of member states. It is the Charter’s most frequently cited provision, Article 2 (7).

If the Kashmiri separatists’ failure to conduct a plebiscite for self determination, even with the clandestine support by the Armed Forces of Pakistan, is anything to go by, it would be a very daunting proposition for Manipur to ask the Government of India (GOI) for a plebiscite.

We know the history of the annexation of Muslim Junagadh at the south eastern end of Gujarat with a promise of plebiscite in 1947. It never happened.

The U N Security Council passed a number of resolutions on the question of Kashmir’s future recognizing the fact that Kashmir is a disputed territory and that its people of 12 million must decide their destiny by a plebiscite. Now 64 years on, nothing has happened.

Plebiscite means either a direct vote of the qualified voters of a state in regard to some
important public question, or the vote by which the people of a political unit determine autonomy or application with another country.

To show how difficult self-determination is I will quote Scotland. It is already in devolution in the UK since 2007. It has a Parliament, which was elected in Edinburgh, with legislative
and tax-varying powers.

Now the ruling Scottish National Party is pushing to hold a referendum on independence of
(2)
Scotland. David Cameron, the Prime Minister of Britain says it is not going to happen.

In the demand for independence under International law three conditions should be addressed: (1) is there a right of self-determination of peoples? (2) if so, who is subject of the right of
self-determination? and (3) does the right of self-determination substantiate the right of secession?

Independence for Scotland would not be dissolution of the UK and creation of two states. Instead Scotland would secede from the UK, just as the Republic of Ireland seceded earlier in the century. This will not affect the UK’s status in international law.

On the other hand, an independent Scotland that would have an anomalous position would have to negotiate its entry to EU and define its relationship with other international organisations such as the UN, IMF and the World Bank. It would take a number of years for an independent Scotland to define relationship, if any, with international organisations.

Asking for a plebiscite in Manipur is not that simple. The work complex means not a simple structure, idea or attitudes publicly accepted but a more difficult structure, idea or attitude with multiple or subtle significance, meaning & understanding.

In theory, an individual at any place at any time may petition the United Nations to
recognise a plebiscite to be conducted in an area defined geographically or politically, provided there is reasonable evidence of a massive support for the change.

If it entails any changes in geographical boundaries it must be by mutual consent of both the government and the governed. This means that the GOI should be more than willing for us to have a plebiscite with a view to Manipur becoming an independent country.

If the GOI agrees to a break up of Indian Territory, a constitutional amendment in the Indian Constitution by a majority of the Union Legislature would be necessary. This is more than unlikely.

In International law, a sovereign independent state must be recognised and protected by the Security Council. The United Nations currently only requires that a sovereign state has an effective and independent government pursuant to a community within a defined territory.

The practical question is where does Manipur fit in the plebiscite jigsaw Puzzle as a sovereign state, de jure and de facto?

Economically Manipur is not East Timor which is often quoted by the Meiteis as an example of a small country, which can stand on its own feet, not realising that it has massive revenues from oil – 3bn US dollars for a population of fewer than one million. Scotland has GDP of £100 billion from its off-shore oils.

It is not that Manipur has no legal rights to self-determination. Manipur has two important legal pillars to support their demand for self-determination: (1) the right to territorial integrity; and (2) the right to self-determination.

The right to territorial integrity: according to international law the right to territorial integrity
is the right of a sovereign nation to retain control over its territory. This is Manipur’s historical right or claim.

(3)
As Manipur was a sovereign state before India annexed it by the use of force, she is entitled to continued and future sovereignty. She has the right to decide on her future political, social, cultural and economic status. Manipur was a sovereign nation in her 2,000 year old history until a brief interlude of British rule between 1891 and 1947.

The right to self-determination: the right to self-determination is a cornerstone of the UN Charter 1 Article 1(2). According to this, the Manipuris today have the right to self determination. The Article states: “The purposes of the United Nations are…to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples…”

The 1970 UN resolution, Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cupertino among States in Accordance with the Charter of the UN, reads as follows: “…All peoples have the right to freely determine, without external interference, their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every
state has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.”

The right of self-determination is the right of peoples and there can be no argument that the Manipuris are people. Under international law ‘people’ is defined as a group of people with a common historical tradition, a racial identity, a shared culture, linguistic unity, religious affinity, a territorial connection and a common economic life.

If Manipur wants to implement its right to self-determination by seeking full independence and India does not want to give up control over its territory (Manipur), claiming the right to territorial integrity there is very little the UN could do.

This is despite the Vienna Declaration of 1993, which states that territorial integrity can be invoked by legitimate governments conducting themselves in compliance with the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. A state’s legitimacy derives from satisfaction of its duties to its citizens.
These duties are:
1. to protect the population.
2 to promote the economic, cultural, social and spiritual welfare of the people it
governs.
3 to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and
4 to promote self-determination and equal rights.

When a state does not promote these interests but instead represses the people, destroys their culture and economically exploits them, it loses legitimacy as a government and cannot prevail on its claim of territorial integrity (Eva- Herzer).

For application of self-determination in Manipur we need to prove that India has not satisfied in performing its duties to the Manipuris as its citizens.

Finally, though the collective right of self-determination embraces the fundamental freedom enshrined in the UN Charter; the right of its implementation is vague in international law. Further, plebiscite is now a system of doubtful value in its application in a modern state. Under unfavourable conditions, it may do immense harm.

The writer is based in the UK.
Email:imsingh@onetel.com
Website: www: drimsingh.co.uk

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/VsZCc8MSIe0/

MEITEI KANGLUPKI LAMCHAT. MEITEI NARCISSISM

As I mentioned earlier one of the main purposes of the burst of writing on Meitei national character is the lingering “aggressive Meitei trait”.

In the anthropological doctrine, the key to understanding Meitei character is to study their “aggressive trait”; that is, how it affects public and private life and how it became a Meitei trait – a peculiarity of a Meitei ideology – a manner of thinking, characteristic of the Meitei.

It was a fighting doctrine on moderate provocations, which superseded any other character. This was an obsessive Meitei ideology. It had its own virtues and vices, as all national characters have.

Gambhir Singh was recognized as the Raja of Manipur and the Treaty of Yandabo was signed in1826, between the East India Company and the Burmese. That Treaty bound the Burmese to recognize the perpetual independence of Manipur. By another treaty concluded in 1833, between the East India Company and Manipur, the Company ceded Jiribam in perpetuity to Manipur.

This was the starting point of the emergence of “Meitei national character” as iron entered the soul of the Meitei. The newly released Meitei spirit joined the living and dead – the romantically lost and the living present. They began to quantify their experience with daring and persistent energy; the trust in their physical prowess, valour, and the ability of their kings to keep their subjects under control.

Following the integration of the seven clans, their homogeneity was set off on a chain reaction due to costs and benefits of cooperation, underpinning their social life and providing the foundation of a unified Meitei national character.

The Meitei nation was firmly established by the singular and perfect coalition of its members. The biological basis of trusting behaviour to each other clan and the combinatorial system of vocabulary and syntax was beginning to lead to a common religion of Sanamahi laining.

The indigenous Sanamahism of the Meiteis was distinct from the other animistic religions of the neighbouring tribes and those existent in Awa, Kamrup and Takhel. The Sanamahi culture bonded them together as well as by the ritualistic celebration of Lai Harouba (pleasing the gods) of the Umang lais (gods of the woods).These distinctive religious traditions gave them awareness of national cohesion.

A difference in religion has always been pernicious as it is today, and often fatal to the harmony of the king and the people. The coerced religious consensus of the Meiteis in the beginning of the 18th century with their conversion into Hinduism offered a way in which all the seven clans could be imagined as shrinking and converging, and thus forming an idea of a national character of the Meiteis.

The Meitei national character supports the Darwinian concept of the ‘survival of the fittest’. To survive one must be fit and brave. From a study of Meitei history one can argue that they
do have a characteristic trait of courage, often stretched to the limits of foolhardiness.

Natural selection promoting genes for courage has probably been more ruthless for the Meiteis than in more densely populated and politically complex societies. Meitei national character as in any national character, can not be based on individuals. There are many heroic deeds of some people. But all people are not heroic.

In the 1950s, the whole idea of Meitei national character was running out of steam. It was the
time when the Meiteis were getting back on to their feet in reforming their society after the ravages of WW II.

In writing Meitei national character the first thing this research taught me was that our personalities generally do not change after about the age of 25. They are well entombed within each of us as a lifetime habit, attitude and approach.

Research in the past (2000), always indicated that individuals with low esteem (inferiority complex) are more aggressive than individuals with ‘high esteem’ (superiority complex). However, recent research (2005), found that individuals with ‘high esteem’ as well as ‘low esteem’ were associated with self- reported physical aggression.

Further research (2006), concluded that the long standing view that low esteem causes violence has been shown to be wrong and that a specific type of high self-esteem produces high aggression. People who are high on a trait are more reactive to moderate provocation
than are those who are low on a trait, which react to strong provocation. The Meiteis thus tend
to respond to moderate provocation because of a trait of an elevated type of self esteem.

On newer research, psychologists found out that there was an indication that persons who have low or high esteem levels are more prone to aggressive behaviour if they have high levels of a trait known as narcissism (excessive interest in oneself).

The modern study of human psychology by brain scan shows that social rejection (negative complex) activates brain areas that generate physical pain. It also shows that when we feel or are made to feel socially inferior, two areas of the brain become activated. One area makes
you feel a sense of sinking at the bottom of the abyss; the other area motivates to stave off the pain of feeling second rate, and you are compelled to compensate as a reward.

Certain cultures give a particular form to the aggression and sanctify the uniformity of its practice by all members of the tribe. The Meitei cultures supply the motivation for warfare. The Meitei predisposition for socially approved aggression is in a different category from that of an individual aggression, which is often severe and gets individuals locked up in prison.

