THE MEETEI AND THE BISHNUPRIYA
Published by : The Kangleipak Historical & Cultural Research Centre, Sagolban Thangjam Leirak, Imphal
Tele : 9856245801
First published : 1999
Second Edition : 2008
© : The author
Cover concept : The author
and design
Price : Rs. 70/-
No. of copies : 1000
Printed at MR Printers, Sagolban Moirang Leirak, Imphal - 795 001
Preface to the 2nd edition
(For your thorough understanding of the Bishnupriya problems)
This book, from the pages of History : The Meetei and the Bishnupriya was published in 1999 A.D. and 1500 copies were printed. All copies were sold within two years. The writer did not even think of printing again. But two phone calls came Guwahati and Silchar asking the writer for copies of the book but the writer answered that books are out of stock. Not only these two phone calls from outside the state, some of writer's friends also asked the writer to bring out 2nd edition to meet the necessity of the Kanglei Society.
One compelling factor for bringing out 2nd edition of the book, From the pages of History : The Meetei and the Bishnupriya is that the writer has earned Immense Experience since 2003 A.D. upto this day. We, the Indigenous people of Kangleipak generally feel that some part of the Kanglei populace from Imphal secretly help the so called Bishnupriya people who are all now out of Manipur since Chahi 7 Khuntakpa (1819-1925 A.D.). The writer was a member of the Committee Against the Claims of the Bishnupriyas since the December, 2002 A.D. The experience earned by the writer during the membership of the Bishnupriya Expert Committee seems to prove the Suspicions of the general populace of Kangleipak.
Further, the writer has found a book, called People of Manipur, Anthropogenetic Study of Four Manipur Population Groups by Rama Chakravartti published in Delhi in 1986. The Scientific findings of the writer found in the book of Rama Chakarvartti have tremendously helped in understanding the problems of the Bishnupriya who were called Bishnupuri, Bishnupuriya, Kalisha etc. by different names. The book of Rama Chakarvartti categorically put the Indigenous Kangleichas on one hand and other people who came from Indian Hindu on the other by its scientific findings. This further intensifies the compulsions of bringing out the 2nd edition of this book. Extensive quotations of the scientific findings, found in the book, you will find in this book for understanding of the findings yourself.
Please read this book for your thorough understanding of the Bishnupriya problem, a problem created by the Bishnupuri, Bishnupuriya, Kalisha, Kalacheiya etc. who remained concealed themselves among the Indigenous Kangleichas.
Imphal, Wangkhemcha Chingtamlen
October, 2008. Sagolband Thangjam Leirak, Imphal
From the pages of history :
THE MEETEI AND THE BISHNUPRIYA
Introduction to this book :
This humble attempt has been made to give the public a complete knowledge of the Bishnupriya problem in relation to the Meetei. The author's knowledge that the Bishnupriya is cheating, openly cheating, of course with the help of some fifth column in Manipur, the people of Manipur in their past history, was the impetus of the attempt for writing this booklet. This may kindly be received by the ancient people of this land called the Meeteis as a humble present from a sincere soul born among them. This book is a part of the discovery of this ancient land called Kangleipak and the ancient people called the Meeteis.
Imphal, Wangkhemcha Chingtamlen
September, 1999 Sagolband Thangjam Leirak, Imphal
Table of contents
Chapter I
Chapter II
Chapter III
The languages of the Meetei and the Bishnupriya
Chapter IV
Chapter V
Chapter VA
Chapter VI
The Fifth column in Manipur
Chapter VII
Chapter VIII
The position of the Government of Manipur in the problem
Chapter VIIIA
Chapter IX
The conclusion : Return to the Original name - Kangleipak
THE MEETEI AND THE BISHNUPRIYA
The problem of the Bishnupriya in relation to the Meetei (now called Manipuri for all practical purposes), though it is a very easy and simple one, becomes gradually a complicated and heart burning issue for the people called Meetei, a very ancient race on earth. Taken the standards of the peoples in other countries of the world and also of the peoples in different parts of India, the representative government can solve the problem easily once for all taking the cue from the pages of history. Let us see how.
CHAPTER - I
The Original People of Kangleipak -The Meetei
I have used the name of the land of our brave and highly philosophical ancestors-Kangleipak in the beginning of this booklet and also have used frequently hereafter in the subsequent chapters. Nobody may be in doubt that the original name since deep B.C. of this land is Kangleipak. The present name Manipur is less than 300 years old today which came in place of Kangleipak during the reign of Pamheiba Garibaniwaz (1709-1748) in the first half of 18th century A.D. Every scholar having some knowledge of the history of this land will agree with this assertion. Now I will show you who are the ancient and original people of this land now called Manipur.
"Ating-aa Sitapaki Mamit Manungta Leipa Mitnaha Atupu Malle Haipakipu Mi Kouye II Mi Atupu Yengna Sakhiye Haipakipu Mee Kouye II Mee Atupu Khangnapa Haituna Ating-aa Sitapaki Mamit Manungta Leipa Mamipu Yengtuna Sakhipana Atei Amani Khangnapa Haituna Mee-Atei Kouye II Mita Saion Toutuna Pokpa Sipa Taipang Meena II Meetei Haina Koukhale" IIOII [1]
This puya is original one of the Meetei written in 18 alphabets. The Meetei used in writing 18 alphabets even upto the last part of 19th Century and beginning of the 20th Century A.D.[2] instead of 35 alphabets used at present. The 18 alphabets are the original Meetei scripts. This Puya deals with origins of concepts, Universe etc. This Puya is free from interpolations generally done to the original Meetei Puyas during the reign of Hindu Kings. Keeping this in view, please see the free translation of the passage of the Puya:
"As it resembles that in the pupil of Ating-aa Sitapa (literal meaning immortal sky), it is called Mi (image ?). As man was created looking at the Mi (image), it has been called Mee (man). To know that Mee is Atei (other than the God himself), because of its being created looking at the Mi (image) in the pupil of Ating - aa Sitapa (Immortal sky), it has been called Mee-Atei (Man other than the God himself). Man who is the incarnation of the Mi(Image of God?), born and dead on earth is called Meetei (The racial name)."
Please see xerox -1 for the scriptural foundation of the above statement.
Xerox 1 is page 10 of Wakoklon Hilel Thilel Salai Amailon Pukok Puya
The concept and the language of the Puya is separated from us at the fag end of 20th century A.D. at least by 1000 years. We are very difficult to catch up the meaning and true conceptions. But the English translation is at least 80% near the true meaning of the passage of the Puya.
Please see xerox - 2 to know how Pakhangpa arranged for the living areas for his seven sons.
Xerox 2 is page 58 of Wakoklok Hilel Thilel Salai Amailon Pukon Puya
The unalloyed Meeteis are the original people of this land called Kangleipak. The Meetei upto this day thinks themselves to be the descendants of Gods because of the background of the Puya. The Puya says the original Meeteis were created by God in the likeness of Him. The Meeteis were created looking at the image of God as a model of God's shape and likeness. These people called Meeteis are living in this land now called Manipur even today. The words ‘Meitei' and ‘Meithei' by Englishmen is a word invented by the enemies of Meetei literature and culture which are very ancient and unique. The word is popularised only during the 2nd half of the 20th century. Upto the 2nd half of the 20th century, the text books of primary and upper primary levels of education in Manipur Government schools printed by the Government, Meeteiron/Meeteilon were used. Meeteirongi Ahanba Tamnaba Lairik, dt 1945, Meeteilongi Byakaran Ahanba dt 1963, Meeteiron Anisurakpada Tamnaba Lairik, dt 1934 are with us for anybody willing for inspection. These are examples to show a few. Replacing the word Meetei by ‘Meitei' is another serious attack to the identity of the Meeteis after Kangleipak was replaced by Manipur in the beginning of the 18th Century. These two attacks to the culture of the Meeteis have very far-reaching effects to the identity of the Meeteis.
The outsiders called by the local people as Mayang or Kalisha or Bishnupuria is a name or a word only less than 700 years old in the vocabulary of the Meeteis. This cannot be in doubt. There are huge and numerous historical documents for your perusal and establishment of the facts.
CHAPTER - II
The Bishnupriya in Kangleipak and Manipur.
(a) The Bishnupriya in Kangleipak :
The first early contact of the people of Kangleipak with outsiders called by the local indigenous people as Mayang was during the reign of King Kongyamba ( 1324-1335 A.D.). The Mayangs (probably the people of Cachar) constructed their fort for the attack of the valley of Kangleipak at Hinglen Ching, a hill range about 18 kms. north of Imphal[3]. They might have come from the Imphal Tamenglong road and once it was called Tongjei Maril by the local people. The Mayangs were defeated by the King Kongyamba and driven them out of Kangleipak. This episode of history is on the pages of the Cheitharol Kumbaba[4], a royal chronicle and of the Meitei Ningthourol[5]. This is confirmed by Shri Ch. Manihar Singh in his book' A clarification on the Bishnupriyas in relation to the Manipuris'. Though people from the west could not reach Kangleipak because of the impenetrable high hill ranges and jungles to the west of Kangleipak and the fierce tribes inhabiting on the hills on the way, they heard about the fertile big valley of Kangleipak and the simplicity of the people of the land. But in the 14th century A.D. surface communication became possible. The Mayangs envious of the fertile land for their habitation and cultivation, not for any other purposes other than these, attacked Kangleipak to usurp the land from the Meeteis. But they were not the matches of the fierce tribe called the Meetei. They were routed. After the defeat, they surrendered to the king and most probably some of them wanted to be citizens of Kangleipak beseeching kindness of the king for land and wives. They were allowed for settlement in Kangleipak though they were not allowed to be ‘Leipak macha' respected words for locally born 1 st class citizens in the past vocabulary of the Meetei. They were generally menials in the palace. This is the first settlement of the Mayangs now called Bishnupriya in a manipulative name. This is about 700 years ago before present in the long settled political life of more than 4000 years of the Meeteis.
The second contact with the outsiders called the Mayangs was during the reign of king Kiyamba ( 1467 - 1508 A.D.). This time also they were routed. This is the second time that the people called Mayang might have settled in Kangleipak giving their allegiance to the king of Kangleipak and their service to the people of the land. This is on the pages of Cheitharol Kumbaba at page 11 Meitei Ningthourol at page 47 and is confirmed by Ch. Manihar Singh in his book mentioned before. This is about 500 years ago before present. After this the Meetei kings had some normal relations with the kings of Cachar. Some marital relations also were reported between the kings of Kangleipak and the kings of Cachar on the pages of history because the communication was much improved by then.
The 3rd encounter between the Meetei King and the outsiders was during the reign of King Khakempa (1597 - 1652 A.D.). The King's own brother Sanongba fell out with the king when a boat of Sanongba was broken in a boat race. The king Khakempa assured his brother for a good boat in place of the broken one. But his brother insisted on the same boat which was unrepairable. Because of this unreconciliable stand of his brother, king Khakempa drove Sanongba out of the country. He fled to Cachar and after some time came back with an army to attack Kangleipak. This time the outsiders' army was composed of mostly muslims (local people called them Pangans)[6] and low caste Hinsus[7]. It is said these low caste Hindus were parts of the army. This time the outsiders army was huge. The Meetei army met the foreign army at Toubul of present time. They came through Tongjei Maril, present I.T. Road. They camped at Toubul. In order to test the strength of the war machine and the way of warfare of the Muslim-Mayang combined army, the Meetei army sent a small group of army of mounted horse. The mounted horse army attacked the combined army camped at Toubul suddenly with a lightening speed. There were 180 horseman in the attack[8]. The mounted horse army captured some personnel of the combined army camp like a hawk captured a sparrow and dragged them to the palace and put them before the king Khakempa. At this stage the king's palace had a knowledge of the camp from the questioning of the captured army personnel and the fighting nature of the combined camp from the experience of the horse army attack. The Meetei army became more confident whereas the combined army became demoralised. At that time Toubul area was full of bushes of reeds locally called Tou and the combined camp was in centre of the bushes to hide themselves from easy detection. The Meetei army surrounded the camp in three, sides to the north, east and south, and the western side was kept open free and the horse troupers were ready to charge on the western Thongjao river area. 100 man-loads of dry Chilli were thrown at the north, east and the south side with the bushes and burnt simultaneously[9]. The Muslim Mayang combined army unable to withstand the smoke of chilli and the fire menace, they retreated to the western river side and hillside which was open. They were suddenly charged by the horse troopers frontally and from three sides by the foot, and the elephant mounted army. They were totally routed, 30 elephants, 1000 guns, 1000 men including blacksmiths, utensils markers, washer men etc. were captured as war captives[10]. Another 1000 muslim warriors were captured and king Khakempa established a muslim office at the palace to decide the question of the Muslim war captives10. All the war captives surrendered to the king and sworn their allegiance to the king and land. They were given land for their homes with local wives. The present Muslim (Pangan) population is the descendants of these Muslim war Captives10. This is the 3rd settlement of the Mayangs who came with the army as Hajams, Washermen, porters etc. They became the Bishnupriya population later on. This was about 400 years ago before present. J. Roy's Low Caste Hindus in his the History of Manipur might have meant these menials accompanied the Sanongba army who became the Bishnupriya in later history.
Those Mayangs the forefathers of the present Bishnupriya were war captives and were given settlement by the king in different parts of Kangleipak. The words ‘Mayang Yumpham' (meaning Mayang settlement area) in the Cheithorol Kumbaba[11] and ‘Mayang Khangabok' in the same Kumbaba[12] etc. might be the indicators where they were given settlement. It is said that the present Mayang Imphal is derived from the words ‘Mayang Yumpham'.
Bamon Khunthoklon :
Bamon is the corrupted word for Brahman, the Hindu word. Sometimes the Meetei pronounces the Bamon as Pamon. Khunthoklon means the settlement. The Bamon Khunthoklon gives how the present Bamon population in present Manipur came and what they are now. Some people in Manipur think that the Bamons were in Manipur before Pamheiba Garibaniwaz, the first Hindu King in the 18th century. This is wrong. They came to Kangleipak (before Manipur) to seek their bread and shelter and after Kangleipak became Manipur and a Hindu country during the reign of Pamheiba Garibaniwaz in the 18th century, they became Bamons with kings' patronage. Many Mayangs claimed to be Brahmans when king Pamheiba Garibniwaz ascended the throne of Kangleipak. Some of them are washerman and fisherman origin. And how they are associated with the former Mayang population of Kangleipak will be shown now.
When some Mayangs were already there in Kangleipak since the days of King Kongyamba (1324 - 1335) A.D. and also were still added during the reign of king Kiyamba ( 1467 -1508) A.D., the forefathers of the present Bamons began to arrive in Kangleipak much later. During the reign of king Kiyamba (1467-1508) A.D., one Mishri Panda, one Ghanaram Tantradhar, one Ganesh Giri came from Takhel Tripura. Mishri Panda married Mayang Nachou girl, his descendant's family name is present Pandamayum, Ghanaram Tantradhar married Mayang Heikhong girl Kumu, his descendant's family name is present Kakching Tabam, Ganesh Giri married Mayang Toubul girl Haobi, his descendant's family name is present Leihaothabam. During this period one Sarangi also came from Nepal, he married Mayang Haikhong girl, his family name is present Gotimayum. These forefathers of the Bamon who came to Kangleipak during the reign of King Kiyamba are the earliest arrivals in Kangleipak among the Bamon families of present Manipur. The forefathers came without families and married Local Mayang girls to establish their families. No forefathers of the present Bamon families in Manipur arrived before King Kiyamba (1467-1508 AD).
The availability of local Mayang girls for marriage by the forefathers of present Bamons is an indication that the Mayangs began to settle in Kangleipak since the days of king Kongyamba (1324-1335 AD). Bamon Khunthoklon is a historical document helping the present generation to know the arrival of the forefathers of the present bamons and the Mayangs' presence in Kangleipak with their settlement area.
(b) The Bishnupriya in Manipur :
"Lainingthouti Pangkanpana Hut tanga Sai-on Toutuna Chinpu Huttoktuna Chingnunghut Haina Koukhipa Mapham Atuta Laicha Isingpu Chithok-khipana I Kangpa Halle Haituna Kangla Thenpung Haina Koukhale II Kangla Thenpung Maphamta Laiyamsingna Lepnapa Maphamta Kayatlon Yengtuna Imsale I Mapham Atupu Kangla Impham Koukhale II Kangla Impham Maphamta Leilon Nonglon Kayat Talamali Ki Laipham Semkhale II Semkhalapa Maphamta Laiyamsingna Panpa Maphamne Haituna Laipham Haina Koukhale II Laipham Koupa Maphamna Leipa Leipakpu Kangleipak Haina Koukhale IIOII" [13].
