History of Manipur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kingdom of Manipur
Part of History of Manipur
Kings of Manipur
Loiyumba 1074-1112
Senbi Kiyamba 1467-1508
Koirengba 1508-1512
Khagemba 1597-1652
Pitambar Charairongba 1697–1709
Pamheiba 1720–1751
Gaurisiam 1752–1754
Chitsai 1754–1756
Ching-Thang Khomba 1769–1798
Rohinchandra 1798–1801
Maduchandra Singh 1801–1806
Chourjit Singh 1806–1812
Marjit Singh 1812–1819
Gambhir Singh 1825–1834
Raja Nara Singh 1844–1850
Debindro Singh 1850–1850
Chandrakirti Singh 1850–1886
Surachandra Singh 1886–1890
Kulachandra Singh 1890–1891
Churachandra Singh 1891–1941
Bodhchandra Singh 1941–1949
Manipur monarchy data
  • v
  • t

The history of Manipur (Kangleipak in ancient times)[1][2] is reflected by archaeological research, mythology and written history.

Manipur became a princely state under British rule in 1891, the last of the independent states to be incorporated into British India. During the Second World War, Manipur was the scene of battles between Japanese and Allied forces. After the war, Maharaja Bodhachandra signed a Treaty of Accession merging the kingdom into India.[3] It was made a union territory in 1956[4] and a full-fledged state in 1972.[5]

Nomenclature[]

During the latter part of its history, Manipur and its people were known by different names to their neighbours. The Shans or called the area Cassay, the Burmese Kathe, and the Assamese Meklee. In the first treaty between the British East India Company and () signed in 1762, the kingdom was recorded as Meckley. Bhagyachandra and his successors issued coins engraved with the title of Manipureshwar, or lord of Manipur and the name Meckley was discarded. Later on, the Sanskritisation work, (1825–34) popularized the legends of the derivation of Manipur's name.[6]

Prehistoric Manipur[]

Archaeological research in Northeast India is severely scarce, mostly limited to surface explorations, and lacking in state-of-the-art methods.[7]

Human settlement[]

Few attempts have been made to establish the earliest human settlement in Northeast India, and it is generally thought to have been uninhabited by archaic humans prior to late Pleistocene due to unfavorable geographical conditions.[8] This is however disputed and Northeast Corridors are proposed by some scholars to have played a defining role in early hominid migrations and peopling of India.[9]

Paleolithic[]

A few paleolithic sites (Khangkhui, Napachik , Machi, Somgu and Singtom) have been located in Manipur.[10] Though, in absence of good chrono-stratigraphic context of the founds and their cohabitation with remains of other ages, accuracy of such identifications remains open to critiques.[11] The existence of Hoabinhian-like complexes remains disputed, as well.[12]

Most scholars don't discuss a paleolithic age in Manipur (and Northeast).[11] Manjil Hazarika, in his 2017 survey of prehistory of Northeast India, rejects that there exist plausible grounds to deny presence of Paleolithic culture.[13]

Neolithic[]

Multiple neolithic sites have been identified in Manipur; they include Nongpok Keithelmanbi, Napachik, Laimenai, Naran Siena, and Phunan.[14] Considered to be part of a larger South East Asian complex, the identifications are primarily accorded on the bases of stone tools and pottery (esp. cord-impressed ware); characteristic cultural identifiers of the Neolithic (agriculture, animal rearing etc.) are yet to be located and their development chronology is subject of active research.[15] Hazarika notes the Neolithic culture in Northeast to have began some four thousand years after that in the Gangetic Plains.[16]

Roger Blench, in agreement with George van Driem's reconstructions of archeo-linguistic history of South East Asia, proposes that Northeast India accommodated a diverse group of foragers since neolithic age, who learned agriculture and animal rearing c. 4000 B.C before migrating eastwards and establishing the Tibeto-Burman (TB) phylum.[17] Meiteilon, lingua-franca of Meiteis belongs to the TB phylum.[18] Hazarika notes the Manipuri sites to have an abundance of three-legged pottery and cord-impressed ware, very similar to the ones found in Southern China and Thailand, and hypothesizes that Manipur might have been the melting pot of Neolithic impulses from adjoining regions.[19]