In the evolutionary adaptive trend in getting rid of this Meitei gene, Meiteis still have a problem – a survival problem, in that they are locked into a Pyrrhic battle as Mayang Indians also have the same psychological profile – a superiority complex over the Mongol looking Meiteis, while forgetting that the damaging effect of colonialism over the Indian minds was a creation of inferiority complex from which they have recently recovered with an increase in GDP.

Richard Dawkins, the best known evolutionist after Darwin, would call this Meitei gene, a “selfish gene”. In its long journey through the generations, this particular selfish Meitei gene had been seeking something equivalent to an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS).

In behavioural ecology, an ESS is an equilibrium refinement of the Nash equilibrium – it is a Nash equilibrium which is “evolutionarily” stable meaning that once it is fixed in a population, natural selection alone is sufficient to prevent alternative (mutant) strategies from successfully invading.

It seems the Meitei have developed this notable characteristic because of a protective Meitei chromosome that constitutes a single long-lived genetic unit.

But how can a single gene determine the aggregate trait of the seven clans of the Meitei nation? The answer is that one gene cannot. But it is possible by the automatic editing achieved by inversions and other accidental rearrangement of genetic material, a large cluster of formerly separate genes has come together in a tight linkage group on a chromosome.

Figuratively speaking, the whole is the sum of all its parts. And the character of the parts will determine the characteristics of the whole. The gene which is a piece of chromosome could live as copies for generations and generations. The genes are immortal. So, the immortal
aggressive Meitei national character is determined by the aggregate linkage group of different
genes of the seven warring clans, on a chromosome.

Given the stringency of their fighting ability and success, self-reliance and self- sufficiency, the Meitei national character undoubtedly wrenched them into a new genetic unit, which eventually mutated by what is called inversion, producing a phenotype of narcissism – a trait past its shelf-life now.

The forces needed in the handling of the central features of Meitei national character are moral and physical courage and readiness for combat either individually or socially. The most radical version of these is the aggressiveness though the Meitei is a well-balanced person, responsible, dignified, self-possessed and capable of recognizing his own true self-interest, in obedience to the law and co-operation with others.

The Meitei aggressiveness is not the same thing as bravery. Bravery is when you do something that frightens you, but you do it anyway because your gut feeling tells you that it is right. The Meitei do have bravery without doubt. History is full of splendid examples of Meitei valour.

The Anglo-Manipuri war delivered a great shock. The Meitei national character remained
muddled up ever since. In the aftermath of the Khongjom battle, the character fatigue clearly
manifested itself. The fighting spirit of the alpha Meitei male in Imphal, long moribund in the
Meitei political cockpits, grounded to a halt.

They degenerated into beta male while their wives changed to alpha female as they became breadwinners. They did whatever they could to eke out a living to feed the family. The ancient Meitei ‘Family Economy’ based on products, goods and services, mostly produced in the home and where the workforce consists of family members, alarmingly deteriorated.

By dusk, most men dressed in pristine white dhotis and shirts, wrapped up in woollen shawls in the winter, would amble to the Mapal Kangjeibung (polo ground) for ‘Leipung phamba’ ie
idle talk to while away time until their evening dinner was ready, cooked by their wives who
worked their fingers to the bones during the day. Sunday afternoons were a treat as they gathered at the Mapal Kangjeibung to watch polo matches between two Meitei panas with a Shahib or two on each side.

Following the World War II, while the Meiteis were at the crossroads of old and new civilisations, the relics of the older, pre-Hindu civilisation in the shapes of Sanamahi cult and Lai haraoba, began to work their impassive influence through an identity crisis of Mongoloid Meiteis in Mayang India.

This triggered the greatest surge in Meitei national stereotypes, as aggressive Meitei. The newly independent Indians, through no fault of their own, did not know that there is such a country called Manipur.

The early post-War period had no construct of Meitei national identity. The Meitei national character was in the blues. In fact, the idea was not born at all among politicians, intellectuals and even ordinary people.

There was a lack of educated politicians and intellectual historians, who could promote constructive arguments for Meitei national identity. It is the classic role of the public intellectuals to produce, transmit and adapt ideas about society and culture.

There were also no political institutions to inspire the loyalty of members of civic communities bound by a common language but different cultures and histories.

It was all the more problematic because Manipur was still in the process of formation, not only for the Meiteis but for the accommodation of the interests of various ethnic minorities, which posed massive problems and did not have immediate solutions.

National consciousness now began to impact upon the Meiteis, in spite of the fact that the Meitei culture and politics has been more egalitarian than the various tribal cultural groups.

National history has long played a prominent role in the forging of national identities, while the politicians have had a role in encouraging or discouraging the formation of a national identity.

It is now clear that Manipur was a very vague notion with uncertain frontiers. The complex identity of Manipur can only be formulated by taking into account all the uncertainties, ambiguities and contradictions. The unity of Manipur can only be conceived as multiple and complex, bringing together its diversities and contradictions. At least such a conclusion leaves the possibility that it might not offer a satisfactory answer.

A new class of liberal educated young Meitei people with an aching modernism sprang up with an infantile noble spirit that grew up to a mature Meitei National character. The language of civilisation current in the social and scientific circles elsewhere began to swamp the Meitei nation, with an optimistic prospect of a political dawn.

In the 1960s, the Meitei women, free from the complete dependency on the male socio-
cultural continuum broadened their perspectives by going to universities.

In the riveting memoir of the part played by Meitei women in shaping Meitei national character, their bravery stood out a mile with few equals like the Rani of Jhansi. A spontaneous national uprising of Meitei women known as the first Women’s war or Nupi lan, which erupted in 1904, stands forever as a historical obelisk.

The Darwinian evolutionary process had relevance to the formation of the Meitei nation. The ecological and geographical factors of Manipur primarily influenced the development of Meitei narcissism, while history, sociology, philosophy and ethnology gained significance later.

The Meitei national character is not without vices, as all national characters have. The main ones are: (1) the aggressive behaviour to moderate provocation; (2) the tendency to factionalism; and (3) lack of discipline. These traits have long been encoded in the double helix of our genes, which is impossible to dislodge until altered by various features of environment in future.
(5)
Meitei national character is thus an adaptive behaviour that has evolved in the Meitei genome for living in today’s society. That included organised warfare, reciprocity and altruism,
religion, exchange and trade. The history of Manipur is essentially the history of the Meitei clan.

Meitei national character, particularly the belligerence, superciliousness and tendency to dissension started in the 17th century CE, after the unification of the seven clans by Pakhangba.

In conclusion: Meitei national character was a psychologically homogenous unit within a framework in which most Meiteis, if not all, were palpably different from others and were conscious of a kind of superiority to others, real or imagined, with grassroots interest in its identity.

Like the Roman Empire that declined and fell, about five centuries after the Christian era, the Meitei nation fell 18 centuries after the Christian era. It is indeed indisputable that the Meiteis had national character in the past and certainly have one now. How about the future?

At the present time, 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.

The writer is base in the UK
Email: imsingh@onetel.com
Website: www.drimsingh.co.uk

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/R9fNoDh-jzA/

Metei kanglupki Lamchat

The concept of “national character” was a subject of debate during 18th century Europe. Interest in national character developed among Enlightenment thinkers prior to the great national revolutions. Following the revolutions such as the French Revolution, national character acquired metaphysical status. Later on, it was generally agreed that each nation has its peculiar characteristics. But what constitutes national character and what are the factors in shaping national traits are still not very clear.

In general terms, description of national character ranges from stereotypes to a complex mixture of a series of traits. Each country constitutes a nation with a peculiar set of characteristics. Sometimes, the people of the neighbouring provinces and communities differ
sharply from each other.

For example, Hindu Punjabis differ sharply from the Sikhs, though they speak the same language and live next to each other. The Meiteis differ in certain traits from the Tangkhul
Nagas or the Thadou Kukis.

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,
remained undeveloped in the idea of national character. It took another generation and by about 1,830 CE, the idea of an “English national character” began to evolve, still blurred sometimes by the “British identity”.

The British character differs from the Spanish or the Germans in that their character is generally portrayed (stereotyped) as a mixture of good qualities such as intelligence, fair play,
bravery, industriousness while they have their share of negative characters such as
chauvinism, rudeness and a sense of cultural superiority, and arrogance in speaking another’s
language.

The simpler view of national character is a series of mental and moral qualities in terms of virtues such as pride, courage, loyalty, and vices such as weakness, cruelty, frivolity etc. It is also recognised that women play an important role in moulding the character of a nation and how the changing condition of women would modify national characteristics.

It is noted that the qualities attributed to a nation are not found in every member of the
society. National character does not reflect mean personality trait levels. Nor does it point to a
political destiny.

In the rise and progress of Meitei national character, it is necessary to look if there is any distinctive spirit, character, ceremonies, laws, tastes, quirks, habits and foibles that distinguish them from other people. It is also important to observe how the Meiteis dress, eat, drink, work, play, shop, drive, flirt and fight, as well as their common personality traits, adaptive skills, discipline, disunity or unity.

Like every stripling of my days, I always decanted with pleasure by a relative peculiarity of a Meitei ideology – a manner of thinking, characteristic of the Meiteis. It was a fighting ideology on moderate provocations, which superseded any other character. This was an obsessive Meitei ideology in which I was very deeply immersed. It had its own virtues and vices, as all national characters have.

Is this identification? Is this part of true Meitei national character or a false representation? Is it simply grandiose Meitei narcissism? Can the Meitei nation have a coherent character?

In this bizarre parody, I allow myself to be a role playing model, in speculating on the nature of Meitei aggression with almost tautological concern. In Meitei anthology, this character is considered the most profound, from the several angles of the conditions of its existence and its symbolic capacities.

Having graduated from the rough and tumble fights of my school days, for which I was not cut out physically but through sheer Meitei narcissism, the fighting trait filtered through my university days, with paroxysmal scraps.