The Lai Pukhri near the present Archaeology office of the Government of Manipur was the Ikon dugged by the Lai people for their use of water when they began to settle at Kangla first in the history of Kangleipak. It stand upto this day in a changed name as the Koupalu Lai Pukhri on the top of the Koupalu mountains.
Archaeologists, Geographers agree that once the Manipur Valley was full of water and it was believed that the mountains and lakes in and around Manipur was formed after the explosion of a great Volcano. With this background in mind please note the meaning of the excerpt from the Puya in English translation: "As water was dried out at the place called Chingnunghut by making a hole by Lainingthou Pangkanpa having incarnated as Huttanga, the place dried first it is called Kangla Thenpung; as decided by the gods at Kangla thenpung houses have been constructed according to Kayatlon (construction science?), the place has been called Kangla Impham (Kangla Construction site); at Kangla Impham Laipham (gods abode) has been constructed according to 14 layers of space and earth; as the gods live there the place has been called Laipham (god's abode) ; the country where Laipham exists has been called Kangleipak" This is what the sacred Puya of the Meetei says on its pages. It is believed that the name of the land was called Kangleipak since about 4000B.C. We are reconstructing to prove it beyond doubt. The name of the land Kangleipak was destroyed during the reign of Pamheiba Garibaniwaz (1709-1748), the first Hindu king of Kangleipak. One Santi Das Gosai, Hindu dharma guru of Pamheiba Garibaniwaz persuaded king Pamheiba Garibaniwaz to replace the name of the land Kangleipak by Manipur. Pamheiba Garibaniwaz accepted the suggestion of the Hindu Dharma Guru, the name of the land became Manipur thence. There is a book called Sembi Mukaklei written by a court dignitary of Pamheiba Garibaniwaz named Angom Chaopa, later Angom Gopi by the Hindus, regarding the life history of Pamheiba Garibaniwaz in micro-details. Pamheiba is the Meetei original name. When he was initiated into Hindu religion by Santi Das Gosai he became to be known as Garibaniwaz, also Gopal. All these happened in the first half of 18th country A.D. This change of name is also confirmed by other writers[14].
No body can doubt that the present Manipur is only less then 300 year old to day becoming the name of the land formerly called Kangleipak from time immemorial. The name of the land Kangleipark was used officially upto the reign of King Bhagyachandra, though Pamheiba Garibaniwaz decided and tried to change the name to Manipur[15].
But the name Manipur in place of Kangleipak was first used by the British East India company during the reign of King Bhaghyachandra in the 2nd half of 18th century A.D.[16] Any surrounding country or any outsiders did not call the name Manipur before this. From the account of Shri Ch. Manipur Singh and also from other accounts available including that of Cheitharol Kumbaba at present it may very safely be concluded that the name Manipur for the land is very recent one and no body can claim its antiquity for their sectarian interest and for their design of things.
The name Kangleipak was replaced by the name Manipur during the reign of Pamheiba Garibaniwaz, though, not effective, the name begins to be used officially since the days King Bhagyachandra in the 2nd half of 18th century A.D. From this period of history of Kangleipak a new chapter of history has begun. Now the history of Manipur begins in its terrible manifestations of events for the indigenous people called the Meetei. The reader will be very clear the changing nature of social events from the pages of history.
"Rearing of pigs and hens was not allowed ................. The temples of nine Umanglai (Original Meetei Gods), temples of two Lammabi (original Meetei Goddesses) were dismantled on the ground the Gods and Goddesses will not be worshipped ........... The bamons were given the duty of Pujah to Lainingthou Nongsaba, lmthei Lai, Panthoibi ; and Taibang Khaiba ( all original Meetei Gods and Goddesses)"17 Formerly the Meetei Maichou, Maiba and, Maibi worshipped these gods and goddess in their own Meetei tradition but now the Hindu tradition has been over imposed over the Meetei tradition of Prayer and Worship."[17]
"Religious dissent was treated with the same ruthless severity as was meted out to political opponents, and wholesale banishments and execution drove the people into acceptance of the tenets of Hinduism"[18].
"For five Brahmans five houses were constructed food provisions of paddy, salt etc. with clothing for 12 years were given"[19].
"Takhellambam Dayanidi with the sword of the palace killed cow at Kakching khulel and ate, he was captured by Kakching people and was brought to Cheirap ( Court) tied with Huikang (a device to tie and pull dogs made of ropes and bamboo) Dayanidhui was chained"[20].
"On 20 Sunday (of Hiyangei) bamon Gurumayum Mohon was captured for adultery of Wangkhei Ngoubi's wife (by the husband), the Bamon was forced to eat leather (by the husband), Wangkhei Ngoubi (the husband) was excommunicated and sent to exile to Sugnu"[21] as if the husband whose wife was wronged by the Bamon was a criminal.
These are from the pages of history and irrefutable facts for any reason. When it was heard that Pamheiba Garibaniwaz became king the Mayangs swarmed to Kangleipak (Manjpur). So, it is unnecessary to say and to think how many Mayangs and Bamons came to Manipur after[22] Pamheiba Garibaniwaz and his successor Hindus became kings in Manipur. During this period of history politically, religiously, socially and administratively all were gone from the hands of the Meetei and dominated by the outsiders called Bamons aided by the Mayangs.
The name Bishnupur :
There is a beautiful place called Bishnupur for official purposes at present about 18 kms from Imphal to the south west. Side by side it is also called Lamangtong (Lamlangtong also). The name Bishnupur was given in place of Lamangtong during the reign of Pamheiba Garibaniwaz to immortalise the name of Bishnu Goswami who stayed some time at this place worshipping a small god's figure and, was a darling of king Pamheiba Garibaniwaz. The god's figure became to be known as Bishnu as it was worshipped by Bishnu Goswami. King Pamheiba Garibaniwaz not only change the original name of Lamangtong to Bishnupur, also constructed a temple called Bishnu Temple at Lamangtong's west side to immortalise the name of Bishnu Goswami. It stands up to this day. The book Sembi Mukaklei has more details[23] .
Xerox 3
Bishnu temple
But according to Shri Ch. Manihar Singh in his book A clarification on the Bishnupriyas in relation to the Manipuris says that " Mayang Kalishas got the name of Bishnupriya during the reign of king Gambhir Singh in the first half of 19th Century A.D. and the name Bishnupur was given to Lamangtong during the reign of king Bhagyachandra in the 2nd half of 18th Century A.D. much long after Parnheiba Garibaniwaz [24].
When we trace the history of Kangleipak (before Parnheiba Garibaniwaz) and Manipur in the pages of history, written by the indigenous people, by English foreign writers and other documents written after the Hindu becomes kings of Manipur, we do not find any trace of outsiders called Mayang by the local people before the reign of King Kongyamba (1324-1335 A.D.), that is, before the 14th century A.D. Whether the Bishnupriyas are the ‘Mayangs' or ‘Kahshas' or Bishnupuri or any other race related with the Indo-Aryan race group or any other group whose racial name Bishnupriya was derived from Bishnu worshipping or from any other reason, their association with the history of Kangleipak (Manipur) was only since 14th century A.D. Before this period, they were non-existent in Kangleipak. This is the evidence of history irrefutable by any subsequently developed concocted ‘Puyas', Purans and any writing. These things will be clearer after reading further.
Dr. G.A.Grierson KCIE. Ph. D., D.L.iII,LL.D, ICS on the Bishnupuri.
"There are some sudra Manipuris, who, it is supposed, are the descendants of immigrants who married Manipuri wives. There is also a degraded class called Kalacheiya or Bishnupuri which consists of the descendants of Doms and other Bengalis of low caste. Their occupation was originally that of supplying grass for the royal stables. They speak a language, which is different from that of the true Manipuris, and is in fact closely allied to vulgar Bengali"[25].
From the above account it is very clear that, according to Mr. Grierson, Sudra Manipuris are the descendants of immigrants by (Meetei) wives, the Kalacheiya (kalisha) or Bishnupuri (Bishnupriya) are the descendants of Doms ( Dums or fisherman) and other low caste Bengalis. We do not know actually what are the differences between Sudra Manipuri and Bishnupriya, but we are very certain with Mr. Grierson that the Bishnupriya, a manipulated name from Bishnupuri is not the original people of this land originally called Kangleipak. They are immigrants, what Mr. Grieson found in the last part of the 19th century are the descendants of the immigrants by Manipuri wives. They speak very different language from that of the "true Manipuris". They speak vulgar Bengali. Any body who studies Linguistic Survey of India with great attention may not be in doubt that by ‘true Manipuris' Mr. Grierson meant the original Meetei Population. The Bishnupriyas revolting to day are no other people than these Bishnupurias, Sudra Manipuris and their descendants of Mr. Grierson.
"The number of houses in section Khoai are 2267, Khurai -649, Oangkhei 703, and Jaskul 2118, in all 5737. Allowing the average of 5 persons to each house the population will be 28,685. The following list will show the different castes occupying the 5737 houses enumerated above:-
Caste House Population
Brahmans 308 1540
Ganaks 31 155
Raja's family 101 505
Kshatrias 4256 21280
Baisyas 42 210
Kayaths or Kyats 99 495
Sudras 498 2490
Hari & Chamors 97 485
Musalmans 305 1525
5737 28685[26]
The book was published in 1874 A.D. By the time the population of Imphal town as projected by Mr. Brown it was 28,685 men. Please note the Sudras and Hari & Chamors, their population is 2490 + 485 = 2975. Out of 28,685, that is, about 10%. This is the time of king Chandrakirti. The Ganaks, the Kyats, Baisyas may be added to them. Adding them are the total population is 3835 men. These are the Mayangs of Cheitharol Kumbaba, and Sudra, Bishnupuriya of Mr. Grierson in the Linguistic survey of India. Their total population-p.c. to total population of lmphal is = 13% about. The population of the whole country was not available. There were 12 Thanas, Thoubal, Jarpok(Yairipok), Langpok, Sengmei ( Singjamei) the population of these four thanas is estimated to 20,015. The other eight thanas - Sugomang (Sagolmang), Sekmai, Makhing, Sumupul, Moirang, Sugunu, Puleng (Palel) and Sekta and Chandrakhong. For these eight thanas population is not available. If the total population of the country was available, the p.c. of their total population to total population of the country will be very small and may be negligible.
These negligible population, though in the town population was great because of king's protection being given to them, of these outsiders spent their lives as muchi, dhobis, ganaks, business man etc. not as active citizens of the country as they should be as they were outsiders. From these accounts showing their population and professions we may safely conclude that the Bishnupuriyas lived in Kangleipak and Manipur as menials and parasites before their absorption in the Meetei population taking Meetei surnames. This cannot be in doubt.
CHAPTER - III
The languages of the Meetei and the Bishnupriya
Contemporary writers do not show the real ancientness of the Meetei literatures because of their bias against the Meetei and their past. This is due to their Hindu colour or their lack of knowledge of the past Meeteis. If we look at the literatures developed after Pamheiba Garibaniwaz since the 18th century A.D. nobody will see the real Meetei literature and its uniqueness and genius. The present literature as we see to day is a semi-Bishnupriya literature. To know the difference between the Meetei language and the Bishnupriya language, we have to see the untainted Meetei literatures and language.
"He Lainingthou Ningna Asuppa Nangpu Ikhut Talamakna Khulumna Ichalakke Tathipikuno"[27]. This is ancient Meetei Language and literature in its pure form. The Puya has been in vogue since time immemorial, but according to the information given in the Puya itself it was put in black and white during reign of king Khakempa in the 16th century A.D. The English translation of the sentence of the Puya to its nearest meaning is this: "He! Lainingthou ( King of Gods)! Oneness of all minds, praying you with folding both hands starting to write, please do not be heedless". The Puya states the origin of life, it states the form the Universal Father takes when it stays in every living being on earth. The puya says " Hei-ha Mapu Sitapa Lai Nangpu Khachikta Mapa Matam Lakchalakke II" The free English translation is this: "O! Deathless Lord Hei-ha ! (I) surmise at your direction and time a little ( in writing this puya)". In the next para of the puya, it states that Hei means inhalation and ha means exhalation, further it states Hei-ha is the Universal life, as long it exists in the living beings, the living being has life. Further it states Hei means father and ha means mother.
The Puya says when a person dies, he is born again. This process of life-cycle is called khamchinkon in the Puya. Khamchinkon = Kham +Chin+Kon = Kham means end of life + Chin means beginning point + Kon means birth = Khamchinkon, according to the Puya, means the terminating point of life (death) is the beginning of life (birth). The Puya is a fine treatise dealing with life, death and birth, and universal life ( Universal Father).
"Puya Asi Ningthem Pamheipa Hakthakta Sinthokpane Lepna Khongpio II"[28]. This is Meetei language in the first half of 18th century A.D. The English translation is this: "This puya is copied during the reign of Ningthem Pamheipa, please know with certainty".
"Kampi Mei Talang I Laicha Ising Talang I Malangpa I Nungsit Talang I Ahum Mana Leitalingei I Talang Oina ; Leilingeiki Mamingpu Talang Ipung Kouye II"[29]. The free English translation is this: "Primal fire Talang, Primal water Talang, Primal air Talang, when these three were indeterminate form, the Primordial State is called Talang Ipung (the indeterminate primordial whole of blood)". This is very ancient literature of the Meetei. By the Talang Ipung (the indeterminate primordial whole of Blood) as I translate, means everything was in Indeterminate form; when there was no fire, water and air in the present form, the whole indeterminate state was also the source of every life on earth. The literature is too beautiful and too unique. Most probably any translation carries only some 80% of the real meaning, I fear.
Please see a still modern Meetei Language and Literature.
This is a pre-death song. The song is sung when a person is about to die in order to prepare himself / herself for his/her death telling the person the reality of life and his/her inalienable relation with the Universal Father. This is the3rd stanza of the song written in the form of a poem. The free translation of the song is this:
When a person is about to die, he/she was made to hear : Life is full of struggles, ceaseless struggles upto he/she lies on the dead bed as he/she is too tired/unable to fight life and ready to take eternal rest. In such conditions, as he/she was absorbed in the earthly things like love, hate, anger, greed of property, jealousy etc. in his/her life, he/she was too far away from ‘Love' here meaning the Universal Father who gives life to, cares for everybody on earth. The song is composed in the poetry form in a fine literature telling the world the Meetei's insight of the Universe and the human life and its relation with the Universal Father. Now when the Hinduism comes the song is distorted and wrongly played everywhere as a romantic song, though it is a pre-death song in its letter and spirit. To know the spirit of this song, Meeteigi Nongkalon by Wangkhemcha Chingtamlen may please be read.
These are ancient and modem literatures untainted with any outsider invasion in the Meetei Culture. The beauty of the literature may not be appreciated in its entirety by any person having no knowledge of Meetei Language and Culture by reading the translations. When translating almost 30% of the beauty has been lost. World fame Manipuri Dance is a Meetei Dance in different name with different religious colour. Any person who has deep knowledge of the Meetei culture will not doubt the ancientness, uniqueness of the Meetei Culture.
"The Kuki-chin group: The denomination Kuki-chin is a purely conventional one, there being no proper name comprising all these tribes. Meithei-chin would be a better appellation, as the whole group can be sub-divided into two sub-groups, the Meitheis and the various tribes which are known to us under the names of Kuki-chin."[31]
"Meithei is the Chief Language of the Manipur valley, and has apparently had a long and Independent development. The Manipuris are mentioned in the Shan chronicles so early as 777 A.D. Probably owing to the fact that it has developed into a literary language, their form of speech gives the impression of possessing a peculiarly archaic character. Although they have become thoroughly subjected to Hinduism, they have not adopted any Aryan tongue"[32]
"The close connection between Kachin and the Kuki-chin languages, specially Meithei, cannot be doubted, and Meithei must be considered as the link between the two groups"[33].
"The ‘Langlol' a short MS. of ten leaves only, is a treatise on morals, intermixed with proverbs and maxims, and would probably be interesting as throwing light on the customs of the Manipuris before their conversion to Hinduism" [34].
Mr. Grierson having great literary and cultural insight was frank and straight, as he was. What he has stated is all and no more is required than this for this subject. What Mr. Grierson has said is in fag end of 19th Century and beginning of 20th century A.D. Meetei ‘Meithei' belongs to ‘Kuki-chin' or ‘Meithei-chin' group, eastern origin spoken by a branch of Mongolian race. No body can doubt it.
