Puya Meithaba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Puya Meithaba (Burning of the puya) refers to the annual commemoration of a legendary 18th-century scripture burning in post-colonial Manipur (since 1979) or to the original libricide in itself.[1][2][3][4]

According to local narratives, king Pamheiba (var. Garib Niwaz), after his conversion to Vashnavism (a form of Hinduism) went to extraordinary lengths to wipe out the local religion of Meiteis, who are the predominant community of Manipur. This included a mass-incineration of their traditional texts written in the Meitei script — Puyas.[5] No historical evidence exists in support.

The present-day commemorative event began in 1979 with burning of books that portrayed Meiteis as Hindus, but over the years converged onto more peaceful forms of cultural expression, encouraging the revival of the Meitei script.[6] These events, organised by the Meitei National Front (and others), have been a critical tool of Meitei nationalism in portraying a rupture of their transcendental way of life under Garib Niwaz and influencing the collective cultural memory of Meiteis.[7] They have also mainstreamed a particular reconstruction of history, which has come to be uncritically reproduced even in academic publications.[7]

Background[]

Main article: Hinduism in Manipur

The ruler of Manipur, Pamheiba, was converted to Vaishnavism by Shantidas Goswami, a missionary from Sylhet, and came to be known as Garib Nawaz. In popular Meitei narrative, his reign serves as a moment of rupture in their transcendental history.[8] He is said to have violently suppressed Sanamahism, the local religion as referred to today, forcibly imposed Vaishnavism on his subjects via different oppressive means, and even banished those who refused to convert.[9][8][a]

Book burning[]

Popular narrative and certain local scholars hold that that during the reign of Garib Nawaz, Puyas — the ancient traditional texts of Meiteis — were destroyed at his orders.[10][8][2] The precise date is disputed.[11] Since viewed as part of an overall royal policy to purge traditional knowledge systems, this alleged libricide has spawned multiple strands of narratives in popular Meitei culture.[8][9] It is also held that the usage of Bengali script in place of Meitei Mayek began after this purge.[8][12]

Details of the precise accounts vary among the local populace and are often legendary in nature — some mention that the puyas were scheduled to be incinerated but flew away from the fire, another version mentions that they were indeed burnt but copies were already made of them, yet another mentions that that they were successfully transported out of the valley, whilst some even hold that the puyas were written in water-resistant ink and preserved underwater.[9][8] Local scholars have even produced lists of the burnt Puyas.[4][8] A few however doubt the authenticity of the event, too.[8]

Historicity[]

No primary source exists for the event.[8][13]

While some mention the event to have been chronicled in the Cheitharol Kumbaba, scholars reject these claims.[10][14] The manuscript of the royal chronicle in Meitei Mayek, preserved by the royal palace and authorized by the last Maharajah Bodhchandra Singh, don't mention any such libricide.[15] A 1925 Bengali transliteration (published c. 1945–1946) by Thongam Madhab, a royal scribe employed under Meidingngu Churachand, does not mention anything similar either.[16][b]

However, some late apocryphal manuscripts of the Cheitharol Kumbaba mention, that on the 17th of Mera (?) in Sakabda 1654 (1732 CE), Meitei texts were destroyed by the incumbent king Garib Nawaz.[19][c] These variant versions, which claim of a libricide, change a single word in the particular line — "Meetei Leima manghanye" to "Meetei Lairik manghanye".[25][d] Parratt holds that these copies were likely forged to support the collective memory.[10] The latest "official" edition of the chronicle, brought out by Manipuri Sahitya Parishad, has since reverted to the palace manuscript.[11]

In 1891, an English translation of the chronicle was requested by the newly installed British administrator from Bamacharan Mukherjee, erstwhile secretary of Kulachandra Singh. This was completed by 1904 but featured extensive additions and alterations when compared to the Meitei version and shew profound Hinduisation.[27] This translation mentioned of the book-burning, as well. Gangmumei Kamei however notes that the libricide was referenced for the first time in the works of Khumanthem Kaomacha, a Brahmin balladist-turned-historian in his 1934 publication — Manipur Itibritti.[28][e] Pandita-Raja Atombapu Sharma reiterated these claims in his 1952 work Pakhangba[29] and the claim soon made into every local publication.

Carmen Brandt, Jyotirmoy Ray (and many others) have doubted the historicity of the libricide and criticized scholars who had uncritically accepted the popular narratives — there are no reliable primary sources, various local sources give low (and contradictory) values about the number of burnt scripts, numerous documents were written in Meitei during the reign of Garib Nawaz including the very Cheitharol Kumbaba, and Nawaz's attitude towards religion might be well-described as ambivalent.[8][30][14][13] In any case, the puyas are still found in Manipur.[9]

Commemoration[]

The narrative about the burning of Puyas alongside the forced change of script occupies a prominent place in the collective memory of the Meiteis as to their religious past. It has become increasingly popular in Manipur since, in 1979, the nationalist-revivalists (from under the banner of ) decided to commemorate the libiricide in a heavily publicized annual event on the 23rd of January and evoke nostalgia for the Meitei script which was in disuse.[8][4][2][f][g]

The main function remains restricted to the Sanamahi Temple at Imphal.[4] The 1979 commemoration had burnt books that portrayed Meiteis as Hindus; the attendees grew in number over the years but of late, the event has took on more peaceful forms.[32][4]