Looking back, the trait became prominent only when I was under the impression that I was either intimidated or my character was assassinated. This was not what my mind that was tabula rasa, a clean slate, at birth had acquired from experience. Nor was it an idea that was admitted to the brain through conditioning. It was an inherited trait.

In the formative years of my life I had a few serious near-misses in my tryst with destiny that links my behaviour to this Meitei trait. One such incident took me to the edge of a precipice. I am far from being proud in re-enacting the story. I was not a new hero who stood apart from the narrow confines of my time. It was a compulsive trait.

I was a young student at St Edmund’s College, Shillong, where I beat up a College Professor for his act of “injustice” that was done with my character.

Back in Imphal, as a young doctor, I went to see a Priest at the Don Bosco School at Chingmeirong. I recognised him as the Principal of St Anthony’s College in Shillong, at the time of my incident, 10 years before.

This aging Catholic priest was very familiar with the notoriously pugnacious behaviour of Meitei students, prior to my arrival in Shillong. As he did not know me I broached the subject. He simply told me that the Meiteis (students) lived in cloistered Manipur. When they came outside, they tended to be aggressive by over asserting themselves because of an inherent ‘inferiority complex’.

I had a feeling then he might be right. To my surprise, my eldest brother agreed with him.

In my undergraduate English language classes, I did learn that people with inferiority complex, suffer from an unrealistic feeling of general inadequacy, caused by real or supposed inferiority in one sphere. It is sometimes marked by aggressive behaviour in compensation.

Meitei men who were trained for fighting in war and traditional farmers in peace time had no tolerance skills. They regarded most of what passes for tolerance today are not tolerance at all, but rather intellectual or physical cowardice and those who hide behind that word are often afraid of intelligent or physical engagement. They were unwilling to be challenged by alternate points of view, to engage contrary opinions, or even to consider them.

Meiteis even now find it easier to hurl an insult than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it.

As a recent example: a Meitei, true to our inherited trait (nangna kari khangdana : you don’t know anything) sent me an email disagreeing with what I wrote in my article – “How did the Meiteis come from Africa?” He wrote: “Your research seems to be at the initial stage, do not assume that other people will accept easily your hypothesis; I feel that you need to review it in the light of the fossil finds in China and Southeast Asia, and also I suggest to acquaint with the formation of ….

“Further you have also mentioned that phenotypical (sic phenotypic) similarity does not indicate genotypic relationship of the people. But in genetics phenotype is the outward expression of the inherent gene. By writing such unfounded information are you trying to divide the people of Manipur?”

In normal non-Meitei behaviour ie with a lack of significant deviation from the average, he could have simply asked me to cite references. Or he could have politely rephrased it like: “I would have thought your hypothesis is not in keeping with the fossil finds in China (?which) and genetics”.

I could have explained advanced genetics that not all organisms that look alike (phenotype) necessarily have the same genotype. (Ref. Wilhelm Johannson 1911; more recently, Francis Crick’s Central dogma of molecular biology).

Meitei behaviour tends to maximize the survival of the genes for aggression whether or not those genes happen to be in the body.

In the book, “The Selfish Gene” (1976), Richard Dawkins pursues the theory that, “to regard an organism as a replicator is tantamount to a violation of the ‘central dogma’ of the non-inheritance of acquired characteristics.” (p.97)
This Meitei gene – the ‘intolerance’ gene passed on without mutation from generation to generation along with the gene that makes them ‘aggressive’. Their lack of tolerance skills combined with a short fuse and impatience invariably turned their behaviour to aggression at the slightest provocation.

These are two prominent traits that were firmly embedded in the vocabulary of Meitei national character.

The Maharajas wanted to keep the Meiteis illiterate. So did the British except Johnstone. One can understand that the British were not in Manipur on a mission to civilise the Meiteis. On the contrary, they were forced to rule Manipur. The general political principle of occupying someone’s country is to follow the dictum that the more the population is illiterate the easier is to keep them subdued, and wherever it is possible, eliminate the intellectuals.
Education brings civilisation. Civilisation and culture are related with each other intricately. A change in the former creates a great stir in the later. Civilization advances with renewed ideas of thinking, behaviour changes, rationality and morality. The advanced ideas are bred in the mind of those educated though the rest of the society do not share such advanced ideas. They stick to the traditional ideas which form their culture of the society.
When the whole society is educated, like the evolution of biological organisms, culture too can be viewed as following three Darwinian principles: variation, differential fitness, and inheritance. It is an evolutionary system subject to the selective and non-selective forces. Darwin wrote about in The Origin of Species: that there is a vast amount of variation within a species, which leads to selection for particular traits, and that these traits are then inherited by successive generations.
With the establishment of English education in those days, the aggressive Meitei trait could have possibly altered as it happened among the Vikings and Sioux Indians. Advancement in education would have brought civilisation, which in turn would have initiated a change in Meitei culture. Meitei culture has now visibly changed because of education.

The rajas that were equally illiterate (Vir Tikendrajit could speak some Hindustani) took no interest in the education of Meiteis. Their contact with the outside world depended on a couple of Bengali translators from Sylhet, who could speak Meitei lon. The illiteracy of the Meiteis prevailed until James Johnstone started a middle school to train the Meiteis in the running of the state machinery, such as clerks and Amins.
There were however, quite a few functionally literate Meiteis known as maichou (court scribes), who were literate in their own language and wrote Cheitharol Kumbaba and other chronicles in the Meitei alphabet. We owe them deeply-felt gratitude for writing our history. It is the ‘Pierian spring’, that metaphorical source of knowledge and inspiration for the Meiteis.

The Meiteis were happy-go-lucky people, an ingredient of their national character. One hardly saw any Meitei male or female suffering from depression. They were happy in living life with the most basic needs. Their staple food was vegetable but they ate freshwater fish that were available aplenty, though seasonal. As a result there was no fat Meitei man or woman and the men were muscular.

This unique Meitei national character was once summed up jokingly by my witty friend N. Brajakishore from Sagolband: “Eikhoidi khudei ama shetlaga pangnung nungaiba jatni. In English: I can be quite happy even though I wear only a khudei – wrap-around indigenous Meitei male apparel.

Actually he might have a point, purely in terms of happiness. In evolutionary terms, the humans were not programmed to have happiness as a default but we are now because of technological advances.

Meiteis have now come a long way from the days of the Kiratas 3,000 BCE. I agree with social anthropologists that in general the Meiteis have shown that “primitive” societies like the Meiteis are no longer fundamentally different from “civilised” societies.

Nationality is the greatest social trait. The long inherited cultural traits of the Meiteis, though in the throes of disappearing, still exist besides the distortion of the landscape they inhabit. It is no longer politically correct to talk of Meitei nationhood.

Regrettably, while anatomising the Meitei mass, in spite of advancement in education and civilisation, the variations between individuals in terms of unity have not diminished. Identity of individual interest and ego underlie the contradictions among us. It is not injustice in the society that causes disunity.

The intrinsic challenge to a unified Meitei nation with a series of perceived ideas of disharmony however, will not rank so high when there is an extrinsic threat to the whole Meitei community. The Meitei national character will bind them together to defend their right of coexistence.

The writer is based in the UK.
email: imsingh@onetel.com
website: www.drimsingh.co.uk

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/S1zvkjAaWTk/

Meitei Kanglupki Lamchat
By: Dr Irengbam Mohendra Singh

In the search for an idea of the beginning of Meitei national character and in the context of its construction with a structural or warring portrait, it is necessary to formulate what kind of people the Meiteis were by studying their mentalities, attitudes, behaviour, social structure, physical prowess, and the societal place for women.

In the 18th century there was awareness of the imprecision involved in the concept of national character. The most accepted political philosophy was that of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (French philosopher). He formed the idea that the complex form of national character must be associated with an element of national conscious.

He assumed that every nation has a peculiar character, physical traits, mores and moral qualities. To these he added distinctive ceremonies and cultural religious traditions which give the members of a group the awareness of natural cohesion. He explained that a nation derives its identity from a distinctive spirit, character, tastes, ceremonies and laws. He was the first to use the adjective national in conjunction with character (character).

In my attempt to formulate Meitei national character based on the political philosophy propounded by Rousseau, which is not an easy one, it is necessary to divide the Meitei nation, consisting of two factors: one is the individual capacity for liberty and readiness to defend their country, the other is the ability of the Meitei kings to govern their subjects to lead them for common ends.

The Meiteis have always taken for granted who they were without having any basic idea of the realism and strength of their character or the fantasy, though Kangleipak or Meiteileibak was certainly a subject of national consciousness.

They worshipped liberty and knew that they had to defend their country at any cost. In this way the Meitei national identity was bubbling up from the grassroots. This is a form of a subtle national consciousness, a kind of national character; egalitarian, non-egoistic and libertarian.

The Meiteis, though illiterate, acknowledged the moral salience of nationality and insisted on the primacy of what they called ‘civilization’, seeing little merit in education, as they lived in a little cocooned world of their own, leaving their destiny in the protective hands of their monarchs.

Following the initiation to Hinduism in the early eighteenth century, the shape of Meitei national character could be taken as tradition tempered by Hindu culture, marked by increasing unification among the Meitei clans except the autochthonous Meitei Lois.

Reminiscent of the years before the British domination began on April 27, 1891, it could be argued that the most remarkable result of the humiliation in disjunction, distortion, and displacement of the Meiteis by the Burmese was that the Meitei collective ethos rose after Chinglen Nongdrenkhomba alias Gambhir Singh drove away the Burmese from Manipur after the “Seven Years Devastation” in 1826 CE. There were no more Meiteis-in-waiting for redemption.

Manipur however, was a landscape of ruins. It was a landscape which provided a metaphor for broken lives and the spirits. It was also a landscape which provided the Meiteis with joy. It gave them the awareness of natural cohesion.

Defeated they were in a hopeless war, the Meiteis fought with remarkable courage, attributable to Meitei national character and with a pronounced feeling of unabridged unity. They showed heroism against the odds – that was part of the glamour of war for the Meiteis.