"Manipur had developed into a stronghold of Aryan Culture even before the establishment of Gupta Supremacy in India"[35].
"Gupta era commencing from A.D. 320 originated with Chandra Gupta I"[36].
"Manipuri literature like the literatures in other modern Indian languages, both Aryan and Dravidian, accepted Sanskrit literature, as its model and inspiration, though it also preserved an independent tradition which is about 2000 years old"[37].
Keeping the present findings from the indigenous ancient literatures and findings of some famous foreign writers like Mr.G.A. Grierson in view, what a funny assertion is this of Manipuri Sahitya Parishad, unless they speak of the Manipur of Kalinga (Present Orissa) in the Mahabharat. The difference between this wishful assertion and the reality will be clearer after further reading. Only people of delirious mind will say the original people of Kangleipak (Manipur), their language and culture are of Indo-Aryan origin, "both Aryan and Dravidian'.
"There are some Sudra Manipuris, who, it is supposed, are the descendants of immigrants who married Manipuri wives. There is also a degraded class called kalacheiya or Bishnupuri, which consists of the descendants of Doms and other Bengalis of low caste. Their occupation was originally that of supplying grass for the royal stables. They speak a language, which is very different from that of the true Manipuris, and is in fact closely allied to vulgar Bengali"[38]. What Mr. Gait says and confirmed by Mr. G.A. Grierson this: In Manipur there are some Sudra Manipuris (race), also a degraded class known as Kalacheiya or Bishnupuri (present kalisha or Bishnupuriya) who are descendants of immigrants and speak vulgar Bengali. What the Linguistic Survey of India says is that these immigrants are not original people and speak vulgar Bengali, an Indo-Aryan language group of Western origin. The word "immigrant" "descendants of immigrants" are the key words. We will further examine the matter.
"A tribe known as Mayang speaks a mongrel form of Assamese known by the same name ....... All of them can speak Meithei. They are also known as Bishnupuriya Manipuris, or as Kalisha Manipuris, and said to be comparatively numerous among the Manipuri population of Cachar and Sylhet, where their special dialect is still spoken in their homes, as well as Meithei and Bengali"[39].
"This is just as much the case with the speakers of Mayang who are settled in Suylhet, so that it may be taken as certain that they come there from Manipur, although, according to tradition, they originally came into Manipur from an Aryan speaking locality"[40].
These Mayangs or Bishnupuriya Manipuris or Kalisha Manipuris left Manipur during Chahi 7 Khuntakpa (7 years devastation) though they came to Manipur as war captives during 14th, 15th century A.D.
From this weldone survey of languages of India by an impartial Englishman, it is very clear "The Mayangs" are the Kalisha or Bishnupuriya, they speak a mongrel form (not one form of Language but mixed many languages) of Assamese and they can speak Meetei (Meithei) also. They originally came from an Aryan speaking area to Manipur. It should be a waste of time and energy to think and to write too much in this matter. After reading all these records and accounts, every body's straight conclusion is that the Bishnupuriya speaks alloyed Language (mongrel form of Assamese), they can speak Meetei (Meithei) also as their forefathers stayed in Kangleipak, then in Manipur since 14th century A.D., they came from Aryan speaking area. So, they were never the original people of Kangleipak, now called Manipur.
We will further examine:
The Mayangs or the Bishnupuriya speak ‘gora laba', ‘gora amom'[41] for a horse and a mare. In Meetei laba means male, and amom means female, ‘gora' is the corrupted word for ‘ghora', the Aryan word. They have forgotten their original words and languages and use ‘gora' for ‘ghora', they speak adding laba, amom (the Meetei words). This is natural. They had stayed outside their forefathers' land ( Aryan land) for centuries and stayed in Kangleipak (Manipur) since 14th century A.D. as menials and low caste, low professional people.
Please see what the Bishnupuriya writes to day from an article published on 23-2-92 in the Deinik Sonar Cachar, a daily newspaper:
(The article was translated by friend of mine. If some difference is detected, I will apologize for it. I cannot verify the translation).
The difference between the Meetei Language and the Bishnupuriya language is self explanatory and distinct and obvious. The one is eastern, the other is western. East and West never meet.
On Page 419 of the Linguistic Survey of India vol. V Part I : ‘In the Manipur State the headquarters of Mayang are two or three Plain villages near Bishnupur (locally known as Lamangdong), 18 miles to the south-west of Imphal" In vol. - III Part III Page 20 what Mr. Gait says in Assamese Census Report, quoted by Grierson, is "Kalacheiya or Bishnupuri " not Bishnupriya. These mayangs might have been known by the name ‘Bishnupuri' because their Headquarter, permanent resident area was Bishnupur. This might have lent support to Shri Ch. Manihar Singh's view on page 16 of his book A clarification on the Bishnupriyas in relation to the Manipuries that the Bishnupriya were not Bishnu worshippers and they got the name ‘Bishnupriya', after being given by king Gambhir Singh in 1827 A.D. only. These things may further point to a probable fact that the Bishnupuri concocted the word ‘Bishnupriya' in place of' Bishnupuri' to seal their historical connection with Bishnupur (Lamangdong) and their slavery status as war captives.
CHAPTER -IV
The kings of Kangleipak and Manipur :
In history kings are leaders of the kingdoms and their people because of their extra-ordinary talent, bravery etc. though kings are hereditary in many cases. In their names the social naming system, the then prevalent social culture, social system are imprinted. That was so in this land too. Keeping this view in mind, please see the names of the Kings in Kangleipak and later in Manipur.
Though we know now that the establishment of a settled political, social Kingdom in Kangleipak was not in 33 A.D. as the Cheitharol Kumbaba of L. Ibungohal Singh and N. Khelchandra Singh tells us, and, also we know very well that it was much earlier, we should take the names of the kings listed in the Cheitharol kumbaba for this purpose for the time being before the Meetei reconstructs their own history which was destroyed during the last about 300 years. The following are the kings of Kangleipak so far from the Kumbaba:
1. Meitingu Nongda Lairen Pakhangba (33-154AD)2. Meitingu Khuyoi Tompok (154-264 AD)3. MeitinguTaothingmang (264-364 AD)4. Meitingu Khui Ningngonba (364-379 AD)5. Meitingu Pengsiba (379-394 AD)6. Meitingu Kaokhangba (394-411 AD)7. Meitingu Naokhamba (411-428 AD)8. MeitinguNaophangba (428-518 AD)9. Meitingu Sameirang (518-568 AD)10. MeitinguUrakonthouba (568-658 AD)11. MeitinguNaothingkhong (663-763 AD)12. Meitingu Khongtekcha (763- 773 AD)13. Meitingu Keirencha (784- 799 AD)14. MeitinguYarba (799-821 AD)15. Meitingu Ayangba (821-910 AD)16. Meitingu Ningthoucheng (910-949 AD)17. Meitingu Chenglei Ipan thaba ( 949-969 AD)18. Meitingu Yanglou Keiphaba (969-984 AD)19. Meitingu Irengba (984-1074 AD)20. MeitinguLoiyumba (1074-1112AD)21. Meitingu Loitongba (1112-1150 AD)22. Meitingu Atom Yoiremba (1150-1163 AD)23. Meitingu Iwan thaba (1163-1195 AD)24. Meitingu Thawan thaba (1195-1231 AD)25. Meitingu Chingthang Lanthaba (1231-1242 AD)26. MeitinguThingbai Selhongba (1242-1247 AD)27. MeitinguPuyathaba (1247-1263 AD)28. MeitinguKhumomba (1263-1278 AD)29. MeitinguMoiramba (1278-1302 AD)30. Meitingu Thangbi Lanthaba (1302-1324 AD)31. MeltmguKongyamba (1324-1335 AD)32. MeitinguTelheiba (1335-1355 AD)33. MeitinguTonaba (1355-1359 AD)34. MeitinguTabungba (1359-1394 AD)35. Meitingu Lairenba (1394-1399 AD)36. MeitinguPunsiba (1404-1432 AD)37. MeitinguNingthoukhomba (1432-1467 AD)38. MeitinguKiyamba (1467-1508 AD)39. Meitingu Koiremba (1508-1512 AD)40. Meitingu Lam Kiyamba (1512-1523 AD)41. MeitingpNong-In-Phaba (1523-1524 AD)42. Meitingu Kabomba (1524-1542 AD)43. Meitingu Tangjamba (1542-1545 AD)44. Meitingu Chalamba (1545-1562 AD)45. Meitingu Mungyangpa (1562-1597 AD)46. Meitingu Khagemba (1597-1652 AD)47. Meitingu Khunjaoba (1652-1666 AD)48. Meitingu Paikhomba (1666-1697 AD)49. MeitinguCharairongba (1697-1709 AD)
These are the kings of Kangleipak. King Charairongba is the last of the line of Pakhangba and with Pamheiba Garibaniwaz begins the line of the descendants of Senamahi ( Sanamahi)[42]. After king Charairongba the name of the land Kangleipak was replaced by Manipur. There was no any Hindu or Sanskrit name among the kings upto the king Charairongba. ‘Pitambar' is added before the name of king Charairongba[43]. The name Sanongba, the brother of king Khagemba is a household name upto this day, because of the proverb ‘Sanongba Higai' meaning flattery and instigation to become unreconciliable in any dispute. But Sanongba is written as ‘Sanaton.'[44] Hinduism in Kangleipak is from the time of king Charairongba (1697-1709)[45]. These are contrary to historical facts. The writer sincerely feels the conspiracy started in the beginning of 18th century A.D. is continuing upto this day.
Since the days of king Pamheiba Garibaniwaz, Hinduism became the state religion of Manipur. The following are the names of the kings of Manipur :
50. Meitingu Pamheiba(Garibaniwaz, Gopal) (1709-1748 AD)51. MeitinguChitsai (1748-1752AD)52. Meitingu Bharatsai (1752-1753 AD)53. Meitingu Maramba (1753,. 1959 AD)54. Meitingu Bhagyachandra Chingthangkhomba (1759-1762 AD)55. Meitingu Maramba (1762-1763 AD)56. Meitingu Bhagyachandra Chingthangkhomba (1763-1798 AD)57. Meitingu Labanyachandra (1798-1801 AD)58. Meitingu Madhuchandra (1801-1803 AD)59. Meitingu Chourajit (1803-1813 AD)60. Meitingu Marjit (1813-1819 AD)61. Meitingu Herachandra (1819-1819 AD)62. Meitingu Yumjaotaba (1820-1820 AD)63. Meitingu Gambhir Singh (1821-1821 AD)64. Meitingu JoySingh (1822-1822 AD)65. MeitingujaduSingh (1823-1823 AD) .66. Meitingu Raghob Singh (1823-1824 AD)67. Meitingu BhadraSingh (1824-1824 AD)68. MeitinguGambhirSingh (1825-1834 AD)69. Meitingu Chandra Kirti (1834-1844 AD)70. MeitinguNaraSingh (1844-1850 AD)71. MeitinguDevendraSingh (1850-1886)72. MeitinguChandrakirti (1850-1886)73. Meitingu Surchandra (1886-1890 AD)74. Meitingu Kulachandra (1890-1891 AD)75. Meitingu Churachand Singh (1891-1941 AD)76. MeitinguBodhchandraSingh (1941-1955 AD)
These are the kings of Kangleipak and Manipur upto the merger of Manipur to Indian Union in 1949. Upto Sl. No. 49 king Charairongba are the kings of Kangleipak, Meetei kings. From Sl. No. 50 king Pamheiba Garibaniwaz upto Sl. No. 76 king Bodhchandra are the kings of Manipur, Hindu kings. Please note the sharp difference between the periods from 33 A.D. to 1709 A.D. and from 1709 A.D. to 1955 AD in the names of the kings. When some Aryan-Manipur-addicted people of Manipur claims "Manipur had developed into a stronghold of Aryan Culture even before the establishment of Gupta Supremacy in India", that is before 320 AD, why a single Hindu or Sanskrit name of the king, that is to say, an Aryan king's name is not found from 1st century to 18th century AD ? Why not some Aryan kings' names were interpolated in this period to ‘help' the future generation in understanding the history? The claim of Aryanisation of this land before Gupta Period is just funny.
From 1709 AD, the readers of history of Kangleipak and Manipur might have feel the change of social system without thinking much. Since then no name of Meetei king is found upto this day in 20th century A.D. except two. Why this is ? We have found historical evidence that the ‘Mayangs' had begun to settle in Kangleipak since the beginning of the 14th Century AD. Could any of the ‘Mayangs' influence our kings upto 1709 A.D. Not at all,. They were immigrant menials upto that time.
CHAPTER - V
The claims of the Bishnupriya
In order to appreciate the claims of the Bishnupriya the followings: A memorandum to Shri A.K. Chatterjee, Assistant Commissioner for Linguistic Minorities in India (Eastern Region), Calcutta by the Nikhil Bishnupriya Manipuri Mahasabha, Cachar and an article published on 23-9-1997 by one J.L.Chowdhury are printed in toto :
The Memorandum of the Bishnupriya
OFFICE OF THE
NIKHIL BISHNUPRIY A MANIPURI MAHA SABHA
P.O. Singari
Dist: Cachar, Assam.
From: Shri Mangal Babu Sinha, M.A.
General Secretary.
Memo No. COR/N.B.M.N/8-16/92-93/dt. 19-6-92
To
Sri A.K. Chatterjee, Asstt. Commissioner for Linguistic Minorities in India (Eastern Region), Calcutta.
Sub: Reference letter from Manipuri Sahitya Parishad, Imphal to "The decision of A.G.P. Govt. of Assam on the subject cited ( to recognise Bishnupriya community) is a stigma to the rich heritage and culture of the Manipuri communities at large" and it has requested the Chief Minister, Mr, Prafulla kr. Mahanta to withdraw or modify the July 21 order and also forwarding copy to your letter dt. 16th Nov.,1988 which also has claimed the copy to Nikhil Bishnupriya Manipuri Sahitya Parishad, Silchar.
Sir,
With best regards the aforesaid letter from Manipuri Sahitya Parishad Imphal is seemed to be blamed yet not send to the office of the Nikhil Bishnupriya Manipuri Sahitya Parishad, Silchar even today, but the ready reply is send to you reporting from Telegraph by Wasbir Hussain dt. Sept. 19, 1989.
That Sir, The Nikhi1 Bishnupriya Manipuri Mahasabha is the parent organisation of Nikhil Bishnupriya Manipuri Sahitya Parishad and other allied organisations of the Bishnupriya Manipuri community bound to take steps in this matter seriously and waiting for the proper reply from your ends as commissioner for linguistic Minorities for the eastern regions in particular.
No. 1 That sir, the demand of the Manipuri Sahitya Parishad Imphal cited in the subject "is a stigma to the rich heritage and culture of the Manipuri communities at large" is miracle. Actually in our language we have to say that the Manipuri meant Meitei Manipuri. Because there are many evidences as the conversion of Meitei into Manipuri in the historic period at the reign of Pamheiba. Recently the present Manipuri community which were converted from , Meitei on 12th Oct, 1979, passed through a language bill from Manipur Legislative Assembly. But the Bishnupriya Manipuries are the aborigines of Manipur ethnically, historically culturally and on the basis of religion. They are purely Aryan admixture of both gandharva and Aryan race of Babrubahana by Arjuna and Citrangada, so the language and culture is purely Aryan. The present Manipuri language is purely Mongolian, but their culture is both Aryan and Mongolian.
The dances of Radha and Krishna, Gopi and Gopa which is famous throughout the world purely Aryan culture. But the dances of Laiharaoba and Thabal Chongba are purely mongolian culture is found to the Meitei society completely absent in the Bishnupriya Manipuri Society. The Shradda ceremony of both these societies are purely Aryan style not in the Maongolian style but there is also a miracle that a "group of people who claimed themselves as pure Meitei having gathered same language completely difference at the time of their occasions of sharadda ceremony, marriage purpose etc. The style of Radha, Krishna dance and the ornaments are quite differ from Laiharaoba and Thabal Chongba. So it is proved that the present Manipuris are converted Manipuri virtually. So rightly observed the demand of Bishnupriya Manipuri is correct and justified for which the Linguistic minorities in India and the Registrar General of India reported in their 20th report clearly stated that the demand of Bishnupriya Manipuri is found correct and justified with reference to G.A. Grierson's linguistic survey of India Vol. V Pt. I P. 419. So the very objectionable word stigma is appropriate to them as they converted into Manipuri abandoned their original faith. The Bishnupriya Manipuri community never say that "Meiteis are not Manipuri" and in future also we don't say such because it is our proud that we are very strong in power and jointly expresses our Culture throughout the world for which we broadly received them as our people even to-day. In support of this view excerpt L.S.I., it may refer to ‘glimpses of Manipuri Language literature and culture published from Manipuri Sahitya Parishad, Imphal, Paona Bazar, First Edition, Feb. 1970 chapter -I, P. 1, also the part and parcel of memorandum submitted to former prime Minister Late Shri Rajiv Gandhi, "Manipur had developed in to strong hold of Aryan culture even before the establishment of the Gupta supremacy in India" Reference also be given from the report of Assam Francies Committee in 1932.
