NOWADAYS in every corner, we have been discussing being tribal and indigenous in a confusing manner. In short, indigenous refers to being a native or the original inhabitant of a particular place whereas tribal refers to being a tribe possessing certain characteristics and qualities of basic social organization and value system. No doubt, many people use contextually these two terms i.e. tribe and indigenous synonymously. In case of addressing their grievances and rights, these peoples may be taken up at the same level as people depending on the circumstances. Whereas the identities of these two peoples are concerned, they are people of different socio-politico-historical positions. As per ILO Convention No. 169, the description of “indigenous people” contains several elements which are not found in its description of “tribal people” for instance i) Historical continuity; ii) Territorial connection; and iii) Distinct social, economic, cultural and political institutions. In some cases, a group not only possesses tribal status but indigenous features also. On the other hand, one’s indigeneity is permanent and cannot be erased but the status of being a tribe will, in the course of time, vanish through a journey of gradual refinement- the so-called detribalization process. But, the status of their indigeneity will remain. It should be very clear that all tribal people are not indigenous and all indigenous are not tribal.
Also Read | Meiteis’ exclusion from the ST list is by their own choice; Kalelkar Commission Report of 1956
Here, it may be mentioned that the question of indigenous people is very contextual and controversial everywhere. In the context of India, the honourable supreme court judgment “Kailas & Others Vs State of Maharashtra” dated 5th Jan 2011 has not mentioned even a single North East mongoloid people as original inhabitants of India in any area of the verdict particularly in the judgment point No. 26 also. And in point No. 20 also, it has been mentioned that the North East mongoloid people are likely to be immigrants. India cunningly accepts the term indigenous people on the ground that all those who have already settled before independence are indigenous people of India. So, Original Inhabitants of India and Indigenous People of India become two different terminologies. Whatever the case, Meitei are claiming indigenous status as per ILO convention and no one dares to reject it. Because of this, the Indian government allows to implement the Inner Line Permit System in Manipur, which is not permitted in any non-indigenous state.
In the context of Meitei, not only British scholars, but all the historians including Manipuri scholars agree that Meitei began their early life in the hills. The coming down from the hills and settling at foothills to plain valley area are events of the prehistoric period. The ancestors of present day Meitei clans such as Mangang, Luwang, Khuman, Angom, Chenglei, Ningthouja, Moirang were settled in different parts of valley area as independent principalities. They had their own chiefs with different identities, dress codes, dialects, territories, spiritual beliefs and traditions etc. Even though the then society of those principalities was obviously characterized by a tribal way of life it is wrong to claim the much evolved Meitei of present to be a tribe on the basis of social characteristics of their ancient early settlement. The evolution of Meitei civilization as a historical process, which had been taking place since Nongda Lairen Pakhangba (33AD) till the formation of Nation State around eleventh century is inseparable from the emergence of the composite Meitei identity from the amalgamation of the earlier seven clans. No one can deny that Meitei had a civilization and its continuation till date. We should not confuse the distinction between a tribal society and a civilization. Even, the then people of Indus Valley Civilization are not considered tribal by any historian because of their civilizational status. For advancing towards a civilization, a hard struggle for establishing a political authority which leads to a specific set of ideas, having more intricate cultures, including literature, professional art, architecture, philosophical religion, and complex customs associated with the elite was an obligation and natural rather than just desirable. Fights between principalities had been occurring for many years to subjugate each other. Lastly, the Ningthouja dynasty subdued all other groups and everything associated with all salais or clans such as myths, spiritual beliefs, dialects and social value systems was assimilated or absorbed into the composite Meitei ethnicity and identity. Since then, the consolidation and refinement of Meitei identity has come into existence. More and above, the absorption of Nongpok haram (Easterner) and Nongchup haram (Westerner) into Meitei civilization was taking place. On the other hand, the state formation process including the hill regions, was also going on contemporaneously. The above changes in the Meitei society show that the Meitei society was not a society under a mere chief. The unique beauty of our Meitei rulers was the liberal mindset of governing which empowered all chieftains of hills and valleys with a cooperative federal structure to some extent. Formation of the Meitei Nation is like the English Nation that was created in the early medieval period about 800 CE by the unification of various small Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of England because of frequent invasions by the Vikings from Denmark. Before the arrival of Christianity, they believed in paganism, an animistic belief system.