Chalcolithic and beyond[]

Hazarika notes the broader region to not show evidence of any significant cultural transformation, upon the dawning of Copper Age (and then, Iron Age).[20] The state has an abundance of megaliths of various shapes, serving distinct purposes.[21]

The valley region has been long inhabited by distinct yeks (clans), who probably migrated from Southern China during the late Iron Age, sometime before the Christian era.[22] The hills house tribes, who are probably of autochthonous origins.[22]

History[]

Till fifteenth century[]

Sources[]

There has been a marked absence of historical evidence, governing the span between Iron Age and the first millennium in North East India.[20] Chronicles of other nations impress upon us that trade networks with mainland India and South China were likely operating in Manipur across these spans; pilgrims are reported to have entered India from China via these territories.[23]

Little documentation exists in the form of written records about Manipuri history in these spans (contra mainland India) — the geopolitical history of the region along with the ethno-linguistic background of the inhabitants are largely unknown.[24][25][26] The primary source has always been near-exclusively the Cheitharol Kumbaba (henceforth, Ch.K.) — the court history of the Kings of Manipur — which dates the first king to 33 C.E.[24][27] Ch.K. is however a Meitei chronicle — Meitei was one of the migrant clans, originally named Ningthouja, who (at some unknown point of time) assimilated others into a confederacy, and gained the monarchy — with the early sections being essentially themed on the expansion of Meiteis across Manipur and their exploits.[28][29]

Notwithstanding this inherent bias, the parts till the reign of King Kyampa (1467-1508 CE) were redrafted during the reign of Ching-Thang Khomba because those leaves were "lost" and, in the opinion of Saroj N. Parratt, became "extremely sketchy" and "legendary".[30] The kings are assigned extraordinary spans of length, there is a scarcity of objective information, and there are random gaps in narration.[31][32] Parratt hypothesizes that many of these earlier monarchs were probably borrowed from the cultural pantheon and interspersed with religious myths to fit into their collective memory of intra-clan conquests and legitimize the current rule by Meiteis.[33] Parratt as well as Gangmumei Kamei propose that the initiation date of 33 CE was arrived upon by the scribes via astrological calculations.[34]

Some local authors have used Puyas, archaic Manipuri manuscripts in their reconstruction of Manipuri History. This tendency has been criticized by Parratt and others; none of these texts are yet dated by professional historians or subject to serious textual-critical scrutiny, and hence are not suitable for purposes other than commenting on Meitei traditions.[35][36][a] Scholars have also found Puyas to have been (potentially) forged by Meitei Nationalists in support of their reinvention of history and tradition.[38][39][40]

Summary[]

Pakhangpa, a primordial dragon god in Meitei mythology, is credited in Ch.K. for having established the Meitei rule by subjugating (?) the Poireitons.[41] The first seven kings mentioned over Ch.K. — Pakhangpa, Tompok, Taothingmang, Khui Ningngongpa, Pengsipa, Kaokhongpa & Naokhampa — allegedly ruled till 411 C.E.[42] Barring Pakhangpa and Taothingmang, the chronicle only records the regnal span of each king.[42] Parratt notes that there's not even any evidence of these seven rulers belonging to the same dynasty, and in all probabilities they were reconstructed from oral legends of varying origins.[43] The chronicle itself mentions that nothing much is known about these "divine"-like kings.[43]

Naokhampa was succeeded by Naophangpa, about whom nothing significant is mentioned.[43] He was succeeded by his son Sameirang, who fought a successful battle over Aangom, a fellow clan.[44] The next ruler was Konthoupa and his reign saw some devastating warfare with "Senloi Langmai".[44] After a monarch-less span of five years, Naothingkhong became the next king.[45] During his reign the chieftain of Pong Kingdom is noted to have engaged in an annexation spree before returning back via Manipur.[46]