Dr. J.H. Huttan D.S.C. CIE census commissioner India's letter dt. Simpla the 12th Oct. 1932 to Shrijut Hemchandrajit Raj Kumar (Bishnupriya) Vidyanidhi, president Surma Valley Manipuri conference and the Government of India consequent withdrawal of notification, based on the report of Assam Francise committee of 1933 and recognition of Manipuri as whole belong to the category of Caste Hindus in the year, 1933, are highly .conspicuous. The Francis committees report which enumerated Manipuris' as tribal people seriously criticised by the conference as stated above with historical documents. His highness Maharaja Churachand Singh, C.I.E., K.C.S.I. of Manipur in his letter dt Simla 14.11.36. The view is strongly appreciated and supported in his statement by Late L. Ibungohal Singh, retd. district and Session Judge of Manipur in a monthly magazine ‘Ritu' as below ( version from Meithei language).
"Arther Pelliot in his History of China stated that the Chinese invaded Manipur in about 700 A.D. and won over the war. They called the Manipuris as Kalachais or sons of wide Lake (Loktak) and described them as highly civilised."
Thus according to the above reports made by the Govt. of Manipur and Govt. of Assam it is clear that Bishnupriya Manipuries are the aborigines. This very word Kalachaya is the ethnic identity of Bishnupriya Manipuri even to-day the Meitei people told us Kalachai or Kalisha.
No. 2. The parishad made available extracts from linguistic survey of India Vol. III Pt. III page 20 as - "There is also a degraded class called Kalachaya or Bishnupriya which consists of doms or other Bengalis of low caste. They speak a language which is different from the true Manipuries".
But this reference of G.A. Grierson made by Manipuri Sahitya Parishad is refuted by himself in his mentioning book L.S.I. Vol. V Pt. I page 419 in his Mayang supplement as "A tribe known as Mayang speaks a mongrel form of Assamese known by same name. The number of speakers estimated as about 1000. Except for their language the Mayangs are indisguisable from the general Manipuri population. All of them can speak Meithei. They are also known as Bishnupriya or as Kalisa Manipuri." So the question of Vol. III does not arise as the author refuted his view in Vol. V. Grierson also mentioned that "Meitei with its considerable old literature affiliated to the Kukichin group of the Burmese branch of the Tibeto-Burman family" Vol. III.
Thus according to the linguists and historians it is confirmed that present Manipuris are the group of Kukichin accepted the Aryan culture abandoned their mongolian faith and the demands against Bishnupriya Manipuri is nothing but a jealousy.
No. 3. In the letter "The director of education (U) Govt. of Manipur has since informed us that according to local scholars and authoritative books, linguistically, ethnically, culturally and historically there is absolutely no basis for the claim of the Bishnupriya settling in Assam, Tripura and Bangladesh, have retained their identity and they are attaining to be Manipuris. But there is a no basis for such a claim".
The reference made by the director of education (U) Govt. of Manipur is ridiculous and baseless. Bishnupriya Manipuris are historically linguistically, culturally Aryan blood. The authority of the Indian linguistic or linguistic minorities Dr. G.A. Grierson's report, report from Francise committee of 1933, report from Ibungohal Singh and the report of Maharaja Churachand Singh of Manipur as mentioned above are the authoritative documents of Govt. of Manipur and Govt. of Assam. Further regarding it, mentioned the L. Ibungohal's speech in his introduction to Manipur P - 54". The non Manipuri linguist says that the Manipuri language belong to Kukichin group of the Tibeto Burman branch of the Sino -Tibetan family of languages. But Shri Atombapu Sharma, Bidya Ratna, Pandit Raj, Gobeshana Siramoy, Shri Wahengbam Yumjao Singh, retired Darbar member, an orientalist and other local research scholars do not agree with the above view. Pandit Raj adds that although Manipuri is an Aryan language it cannot be recognised as full fledged Aryan language as it is tied down by their literature. In this connection we should point out that Manipuri grammar in broad based on Sanskrit grammar of other Aryan languages are based and a good percent of the vocabulary is derived from Sanskrit".
Thus according to scholars and the authority of Manipuri community- Manipuri grammar is based on Sanskrit grammar. Now the question present Manipuri grammar is purely Mongolian and the Bishnupriya Manipuri grammar is purely Aryan based on that grammar. So ; Manipuris are Aryan, language is Aryan, culture is Aryan religion and literature is also Aryan the formation is Aryan. How the Mongolian character of Tibeto-Burman-branches of languages, literature, culture religion belonging to tribal people claimed to be of true Manipuri's accepting the Aryan faith newly is nothing but a miraculars and ridiculous. It is also surprise that they abandoned all the ethnic identity except , language. So the very word stigma is fully appropriate to them not in the Bishnupriya Manipuri People.
No.4. The Manipuri Sahitya Parishad, Imphal claimed to the chief Minister of Assam Mr. Prafulla Kr. Mahanta that . "use of Bishnupriya Manipuri or Manipuri Bishnupriya however is an anathema to Manipuri community both in this state as well as in the state of Assam".
The objection made by the Manipuri Sahitya Parishad is seemed to be childish and fruitless because having purely -Tibeto Burman group of Tribal people tried to deny the' " ethnic identity of Bishnupriya Manipuris is nothing but a. jealousy, so the very word anathema is most applicable to them not in the Bishnupriya Manipuris. So objection to the then chief Minister of Assam Mr. Prafulla Kr. Mahanta is quite illegal and unjustified. This kind of objection should raised from Bishnupriya Manipuri community against them yet our people (B.M.) never claimed such an anathema demands and wordings if they too converted into Manipuri from Meitei.
No. 5. Therefore the demands of PCC(I) President Mr, R.K, Dorendra Singh present Chief Minister of Manipur, and Manipuri Sahitya Parishad, Imphal, Mr, H. Radhakanta Singh and others are nothing but jealously, hateful and meanness of present Manipuri community, So the Memorandum to Mr. Mahanta which threatened to Govt, of Assam and arising of repercussion basing on which the Govt, of Assam stayed the implementation of Bishnupriya Manipuri language is quite illegal and unjustified.
The Nikhil Bishnupriya Manipuri Maha Sabha condemned the demands of Manipuri Sahitya parishad and others and the decision of Assam Govt, should withdraw immediately, So the Mahasabha requested that you are hereby asked to Assam Govt, for the immediate implementation of Bishnupriya Manipuri language as primary stage of education because the problem is not the political issue but the sentimental issue of the ethnic identity of a particular race of Indian Aryan dynasty and Aryan culture and the sentiment of an Aryan nation.
Dated 6/6/1992. Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(Sri Mangal Babu Singh) M.A.
General Secretary,
Nikhil Bishnupriya Manipuri Mahasabha.
Copy forwarded for favour of information and
taking necessary action to :-
1. The Commissioner for Linguistic Minorities in India, Allahabad (Zamarg). /
2. The Prime Minister of India, New Delhi.
3. The Home Minister of India, New Delhi.
4. The Chief Minister of Assam Dispur, Guwahati -6
5. The General Secretary, Manipuri Shitya Parishad,
Paona Bazar, Imphal
6. The Chief Minister of Manipur
7. The Chief Minister of Tripura.
8. Office Concerned.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(Sri Mangal Babu Singh) M.A.
General Secretary
The memorandum was submitted in 1992 before the Govts. of Assam and Tripura implemented The Bishnupriya language at Primary stage of Education as medium of instruction.
The article Published on 23.9.1997 by J .L. Chowdhury: in the North East Age.
"Bishnupriyas, Meiteis on collision Course.
By J .L. Chowdhury
Silchar, Sept. 22 : A "language war" seems imminent in Assam with the All Assam Manipuri Students' Union threatening to resort to long-term agitation if the government of Assam decides to implement the Bishnupriya language at the primary stage of education. The Bishnupriya Manipuri Students' Union and Nikhil Bishnupriya Mahasabha, on the other hand, postponed their proposed 1000-hour rail-road blockade in Barak Valley which was called to put pressure on the Mahanta government to give effect to its notifications of November 14,1983, and July 21, 1989, to use Bishnupriya as the medium of instruction at the primary level in Barak Valley.
The NBMM described the stand of the state as "quite .incompressible" and a denial of the democratic and constitutional rights of its people. The Mahasabha refers to the recommendation of the commission for linguistic minorities which justifies the naming of the language as Bishnupriya Manipuri by the state. The Bishnupriya Manipuri Sahitya Sabha says that the use of the term Manipuri instead of Meitei to indicate caste identity would mean "throwing out people of the Aryan Group as non Manipuris" which would be historically incorrect.
According to Mr. Bimal Krishna Sinha, a spokesman of the Sahitya Sabha, the Bishnupriya are the natives of Manipur whose cultural identity and ethnicity are being tainted by the dominant Meitei migrants who invaded the valley in the 18th century. Mr. Sinha says the ethnic Vaishnavite culture has gradually given way to the culture of the immigrant tribals.
Bishnupriya which is related to Sanskrit, was substituted by Meitei which became the state language when Meitei king Pamheiba came to power in 1709. The 2.5 lakh population of Bishnupriya who live in Assam, Tripura and Manipur now fear their identity may be lost, he said.
The All Assam Manipuri Students' Union and Manipuri Sahitya Parishad repudiate the claims of Bishnupriya who say they are Manipur natives. The two organisations quote Grierson's Linguistic Survey of India to link Bishnupriya language to impure Bengali and a dialect of Indo-Aryan origin. Manipuri and Bishnupriya, they assert, are two distinct languages, the former belonging to the Kuki-chin group of Tibeto-Burman languages and the latter to the Indo-Aryan group. The Sahitya Parishad says that the Bishnupriyas never constituted a separate entity among the population of Manipur. Nor was any separate Bishnupriya entity mentioned in the royal chronicles or in the British reports. The Sahitya Parishad adds that Manipuri, the state language of Manipur, was recognised by the Sahitya Academy.
There is Manipuri literature dating back at least 1000 years, the parishad quotes Suniti Kumar Chatterjee. Besides, Meitei has been included in the 8th schedule of the constitution, it points out. Prof. Ch. Manihar Singh of Aamsu warned the Assam government at a recent press conference here that it should not divide the Manipuri identity to please the Bishnupriyas. As the Meiteis and the Bishnupriyas have adopted irreconciliable stands, the government has been put in a fix."
Clarification :- In the above memorandum in "No.2" in the first para in line 3 "Kalachaya or Bishnupriya" should be "Kalacheiya or Bishnupuri", between the words" consists of" and "doms", "the descendants of" has been left out. And also between "Bengalis of low caste" and "They speak" a whole sentence "Their occupation was originally that of supplying grass for the royal stables" is left out. Why so important words and a sentence are left out? why "Kalacheiya or Bishnupuri" are substituted by "Kalachaya or Bishnupriya"? Most probably to mislead public and the Assistant Commissioner of Linguistic Minorities (?). Above "No.2" in the 9th line "History of China" by Arther Pelliot is not available in Impha1. So the c1aim of Late L. Ibungohal Singh, Rtd. District and Session Judge in the ‘Ritu' Magazine cannot be verified. But about this time, king of Pong Sukanpha's brother Samlangpha visited Kangleipak, but no war was fought[46]. No Chinese invasion of Kangleipak or war was found in any related historical book or tradition. But in 1588 A.D. a Khaki (China) man's flesh eater named by the Local people Meitana came to Kangleipak[47]. This is confirmed by' the Puya. He was killed by king Mungyangpa[48]. Please note the words in the memorandum "jeelousy" = jealousy, " ridiculous and baseless". "The objection made by the Manipuri Sahitya Parishad is seemed to be Childish and fruitless", " Therefore the demands of PCC (I) President Mr. R.K. Dorendra Singh, Present Chief Minister of Manipur, and Manipuri Sahitya Parishad, Imphal, Mr. H. Radhakanta Singh and others are nothing but a jealousy, hateful and meanness" for a laugh.
From the above two documents, one the memorandum and the other the article in the North East Age, we may conclude the nature of the claims of the Bishnupriya. The frontal organisation of the Bishnupriya, The Nikhil Bishnupriya Manipuri Mahasabha (NBMM) claims, inter alias, the followings:
(a) Manipur is the Bishnupriya's original land named according to their ancestors' tongue. The world will not doubt it.
(b) The Bishnupriya are aborigines of Manipur. They are the original people of this land called Manipur, whereas the ‘Meitei' are the Mongolians-Hindu-converts. The ‘Meitei' are converted into the Manipuri during the reign of Parnheiba Garibailiwaz (1709 -1748 AD).
(c) "The dominant Meitei" invaded the valley of Manipur in 18th century. They are "migrants", "immigrant tribals".
(d) The "Meitei" is "Meitei Manipuri" after conversion to the Manipuri in the 18th century. Originally they are Mongolians, their language is Kuki-chin of Tibeto-Burman group, whereas the language of the Bishnupriya is "Purely Aryan admixture of both Gandharva and Aryan race of Babrubahana by Arjuna and Chitrangada, so the language and culture is purely Aryan", so, the demands of the Manipuri Sahitya Parishad etc are nothing but stigma to the Bishnupnya's language and culture.
(e) "The dances of Radha and Krishna, Gopi and Gopa which is famous throughout the world purely Aryan Culture" world fame Ras Lila and the Manipuri Dance are the Bishnupriya's.
These are the claims of the Bishnupriya and based on the followings:
(1) Glimpses of Manipuri language, literature and culture by the Manipuri Sahitya Parishad is one of the planks for the claim and demand of the Bishnupriya to recognise them to be the Bishnupriya Manipuri. This book says "Manipur has developed into a stronghold of Aryan Culture even before the establishment of Gupta Supremacy in India" are the first lines of the book. At page 13 " Manipuri literature like the literatures in other modern Indian languages, both Aryan and Dravidian, accepted Sanskrit literature as its model and inspiration". When such are the claims, actions of the frontal organisation, can it claim that the language of the Meetei is Kuki-chin etc.? The claim and argument help the Bishnupriya. It seems a great conspiracy between NBMMS and Sahitya Parisad, Imphal.
(2) The claim of the Bishnupriya is based on the article by rtd. District and sessions Judge, late Shri L. lbungoha1 Singh in ‘Ritu' Magazine. Late Ibungoha1 wrote that the China invaded Manipur in 700 A.D. found the Ka1achais Manipuri were highly civilised as claimed by the Bishnupriya in their memorandum printed above.
(3) The Bishnupriya founded their claim on the linguistic Survey of India by G.A.. Grierson as reported in vol. III a Pt. III, Vol. V Pt. I. Mr. Grierson collected the information in the fag end of the 19th century when Manipur was swayed by the Hinduism patronised by the king. He collects from informants of the palace and its henchmen. In such circumstances, Mr. Grierson could not say that the Bishnupriya are not original ofKang1eipak straight. But he says they are from Aryan speaking Area. From this with some manipulations the Bishnupriya based their claim also.
(4) The Bishnupriya claims on the basis of recommendation of the Commissioner for Linguistic Minorities.
(5) The most important basis of the claims of the Bishnupriya is the present name of the land Manipur, the Manipur of the Mahabharat, the Manipur of the Babrubahan and Citrangada and the persistent claims of a section of the populace and some frontal organisations that Manipur is the original name of the land. This is the only foundation and basis of their claims after analysis. To claim Manipur is indigenous and original name of this land, in negation to historical facts means to help the Bishnupriya.