Also Read | Ngaranmi Shimray’s reasons for exclusion of Meitei in the ST list are misleading and incorrect
As a result of this complex unification, the key components of a civilization such as more refined culture, common Meitei language known as Meiteilon – a fusion of many dialects that were spoken by the various salais or clans, administrative and cultural institutions, professional specialization, urban settlement, commoners, slaves, trade & market system and defined territory had come up. In the same manner, the British anthropologist and Asstt. Political Agent of Manipur TC Hudson mentioned very clearly in his book – “The Meitheis” that “The successive waves of foreign invasion, Shan, Burmese, English, Hindu, have each left permanent marks on the civilization of the people so that they have passed finally away from the stage of relatively primitive culture into one of comparative civilization but their ultimate homogeneity with Naga and Kukis of the hills is undoubted, and in my opinion needs no further instance.” In fact, hill peoples had ensconced themselves in the highland regions but Meitei in the plain had incorporated many different communities in the Meitei society and polity that the identity of the Meitei as ethnos had incorporated mainland Indian Brahmins, Bengalis, Assamese, as well as Chins merged in the social composition of the Meitei community. That means Meitei as historically understood is obviously a racially mixed identity forged through complex challenges of history and substantially advanced to produce a state and civilization unique to their soil. In many ways, without considering this journey of Meitei detribalization process from prehistoric experiences to their transformation into Nation State, the claiming of being tribal status for the purpose of scheduled tribe status clearly smacks of intellectual and academic dishonesty. Even, as we see the differences between western and oriental civilizations with reference to modernization, technology, culture, economy and so on, some degree of comparative backwardness, mainly economic, cannot be a rational reason for Meiteis to be downgraded to tribal status.
Also Read | Abhinay Lakshman’s observation on the ST status of Meiteis are misleading and incorrect
Colonial census report, indeed mentioned Meitei as a Hindu tribe in the census report of 1931 and this has become the basis for claiming ST status by some sections of Meitei society. However, the entry does reflect their biases or conflicts between census field officers and census decision making authorities. The vivid example of this issue is that appendix page No. 220 under sub heading (2) Backward Tribe, Census of India 1931 volume III, Assam Part I – report by CS Mullan, MA, ICS mentions:- “the question of the Manipuris of Sylhet and Cachar requires special mention. These people are descendants of persons who originally emigrated from Manipur State and settled in those districts. They form an entirely separate community – a kind of Manipuri oasis in the plains and as the census officer, Silchar, has reported – they have their own society independent of general Hindu society. They call themselves Kshatriya by caste but have no intermarriage or dining with Hindus of any class. They are, however, making rapid strides towards progress and education.”
Mr. Gimson ICS (Former Deputy Commissioner, Cachar) who knows the Manipuris well has written as follows:-
“I doubt whether the Manipuris of Cachar ought to be classed as ‘backward’. They are intelligent and are taken to education and they are free from most of the habits (i.e. overindulgence in opium and liquor) which tend to perpetuate the backwardness of other backward classes.
The Manipuris of Cachar and Sylhet are really a people apart – they are foreigners who have settled in a strange land and have kept very much to themselves, preserving their own culture and their own language. Another peculiar fact about these Manipuris is that although the majority are devout Hindus, there are also many Muslims among them.
They must, in my opinion, be considered rather as a community requiring special treatment than as a backward race.”
Also Read | Demographic Imbalance, Conflict and its Impact
From the above opinions of census field officers, there is a distinct disagreement on whether the Meitei are to be enlisted as a backward tribe. The colonial mindset of census decision making authorities exposed their negligence and lack of research into Meitei civilization.
It is not surprising to find that, after independence, in the census 1951, Meitei were delisted from the tribal category after scrutinizing the irregularities or misconceptions done during the colonization period. This write-up is just a brief ethnography. Even this sketchy write-up clearly shows that the Meitei have long outgrown their tribal social evolutionary stage long ago. Dragging back the Meitei who developed and attained a civilization as well as a ‘Nation State’ centuries ago, to a tribal status is just like turning the clock back, distorting history and disrespectful of the pride of a people who have their own script, language in the eight schedule of the constitution and have a dance form, which is one of India’s few classical dances.
Also Read | Manipur Hills and Valley: Ages of living together separately
Dr. Arambam Birajit can be reached at abirajit@rediffmail.com.
About The Author