The picturesque emotionalism of the Meiteis, regardless of the lapsed human and glorious divine condition, offered opportunities for explicitly Meitei patriotism. In the 64 years between Gambhir Singh’s liberation of Manipur in 1826 and the British capture of Kangla Fort in 1891, there was an undercurrent of national homogeneity, which was more rigid than the pre-Manipuri-Burmese war.

The Meiteis were not conscious of these elements because of the confusion between culture and character and also national character sometimes was subject to rapid social changes. Examination of Meitei national culture demonstrates that they were equally unconscious of their “aggressive trait”.

It was because adaptive evolutionary change is a slow process – a trait that they acquired from the time of king Pakhangba over 2,000 years, as a timeless stability that national characters are supposed to have. A form of national identity is something that the Meiteis have had for centuries.

The concept of Meitei national character however, was non-existent until after the insurgence of Naga polity in the early fifties. Until then, there was a lack of credibility to construct a national Meitei identity though they continued to focus their identity leading to the characteristics that could be defined as a major part of the Manipuri nation.

The Meitei national character, now enthusiastically embraced by the elite as by the mass, triggered the greatest change in stereotypes since the days of the Seven years’ devastation.

The ethnic nationalism of the Nagas gave impetus to the view that the Meiteis needed a national identity. It was a kind of force that shaped the character of both individuals and groups. The rise of nationalist feeling both among the mass and among the intellectual, played those elements of Meiteiness that were compatible with the primacy of national identification of the Meiteis. In Darwinian logic, it was for altruism and survival.

The ‘new identity’ might have deep and genuine roots in Meitei society. Historical and cultural relics have been preserved and refurbished for the future generations. The recent remoulding and replacement of the two Kangla sha (lions/dragons) at the Kangla Fort, destroyed by the British after hoisting the Union Jack on April 27, 1891, has been designed to
cheer up a dreary and deprived Meitei nation, drained by the sacrifices which had been required of it by the effort of fighting the Anglo-Manipuri War.

The gentle but temperamental Meiteis, who until then had regarded Manipur as belonging to them and the tribal people in the hills, began their transformation into the Meiteis of the pre-colonial period. This raised new questions and fears about their fate and their future in the cloudy Manipuri nationalism.

As expected, there was a drift away from Manipuri nationalism to Meitei nationalism. There was a greater sense of unity among men and women. For them, the idea that I am a Manipuri, no longer satisfied their self-image of a Meitei.

The focus of Meitei national consciousness knocked on the head of the old Meitei idea of Manipur as a nation. The experience of tribal ethno nationalism profoundly deepened the consciousness of the Meiteis as a separate people. Though there was a gradual development of transitional consciousness, the Meitei audience had the foggiest of the ubiquity of the idea of ‘Meitei national character’.

To define Meitei national character, one must look at the factors in its formation. Basically, it must evolve around some physical, psychological and cultural characteristics in common, which binds them together and at the same time separates them from other people.

Psychologists tell us that we need stereotypes. But it does not mean that all stereotypes are equally useful.

Meitei national character can be conceived as the inherent Meitei spirit or the primary agency of their historical change. It is a collectivistic national character that pursues conjoined objectives. It refers to properties that pluralities display in Meitei national communities. The longstanding socio-scientific view is that group consciousness is a biological human/animal instinct.

The Meitei nation was a historically evolved stable community of economic life, language, territory and psychological make-up in a community of Meitei culture.

In the medieval times, the warlike states of antiquity, educated a race of Meiteis as soldiers; exercised their bodies, disciplined their courage. They were determined to uphold the propriety of their freedom. It was then possible to maintain the traditional virtues of the Meitei national character as the fittest.

The pre-modern Meiteis possessed an unconquerable notion of superiority over their neighbours, and for that matter, any other nation. The Khongjom battle of 1891 showed the delightful horror of their narcissistic trait of ‘superiority complex’- not false Meitei self-esteem. They were predisposed to this unrealistic psychological attitude while confronting the three columns of the invading British Army, when reliance on such virtues was inadequate and unsafe.

Looking back, the Meitei psychology at that time was not far from the modern psychological concept that “interaction location outweighs the competitive advantage of numerical superiority.” Tiny Britain defeated the massive Argentina in the Falkland’s War.

Margaret C. Crowfoot et al (Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA, November 28 2007) say that numerical superiority confers a competitive advantage during contests among animal groups, shaping pattern of resource access, and, by extension, fitness. The relative group size however, does not always determine the winner of intergroup contests. Smaller, presumably weaker social groups often defeat their larger neighbours, but how and when they are able to do so remains poorly understood.

Their theory is that they can demonstrate that contest outcome depends on an interaction between group size and location, such that small groups can defeat much larger groups near the centre of their home range. But in human terms and in the context of Meitei national character the odd one out was the part played by the superiority of British weaponry.

People who are not familiar with the Meitei national character will be flabbergasted at what the Meitei mind was capable of producing – an excessive use of ‘I’, ‘me’ and ‘us’.

History tells us about the narcissistic character of Chandrakriti Maharaja (1850-1886) who went to “Jila Durbar” with the premonition of being captured by the British because of his refusal to allow British India to set up a police post at Kohima, which then belonged to Manipur. The fear did not deter him. He made the risky expedition across the hill ranges with a courage that must merge with the creative energy of Hell rather than stand in opposition to it.

Chandrakrity Maharaja knew pretty well how invincible the British Army was. He, as a true Meitei was reacting to moderate provocation when two young British officers delivered the request letter to him without decorum.

He reportedly said that he would have given away Kohima, if he was courteously asked, but as it turned out, he would not part with his land even though it were the size that could be picked with the tip of a needle. He was also equally brave or fool hardy to spit on the face of the British Empire. This is typical of narcissistic Meitei national character.

Ironically, he came back from this ‘Jila Durbar’ shouting “Joy Oirê” ie victorious after giving the British what they wanted in the first place – Kohima, and having reimbursed for expenses of the trip one way.

The complexity of Meitei character accrued from a combination of dense intellectual quirkiness and their fighting talent, with an ever present desire to show how brave they were. It was the period of a more conservative idea of patriotism, and a culture of sentimentalism – a consciousness in their perceived fighting ability.

The composite picture of Meitei character and mind was often whipped up by frequent wars and skirmishes with the neighbouring tribes and nations. And because the population was sparse, the Meiteis, like the Spartans of Greece, were taught in their boyhood to be tough, and were trained in survival skills and how to be good soldiers.

Reading and writing were thought as secondary skills. Like the Spartans, the men, instead of softening their feet with shoes and sandals were made hard, going barefoot. This practised habit enabled them to scale heights of mountains and to clamber down precipices with less danger.

The girls, also like the Spartan girls, did not go to school. They were taught how to run a house and weave handloom clothing for the use of the family and for the market. Everyone was adept in the traditional dancing which is now world famous.

The Meitei aggressiveness is not the same thing as bravery. Bravery is when you do something that frightens you, but you do it anyway because your gut feeling tells you that it is right. The Meiteis do have bravery without doubt. History is full of splendid examples of Meitei valour.

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/1UUMxuVV5u0/

MEITEI KANGLUPKI LAMCHAT
By: Dr Irengbam Mohendra Singh

Máana kari khangdana, Máana eingondagi kari hendana; Hekta phujilaga loirê

The Meitei national character, which is exemplified by the above hoity-toity temper, is a page in history that has never been turned.

I write this article with a flicker of nostalgic warmth and because the Meiteis are a failing nation in the failed state of Manipur. The vacillations and chaos of political integration to India is going to change the future order of the Meiteis for ever. This is an article of faith. My heart jolts with self-pity.

I write this in memory of the vanishing tribe of Meiteis for the historical documentation of what they were, like they were never before, indulgent, and they would never be after. The Meiteis are now a crowd, jostling and jockeying in this little human cauldron of Manipur, inhabited by various tribes of which the Meiteis are dominant.

A discussion about Meitei national character at a time when the Meiteis are demoted to “Other Backward Classes” is so fundamental for the intellectuals that it informs the totality of consciousness without any avant-garde philosophy. It is a revival of interest in the old Meitei polity that proved decisive in the devolution of a distinctive national mode.

Endless inter tribal hatreds, distracted by issues both profound and petty, and commenting endlessly on each other’s moral and ethical feelings, Manipur for ever will remain a divided country without a collective will to unite and prosper.

The stake in my writing is the connection and consistency, because truth sticks to what is consistent and I am going to call into questions the existence of other consistencies.

I do not particularly think that I can transmit all the factual knowledge, which can only be transmitted through mastery. As for me, it is a reflection on some of the defining rhythms of Meitei national character.

My thesis, which is far from being an erudite and well-crafted intellectual history, has significant contributions from many well known authors whose names for the sake of
brevity I intend to give a miss. After all, a research is copying from many.

I am not writing a doctoral thesis with computations of significant deviations while judging Meitei national character. The basis for my thesis is empirical analysis ie observation, experience and correlation of regularities.

The concept of a nation having a national character is disputed by some outdated anthropologists and psychologists. I am tempted to disagree. It beggars belief. It has been personally fostered to me from my travels all over India and the world, and meeting people in the half century of my life, that the Meiteis have National character; unthought-of at the present, not unlike the English national character.

From the early part of the 18th century the social and cultural system of the Meiteis became structured differently from that of the other tribes in Manipur. As I am a Meitei conversant with the Meitei thought, the condition of access to knowledge in the present Meitei socio-cultural continuum is profoundly easier for me.

The socio-cultural continuum as it appears is the knowledge, huge and intrinsically political that the Meitei nation is in its death throes after at least 2,000 years of existence. This is not a prissy whinge. It is a lament for the end of Meitei history and the dawn of a new political evolution.