When some frontal organisations like the ManipuriSahitya Parishad etc., which are very vocal when the Government of Assam and Tripura recognised Bishnupriya as Bishnupriya Manipuri and began to give some facilities in education etc., introduce the Meetei (Meitei as they say) as Aryans/Aryan origin and the name of the land is Manipur since Mahabharat etc., the Bishnupriya claims on the same line of arguments to prove themselves to be true Manipuris/ original Manipuris. Of course, these are facts, unrefutable facts, as their line of arguments and facts purported to be produced by them are supported by the arguments and documents produced by the present Manipuri ‘Meitei Manipuri' themselves. The article of late District and Sessions Judge in ‘Ritu', Glimpses of Manipuri language, literature and culture, other demands and memoranda of the Manipur Govt. and Manipuri Sahitya Parishad go parallel with the Bishnupriya. The claim of the Bishnupriya that the Meetei (Meitei/Meithei) was converted into Hinduism Manipuri (Meitei Manipuri as they term) is also historically correct. What are missing in all these surprisingly, are the facts of the name of this land before Manipur, when the original people of this land were converted into Hinduism, when they became' Meitei Manipuri' converts, who was the first Hindu king in this land etc. to separate the Bishnupriya from the Meetei (the present Manipuri). When these things are the real issues of the Bishnupriya problem confronting the ancient and original people called the Meetei, can the Manipuri Sahitya Parishad with its allies, who are advocating the cause of the Aryans and Hindus without any limit in their speeches, writings and memoranda and who cannot show history in its true forms and contents lead the people of Manipur in its desire directions? This is a great question mark. It goes against the indigenous people - Hill and Plain.
CHAPTER - V A
The land called Manipur where no Manipuri exists.
(The ‘Bishnupriya" is not a historical entity)
In this very book, published by the writer in 1999 A.D. at page 36, the readers will find "Thus according to the reports made by the Government of Manipur and Government of Assam it is clear that Bishnupriya Manipuris are the aborigines. This very word Kalachaya is the ethnic identity of Bishnupriya Manipuri even today the Meitei people told us Kalachai or Kalisha" This quotation is from the Memorendum of the Bishnupriya to Shri A.K. Chatterjee, Assistant Commissioner for linguistic minorities in India (Eastern Region) Calcutta by Nikhil Bishnupriya Manipuri Maha Sabha, P.O. Singuri, District Cachar, Assam. This straight assertion of the Bishnupriya that they are the aborigines and indigenous Race of Manipur is based on the Reports of the Government of Manipur, and ‘help' from Manipur, from the Government or from the people of tainted blood, is clearly seen from the Memorandum of the Bishnupriya, neglecting and ignoring the stark facts of History of this land. This ‘help' factor from Manipur will be very clear from the Chapter VIII-A from the experience of the writer as a member of the Committee against the claims of the Bishnupriya (Conspiracy angle detected).
Further, you will see "According to Mr. Bimal Krishna Sinha, a spokesman of the Sahitya Sabha, the Bishnupriya are the natives of Manipur whose cultural identity and ethnicity are being tainted by the dominant Meitei migrants who invaded the valley in the 18th century. Mr. Sinha says the ethnic Vaishnavite culture has gradually given way to the culture of the immigrant tribals" at page 41 of this very book. Dealing the history of this land called KANGLEIPAK upto late 18th century A.D. even after king Pamheiba Garivaniwaz in Topsy-turvy and ‘about-turn' manner, the Bishnupriya says the Kangleicha, hill and plain, are ‘migrant tribal' who invaded Manipur in 18th century A.D. neglecting and ignoring the stark fact that Manipur is less than 250 year old name of this land of Kangleichas.
My brothers and sisters of Kangleipak, why YOU DON'T ASSERT YOUR TRUE HISTORY OF KANGLEIPAK to save your land, culture and identity? The writer has given you THE TRUE HISTORY OF KANGLEIPAK in the shape of A SHORT HISTORY OF KANGLEIPAK (Manipur) Part - I, II and III so far upto this day.
Now the writer will give you STARK scientific findings to destroy the Bishnupriya onslaught and to clear identity :
FINGER PRINTS
Q -1
"The disputed difference of the Meiteis and the Bishnupriyas the two sets of Manipuri communities - could be clarified by the fact that infiltration of Bengoli high casts within the latter is interesting. As a whole the Bishnupriya Manipuries do not seem to have any Mongoloid strain." Page 74.
Q - 2
"Both the Manipuris are different from each other on the basis of finger print patterns. As stated earlier that the Bishnupriyas have Bangali High caste infiltration because of their present and earlier close association with the Bengolis of Silchar district of Assam." Page 74. The two quotations above are from the book, PEOPLE OF MANIPUR, ANTHROPOGENETIC STUDY OF FOUR MANIPUR POPULATION GROUPS BY RAMA CHAKRAVARTTI published in Delhi in 1986. All qotations are from this book.
Q - 3
"In this respect, the Meitei females have close similarly with those of the Kabui Nagas of the valley who also have L>W in their digital distribution among the two sexes. The Meitei males, on the other hand could be grouped along with the Tangkhul and Mao Nagas (both sexes) who have W>L" page 76.
PALM PRINTS
Q - 4
The three Manipuri Nagas (both sexes) follow the same modal type like that of the Meitei males" page 79-80.
BLOOD GROUPS
Q - 5
" ‘R1' gene appears to occur in the highest frequencies in all the four studied groups ‘R2' gene occur in second highest frequency. Among the Kabuis the gene ‘Rz' is absent, while among the Tangkhul and Meitei this gene occurs in equal frequencies." Page 95.
Q - 6
"The Kabui follow the valley populations while the Tangkhuls present A>O>B. This pattern is however, not observed with any other Naga groups from Nagaland. All Naga groups follow the pattern of the Meiteis. The Lushais of the Lushai hills have similarity with those of the Tangkhuls in respect of their ABO blood group distribution". Page 96
Q - 7
The close similarity in ABO blood group between the Tangkhul Nagas and the Meiteis is again confirmed indicating the ethnic homogeneity between these two groups. This was observed in other various genetic markers." Page 99
FUNCTIONAL ASSYMMETRY
Q - 8
"Among the Tangkhul Nagas, the males have more R trait while the females present more L type. The two sexes present a heterogeneous distribution. The Kabui Naga males have slightly higher R trait that the L type, while the females have equal distribution of L and R traits. The two sexes present a homogeneous distribution. The combined value again follow the Meitei and Tangkhul patterns". Page 106
Q - 9
"The Manipuri Brahmins who are basically Caucasoid with appreciable Mongoloid admixture, show a highly significant difference from the Meitei". Page 111
EAR LOPE AND TONGUE ROLLING
Q - 10
"The Brahmins of Manipur are basically Caucasoid though with some Mongoloid admixture, while the Meitei are fully Mongolid". Page - 117
The writer has given you 10 quotations from the book, PEOPLE OF MANIPUR by Rama Chakravartti. The writer of the book, Rama Chakravartti has given the people of Manipur EXCILLENT scientific findings after painstaking researches and investigations about the people of Manipur in their ethnic identity under 10 very important heads of subject-matter. The findings are rather more excellent from the fact that the findings will help the INDIGENOUS Kangleichas to destroy the onslaught of the so called Bishnupriya Manipuri and to clear their identity.
The indigenous Kangleicha researchers, as soon as the Manipur Hindu kings had been thrown out of power by the advent of democratic system of Governance in 1949, began shouting that this land was called, practically and officially, Kangleipak upto 18th century A.D., the name Manipur was imposed upon Kangleipak in the 1st half of 18th century A.D. by the 1st Hindu king Pamheiba Garivaniwaz on the advice of notorious Hindu Dharma guru, Shanti Das Gossai and even though the imposition was associated with threat and punishment in all its ugly forms, Kangleipak was the name of this land upto the time of king Jai Singh Bhagyachandra upto the last part of 18th century A.D. It is well known.
At the same time, the indigenous Kangleichas never agreed that they are descendants of Mahabharat Hero Pandab Arjun, bringing them under the umbrella of the Gotra Hindu caste, though they were subjected to even capital punishment. When the indigenous people showed DESSENT to the imposition of Hindu religion and bringing the Salai Race to 9 Gotra system. The indigenous Meeteis are always shouting that the hill peoples of Kangleipak (Manipur) are people of the same progenitor and they were living together on the Koubru (Koupalu in the scriptures) mountains in Pre-history. Proto-history and early History times. For this, the esteemed readers may please read the 1st part Kanglei puwari series by the writer of this book A SHORT HISTORY OF KANGLEIPAK (Manipur) Part - I you will see in the part - I that the assertions of the writer are trust worthy and based on scriptures called Puyas in Kangleipak. Now very luckily the PEOPLE OF MANIPUR by Rama Chakravartti has given the indigenous Kangleichas a great LIGHT dispelling the darkness spread by the Hindu fanatics and Hindu religion. The scientific findings of Rama Chakravartti have kept the people of Kangleipak (Manipur) into two water tied compartments - Hindu cancasoids and Hindu Bishnupuri or Kalisha and Bengoli turned Bishnupriya on one hand and the true Mongoloids on the other giving no room to Bishnupriya who are having no historical foundation in this land began called Manipur only in late 18th century A.D.
Now let us analyse what the scientific findings of Rama Chakravartti meant :
The two quotations Q. 1 and Q. 2 regarding ‘Finger Prints' of the ‘Meitei' people and the Bishnupriyas have categorically proved that the two peoples ‘Meitei' and Bishnupriyas are basically different. The ‘Meitei' has been a Mongoloid Race where as the the Bishnupriyas have been a Bengoli Race, no ‘Mongoloid strain' has been found in the Bishnupriyas.
In the quotation Q. 10 regarding Ear Lope and Tongue Rolling you have seen that "Meiteis are fully Mongoloid" whereas "the Brahamins of Manipur are basically Caucasoid"
From the scientific findings of those quotations, Q. 1, Q. 2 and Q. 10, it is proved beyond doubt that the Bishnupriyas and the Brahamins (Bamons) are Mayangs from the Indian mainland (Bengal and west of it) whereas the ‘Meitei' are Mongoloids connected with Burma, Thailand, China, Japan etc. East and West never meet.
Regarding historical connections of these people - the Bishnupriyas and the Bamon Brahmins in Kangleipak, it is very clear to indigenous Kangleichas. These Indian Mayangs, during the reigns of king Kongyamba (1324-1335 A.D. from Cheitharol Kumbaba), king Kiyamba (1467-1508 A.D. from Chitharol Kumbaba) and king Khakemba (1597-1652 A.D. from Cheitharol Kumbaba) before the advent of Hinduism in Kangleipak, attempted to seize the people and furtile land of Kangleipak by means of armed campaigns, but these Indian Mayangs were utterly defeated in all these armed campaigns, many of them were killed and many of these were taken prisioners. There were narrated in details in Chapter - II to V of this book. These war captives were used as menial, grass cutters, Dhobi, Muchi etc. of the nobles of the kings palace etc. All these have written Historical evidences.
When king Pamheiba Garivaniwaz became king of Kangleipak in the first half of 18th century, these war captives, used as menials etc. before the advent of Hinduism, became high class Hindus after the advent of Hinduism, when the land is recalled Manipur and Hinduism has been imposed on the Kangleichas. These are all on the pages of History.
When Lamangtong has been renamed Bishnupur by Pamheiba Garivaniwaz, those Mayangs, who were allowed by the Kanglei kings to settle at and near Bishnupur, were known as Bushnupuri by themselves as well as outsiders. You will see all these things in the linguistic survey of India by G.A. Grierson, Vol III Part III. From this ‘Bishnupuri', these Mayangs coined the word ‘Bishnupriya', and was allowed to use so by king Gambhir Singh in and around 1827 A.D. and was officialised in Kalisharon as a part of Sangai Phamang at the time of king Gambhir Singh and his successor king Chandrakirti Singh.
These people the so called Bishnupriya Manipuries had shifted their habitation from Bishnupur areas and other to Silchar etc. of Assam and other parts of Eastern India during and after the Burmese Onslaught of W¡[Ò 7 Jå"zàA¡šà (1819-1825 A.D.)
Now we may discuss about the Brahmins (Paman or Bamon in Kangleipak) and their origin :
There is a genealogy book of the Pamon or Bamon (Brahmin) in Kangleipak (Manipur) called Bamon Khunthoklon. There are 78 Brahmin Families in Kangleipak (Manipur) at present. They are all Indian Hindus from the Indian Mainland, called by the indigenous Meeteis by the name Bamon (a derivative of Brahman), and sometime by the name Pamon as the Kangleicha Meetei used only 18 Alphabets upto the advent of Hinduism in 18th century A.D.
Now we will trace the origins of these Bamons in Kangleipak with thier time of arrival in Kangleipak.
There are 78 Brahman families in Kangleipak (Manipur today)
From western Takhel (Tripura) Subhi Narayan came and married Haokei Chanu Thoinu and his blood group family is Phurailatpam (Phura Lai Latpam). Subhi Narayan was the first Bhahman who arrived in Kangleipak during the reign of king Kyamba (1467-1508 A.D.) in the beginning of 16th century A.D. before the advent of Hinduism. Before Hinduism in Kangleipak, there was no the institution of Brahmanism in Kangleipak. The 10th family of Brahmin in Kangleipak was: From Nadia one Tenna came and married Kumbi Chanu Samdenbi and his blood family group is called Bachaspatimayum.
The 19th family of Brahmin in Kangleipak was : From North Naga he came with a pot of local wine and sold. He married a Khurkhun Chanu. His Brahman blood family group is Hidangmayum Kharungbam. It was in the middle of 16th century.
The 22nd family of Brahmin was : From Kanpur Krishna charan Tewari came. His family group is a Khurai Taba Kanouji Mayum. It was in the last part of 16th century.
The 55th Brahman in Kangleipak was : From Sylhet Monk Santi Das came and married Meiting-ngu Pamheiba Chanu Wangamlon and had no issue.
The last 78 Brahman family was : From Kashi Mayang Tonan came and married a Brahmachari Mayum woman and his family group has joined Bachaspati Mayum. It was during the reign of Churachand Maharaj. His family was the last arrival in Kangleipak (Manipur) recorded in the Bamon Khunthoklon.
The writer gives only some Bamon families' history in order to save paper and time. All the 78 Brahman families have their history of origin and time of arrival in Kangleipak in Bamon Khunthoklon.
These people, whether they are called Bishnupuri or Kalisha or Bishnupriya as we know today, are all descendants of war captives in 14th, 16th and 17th centuries in Kangleipak. Their ancestors were captured as prisoners of wars in armed conflicts with the Kanglei army. These things are not imaginations of the writer, these are records of written history. These are war captives, were used as domestic menials, grass cutters of the palace stables, dhobi, Hajams etc. They were given settlement areas. You now see names of places like Mayang Khangabok, Mayang Yumpham etc. in the Chitharol Kumbaba and "In the Manipur state, the headquarters of Mayang are two or three plain villages near Bishnupur" L.S.I. vol.- V Part I (supplement) etc. these are written recorded evidences.
So, these people are never indigenous people, it is beyond doubt. Again, the 78 Brahmin families in Kangleipak are never the aborigines of this land called Kangleipak upto late 18th century A.D. The written historical evidence is Bamon Knunthoklon. There is no doubt.
Let us see again who are indigenous people of Kangleipak in the light of the scientific findings of Rama Chakravartti.
The quotations, Q-3, Q-4, Q-5, Q-6, Q-7, Q-8, Q-9 indicate who are indigenous people and who are people of the common origin. As these scientific findings show the Meetei, Kabui, Tangkhul, Mao are the nearest members of a common family, who were broken apart during the last 300 years of Hindu Rule it seems. The Kuki Khongchai group show a little distant family members from these people.
Now the question is : The Meetei Community, apart the hill people of the same family, are called ‘Manipuri' bringing under the umbrella of Gotra system. Is it possible in the light of these stark scientific findings ? It is possible in the light of the written findings in the scriptures, traditions etc. ? The answer is : it is simply unreal, impossible.
The givers of the name ‘Manipuri' to the Meetei people and Acceptors too are under HALLUCINATIONS !
Meetei, Kabui, Tangkhul, Mao and Kuki Khongchai are all indigenous people should be called ‘Manipuri' or no indigenous people should accept it. The Meetei of Kangleipak, apart from their nearest kinsmen Tangkhul, Kabui, Mao, Kuki Khongjai, should not accept the name ‘Manipuri'. Let the Brahnins, Bishnupriya (the Mayang groups) take the name ‘Manipuri'. It is their right to accept it as it is their own dialect. Let their demand be pressed in Orissa Mahabharat Manipur !