Khongtekcha was the next king; a successful battle over the Moirang clan is noted, and he ruled for ten years.[47] After a gap of eleven years, the next king was Keirencha, who ruled for fifteen years.[48] He was succeeded by Yarepa, who reigned for twenty two years.[48] Nothing else is noted about these two kings.[48] The next four kings were Aayangpa, Ningthoucheng, Chenglei Yipan Lanthapa and Yirengpa, who ruled for a combined total of 253 years.[49] All of them are noted to have emerged victorious in varied kinds of warfare over fellow clans — Aayangpa subdued the Nongyai Khumans, Ningthoucheng raided Houkei, Lanthapa captured a group of Luwangs, and Yirengpa defeated the Moirangs as well as Khumans.[49]

Loiyumpa was the next king, and Ch.K. records his reign in considerable detail.[50] He is credited with the initiation of the first 'constitution'.[50]

He was succeeded by Loitongpa, who emerged successful in some non-described battles on eastern fronts, probably waged over autochthonous ethnic groups.[51] After a rule of twenty eight years, he was succeeded by Aatom Yoirenpa, who ruled for thirteen years.[52] Yoirenpa was chased out by his brother and had to take refuge with the Khumans.[52] Under Yiwanthapa, who reigned for thirty two years, a successful war was waged on the Khumans and their chief queen was murdered.[52] The next ruler was Thawanthapa.[53] In a thirty six year long rule, he subdued multiple internal and external threats.[53] Whilst allying with the Khumans once, in a raid against the villagers of Hairem, he went on to defeat the Khumans later.[53]

The next king was Chingthang Lanthapa, who defeated the Khumans as well as Kamus, in his eleven year long rule.[54] Thingpai Senhongpa succeeded him; nothing significant is noted except that he ruled for 5 years.[54] Puranthapa, the next king, re-defeated the Khumans at Pairou, consolidated the territories of Koupa Koutai, and conquered the Chakpas.[55] Khumompa became the king in 1263 CE and went on to ally with the Khumans to successfully ward off an invasion by the rulers of Kabaw Valley.[55] A battle over the mountain-folks of Hao was also waged and their king Maimumpa was captured.[55] Moirampa succeeded him, and again defeated the Khumans as well as Moirangs.[56] Other battles against the Kekes and people of Makihao are noted; Korirong was captured.[56]

Thangpi Lanthapa ruled for twenty two years and trounced the Moirangs as well as the Loipi Haos; Tengkongbi and Marem Namngapa were captured.[56] Kongyapa ascended in 1324 went on to succeed him.[57]He was succeeded by Tenheipa, who reigned for twenty years and engaged in a multitude of warfare.[58] Nothing is mentioned about the next ruler Tonapa, except that he reigned for five years.[58] Then, Tapungpa ascended to the throne. His regime saw successful warfare against the Loipi Marems, before he was assassinated by Khamlangpa, the king of Chingsong, after thirty five years of rule.[59] Again, there is a scarcity of information about the next king Lairenpa; he reigned for five years and there were no king for five, after.[60] Punsipa's reign went till 1432, and was witness to numerous clashes including one with Moirangs.[61]

Fifteenth century[]

Ningthoukhompa ruled from 1432 to 1467.[62] He routed out the Moirangs, and repulsed a rebellion by the Tankhnus of the mountains.[62]

Sixteenth century[]

Seventeenth century[]

Eighteenth century[]

Nineteenth century[]

See also[]

Notes[]

  1. ^ Bryce Beemer writes, "Manipur developed a textual tradition on par with that of Upper Burma or Java. The continued existence of clan identities and leadership is one reason for the bewilderingly diverse historical traditions of Manipur. Each clan wrote its own creation myths, religious histories, clan genealogies, and dynastic accounts of noble houses. Although many of these historical texts contradict each other, they represent a rich ore yet to be mined by most Southeast Asianists."[37]

References[]