Like the rise of the phoenix from the ashes, my desire is to catch the rising spirit of Meitei national character from the smouldering Meitei nation, through the empirical method of accumulation of knowledge – the knowledge of Meitei ancients.

The Meiteis had a temper, some of them, particularly verbs (eg hekta phujilaga loire). They were the proudest adjectives such as arrogance, with which you can do anything (eg mana eingondagi kari hendana).

The Meitei national character was shaped by different events and values, particularly by the laws administered by their kings in the mediaeval period of Meitei history.

In the 18th century the Meitei kings became complacent with the teachings of the new religion, Gouranga Vaishnavism with one version of the Ramayana. It was a pacifist religion that taught them the cult of chanting, Hare Krishna, Hare Rama and to become drunk with a spiritual purification and eternal ecstasy in the worship of Radha-Madhaba Jugol Lup (the twin statue of Radha and Krishna).

The proof, according to Chaityana Charitamrita Adi-Lila is the real bliss (kevala-ananda) that wraps the soul; the more the holy name is chanted the greater is the bliss. With the rising Hindu influence, the name Meitei leibak (Meitei country) was replaced by Manipur (land of the jewels).

The 19th century was a disaster for the Meiteis, beginning with Chahi taret khundakpa (the Seven years’ devastation), 1819–1826 CE. Only 2,000 Meiteis survived. It was a Burmese revenge for what the Meiteis did to them in the preceding Meitei-Burmese wars.

However, the Meitei trait, linked to self-reliance and self-sufficiency, attached firmly to their national character with a little hearty patriotism, approved as a source of dynamism, soon became the driving force to reclaim the lost honour after 7 years.

Raja Gambhir Singh with some assistance from the East India Company easily chased the Burmese garrisons out of Manipur in 1826 CE. The other noteworthy record was the “Re-demarcation of Manipur’s boundary as Mao” – the boundary between Manipur and the Naga Hills (the present day map) on December 13 1873 CE.

The 20th century witnessed a decline in the national life of the Meiteis as radical as any since the British conquest. The changing society at that time, when the reins of government were held with so loose a hand, created problems for the Meitei character. Meiteis became very laid-back and innocuous. The laissez-faire outlook destroyed the essence of Meitei national character.

Manipur is now multifaith, multicultural, multilinguistic and multiethnic. This is of course a change for the better provided every tribal community is taking part in the running of the state and for the development and peaceful coexistence. But there is a yawning chasm. Some ethnic communities have different ideologies with lightening-rod issues of dissent.

Manipur is a land of rolling hills with their peaks dipping in white cloud, lush and well-watered. Along with much of the Northeast there have been inter-ethnic tensions and Manipur has endured a very long-running insurgency.

Manipur was a kingdom with Meitei kings. In the history of Manipur before the British colonial era (1891-1947 CE), it was not that the Kukis, the Marings, the Tangkhuls, the Kabuis and the Pangals did not fight for the defence of Manipur, but it was the Meiteis who bore the brunt of the fighting. When the Meiteis were defeated at the battle of Khongjom in April 1891 Manipur lost its independence.

My thesis is non-political and does not try to address the ethnic incongruity and the economic mayhem in Manipur. It is a project to identify the characteristics of the Meiteis – a Kirata tribe, now conveniently called the Northeasterners, which has been in existence in Manipur probably from the Stone Age, though has only been recorded for the last 2,000 years in the Cheitharol kumbaba.

In the babble of oral traditions, nobody knew when and from where the Meiteis migrated to Manipur, now in the Northeast of India, in prehistoric times. For the purpose of theoretical argument or for the more solid purpose of remapping the Meitei ancestry, it is tempting to assume that the Meitei migration to Manipur must have been at least as old as that of the
Aryan migration to India 3,000 years ago.

Though the Aryan migration theory to India is now regarded as sea of fiction, the compilation of the Vedas, in the period before 1,500-1,000 BCE, is planted firmly in Indian soil. The Kiratas were mentioned in the Yajurveda and Atharveda. And the Meiteis are Kiratas as their historicity reflects on the Meiteis.

In the vaguely contoured landscape and dim history of the Kiratas, it is now agreed that the Sakti temple at Kamakhya in Guwahati, and the Kalighat temple in south Kolkata, are Hinduised Kirata shrines.

The Jagannath temple at Puri in Orissa was a centre of pilgrimage for thousands of years for the pre-Aryan and pre-Dravidian Kirata tribes of the Austric linguistic family, known as Sabaras.

They were proto-Australoid hunter-gatherers like the present Khasis, Bhils and Kols, who were part of the crowd of migrants from Northeast Africa, now Ethiopia. They developed a characteristic culture with pagan roots of human and natural fertility; procreation, and fulfilment.

The Meitei hunter-gatherer ancients who probably were similar migrants had a native religion of the Sanamahi cult. Though unique for the Meiteis, it is likewise a pagan/Kirata religion with its animism, and shamanism such as Saroi khangba, Thou touba.

Shamanism is based on the belief that the universe is pervaded by invisible spirits that affect the lives of the living. Shamanism requires Shamans who have ‘specialised knowledge’ of the spirits. The word shaman literally means he/she who knows. Shamanism is a big topic in its own right. Some are of the opinion that it originated alongside in Brahminism and Buddhism.

Some believe that the word was derived from the Sanskrit word ‘shramana’; Pali and Prakit ‘shamana’. Others find in it some elements in common with the teachings of the Chinese philosopher Lao-Tze. Many others still hold the view that Shamanism is some form of Nature-worship.

Finally, it is understood that Shamanistic cult has nothing to do with Buddhism or any other religion. It originated spontaneously among the Mongoloid nations of Asia including the Meiteis. It consists not only in superstitious and shamanistic ceremonies, in certain primitive ways of observing the outer world – nature, but the inner world – the soul itself.

The Meitei national character for centuries has been its strong vitality, which has helped them to overcome many challenges. But the concept of Meitei national character is difficult to explain. Perhaps it is a product of the combination of material and spiritual cultures.

Culture is not a product of civilisation. Meiteis had a good culture but they were not civilised. Or, in the highly civilised England, the low socio-economic group has no culture. The Meiteis owe their culture and their unified Meitei national character to their kings.

The conversion to Hinduism had little effect on the Meitei national character except that they became less vicious in civilisatory terms. But it helped the Meiteis to see themselves as more homogeneous and uniform; less fissured by small cultish clan religions such as Thangjing lai, Thongaren and the like.

Manipur was a scarcely packed ‘rural nation’. When the majority of the Meiteis were coerced to Hinduism, there began an urbanisation of the Meitei society. The King and Kangla became the centre of socio-cultural and political Meitei nation.

Given that the Meiteis were rural peasants, it stands to reason that certain qualities assigned to the Meitei national character would be those best suited to be ruled by a monarch.

Equally important is to find respective answers to how the Meitei society was influenced by monarchical, religious, political, economic and societal debates, with its stress on climate and kingdom, evolving into the 18th century European notion of ‘national character’ of the Meiteis.

That was the beginning of the emergence of ‘collective behaviour’ or national character for the Meiteis, wielded by their kings.

The idea of Meitei national character was, if anything, strengthened by the social changes brought about by conversion to Hinduism. The change in the social structure was socialistic and egalitarian. It recognized few differences in wealth, power, prestige and status. There was no caste system.

Such was the constitution of Meitei civil society that, whilst a few persons were distinguished by riches, by honours, and by knowledge, the body of the Meitei mass shared equal rights and opportunities.

The Meitei nation was a historically evolved stable community of economic life, language, territory and psychological make-up in a community of Meitei culture. It could be said that they had a series of attitudinising aphorisms while their aestheticism and hedonism were both indulged and disdained, characterised by their dogmatic and ancient ceremonial religion of Sanamahi and Umang lais overlapping on the doctrines and rituals of Hinduism.

Given the stringency of their fighting ability and success, self-reliance and self-sufficiency, the Meitei national character undoubtedly wrenched them into a new genetic unit, which eventually mutated by what is called inversion, producing a phenotype of narcissism – a trait past its shelf-life now.

The forces needed in the handling of the central features of Meitei national character are moral and physical courage, and readiness for combat either individually or socially. The most radical version of these is the aggressiveness though the Meitei is a well-balanced person, responsible, dignified, self-possessed and capable of recognizing his own true self- interest, in obedience to the law and co-operation with others.

Moral courage is the tenacity to follow one’s ethics or principles that may result the individual feeling isolated from or accepted by colleagues and even the family. This type of courage is innate to the Meiteis.

Physical courage varies among cultures as well as among individuals. That the Meiteis have indomitable courage cannot be disputed. Courage can be defined as lacking fear in a situation that would normally generate it.

There is a difference between courage and foolhardiness. While the courage is the ability to disregard fear, foolhardiness is foolishly bold. The Meiteis are recipients of both traits.

The ugly side of Meitei national trait is propensities for internecine fighting among ourselves and between the princes themselves. They were inherited from the seven clans.

Had there been no feud between the Meitei king and his maternal uncle Khelei Nongnang – the Moirang king, the seven years’ devastation would not have happened. King Khelei invited the Burmese to invade Manipur, and during that seven years’ period he ruled over Moirang and Meitrabak until Gambhir Singh returned.

In the rise and fall of Meitei national identity, the Palace intrigue and the rebellion of Tikendrajit and his brothers against their step-brother King Surchandra and his brothers (1886-1890) marked a turning point in Meitei ego and the national character.

It is fair to comment that without the inherent Meitei princely patricidal and fratricidal traits, the Meiteis could have kept their superiority complex intact, and Manipur would have remained independent until at least the Indian Independence Day of August 15 1947.

But this is history and is still miming itself among the insurgents. This is Meitei national character. This is what we are.