Manipur is a land where no Manipuri exist. The few so called Manipuri Bishnupriyas had left Kangleipak in W¡[Ò 7 Jå"zàA¡šà from fear of the Burmese. No one has returned as Kangleipak is not a land connected with their Hindu ancestors and their cultures.
Bishnupriya is not a Historical Entity in Kangleipak. It is a Manipulative forgery entity to befool indigenous Kangleichas with the ‘Help' of people and Government of Manipur.
It will be very clearly shown under Chapter - VIII-A from the experience of the writer as a member of the COMMITTEEE AGAINST THE CLAIMS OF THE BISHNUPRIYAS (CONSPIRACY angle detected !).
CHAPTER - VI
The fifth Column in Manipur
The history of Kangleipak and Manipur is very clear. The original name of our fatherland is Kangleipak and a settled Political kingdom was established at least by two millennium B.C. by Nongta Lailen Pakhangpa whom we generally call Iputhou Pakhangpa today. The position of this assertion has been shown hereinbefore quoting from Puya and will be seen hereinafter also. The Meetei Kum (Meetei Era) which is called Maliyapham Palcha Kum according to Puya (we call it now Maliyakum) was started some times in 1400 B.C. by king Maliyapham Palcha who was in the line of Salai Leishangthem, the 7th son of Nongta Lailen Pakhangpa, the first political king of Kangleipak. The Meetei lived a peaceful political life in Kangleipak since Iputhou Pakhangpa without any outside interference up to the end of the 13th century A.D. upto the reign of king Thangpi Lanthapa in Kangleipak. The land was very fertile and population was scanty and homogenous. Everybody led satisfactory life. Quarrel and strife among the populace were unknown. Everybody showed unconditional allegiance to the king who was supposed to be the representative of God on earth. For the first time during the reign of king Kongyamba ( 1324 -1335 A.D.) the outsiders called Mayangs by the indigenous people from the Cachar Silchar area and its neighborhood attracted by the news of vast fertile land and simple populace attacked Kangleipak in the form of invasion. But they were totally routed by the Meetei army. The captured prisoners of war were the first Mayang settlers in Kangleipak. This has been stated before also. Before this period no outsiders whatsoever was in Kangleipak. After century and century the Mayang population increased and how they become the people now called the Bishnupriya also, the people of Kangleipak Know very well. This was stated well here in before. And at present, there is not a single family of the Bishnupriya people in their true and original form in Manipur. They had been absorbed into the Meetei community taking Meetei Surnames. First the Mayangs were menials serving the royal family and nobles of the Meetei country and then they were absorbed into the Meetei Community. Those who left Kangleipak and Manipur are the Bishnupriya people who are revolting to day and Challenging the identity of the people of Kangleipak (Manipur) Claiming themselves to be original people of this land. The people of this land has concrete historical evidences, to refute all these claims, which cannot be disputed by the Bishnupriya and by any people in disguise. This must be noted.
Inspite of all these strong and irrefutable historical evidences, why the Bishnupriya is so determined to challenge the identity and culture of the Meetei (The so called the Manipuri now) ? The Meetei society of the 21st century must be determined to search and single out who are those people or the section of the populace selling out the people of Manipur and their fine and unique culture of the past to foreign hands to destroy our identity. There are some men or a very small section of the populace who breaths the fresh air of the land and eats the sweet and wholesome food of this land, but lives for some cause not for the Meeteis. We have to mark them. Determination is the need of the hour.
The Bishnupriya claims "Manipuris are all Aryans, language is Aryan, Culture is Aryan, religion and literature is also Aryan, the formation is Aryan. How the Mongolian Character of Tibeto-Burman branches of language, literature, Culture, religion belonging to the tribal people Claimed to be of true Manipuris." They further say "It is also surprise that they abandoned all ethnic identity except language" (please read very carefully the Memorandum to Shri A.K. Chatterjee by the Gen.Secy...,NBMM printed herein before). What they say is that true Manipuris are Aryans; Language, literature, Culture and religion are all Aryans; formation (of language) is also Aryan. " How the Mongolian character of Tibeto-Burman branches of language ,literature, culture, religion belonging to tribal people" claim to be true Manipuri? In the Article by J.L.Chowdhury printed here in before termed the Meeteis "tribal immigrants" who invaded Manipur in 18th Century A.D. The Bishnupriya further says that the present Manipuri (Meitei Manipuri as they termed us) has abandoned everything including ethnic identity (Mongolian origin) because the Meetei claims to be of Aryan origin, but the Meetei says their language is Tibeto-Bunnan branch or Kuki chin group ( Meithei-chin as Grierson prefers). Most probably the "Meitei Manipuri" cannot meet the Onslaught of the Bishnupriya Manipuri. Because the "Meitei Manipuri" has common origin with the Bishnupriya as they claim so. The Bishnupriya says that they do not say the "Meitei are not Manipuri". The Bishnupriya, does not raise any objection when the Meetei use the word Manipuri, at the same time the Meetei cannot object when the Bishnupriya use the words "Bishnupriya Manipuri". It is neither stigma nor anathema to the Meetei, they maintain. This is the thrust and crux of the problem. Let us see how our frontal organisations met them in such problem and in such facts of things.
In a memorandum submitted to the late Prime Minister of India, Shri Rajiv Gandhi by the President of the Manipuri Sahitya Parishad, Shri R.K. Jalajit Singh conspicuously advocate enclosing the booklet "Glimpses of Manipuri language, literature and culture" as Annexure B for considering sympathetically to include Manipuri in the 8th schedule as "Manipur had developed into a stronghold of Aryan Culture" before the Gupta Supremacy in India, that is, before 320 A.D. means from a very early period, most probably since Mahabharat days. At page 13 of the "Glimpses of Manipuri language, literature and culture" it is said "Manipuri literature like the literatures in other modern Indian Languages, both Aryan and Dravidian, accepted Sanskrit literature, as its model and inspiration" Not a single word of Tibeto-Burman Group or Meetie word is mentioned: In advocating for the Meeteis (though they call us the Manipuri, reality is the Meetei and Meetei for the race and its language) the Parishad says that our language, literature and culture are all Aryans, and Dravidians. In countering the Manipuri Sahitya Parishad, the -Bishnupriya use this memorandum to the Prime Minister as one of the their bases. The Bishnupriya throws garbages to our sacred land and heaped upon the Meeteis the "Jealousy", "ridiculous and baseless" "Childish and fruitless" and "Jealousy, hateful and meanness" charges. Whose fault? For what the Meetei did? We have to fix some responsibilities.
By civilisation we mean a state of things, different from nomadic conditions, a settled political life with houses constructed for shelter. Civilisation means buildings, dams, temples, irrigation etc. But by culture we mean the unseen things that bind together a group of individuals called a race. Because of culture they think together, they laugh together, they fight together to defend their civilisation and culture. Racial ethos is developed by culture. In Meetei these concepts are "Khunnai and inat". If our land is a "stronghold of Aryan Culture" since before 320 A.D. and if we, the Meetei spent their lives in Aryan culture for about 2000 years, why no king's name in Hindi or Sanskrit or Dravidian from 1st Century A.D. to 18th century A.D. in Kangleipak (Manipur) is found in history? Why all kings names since18th century A.D. upto today are Hindus? Can we say the whole population ofManipur after spending 2000 years in Aryan fold has a common ethos with the Indian mainland population? Do the Meeteis create these conditions of society? Are the Meetei's different mindset and the Meetei's physical anatomy (Racial characteristics) the same with the people of mainland India? If the Meetei's land was Aryan stronghold and was within the Aryan fold for about 2000 years, why are we so different today? These are the realities.
Manipuri Sahitya Parishad seems to depend on scholars like Dr. Sunity Kumar Chatterjee for its life and activities. In the memorandum to the Prime Minister, the Parishad mentions the book of Dr. Chatterjee, the Kirata-Jana-Krti (1974) for its argument against the Bishnupriya. The Meetei population, though interrupted for 290 years by the Hinduism, who has more than 4000 years civilisation and cu1ture, say with emphasis that what a scholar like Dr. Chatterjee (with every respect for his scholarship) can say about the ancient race called the Meetei with authority? By the nature of things in the Problem between the Bishnupriya and the Meetei can we depend on outside scholars, unless we are committed "Meitei Manipuri" Aryan Hindu. Anybody who says about the Meetei must know the Meetei script, must study the archaeological findings in the 20th century at least. In the fagend of 20th century and in the beginning of the new millennium, we must not speak contradictory unreal things to the risk of our's, to the risk of our identity. The "Glimpses of Manipuri language, Literature and culture" at page 42 "Manipuri has been the language of courts from time immemorial........" Can any body show records of Manipuri as court language of the state earlier than the 18th century A.D ? The Meetei wants to see them.
For the recreation and interest of the readers, I am giving some excerpts from the Book the Aryan Hoax by Shri Paramesh Chowdhury, Calcutta (1995) :
"The examples quoted demonstrate the variety of opinions held on the subject-opinions which in many cases flatly contradict each other. This must bring us to the conviction that the existence of the so-called Aryan ‘People' or a ‘Race' is a mere myth since we find purely subjective criteria employed in the attempt to determine its home, without the slightest factual and scientific foundation "-The race question in modern science -published by UNESCO -page 38 (quoted by Shri Paramesh Chowdhury in the front page).
"So, when the Indus valley civilisation was discovered all the scholars were puzzled. They could not term the civilisation as Aryan since they already established the theory that the Aryans entered India not earlier than 1500 B.C." page 20.
"Over and above Sir John Marshal declared that, Mohenjo-Daro was not Aryan and very likely was Dravidian or Pre-Aryan" page 20.
"A peace treaty of about 1400 B.C. between the Hittites and the Mattani Rulers of the Mattani, reveals the names of the Vedic gods Indra, Varuna and Nasatyas. Ghosh thus concluded that about the middle of the second millenium B.C., the forefathers of the Indo-Aryans were still in western Asia on their way to India from a European home"-page 375.
Were the Meeteis sons and daughters of the Mahabharat hero Arjuna before the forefathers of the Indo-Aryans came to India ? Let us laugh very loud. u
CHAPTER - VII
The non-existent claim of the Bishnupriya
We are here debating, quarrelling and snarling each other on the fact of the geographical position ofManipur as mentioned in the Mahabharat. Some people say the Manipur of the Mahabharat where Mahabharat hero Arjuna married Chitrangada is the present Manipur whereas the sons of this land say the Manipur ofMahabharat is in Kalinga (present Orissa). Present Manipur was Kangleipak upto the reign of king Pamheiba Garibaniwaz in the 18th Century A.D. He re-named Kangleipak as Manipur, the name is less than 300 years old. This debate sometimes turns violent. The debate on 10th May Sunday, 1998 was in point. This debate is not there in the Indian Mainland where the sons and daughters of Mahabharat heros live. The following is the Map indicating Arjuna's journey in his 12 years exile in India. The map is published by Amar Chitra Kathajournal no. 355, 1st April, 1986 published in Bombay. This map kindly be perused in order to keep this unnecessary debate in rest:
Xerox - 4
From this map, only from this map, without resorting to other facts and circumstances for argument, we may very safely conclude that Arjuna, the Mahabharat hero never visited this land called Kangleipak at the time when Mahabharat war was supposed to be fought as claimed by some Hindu Pandits. Now we may throw the debate to a dustbin. Now we have established with the mainland Hindu Pandits that Arjuna, whose journey to Manipur is the backbone of the claim that this land is the ancient Mahabharat Manipur, never reached Kangleipak. (For this purpose the respectable readers of
by Shri K. Babudhon Singh, the Hon'ble speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly on 24.7.99 to know the points and facts raised by the opponents of the Mahabharat origin of the name Manipur. So, the claim that this present Manipur is the Manipur of Aryan forefathers falls flat on the ground. So, the Manipur of the Bishnupriya, their persistent claim that this Manipur, the present Manipur was the Manipur of Pure Aryan language, literature, culture is not this Manipur. ! From this fact we may very safely say that the Manipur of the Bishnupriya is not this present Manipur, they might have their Manipur in Kalinga (Orissa) or somewhere. Then how they claim that they are the true Manipuri, the Meetei was the invaders in the 18th century, the Meeteis are the ‘Meitei Manipuri'migrants.
Xerox - 5
Cyclone affected areas in parts of Bhadrak district as on November 02,1999. Cyclone/Heavy rain Inundation from RADARSAT SAR data of November 02,1999 superimposed over pre-cyclone satellite image of IRS-1D LISS-III of October 11,1999
The above is the map on page 41 of the A SHORT HISTORY OF KANGLEIPAK (Manipur) Part I. In the map you will see Manipur in Bhandrak District of Orissa in the eastern sea coast of India surrounded by Ghanteshwar, Kherang, Narendrapur, Subudhia, Hatapur, Ichapur, Jaleshwarpur. Beitarani river a small stream, which is propagated by the Hindu fanatics to be a river crossed by the dead people in present Manipur is also there. This was verified by A Tomba Meetei of Tera Keithel, an Hon'ble elder of Meetei Culture.
The meaning of the defeat of the argument that this present Manipur is the Manipur of the Mahabharat is the approval of the argument that this Manipur is less than 300 years old name in place of Kangleipak which is not less than 4000 years old to day, that will be shown and proved one day49. Now we come to a period of history that called ‘Revivalism Period.' Now the Meetei begins to understand that they are the ancient Race called the Meetei themselves. Their country's name was Kangleipak. This name Kang1eipak had been the name of the land upto 18th centuryA.D. Pamheiba Garibaniwaz replaced Kang1eipak by the Hindu name Manipur. This name Manipur is less than 300 years old today. When these facts are obvious and apparent, proved and supported by history, tradition, Archaeology etc. why the Bishnupriya says that they are the true Manipuris, Aryans and the present majority population is the ‘Meitei Manipuri' migrants? I repeat this question.
The answer of the repeated questions asked above is the repeated and persistent claims of a section of the populace and some frontal organisations that this land is the Manipur of Mahabharat, of Aryan origin and of Arjuna- Chitrangada contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, the assertion of the Manipur -Manipuri -Addict people whether facts, history support them or not. When the people ofManipur drop the unreal claims that Manipur is the Manipur ofMahabharat, and the Aryan origin of the people, the claims of the Bishnupriya will vanish in the air automatically. When the people of this land assert their true history, their true origin, their true pre-Pamheiba culture and religion, the Bishnupriya will be nowhere and there claims and demands will aim at Zero-targets. When the Bishnupriya says that the name of the land Manipur is their original name, named according to their Aryan tongue, they are the original Manipuri derived from the name of the land Manipur, the ‘Meitie' is Mongolian race who invaded Manipur in 18th century, they were converted into the Manipuri, they are the ‘Meitei Manipuri' converts and migrants; the Manipuri Sahitya Parishad says that "the Bishnupriya never constituted a separate entity among the populace of Manipur. Nor was any separate Bishnupriya entity mentioned in the royal chronicles or in any British reports Manipuri was recognised by the Sahitya Academy". "Besides, Meitei has been included in the 8th Schedule of the constitution" etc.according to available records and documents. When we read the 'Glimpses of Manipuri language, literature and culture' published by the Manipuri Sahitya Parishad, we are not certain whether the Parishad is supporting or confronting the Bishnupriya. From the widely read article in the North East Age printed hereinbefore, we cannot form a definite idea whether the Parishad is supporting or confronting the Bishnupnya. In the history of the Parishad at no time the Parishad was asserting this land is not the Manipur ofMahabharat, Manipur is the name of the land only since the 18th century. Why the assertion of the Bishnupriya that the ‘Meiteis' invaded Manipur in the 18th century, they are' immigrant tribals' is not confronted? If confronted please produce the documents before the Meetei Community. Why not the Parishad says 'Meetei' is the tribal group who invaded Manipur in 18th century A.D.
Until and unless we drop the claim of Mahabharat origin of the name Manipur, until and unless we drop the contradictory and unreal claims of Aryan origin of the people etc., the claims of the Bishnupriya will continue to exists. When we drop all these unreal and contradictory claims, the claims of the Bishnupriya will vanish in the air. In the beginning of the coming millennium we must be prepared for this. Then, only then, the identity of the Meetei Race will be clear.