Brandt notes such events to "serve the construction of a history of oppression" and thus, strengthen Meitei nationalism.[8]

Notes[]

  1. ^ For an assessment of Garib Nawaz's religious policy, see Parratt, Saroj Nalini (1989). "Garib Niwaz Wars and Religious Policy in 18th Century Manipur". Intemationales Asienforum. 20 (3–4): 298–302.
  2. ^ A superficially edited version of Madhab's transliteration was published by Lairenmayum Ibungohal Singh and Ningthoukhongjam Khelachandra in 1967 from under the banner of Manipuri Sahitya Parishad.[17] This did not mention the events, too.[18]
  3. ^ The original Meitei manuscript was copied by one Kharaibam Deva in Bengali script; Parratt found this to be incomplete and in places, badly copied.[20] This version mentioned of the book-burning.[21]
    In 1987, a second "critical" edition of Madhab's transliterated manuscript was published by Khelachandra (Ibungohal Singh had expired years back) by extrapolating details from three other extant manuscripts (the one by Deva, and another two kept by Nameirakpam Dinachandra and Moirangthem Chandra) and even other Puyas.[22] This again did mention the libricide, and in an accompanying footnote, commented on it whilst referring readers to his two monographs on Manipuri history.[23] The date is given as 5th October 1732.[11] Parratt however notes that Khelachandra's random additions were not referenced and mostly from sources, which had little historical worth and had never been subject to textual-historical criticism.[22]
    For what its worth, Dinachandra's manuscript did not mention the event.[24]
  4. ^ Leima means queen whereas Lairik means books.[24] A 1996 publication on the history of Manipuri literature (by Sahitya Akademi) mentions the "historical bonfire" as Lairik Meithaba, where old Meitei manuscripts were set to fire at the behest of Shantidas Goswami.[26]
  5. ^ Kaomacha even listed the names of the 123 puyas, which were burnt.[28] See Kaomacha, Khumanthem (1980) [1934]. Manipur Itibrita. 1 (1 ed.). p. 68–70.
  6. ^ Other Meitei organisations have contested that this was the first commemoration of the event.[31]
  7. ^ Metei National Front asserts the original event to have occurred on the 23rd of Wakching, a Thursday, in Sakabda 1651 (1729 CE).[11] This date is disputed by other factions, who choose to commemorate the event on a different day. Even assuming the date to be true, the day would have been a Saturday. [11]

References[]

  1. ^ Ray (2009), p. 132.
  2. ^ a b c Sebastian (2019), p. 52.
  3. ^ "...yearly public event referred to as ‘Puya Meithaba’ since 1979..." (Brandt 2018:126)
  4. ^ a b c d e Ray (2000), p. 120.
  5. ^ Brandt (2018, p. 126): "Garib Niwaz then supposedly violently enforced Vaishnavism on all of his subjects, for example by destroying the temples of the local religion, today referred to as Sanamahism, and burning its old manuscripts, the so-called puyas, sacred texts, which were written in the original Meitei script, i.e. the Meitei Mayek."
  6. ^ Brandt (2018, p. 127): "In the first commemoration event in 1979, organized by the Meitei National Front, books that portrayed Meiteis and their history as Hindu(s) were burnt. This seems to have borne fruit, for while only ‘two to three thousand people participated in 1979, more than eight thousand participated in 1990ʼ. According to Sohini Ray’s observations, later on this function changed into a more peaceful event in which, for instance, Meitei Mayek students received prizes."
  7. ^ a b Brandt (2018), pp. 126–127"However, the wide spread of the narrative mentioned above, also reflected in its uncritical reproduction in academic publications, shows that, despite the doubts listed above, it is today indispensable for the cultural memory of many Meitei people."
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Brandt (2018), pp. 125–126.
  9. ^ a b c d Ray (2015).
  10. ^ a b c Parratt (2005), pp. 15.
  11. ^ a b c d e Singh (2014).
  12. ^ Chelliah (2005).
  13. ^ a b Roy (1973), p. 39.
  14. ^ a b Sebastian (2019), p. 142.
  15. ^ Parratt (2005), pp. 9, 16, 141.
  16. ^ Parratt (2005), pp. 9–10, 16, 142.
  17. ^ Parratt (2005), pp. 9–10.
  18. ^ Parratt (2005), pp. 16, 142.
  19. ^ Parratt (2005), pp. 9–11, 15–16, 141–142.
  20. ^ Parratt (2005), pp. xi, 9.
  21. ^ Parratt (2005), pp. 141.
  22. ^ a b Parratt (2005), pp. 10–11.
  23. ^ Parratt (2005), pp. 142.
  24. ^ a b Parratt (2005), pp. 16.
  25. ^ Parratt (2005), pp. 141–142.
  26. ^ Singh (1996), p. 11.
  27. ^ Parratt (2005), pp. 11, 17.
  28. ^ a b Kabui (1991), pp. 253.
  29. ^ Kabui (1991), pp. 254.
  30. ^ Aggarwal (1992), p. 31.
  31. ^ Gurumayum (2015).
  32. ^ Brandt (2018), p. 127.

Bibliography[]

Retrieved from ""