The writer is base in the UK
Email: imsingh@onetel.com
Website: www.drimsingh.co.uk

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/2Lvob0RHWHo/

CAUSES OF ETHNIC CONFLICT IN MANIPUR & SUGESTED REMEDIES
By: Dr Irengbam Mohendra Singh

Ethnic conflicts in Manipur are not phenomenal only for Manipur. They are world-wide. I can understand why the Nagas of Manipur want to secede and join Nagaland. It is naught to do with political economy but ethnicity ie to join fellow Nagas and live for ever “without perceived discrimination”.

Many political scientists have studied ethnic strife and its remedies. There are differing schools of thought.

Defining the causes of ethnic strife in Manipur is easy as they do elsewhere, by just cataloguing a cocktail of poverty, misunderstanding, resentment, cultural intolerance and perceived injustices. But finding remedies is very difficult

Ethnic conflict is caused by ethnicity, which mobilises, structures and manages ethnic organisations. Further their leaders use ethnic divisive strategies to mobilise political support.

The potential for ethnic conflict is almost universal because there are very few states with only one ethnic group.

Democracy alone cannot ensure ethnic harmony. Instead it allows freer expression of ethnic antagonisms.

In theory, in Manipur leaders of the dominant Meitei group gain office and then use state institutions to distribute economic and political benefits preferentially to the Meiteis and thus discriminate against other minority tribes. That is, the state is ineffective in addressing the concerns of their constituencies.

The minority ethnic groups having endured alleged discrimination for over sixty years felt that their shared deprivation has been long enough and thus mobilised political support on ethnic lines.

In reality, the cause of ethnic conflict is primordial. That is, ethnic conflict exists because there are traditions of belief and actions towards primordial objects such as biological features and especially territorial location and the concept of kinship between members of ethnic groups such as Kabuis, Tangkhuls and Nagas. This kinship makes it possible for ethnic groups to think in terms of family resemblances.

The leaders of the minority ethnic groups in the state want accommodation in terms of jobs, economy, security, development, health care and so on. When they are not forth coming from or judged “politically infeasible” by the dominant groups, the leaders take recourse to violent protests. The more radicalised leaders became militant (Donald L Horowitz). Underground groups came into existence. This usually causes the birth of ethnonationationalism.

The territorial integrity of Manipur is now vigorously challenged by the diversity of 36 ethnic groups living in the state. The insurgents of these ethnic Nagas, kacha nagas (Zemi nagas now) and smaller units like Hmar, paite. Gangte etc all demand regional autonomy or independence. Meiteis want an independent Kangleipak while Kukis dream of Zalengam. Nagas prefer to form Nagalim.

However, in Manipuri ethnic conflict preceded such a current scenario. Before the Manipur state came into existence in 1947, Athiko Daiho from Mao and a few other prominent leaders from other tribal groups formed the National Naga League in September 1946 for separate Naga inhabited areas. I have full sympathy for these organisations of ethnic groups; because that was what they thought was the best for them – a state for all the tribal groups outside of the majority Hindu Meiteis.

The cause of ethnic conflict in Manipur is thus political ethnicity and not economic disparity.
The later is only a vehicle to fight the ethnic war. This makes it very hard to find a tangible remedy short of secession.

Time has changed since. The tribal people became educated and the Meiteis became liberalised and were more and more willing to accommodate them.

The problem is endless. It is not unlike the demands of Mongoloid Nagaland and Manipur to secede form Mayang India. Anyone in northeast India must not be deluded that India will part with Nagaland or Manipur. Three wars with Pakistan and dedicated Kashmiri militants failed to dislodge Kashmir from India. However, this is not the point of my article.

My article is about suggestions as to how the different ethnic groups in Manipur could reconcile themselves.

There are three possible types of ethnic conflict outcomes in Manipur: (1) peaceful reconciliation as advocated by the Meiteis; (2) peaceful separation as demanded by the Nagas; and (3) endless ethnic conflicts.

Looking at the three options, which have been in existence for a number of years and from the security-centric Indian Government, a peaceful ethnic reconciliation is the best option.

The majority Meiteis and minority ethnic groups need to put their heads together and devise new mini constitutional arrangements to address specific concerns of grievances especially more local autonomy and minority rights guarantees such as quota reservations for universities, jobs, and the continuation of the application of Schedule V within a new federal structure with more political, economic, cultural or administrative autonomy within existing institutional arrangements.

These arrangements will provide security and promote economic prosperity for the ethnic minorities.

According to UN Report on Ethnicity and Development in 2004, accommodating people’s growing demands for their inclusion in society, for respect of their ethnicity, religion, and
culture are the mainstay of remedying ethnic conflicts.

The 2004 Report builds on that analysis, by carefully examining and rejecting claims that cultural differences necessarily lead to social, economic and political conflict or that inherent cultural rights should supersede political and economic ones.

The UN Report makes a case for respecting diversity and building more inclusive societies by adopting policies that explicitly recognize cultural differences – multicultural policies:

(1) Cultural liberty is a vital part of human development because being able to choose one’s identity is important in leading a full life;

(2) Cultural liberty allows people to live the lives they value without being excluded from other choices important to them such as education, health or job opportunities;

(3) Several emerging models of multicultural democracy provide effective mechanisms for power sharing between culturally diverse groups;

(4) Power sharing arrangements have broadly proven to be critical in resolving tensions; and

(5) Multicultural policies that recognize differences between groups are needed to address injustices historically rooted and socially entrenched.

These are good theories but practical application is quite another kettle of fish. Because of hierarchal form of unitary government Manipur needs a body of policy makers representing all the tribal groups that can influence the state government policy-making power.

The writer is based in the UK
Email: imsingh AT onetel.com
Website: www.drimsingh.co.uk

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/lFiP8GL3KI0/

MANIPUR ON A SWISS MODEL

Political legitimacy is indeed central to the sustenance of Manipuri identity. The existence of secessionist movements reflects a lack of legitimacy. The lack of state legitimacy relates to the rise of ethnic conflict and competing ethnonationalism. Repressive policies to deal with ethnic dissent are counterproductive. In the absence of other feasible solutions, all of us in Manipur need to find a solution. I have a solution aimed at challenging the existing political disorder in Manipur.

As s few Meiteis are now vocalising for a plebiscite the Kukis are renewing their demand for independence, while the Nagas are sticking to their gun.

Anyone who has studied ethnic conflicts in the world especially after the Cold War will understand how the ethnic Nagas feel about their “ethnicity” rather than economic disparity. I have full sympathy with them. However, to quote Aristotle: “if things do not turn out as we wish, we should wish for them as they turn out.”

It’s time to manage ethnic conflicts and resolve to live together in relative harmony while maximising equality in the distribution of political and economic resources.

At the risk of highfalutin, a strong sense of belonging to Manipur should be founded on a common language of Manipuri, a common historical background, shared values and Manipuri symbolism of “Chingna koina pan saba…”

As examples, during our student days in Darjeeling, Shibo Mao, Shonkhhao Kipgen, Waikhom Damodor and I conversed in Manipuri and we felt Manipuris separate from the Nagas, who we regarded as some other people.

I grew up with Kabuis in the Imphal town and my father had a Kabui Chakprasi called Yaima whom we treated as if he was a Meitei, calling him Tayaima. I had many Tangkhul friends, both male and female. We got on very well until the politicians came.

So I have a proposition for all those like-minded people of Manipur that it would far better for all of us to create a distinct Manipuri civic identity among the population and to differentiate it from neighbouring states, often akin in tribalism, language and/or religion, following the example of the Swiss nation, which took 50 years on the road towards a more united Swiss State with the formation of a Federal Constitution in 1948.

Switzerland was built mainly because of political reasons by different ethnic communities. It is not a homogenous nation. It has been allowing ethnic groups to retain their cultural identities and institutions. It was exclusively German in the beginning. The confederation was formed by the alliance of valleys and cities.

Switzerland is an example of a successful ‘multinational’ and ‘multicultural’ state. The Swiss ‘nation’ worked for a “national spirit” and the “conscience of working for a nation” that fostered the nation building process, without transforming into linguistic or cultural homogenisation.

The Swiss confederation is rightly seen as an outstanding example of the successful political integration of differing ethnic affinities. Switzerland is ‘a nation by the consent’ of its differing parts. It is described as a multilingual “nation by will” or multicultural polity. It entered an age of political upheavals as in Manipur, which was to last for fifty years.

The Swiss “model” to settle violent nationality-conflicts has been a recurrent phenomenon since 1948 – most recently, for example, in the proposals of bringing peace to Cyprus and
Bosnia. There are specific conditions out of which Switzerland developed along with complex institutional apparatus and political culture of the modern federal state.

Switzerland is a landlocked country like Manipur (- definitely not Switzerland of the East), geographically divided between the Alps, the Central Plateau and the Jura, spanning an area
of 41,285 km². The Alps occupy the greater part of the country. The Swiss population is approximately 7.9 million people mostly on the Plateau with the largest and global cities and economic centres of Zurich and Geneva.

The Swiss nation consists of four ethnically different people: German (bordering Germany, French (bordering France), Italian (bordering Italy) and a minority – Rumantsch in Southeastern Switzerland.

In Switzerland there are four official languages, but in everyday public life, only one or two of the official languages will be spoken depending on the region.

The solution to a ‘Swiss nation building’ consisted in a form of ‘personal’ and not ‘territorial’
federalism that would make each citizen of the Empire ‘at home’ in any part of the country. In such a political system all the four nations take part equally in the common polity.

The personal (non-territorial) federalism consists in giving to individuals a statute allowing them to depend on the rules edited by a federal entity. Federalism protects personal liberty of any individual of any community.

Like Switzerland, Manipur needs to transform itself into a multi-ethnic state of Manipur with a sense of a collective national identity, each community taking part in common institutions and practices, separated from a ‘culturalist’ and ethnic perspective. The question is undoubtedly, how to formulate?

We need an intellectual circle representing all the communities to participate in a nation-building process. We need people with confidence that there are sufficient common grounds for the union to succeed with underlying ideologies of a free and progressive liberalisation, and there is nothing to worry about than the ethnic diversities of its members.