CHAPTER - VIII
The position of the Government of
Manipur in the problem
(a) The role that to be played by the Government:
In a country like India where literacy percentage is 52.21 (1991) only and for Manipur 60.96% only and at the same time these are not so much sign of maturity for democracy. Though Manipur has higher rate of literacy than that of the Indian average, Manipur is much lower than those of the Kerala, Mizoram etc. Speaking particularly for Manipur, though the literacy p.c. is expected to be much higher than that of the 1991 in 2001, the general people including those who got higher education have not the necessary aptitude of reading. This is very apparent. In democrcy reading newspapers, hearing and witnessing the T. V. and radio talks etc. by the people are very vital for the successful working of Democracy in a democratic country. The media is, the most important factor in forming public opinion. Only reading of news papers etc. may not be sufficient of course. The people must have the basic idea of some important concepts and ideology related with democracy. These things can be had only from reading some topical books ofhigh standard. Literacy and good reading habit are the very necessities for the people of a democratic country. These elements, the basic elements, seem to be lacking among the populace in Manipur.
Even among the representatives of the people in Manipur, even some basic knowledge of Manipur, its people and its past history and culture are lacking. It is very horrible and lamentable. The question in point is reported on 26.7.99 in the Huiyen Lanpao, one of the leading daily newspapers in Manipur in the front page. The hon'ble Chief Minister told the Assembly sitting that the Meetei script is only for the" Sanamahi Worshippers who are about 2000 peoples only". This is rather shocking to hear such a thing from the mouth of the head of the government of a state having more than 25 lakhs people. We earnestly feel that the representatives of the people must have some basic knowledge of this land and its people whom they represent. In future, the representatives of the people or a high dignitary of the government must know the importance of what they say and if they do not know anything in a particular point concerning the people they must take some briefs from some appropriate persons. These things prevalent in Manipur now are not signs of a successful democracy. As basic knowledge of democracy and basic requirements of Democracy are lacking in the populace, in most times in most cases wrong candidates are returned to the Assembly and Parliament as the representatives of the people. This is the tragedy of Democracy in Manipur.
Now the question before the people, the heart burning issue for the future generation is that whether the representatives of the people, who manage everything for the people, a representation of 60 only for more than 25 lakhs people, will take advantage of the ignorance of the populace for their personal gains or will they work as statesmen for the benefit of the people and future generation. Unless people choose right candidates and unless the representatives behave as representatives, the present chaos will continue. So, the role of the govt. is the role of the people in representation executing the wish and desire of the people. The government has to know the public opinion for planning and execution. The government. must work for realisation of the wish and desire of the people. Speaking on the side of the people, the people must mark those representatives who become bosses of the people after election. We have to mark those representatives who, became 100 times richer than before after becoming representatives, minister looting people's property. Such representatives must not be allowed to return again. The roles that to be played by the government is the role of the people to be played by the people themselves if it is a family affair. The government must know the people is a family, they are family members being sent to work for the welfare of the family. In this problem of the Bishnupriya, the government seems not representing the people. The government seems to represent a section of the populace having a peculiar interest and a peculiar design of things that will not help to save the identity of the people.
(b) The position of the government in the Bishnupriya problem:
The government of Mannipur so far, it is felt, has not done anything to counter the claims of the Bishnupriya effectively. Of course, the education department government ofManipur has written some letters to the Chief Minister of Assam and some leaders of Manipur have met some leaders of the central government in this matter. But the government takes the stand taken by some frontal organisations ofManipur. The Government of Manipur has a department of art and culture and if the Minister of culture of the Government of Manipur or the Cabinet feels that the department is insufficient in such situation and circumstances, the Minister or cabinet as a representative of the whole people may form a public committee to deal with the problem. So far the Government of Manipur has not its own decision uninfluenced by a section of the people. The people generally feel like this.
The government of Manipur recently on April 28, 1999 has written a strong D.O. letter to the Chief Minister of Assam against the recognition of the Bishnupriya language as "Bishnupriya Manipuri" under the signature of the hon'ble Chief Minister. But we do not know what was/is the response of the government of Assam. In the letter the government of Manipur says "Manipuri Language is a Tibeto-Burmese in origin whereas the Bishnupriya (language) an Aryan. There is no similarity in the two languages". But in many writings and memnoranda, the frontal organisation Manipuri Sahitya Parishad says that the land (they call Manipur) had been Aryanised before 300 A.D. and the language and literature are both Aryan and Dravidian, takes their inspirations from Sankskrit. So, in such situation can the government claim our language is "Tibeto-Burmese in origin whereas the Bishnupriya (language) an Aryan" as two separate languages. In the second para of the letter of the government says "The Manipuri stands as a distinct linguistic community from that of the ‘Bishnupriya" The Bishnupriya also does not say the "Manipuri" is not a distinct liguisiticcommunity, they only named the Manipuri as the "Meitei Manipuri" whereas theirs is the "BishnupriyaManipuri" The thrust is "Manipur" "Manipuri" are Aryan names, as the government of Manipur also admit the Bishnupriya is Aryan. To know the thrust and nature of the attack of the Bishnupriya, the people of this land called Manipur now earnestly and humbly (one day this humbleness may turn into a gigantic political force with some violence) request the representative government to do some special home works. So far the government is not doing to solve the problem full heartedly uninfluenced by some partisan section of the populace, the people earnestly feel.
As the problem is a very sticky one having its deep roots in the history of this land, as a failure of this generation may have far reaching identity crisis in the future of this ancient race called the Meetei, it is very desirable that the matter be dealt by a cabinet sub-committee formed specially for this. In Democracy the representative government is so important and powerful that it can solve the problem within hours.
CHAPTER - VIII A
From the experience of the writer as member of
THE COMMITTEE AGAINST THE CLAIMS OF
THE BISHNUPRIYAS (CONSPIRACY angle detected)
The writer Wangkhemcha Chingtamlen of the book, From the pages of history : THE MEETEI AND THE BISHNUPRIYA published in 1999 A.D. now producing IInd edition of the book, was selected as a member of THE COMMITTEE AGAINST THE CLAIMS OF THE BISHNUPRIYAS by the Government of Manipur. The following Xerox of the order may please be seen :
Xerox - 6
The writer was selected along with important persons from Manipur, Tripura and Assam. Among the members of the Committee in number and importance, the Manipuri Sahitya Parishad dominate the Committee. The name of the writer is seen at Sl. No. 4 of the non-official members from Manipur in the above Xerox.
The terms of reference of the Committee are seen at Sl. No. 2 of the order below the non- official members from Assam.
One expert Committee meeting was held on 27-5-2003. The agenda of the meeting was the following
1. To discuss the judgment of the Honorable Gauhati High Court under Civil Rule Nos. 1439/96, 4499/96 & 3146/96.
2. To discuss the matters pertaining to the following :
(a) SLP(C) No. 8864 of 1999
(b) SLP(C) No. 9280 of 1999
(c) SLP(C) No. 9282 of 1999
(d) SLP(C) No. 8862 of 1999
(e) SLP(C) No. 9046 of 1999
The writer as member of the Expert Committee received the following documents amongst the records mentioned in the agenda: :
(1) Civil Rule No. 1439/96 (two copies of judgment and order)
(2) Civil Rule No. 3146/96 (two copies of judgment and order)
These are High Court Cases.
(1) SLP(C) No. 8862 of 1999 (paper book)
(2) SLP(C) No. 9046 of 1999 (paper book)
(3) SLP(C) No. 9046-47 of 1999 (Rejoinder Affidavit on behalf of the Petitioner State of Manipur)
These are Supreme Court Cases.
The writer here will draw attention to the esteem readers only to SLP(C) No. 9046-47 of 1999(Rejoinder Affidavit on behalf of the Petitioner State of Manipur).
The writer of this book, under Chapter V: The claims of the Bishnupriya, from page 29 of this book has printed a memorandum of the Bishnupriya in toto to page 35 of this book. The memorandum is of 1992.
On page 4 of the memorandum and on page 32 of this book the following is written: ‘No.-2. The Parishad made available extracts from Linguistic Survey of India Vol. III Part III page 20 as "There is also a degraded class called Kalachaya or Bishnupriya which consists of doms or other Bengalis of low caste. They speak a language which is different from the true Manipuries". This is a complete twisted and distorted version of page 20, Vo. III Part III of the Linguistic Survey of India by G.A. Grierson. The writer has commented on page 37 of this book for your knowledge and the writer will further give you the Xerox of the page 20, Vol III Part III of the Linguistic Survey of India by G.A. Grierson a bit latter in this chapter.
Further you may note ‘No-2. The Parishad made available extracts from the Linguistic Survey of India Vol III Part III page 20 as' in the memorandum of the Bishnupriya of 1992. The ‘Parishad' here meant Manipuri Sahitya Parishad. The underlying meaning of this sentence in memorandum of the Bishnupriya of 1992 ‘No.2. The Parishad ----- page 20 as' is that the Manipuri Sahitya Parishad is involved in the twisting and distorting the Fact/Version of G.A. Grierson in the Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. III Part III page 20 by implication.
The rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the petitioner State of Manipur in the Supreme Court Case No. SLP(C) No. 9046-47 of 1999 was signed and verified by A. Sukumar Singh, Joint Secretary, Department of Law, Govt. of Manipur on 10th August, 2000 at New Delhi. This is on record. At Sl. No. 13 of the Rejoinder Affidavit signed by A Sukumar on behalf of the Govt. of Manipur says "13. That the contents of Para 13 of the counter are wrong and denied. It is denied that the ‘Bishnupriya' community have their origin from Manipur. The Linguistic Survey of India Vol. III Part III page 20 have reported that ‘There is also a degraded class called Kalicha or Bishnupriya which consists of descendants of dooms and other Bengali low caste ........... they speak a language which is different from that of the true Manipuri and is in fact closely allied to Vulgar Bengali.' This statement itself indicates that the origin of their language and place."
This statement of the Rejoinder Affidavit of the Govt. of Manipur in the Supreme Court Case in Sl. No. 13 of the Affidavit is almost the same thing as the Memorandum of the Bishnupriya gave at page 4 of the Memorandum at Sl. No. 2 in 1992 alleging that made available by the Manipuri Sahitya Parisad. This statement of the Rejoinder Affidavit of the Govt. of Manipur also is a twisted and distorted fact /version of the page 20, Vol. III Part III of the Linguistic Survey of India by G.A. Grierson published in 1904. The Rejoinder Affidavit was given by the Govt. of Manipur after 8 years of the Memorandum of the Bishnupriya with dance in the tune of the Bishnupriya. The last sentence of the Sl. No. 13 of the Rejoinder is also of Dubious Nature. It does not directly challenges the origin of the Bishnupriyas. It challenge only their language.
Now you please see the Xerox of the page 20, Vol. III part III of the Linguistic Survey of India by G.A. Grierson with your own eyes to see how it is twisted and distorted :
The above is the Xerox copy of the page 20 of the Linguistic Survey of India by G.A. Grierson (1904) mentioned in both the Memorandum of the Bishnupriya of 1992 and the Rejoinder of the State of Manipur in the Supreme Court Case SLP (C) No. 9046-47 of 1999. In the memorandum of the Bishnupriya of 1992, the words "Kalachaya or Bishnupriya" are found alleged to be extracted from page 20, Vol. III Part III of Linguistic Survey of India, at the same time in the Rejoinder of the State of Manipur the words "Kalicha or Bishnupriya" are found in the alleged to be quotation from the same page 20, Vol-III Part III of the Linguistic Survey of India. In both the memorandum and Rejoinder the word ‘Bishnupriya' in the same spelling as used by the Bishnupriya Community is used found. Though the other word used in the memorandum conmitantly with Bishnupriya is "Kalachaya" whereas in the Rejoinder the word used commitantly with Bishnupriya is ‘Kalicha'
But in the page 20, Vol. III Part III of the Linguistic Survey of India, of which both the memorandum and Rejoinder alleged to be quoted, as you find in the above Xerox are the words ‘Kaleichaya or Bishnupuri'. In both the memorandum and Rejoinder both those words ‘Kalacheiya or Bishnupuri' are twisted and distorted in the memorandum as ‘Kalachaya or Bishnupriya' and in the Rejoinder as ‘Kalicha or Bishnupriya'. But in both the memorandum and the Rejoinder one common venture of both is to implant ‘Bishnupriya' in history or historical records twisting and distorting the actual historical records in the Vol III Part III of the Linguistic Survey of India.
The writer gives the esteemed readers another Xerox from the pages of the Linguistic Survey of India by G.A. Grierson. The following is the Xerox of page 419 ‘SUPLEMENT Mayang' of Vol. V Part I (1904).
Xerox - 8
The above is the xerox copy of page 419 of the ‘Supplement, Mayang' Vol. V Part I of the Linguistic Survey of India by G. A. Grierson published in 1904. In the Xerox of the supplement, the first four words of the 7th line in the first para are ‘Bishunpuriya Manipuris' and ‘Kalisa Manipuris'. In the supplement the last three lines in the para last but two paras are ‘In the Manipur state, the headquarters of Mayang are two or three plain villages near Bishnupur (locally known as Lamangdong), 18 miles to the south-west of Imphal'. From these findings of historical records, the Linguistic Survey of India and other relevant records, it is firmly established that the word and concept ‘Bishnupriya' was not in any historical record or written record in relation to Kangleipak, Manipur since 18th century A.D. On the other hand, it is firmly believed that the word and concept ‘Bishnupriya is a product of CONSPIRACY of the Mayangs who were called ‘BISHNUPURI' or ‘BISHUNPURI' or in other terms ‘Kalacheiya' or Kalisa' by the local indigenous people, from the word Bishnupuri, with the great CONTRIBUTION from present Manipur in the 2nd half of 20th century A.D.
There is another very great Fall-out. Shri Ch. Manihar Singh in his book, A CLARIFICATION ON THE BISHNUPRIYAS IN RELATION TO THE MANIPURIS, writes, at page 9 of the book, as under :
"Praying to Godess Kalimai of the family of Pukhrambam Kala Raja Aribam (the elder one), an account of the origin of this family hailing from the west is given here ---- During the reign of Gambhir Singh, the Meitei king in Saka 1749 the Mayang Kalishas are Christened as ‘Bishnupriya' and invested with the sacred thread" giving reference to Kalisharon of the Sanggai Phammang.
At page 16 of the book, Shri Manihar Singh gives the following: "It is, therefore, indisputably clear that the Mayang Kalisha were formerly worshippers of Goddess Kali and not Vishnu. They got the name ‘Bishnupriya' only after Maharaja Gambhir Singh conferred it on them along with their admission to the Manipuri vaishnav society in saka 1749 i.e. 1827 A.D."
The saka 1749 is in Christian Era 1827 A.D. (1749 + 78). This is the 3rd year of kingship of king Gambhir Singh. It was 77 years before the publication of the Linguistic Survey of India by G.A. Grieson who published in 1904 A.D. If the Bishnupuri or Bishunpuris or Kalisha or Kalacheiya or Kalachaya, whatever be the name of these war captives, lived in Manipur as ‘BISHNUPRIYA' more than 75 years, a very long one generation years, there is no reason why the word or concept ‘BISHNUPRIYA' should not be reflected in the Linguistic Survey of India by G.A. Grierson in 1904 A.D. This is a logic or this is a conscience of human kind. No body should dare to challenge!
It is very strongly believed that the word or concept of ‘BISHNUPRIYA' is a product of conspiracy in the 2nd half of 20th century A.D. to STEAL THE GENIUS OF KANGLEIPAK by these war captives.
CHAPTER -IX
The conclusion: Return to the original name- Kangleipak
Culture and civilisation are so intermixed together that one cannot be separated from the other completely. But culture is the more important part of the two: Culture is not so much of the physical things that separate one race from the other. Christianity binds together so many men, so many social groups on earth that they sing together, they feel together in unity in many social problems, social events. Why this is so? This is because of culture. There are so many human divisions on earth, one distinct from the other. Even in the same racial group, distinct human sub-group is formed. .For example, the people of West Bengal and the people of Bangladesh (once East Bengal). The people of West Bengal and the people of Bangladesh are of the same racial origin, they speak the same language. Why are they two distinct groups (sub-groups?)? Clearly because of culture.
The identity of a race has the significance of a race or a social group, but not without the import of culture, a distinct culture in the identity. A race or a racial group of people without a strong culture and a cultural background is swayed by any social and cultural event. Because, the group's social Psyche is very weak because of their weak culture or lack of culture. To keep the racial identity (with cultural identity), it requires to defend it from the onslaught to the culture, to ward off the subtle invasion to language, literature and culture. In order to keep the identity clear, the race or the group of people in the race must have subtle mind to detect such invasions and must-have guts to defend it from such invasions.