  1. ^ Press, Imphal Free. "Ancient Name Of Manipur – KanglaOnline". Retrieved 30 November 2020.
  2. ^ "Manipur's titular king tastes 'power', says will be happy if addressed as Maharaja". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 30 November 2020. The Kingdom of Manipur or “Kangleipak Kingdom” was a princely state
  3. ^ "Manipur Merger Agreement, 1949". Satp.org. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
  4. ^ "The Constitution (Amendment)". Indiacode.nic.in. Archived from the original on 1 May 2017. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
  5. ^ [1]
  6. ^ Gangmuei Kabui, History of Manipur, National Publishing House, Delhi, 1991.
  7. ^ Hazarika 2017, p. 2,10,11.
  8. ^ Hazarika 2017, p. 73,74.
  9. ^ Hazarika 2017, p. 74,92.
  10. ^ Hazarika 2017, p. 79,90.
  11. ^ Jump up to: a b Hazarika 2017, p. 75,80.
  12. ^ Hazarika 2017, p. 86.
  13. ^ Hazarika 2017, p. 153.
  14. ^ Hazarika 2017, p. 100,111,112.
  15. ^ Hazarika 2017, p. 95,111,112,141,142,153.
  16. ^ Hazarika 2017, p. 140.
  17. ^ Hazarika 2017, p. 58.
  18. ^ Post 2017, p. 232,233.
  19. ^ Hazarika 2017, p. 112,113,142,143.
  20. ^ Jump up to: a b Hazarika 2017, p. 16.
  21. ^ Hazarika 2017, p. 150,151.
  22. ^ Jump up to: a b Parratt (2005), pp. 1, 3.
  23. ^ Hazarika 2017, p. 69,70.
  24. ^ Jump up to: a b Parratt (2005), pp. 2, 13.
  25. ^ Brandt (2017), pp. 122.
  26. ^ Sebastian (2019), pp. 55.
  27. ^ Sebastian (2019), pp. 45–46.
  28. ^ Parratt (2005), pp. 4.
  29. ^ Sebastian (2019), pp. 57–58.
  30. ^ Parratt (2005), pp. 4, .
  31. ^ Parratt (2005), pp. 4, 13.
  32. ^ Sebastian (2019), pp. 46.
  33. ^ Parratt (2005), pp. 5, 13.
  34. ^ Parratt (2005), pp. 6.
  35. ^ Parratt (2005), pp. 10, 11.
  36. ^ Sebastian (2019), pp. 52–53.
  37. ^ Beemer 2013, pp. 266.
  38. ^ Parratt (2005), pp. 11, 17.
  39. ^ Brandt (2005), pp. 128.
  40. ^ Naorem (2015), pp. 219.
  41. ^ Parratt 2005, pp. 24–25.
  42. ^ Jump up to: a b Parratt 2005, pp. 23–27.
  43. ^ Jump up to: a b c Parratt 2005, pp. 27.
  44. ^ Jump up to: a b Parratt 2005, pp. 28.
  45. ^ Parratt 2005, pp. 28, 29.
  46. ^ Parratt 2005, pp. 29.
  47. ^ Parratt 2005, pp. 29, 30.
  48. ^ Jump up to: a b c Parratt 2005, pp. 30.
  49. ^ Jump up to: a b Parratt 2005, pp. 30, 31.
  50. ^ Jump up to: a b Parratt 2005, pp. 31–33.
  51. ^ Parratt 2005, pp. 33–34.
  52. ^ Jump up to: a b c Parratt 2005, pp. 34.
  53. ^ Jump up to: a b c Parratt 2005, pp. 34–35.
  54. ^ Jump up to: a b Parratt 2005, pp. 35.
  55. ^ Jump up to: a b c Parratt 2005, pp. 36.
  56. ^ Jump up to: a b c Parratt 2005, pp. 37.
  57. ^ Parratt 2005, pp. 37–38.
  58. ^ Jump up to: a b Parratt 2005, pp. 38.
  59. ^ Parratt 2005, pp. 38–39.
  60. ^ Parratt 2005, pp. 39.
  61. ^ Parratt 2005, pp. 39–40.
  62. ^ Jump up to: a b Parratt 2005, pp. 40–41.

Bibliography[]

External links[]

Retrieved from ""