We need a few like-minded people from each ethnic group to begin with, and form a leveraging nucleus with tentacles. Once agreed and formed, such a circle should devise how to build a composite Manipuri identity based on equality or autonomy within the framework
of the existing state of Manipur

Politicians with such broader aims in their manifestoes should be chosen to form a ‘unitary’ democratic government in Imphal that can handle issues of ethnicity and inequality. This will then be a ‘federal government’. The term “federacy” is loosely used here in the context of participation of all communities in Manipur for the purpose of solving mutual problems.

The Federation of Switzerland consists of sovereign states, each capable of functioning as an independent state. Manipur is a mini ‘unitary state’ in which administrative district units exercise only those powers granted to them from the state government in Imphal, as in the UK before devolution.

To allow room for local democracy and accountability, a miniature of political system at the
district level could be established for spending the funds financed by the Central government.
through the State Government. A political strength has a substantial impact on budget responsibility at the local level. The trouble is the districts with a weak political leadership will tend to have large budget deficits. But this is not insurmountable.

The big hurdle will come from demands from the Meiteis to stop application of Schedule V to hill areas, allowing them to purchase land in the hill ranges, which consists of 90% of total area of Manipur, keeping particular safeguards. They claim that the purported advantages of the Meitei majority is now getting neutralised by the advantageous rights of the minority tribal people.

Agreeably, the abolition of the above safeguards for the time being will be inappropriate as the tribal people need special protection due to disadvantageous conditions. But the question of how long will depend on the amendment of the Indian Constitution.

In the eyes of the law, everybody is equal in Manipur as well as in India. Disparity in social status, economy and education exists everywhere in India. There is nothing like a perfect system of government. But there must be a fair attempt to narrow down the disparity.

Manipur is a state in democratic India. There will be disparity in some form or the other. That is why we have a representative democratic government in Imphal. Any grievance should be aired through the medium of elected members of the Manipur Legislative Assembly.

Manipuris need a think tank or a policy institute ie a non-profit organisation that conducts research and engage in advocacy in areas such as economy, social policy or political strategy
that will be fair to all ethnic groups, big or small. There must be ‘give and take’ approach, better than ‘take and give’ policy.

The growing civilisation in Manipur as against the savage needs forethought ie the willingness to endure present pains for the sake of the future pleasures, even though the future pleasures are very distant as was the case in Switzerland. We should check our impulses through law, custom and religion. We should be less instinctive as among the savage and more systematic as among the civilised.

As the purposes of the community are enforced upon the individual, the purposes of such a ‘federalised’ state should be enforced on the communities.

As a counter to the power of ethno-nationalism, which has been mushrooming in Manipur, attempts should be made to portray the political “Manipur by will”, transcending language
culture and ethnicity, as an antithesis, or even to recast the lack of “objective Manipur” as a virtue, as a specifically civilisatory mission entrusted to Manipur.

What has always been the most problematic of Manipur’s linguistic-cum-ethnic differences is the contrast between the Majority Meitei and the minority Nagas. This can be solved by attempts made to portray the political “nation by will” by pressure groups in each community on the motto that what you expect from others shall be performed to others.

Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
Who never to himself had said,
This is my own, my native land.
Sir Walter Scott (Scottish poet)

PS. I have tried to portray unbiased views of Meiteis and Nagas. Any suggestion would be welcome.

The writer is based in the UK
Email: imsingh.onetel.com
Website: www.drimsingh@onetel.co.uk

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/WQ1YIGn6p78/

Chingna koina pan saba Haona koina pan ngakpa;
Manipur sana leibakna Matau asumna pallami,
Maong asumna leirami.

Friends, Manipuris and countrymen; I’ve come to bury ethnic-strife, not to praise it. Gone are the days of lying between the sheets all charred with mendacious happiness, with head over the pillows tainted with romantic dreams. A lesson on a formula of a composite Manipur should be bedtime reading for those who have no time to read.

Gone with the wind are the stories of Meitei/Naga chivalry that no longer fit into the lean, callous Indian news machine. In the existing tumultuous political and social disorder in Manipur where gun-toting youths dictate the community’s life, we should begin bemoaning with flickers of angst, the existing ethnic divide.

Manipur is the most unsafe state in India, unlike Kashmir where its insurgents do not harm their own people. Everybody in Manipur can expect a bullet or a hand grenade any day from any of the various groups of insurgents, particularly KCP.

Manipur has been standing with one foot in hell for a long time with anarchy and seasons of ethnic discontent. It’s time for all the players in the theatre of war, to come to the negotiating table to work out the issue of ethnicity and inequality.

All Manipuris are familiar with the above ballad. It means something to anyone who looks back at the history of Manipur. It’s time for the young and old folks of Manipur to familiarise themselves with its core meaning.

The lyricism of this narrative song is a sentimental explication that the chingmees and tammees lived together in and defended Manipur in historical times.

I have been writing to establish with empirical and some archaeological evidence that Manipur belongs to both the hill and plane people and that Manipuri language is not a Tibeto-Burman language. Divided, the Meiteis will survive and so will the Nagas, but just be able to eke out a living with handouts from Delhi every year. That’s not the life for our children.

They are preamble to my conviction that Manipur will remain as it is, unchanged by forces of nihilism, as will Kashmir. Who will dare ask the Chinese to hand back the part of Kashmir in their occupation?

India promised plebiscite in Kashmir and Junagard, and then it reneged. The UN is helpless as India says it is an internal matter, which is cogent in International law. India has yet to agree to a plebiscite in Manipur ie a proposal to cede Manipur from India.

In the meantime, all of us in Manipur should join hands to build a strong Manipuri identity and sing “Auld Lang Syne”. Why? Without it we will lose our cultural and ethnic identity and we will remain forever just as “Northeasterners”. Manipur will continue to live under military occupation, curtailing our freedom – not having the same rights as other Indians. Further, the inherent neglect by Delhi will turn into a legitimate excuse for not developing Manipur.

Time changes and with it human nature changes with culture and religion, which have an intense effect on human behaviour. Because they determine how people react to others and express their feeling to others.

Manipuris are at a crisis situation, at a point of time when a critical decision must be made. Ethnic discontent and internecine fighting are hampering our progress.

We must have a certain future and a progressive goal as the Americans have – known as ‘American dream’. We need a dream – a ‘Manipuri dream’ and a plan for our posterity. We cannot leave their destiny in the lap of gods.

A few school children from Manipur sent me emails asking for guidance as ‘they are confused’ about their future. A Naga doctor from Dimapur sent me an email, equally confused about his origin.

The scenario I am proposing is not predictions or depictions of a desirable future, which I wish to promote. It is designed to help people understand the major trends that would shape our Manipuri identity. The aim is to challenge, inspire and excite so that people feel motivate to plan for a better, more sustainable future for Manipuris.

We need to form a “federal” Manipur, based on the Swiss Federation. The word “federation” is loosely used here, in the sense that all the ethnic communities resolve to build a prosperous Manipur despite the variance in culture, language and religion.

Evidence as the foundation of history will show the chances of an independent Manipur vis-à-vis the Government of India and the possibility of forming a greater Nagaland vis-à-vis the Meiteis. But good luck to those who are still struggling for an independent Manipur or wanting to integrate parts of Manipur with Nagaland.

The insurgency is quiet on the northern front (Nagaland) and inside Manipur. Even the anti-AFSPA movement is as quiet as a mouse. Everyday a few insurgent cadres are getting “nabbed” by the security forces, and a few surrender intermittently. In view of the total number of insurgent cadres, the fighting force will soon decimate to only a few effete Kalashnikov holders.

In the case of the ‘Nagas’ of Manipur (not an eponym I would like to use for Manipuri tribal peoples who have different respectable names), they should now look into their conscience and reformulate the old plan for building a ‘Naga nation’ mainly because of economical disparity and other legitimate grievances along with better prospects that might accrue from joining Nagaland. The grass is always greener on the other side.

It is not clear who are the “Nagas” and who are not in Manipur. Generally, by Nagas it seems to mean Tangkhuls, Mao-Maram and Kabuis. What is the future for the rest of the 36 different tribal groups in Manipur?

Mixing theory with practice is not always compatible. Theory gives us framework for analysing a problem while practice gives us experience. Theoretically, the Nagas must, by now realise that in Manipur they are Manipuris but in Nagaland they are outsiders and will always be treated as such.

The NSCN(K) faction openly says that Muivah is a Tangkhul not a Naga and Tangkhuls are not Nagas. It further says (September 2003) that “The Tangkhuls were Meiteis and joined the
Naga National movement only after Nagas entered ceasefire with the Indians just to create misunderstanding.”

The leader of the NSCN (IM) at the moment is Muivah – a Tangkhul and there are many Tangkhuls in this faction. It’s a matter of worry what the outcome would be when Muivah is no longer the leader.

As an advance notice, some NSCN (IM)) killed many Tangkhuls at Dimapur on May 5 2008. This sort of events does not occur in Manipur – their state.

On March 5 2011 NSCN (IM) killed a cadre of the Zeliangrong United Front in a gun battle at Khoupum Tampak.

There is also disillusionment among the Phungyar Tangkhuls as they see the reality that because of ethnic-strife their villages would be left behind in the Stone Age. They are rightly demanding the creation of a Manipuri district of their own by dividing the present Ukhrul district into haves, pouring cold water on the UNC’s separatist policy.

Large numbers of Kabuis live in the Imphal plane scattered in fifty odd villages. They have undergone microevolution differing from their counterpart Zeliangrongs in the hills, in looks, culture and habits. They have already expressed their views of staying put in Manipur, as they feel closer with the Meiteis.

History will imitate itself. We know the plight of Bihari Muslim immigrants to Muslim East Pakistan in 1947, and the atrocities they suffer since 1971 when they were forced to go to Pakistan from Bangla Desh. They are contemptuously treated as mhajir (immigrants). They now wish they never left India where fellow Muslims enjoy equal rights and opportunities of any Indian.