The Meetie had a very strong culture in the past. Because of the Meetie's extra-ordinary cultural strength the on slaught of Hinduism to the Meetie's Culture with wholesale banishment, execution etc. in the beginning of the 18th Century was not successful, we know to day. In the surrounding hills, the onslanght of Christianity without even a stick was so successful, we know this also to day. The Meetie has an ancient and unique culture to be proud of. Seeing this admirable strength of the Meetie culture, Dr. Grierson says "Although they have become thoroughly subjected to Hinduism, they have not adopted any Aryan tongue, Meithei is the official language of the state ......."(L.S.I. Vol III Pt. III Page 8 ). In the north east India, many races lost their original tongue because of their unability to defend themselves. The Meetei is not such race. Meetei became written language since BC. The ancestors of the Meetei developed 18 alphabets with a science to adopt any language without changing the number of alphabets. As the alphabets are few, it is easier to learn, it is easier to make alphabets for printing and typing. The Meetei script has many advantages over other numerous scripts of other people.
Some people whom I meet desire to say that the Meetei cannot count more than 7 and after that they say many many. .If we judge by the standard of the language, literature and culture projected by those people who say "Manipur had developed into a stronghold of Aryan Culture even before the establishment of Gupta supremacy in India.......", "Manipuri literature like the literatures in other modem Indian languages, both Aryan and Dravidian, accepted Sanskrit literature, as its model and inspiration" etc. we are children just learning to speak and to walk. But this is not the Meetei, not the ancient Meetei specially. The people are "Meitei Manipuri", "Manipuri of Mahabharata" etc.
Some facts, which ‘Present social leadership' wants to seal and general people do not know, about the ancient Meetei are the following:
(1) The Meetei developed its own Era called Maliyapham Palcha Kum (Now we use only as Maliyakum) between 1390 -1400 BC. At 2000 A.D. Mallyakum (The Meetel Era) is 3395+- 5 Maliyakum. There is historical evidence.
(2) The Meetei knew an astromomical number one with thirteen zeros (1 with 0000000000000). The Meetei called this number as ‘one pu'. The Meetei called a zero ‘0' as "Phun". Probably because of this high astronomical knowledge, the Meetei could say "On the end of the month Thursday the Pandits of Nabadwip forecast solar eclipse and the Manipur Pandits said there would be no solar eclipse on the day. There was not50 "On the full moon day Tuesday the foreign Pandits forecast and sent information that Lunar Eclipse would be there. The Manipur Pandits said there would be no lunar eclipse on the day. There was not" 51.
(3) The Meetei knew that there are Seven primary colours in deep B.C.
(4) 18 Meetei alphabets can write any language on earth. This system of writing and development of scripts are some of the most scientific developments on earth. This was in deep B.C.
(5) The wakoklon Hilen Thilel Salai Amailon Pukok says "Leilon Nonglon Talamali" that means 7 layers of earth and 7 layers of the atmosphere. The seven layers of the sky (atmosphere) may be the seven colours already we know, seven layers of the earth is not kown to us upto this day.
The world fame polo was invented by the Meetei in deep B.C. When the past ancestors of the Meetei had such bright and unique past, when our ancestors left us such a treasure house that the world would admire, why we should hanker after something which is not supposed to be better than ours? Turn to your past, turn to your ancestors who knew the universe not less than the others did; turn to your forefathers who were not less than the bravest people of the world, you will have more 5th National Games, 1999. Turn to your forefathers, who invented polo, you will win many things that you did not expect.
Coming to the Bishnupriya problem facing us to day, only turning to our untainted past history will solve the problem for all times to come. The hill and the plain are only two sides of a thing having the same heart and soul. The hill and plain people are of the same ancestors, only 300 years separates them and misguided them. Only our past history will bring us unity and prosperity on this land.
"Konchin Tukthapa lputhou Pakhangpana Salailup Sakhaiki Matung-inna Kanglei Talet Mata Mapali Taletpu Palhankhale II Mapalisingki Chata Noutana Pakna Sanna Yamthokkhipana Loipi Chingchao Kakhale II (Hou Hou) Khongthok lwai lninka Iloinakhale II "52
The free English translation is this: "Konchin Tukthapa Iputhou Pakhangpa, in pursuance to Salai group branches (rules), made his seven sons reign at seven Kangleis. As the descendents of the sons increased in number by leaps and bounds, some of them had gone to the high hills. Hou Hou sound became associated with them".
This Puya Wakoklon Hilel Thilel Salai Amailon Pukok is one of the most authentic source of informations of the past Meeteis in their language, literature, culture and origin of the race called the Meetei. In terms of the excerpt from the Puya, it is clearly stated that the common grandfather Iputhou Pakhangba divided Kangleipak into seven divisions, one for each of his seven sons. Each division was a called a kanglei. He made his seven sons to reign at the seven Kangleis. The Salailup Sakhai or the Salai group people of the sons became so numerous that some of the men and women from the Salai group branches went to the hills for habitation. It is agreed by all that the present word ‘Hao' is a derivative of the word ‘Hou' in the Puya. So, the Meetei now begins to claim the present hill people are their brothers and sisters because of this Puya. The hill people are the Meeteis of the past and the present Meeteis are the Manipuris in their cover.
In order to solve the problem of the Bishnupriya which demands so much energy and money on the Meetei people in Manipur and elsewhere, first we have to think in terms of our past and our past history and culture. We have the name of the land Kangleipak which is cultural, historical and political in nature. This Kangleipak was a name of the undivided people when there was no difference between the hill people and the plain people. In naming the name of the land Kangleipak, the forefathers of the present hill people were also party in the process. The present name Manipur is a name of the land manipulated by few descendants of Aryan origin. Manipur and Manipuri do not cover the original hill and plain people frankly to say. In the radio "Reading news in Manipuri" does not cover the Tangkhul, the Kabui, the Anal, the Kuki the Hmar, the Lusai, the Vaiphei etc. The words'Manipur' ‘Manipuri' are dividing words and concepts between the hill and plain people. Unless the hill and the plain people go to their past, the hill and plain will suffer. In the new millennium we should not allow to be ruled by divide and rule policy.
Secondly, we have to think in terms of the present Indian and world scenario. Burma becomes Myanmar, former northern Rhodesia and southern Rhodesia became Zambia and Zimbabwe. They did all these to do away with the colonial stigma. Madras becomes Tamil Nadu and capital city Madras becomes Chennai, Bombay becomes Maharastra, Bombay city becomes Mumbai Mysore becomes Karnataka etc. They did all these to do away with colonial stigma as well as to boost their culture. Recently the west Bengal Assembly unanimously passed a resolution to rename west Bengal State as BangIa and city Calcutta as Kolkata and the Assembly resolution had been approved by the State Cabinet also to boost Bengali language and culture. But in our case, the name Manipur comes into existence by deceit. All the people including Hindustani People know this. So, changing this name to a name acceptable to all concerned people will clear the identity crisis we are facing to day and the changing will free us from deceit played upon us and free us completely from cultural colonial stigma.
I have said hereinbefore how the name of the land Kangleipak came into existence. I have written hereinbefore how the hill and the plain people were related in terms of our past, past history; now my humble and earnest appeal to the hill and plain people is to rename the land as Kangleipak which is historically and culturally rooted deep in the hearts of the people of the land. After the name of the land becomes Kangleipak every component race of the people of the land will be called Kangleicha. The Vaiphei Kangleicha, the Paite Kangleicha, the Maring Kangleicha, the Anal Kangleicha, the Tangkhul Kangleicha, the Meetei Kangleicha etc. will be our racial names until we come to a common name which was displaced by the tide of time. This will solve the problem of the Bishnupriya for all times to come. In that case, the Bishnupriya will have no cause to claim in history as the original people of the land. Let the name of the land be Kangleipak. Let the Kangleichas be blessed by God and play greater and more responsible roles in the comity of races in the history to come. uu YAIFARE
Bibliography
1. Puya - Wakoklon Hilel Thilel Salai Amailon Pukok2. Dr. G.A. Grierson - Lenguistic Survey of India (Vol. III & V)3. Ch. Manihar Singh - A Clarification on the Bishnupriya in relation to the Manipuris.4. L. Ibungohal etc. - Cheitharol Kumbaba5. S. Bormani Singh - Meitei Ningthourol6. J.Roy - History of Manipur7. Takhellambam Bokul - Manipuri Muslim8. T.C. Hodson - The Meitheis9. O. Bhogenswar - Sanamahi Laikan10. O. Bhogeswar - Ningthourol Lambuba11. Angom Chaopa - Sembi Mukaklei12. R. Brown - Statistical Account of Manipur13. Puya - Kham- oi Yang-oi Sekning14. Wangkhemcha Chingtamlen - Meeteigi Nongkalon15. Manipuri Sahitya Parishad - Glimpses of Manipuri Language, literature and culture.16. R.C. Majumdar etc. - An advanced history of India.17. R.K. Jhaljit - A short history of Manipur18. Govt. publication - Archaeplogy of Manipur State Archaeology : Art and Culture Department.19. Nikhil Bishnupriya Manipuri Mahasabha- A memorandum date 16.6.92.20. An article from the North East Age dt. 23.9.97.21. R.B. Pemberton - The Eastern Frontier of India.22. Paramesh Chowdhury - The Aryan Hoax.23. A Tomba Meetei - Meetei Yek Salai Asuppa.24. Amar Chitra Katha journal, 1986.25. CM's D.O. letter dt. 28th April, 1999.26. Bamon Khunthoklon27. Ikal-Imphalna konnung oiba houjikki Manipur ase Mahabharatki Manipur natte.28. Manorama year Book, 1998.29. Dr. Rama Chakravartti - People of Manipur(Anthropogenetic study of fourManipur population groups)
In this book :
"The Puya says the original Meeteis were created by God in the likeness of Him. The Meeteis were created looking at the image of God, as a model of God's shape and likeness."
"The Country where Laipham exists has been called Kangleipak."
"Whether the Bishnupriyas are the ‘Mayangs' or ‘Kalishas' or any other race related with the Indo-Aryan race group ..... their association with the history of Kangleipak (Manipur) was only since 14th Century A.D."
"The present literature as we see today is a Semi Bishnupriya Literature."
"..................... The Bishnupuri concocted the word ‘Bishnupriya' in place of ‘Bishnupuri' to seal their historical connection with Bishnupur (Lamangtong) and their slavery status as war captives."
"Meitei migrants who invaded the valley in the 18th Century."
"The Bishnupriya throws garbages to our sacred land and heaped upon the Meeteis" the ‘Jealousy' ‘Rediculous and Baseless' ‘Childish and fruitless' and ‘Jealousy, hateful meanness' charges. Whose fault ? For what the Meetei did?"
"When the people of this land assert their history, their true origin, their true Pre-Pamheiba culture and religion, the Bishnupriya will be nowhere ............"
"The Land called Manipur where no Manipuri exists. The ‘Bishnupriya' is not a Historical Entity."
"From the experience of the writer as a member of THE COMMITTEE AGAINST THE CLAIMS OF THE BISHNUPRIYAS (CONSPIRACY angle detected)."
[1] Wakoklon Hilel Thilel Salai Amailon Pukok Puya -Page 9[2] Linguistic Survey of India by G.A. Grierson, page 24 (Vol. III part III)[3] A clarification on the Bishnupriyas in relation to the Manipuris by Ch. Manihar, page 2[4] Cheitharol Kumbaba by L. Ibungohal Singil and N. Khelchandra Singh. page 8[5] Meitei Ningthourol by S. Bormani Singh, page 30.[6] . Cheitharo\ Kumbaba by L. Ibungohal and N. Khelchandra, page 21,22[7] History of Manipur by J. Roy page 28[8] Manipuri Muslim by T. Bokul, page 12.[9] Manlpun MuslIm by T. Bokul , page 12.[10] Cheitharol Kumbaba by L. lbungohal and N. Khelchandra,page 21 /22,The Meitheis by T.C. Hodson page 4.[11] Cheitharol Kumbaba by L. Ibungohal and N. Khelchandra, page 28[12] Cheitharol Kumbaba by L. Ibungohal and N. Khelchandra, page 398[13] Wakoklon Hilel Thilel Salai Amailon Pukok page 48/49.[14] Ch. Manihar Singh in his clarification on the Bishnupriyas in relation tothe Manipuris page 35, O. Bhogeswar Singh in Sanamahi Laikan page 49,[15]Cheitharol Kumbaba by L.lbungohal and N. Khelchandra, page 110[16] A clarification on the Bishnupriyas in relation to the Manipuris page38.[17] Cheitharol Kumbaba by L. Ibungohal and N. Khelchandra page 72 etc.[18] The Meitheis by T.C. Hodson Page 95[19] Cheitharol Kumbaba by L. Ibungohal and N. Khelchandra page 199[20] ibid, page 289[21] Cheitharol Kumbaba by L. Ibungohal and N. Khelchandra page 393[22] Sembi Mukaklei page 12.[23] ibid, page 66 etc.[24] A clarification on the Bishnupriyas in relation to the Manipuris page 16.[25] Linguistic Survey of India by G.A. Grierson page 20.[26] The Statistical Account of Manipur by R. Brown Page 2.[27] Kham-oi Yang-oi Sekning Puya -First sentence of the Puya.[28] Wakoklon Hilel Thilel Salai Amailon Pukok Puya - opposite to page 1.[29] Ibid page 12.[30]Meeteigi Nongkalon by Wangkhemcha Chingtamlen page 14.[31] The linguistic survey of India by Grierson Page 1 (vol. III Pt. III)[32] ibid, Page 8 (vol. III Pt. III)[33] The linguistic survey of India by Grierson Page I (vol. III Pt. III)[34] Linguistic survey of India by Greirsen vol. III Pt. III page 21.[35] Glimpses ofManipuri Language, literature and culture by Manipuri Sahitya Parish ad Page I.[36]An advanced History of India by R.C. Majumdar etc. page 145[37] Glimpses of Manipuri Language, literature and culture by Manipuri Sahitya Parishad Page 13.[38] Linguistic survey of India by Grierson vol. III Pt. III page 20.[39] Linguistic survey of India by Grierson vol. V Pt. I page 419. (Mayang supplement)[40] Ibid, page 419.[41] Ibid, page 421.[42] The Meitheis by T.C. Hodson page 80,[43] A short history of Manipur by RK. Jhaljit Singh page 141.[44] History of Manipur by J. Roy page 28[45] Archaeology of Manipur, State Archaeology: Art and Culture Deptt., Govt. of Manipur page 11[46] Cheitharol Kumbaba by L. Ibungohal etc. page 3, Meitei Ningthourol by S. Bormani page 14. The Eastern Frontier of India by R.B. Pemberton page 114.[47] Cheitharol Kumbaba by L. Ibungohal etc. page 19.[48] Wakoklon Hilen Thilen Salai Amailen Pukok Puya Page 58
Reviews:
The Meetei and the Bishnupriya
| A book discussing the origin of the Manipuris and the Bishnupriyas written by Wangkhemcha Chingtamlen, Published by the Wangkhem family in 1999, Price Rs 65/, (in special cover), Page 70. Reviewed by: Konsam Kulladhwaja |
While the Manipuris, especially the Manipuris outside Manipur are still facing the Bishnupriya problem it would be worthwhile to bring out such books that shows a clarification on the Bishnupriya. Besides Ch Manihar's book 'A clarification on the Bishnupriya in relation to the Manipuris' which is commendable, this book is also worthy to be mentioned. The Bishnupriyas have always been pressurizing the Government of Assam that their language should be included in the 8th Schedule of the Indian Constitution claiming they were the first inhabitants of Manipur. What an awful claim is this? Here in this book the author at the very outset tells about the Meitei, the original people of Kangleipak (Manipur). The unalloyed Meeteis are the original people of this land. The Meetei upto this day think themselves to be the descendants of Gods because of the background of the Puya. The Puya says the original Meeteis were created by God in the likeness of Him. The Meeteis were created looking at the image of God, as a model of God's shape and likeness. These people called Meeties are living this in land now called Manipur today. Whether the Bishnupriyas are the Mayangs or Kalishas or any other race related with the Indo-Aryan race group or any other group whose racial name Bishnupriya was derived from Bishnu worshipping or from any other reason, their association with the history of Manipur was only since 14th century AD. Before this period, they were non-existent in this land, clarifies the book. |
Courtesy: The Sangai Express(http://www.e-pao.net/epSubPageExtractor.asp?src=reviews.books.the_meetei_and_the_bishnupriya)