During the Calcutta Hindu-Muslim riots in 1947, some Meitei Pangals took shelter with Meitei students. They are descendants of Meitei mothers ie blood relations.

ATSUM and ANSAM should be aware that dissatisfaction is not one sided. For example: the Meitei youths are far from happy that all the top jobs are given to tribal people because of the quota system and that they pay no taxes for their large remunerations. They would also like a bit of land on the beautiful Siroi ranges in Ukhrul, or near the Barak Water Falls in Tamenglong, but they are denied due to “protective racism”, while every community is welcome to the Imphal valley.

The post-modern and liberalised Meiteis believe that there is no institutional discrimination against any ‘tribe’ in Manipur though discrimination and prejudice on a personal scale exists anywhere in the world.

I do appreciate these young “Nagas” struggling for economic prosperity except that their demands are always vitriolic saying “how the majority Meitei imposes unwelcome rule on the minority tribal people, which in fact is political rather than economical.

Having posited a dismal future for all of us, my thesis is aimed at finding an amicable solution for all the Manipuri communities. That’s where our prosperous future lies.

Manipuris are marching to an unheard drum in an arid political clime. It’s time for mothballing the old history of Manipur; it’s time for burying the hatchet; it’s time for the creation and reinforcement of a collective identity for Manipuris.

We need an increased share of a common language of Manipuri and an equal share of our economy, and willingness to celebrate a plural and secular society. We have to forge ahead in the larger interest of Manipur for Manipuris.

We have a common language that does not affect the right of ethnic minorities of other languages to use their native languages. Speaking the same language makes one feel belonging to the same community.

Message from the writer:
I appreciate what many readers are saying about my name. In fact, I wrote an article in a Manipuri daily this year that all Meitei youngsters and children should do without the pseudo -Rajput name of SINGH and DEBI; because we feel as if we are living in somebody’s body when we go abroad. But for old people like me it is too late. My name is legally bound in my passport, driving licence, banking, credit cards, and electoral register and so on.

The writer is based in the UK
Email: imsing@onetell.com
Website: www.drimsingh@onetel.co.uk

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/i2vzH3GCck0/

MEITEIS WILL SURVIVE ECONOMICALLY WITHOUT THE HILLS

Having encapsulated the origin of the Meiteis in my preceding article this paper looks at how the primitive Meitei social structure might have influenced the economic, legal, political, religious and cultural systems of Manipur. Social structure is the parent system of these various systems that are embedded in it. Social and cultural systems are interrelated. The term “society” was used prior to “culture”.

This piece is simply a narrative of my experiences of Meitei social structure and mores, which I remember as a young boy of 8-11years, just before and after the War. This is not an in- depth study in Meitei social sciences or their cultural ethos or, for that matter, a serious study of the economics of that time. It is just an overview. There is nothing that has not been written by others before.

One of the earliest accounts of social structure was provided by Karl Marx, who related political, cultural, and religious life to the mode of production (an underlying economic structure). Social structure is a term used in social sciences to refer to patterned social arrangements that form society as a whole, and which determine, to some varying degree, the actions of individuals socialised into that structure. The organisation of social structure, for example, by industrialisation will influence the economic system and as a result, the social system. We now find that as a result of urbanisation the Meitei cultural system of inviting neighbours, mainly old people, to utsab chaba (religious feasting) at home is replaced by a restaurant type of invitation at a temple mandab, provided by a contractor, charging so much per head.

A cultural system (belief, ideological) differs from a social system. For example, Meitei Vaishnavite culture differs from the modern social system. Meiteis now socially drink alcohol and eat meat. Another example is capitalism, a cultural system rooted in economic practices in which the societal wealth distribution varies, more concentrated in the urban area. The cultural system of the Meiteis was endowed with the Meitei political system, religion, philosophy, sciences, code of ethics, statecraft, arts and crafts, and study of warfare.

The economic pattern of the Meiteis of the premodern period (arbitrarily, before 1947) was shaped by their social structure and patterned social arrangements ie the way they lived their lives. The Meitei social structure was a relationship between different groups of Meiteis, the seven clans, which endured a stable pattern of relationship. The Meitei social entity was grouped into structurally related groups (eg leikais) or sets of roles, with different functions and meanings or purposes. The Meitei society was a self-contained, self-sufficient population united by social relationships, bounded by geographical locations in the Manipur valley while neighbouring tribal people lived in the hills. Though the geographical limitations were not insurmountable, the Meiteis did not try to impose their societal system as a corporate identity uniformly on the neighbouring communities, regardless of any consideration of local economic, environmental, or cultural factors.  

Meitei society was vertically structured (individuals were ruled by the king on top). There was no social class system. Nor did they have a simple occupational classification. There was hierarchy in the nobility and they assisted the king in running the administration. Equality in social and economic status was shared among the Meiteis. They lived in close-knit village communities (eg Uripok, Sagolband) with a dense social network. According to Zuckerman(2003); Dutta & Jackson (2003) and others, that social structure, especially in the form of social networks, affects economic outcome. Shared ideas about the proper way to behave are clearer, more firmly held and easier to enforce, the more dense a social network.

Manipur was a feudal and non-capitalist country. It had a self-reliant economy as an extension of the social system. Self-reliant economy was perfectly feasible in Manipur as the agricultural produce and natural resources were just enough to feed all the families. There was enough land for cultivation of rice, the staple food as the population was very small. There was sufficient water because of the many rivers and rivulets crisscrossing the valley from the surrounding hills. The Meiteis had long developed the art of weaving, spinning and dyeing. They knew how to culture silkworms and cultivate mulberry plants. Manipur is the origin of silk worm, not China as often mentioned. They grew cotton plants. They made their own cloth of cotton and silk. There were a variety of seasonal vegetables, fruits and fish to provide the Meiteis with a balanced diet – the results were athletic and muscular Meitei warriors. They bred a kind of Meitei ponies that were trained for war. The bred Meitei dogs from the wolves’ puppies. They loved sports, which were played all the year round. They distilled spirits and brewed rice beer.

There were many lakes that sustained a variety of fish, fowls and edible vegetables. They knew animal husbandry and hunting techniques though they did not hunt for food after Hinduisation. Bir Tikendrajit was attributed to killing a tiger with only a sword and shield in his hands. When I was a schoolboy, there was a Bengali book, “Bichitra Manipur” with a painting of Tikendrajit fighting a tiger with his sword and shield, on the cover page. 

Meiteis did not have what is now known as the ‘classical political economy’, which is concerned with surplus – the concept of exports for generating wealth.  Money used to buy local food stayed in the local economy, which in turn helped sustain the economy. They did not import any essential goods from outside and there were no favourable trade relationships with Burma or other neighbouring states to supplement their economy. They were capable of producing basic necessities for survival such as permaculture, autonomous building, renewable energy, and sustainable agriculture.

The political equilibrium and the political geography of Manipur based on a stable socioeconomic structure ensured Manipur’s independence until the British conquest. The Meiteis were free to choose their political, economic and social pattern, whose foundations were laid by the Meitei kings.

We owe toward our kings, including the last king Bodhchandra, a great debt of gratitude. Maharaja Bodhachandra tried to keep Manipur as an independent country. I used to see Bodhchandra Maharaja, who had a bonny face like that of Buddha when he came to play volleyball on most Sunday evenings at the Khwairamband mapal volleyball ground. He played as a server. My eldest brother Gokulchandra in his team was a very good volleyball player.

It was largely due to our kings that we had an independent Manipur till 1891. Our kings were able generals and good rulers. With the formation of Ningthouja dynasty they provided a good monarchical system beginning with Ibudhou Pakhangba, with an unwritten constitution. A written constitution was introduced by King Loyamba in the 12 century. Loiyamba Shilen gives a very good account of the economy of Manipur. The singing of Ougri – a recitation that exhorts the duties and courage of the king before he set off to conquer an enemy – started with him.

There was not much change in the monarchical system after Pamheiba converted himself and compelled his subjects to embrace Hinduism in the early 18^th century, apart from rituals connected with Vaishnavism, such as cremation of dead bodies. However much we dislike the invasion of a foreign religion, Hinduism brought early civilisation to the Meiteis with a different social system moulded by sanskritisation.

Hinduisation was the beginning of a new social order, and a religious system – a system of Hinduism that accepted a version of the Ramayana -Valmiki (the other is Tusidas Ramayana) wrapped around Sanamahism, whose philosophical tenets did not differ much from Hinduism. However coercive the king was, the Meiteis would not allow Hinduism to replace Sanamahism. The practice is similar to the Japanese who practice Buddhism along with Shinto, getting the best out of the two. The excellent thing Hinduism brought to the Meiteis was the habit of cleanliness.

Manipur’s economy was boosted by natural resources from its Kabaw valley. It is very unfortunate for Manipur that Pundit Nehru in a state of mental disequilibrium gifted away this valley, nearly as big as the Imphal valley to U Nu of Burma in 1953 at the Mapal Kangjeibung. I was present at this sad moment of history, when I came home from college in Bombay. The proper and rational exploitation of the various resources in this valley would have given a much needed fillip to the growth of Manipur’s economy.

This is modern history, which is amenable to change. We should seriously petition the Government of India to restore our rightful territory. Some of our kings and our forefathers fought hard for this bit of our territory. We should not let them down.

Sadly, Manipur’s economy after the Independence is in the doldrums. Although Manipur has moderately rich natural resources, crime and corruption means that badly needed foreign or Indian investment is not flowing, while the tourist industry is at a standstill.

As the global economy is becoming more and more integrated, knowledge and skill should become the most important resource in production process, by attracting outside direct investment for a diversified structure of production.

The writer is based in the UK.

email: imsingh@onetel.com

website: www.drimsingh.co.uk

Read more / Original news source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Kanglaonline/~3/4hW9dYlrCJM/