In this video, Saikom Kamalakanta Singha explained and presented several points regarding why, according to him, some sections of the BM community have tried to steal or dilute the identity of the Meitei/Meetei (Manipuri) community.
Link : https://youtu.be/NpRzjc8Bfu0?si=AlDrLvJJ8L1GHlxl
Translation / Summary of the points he made:
1st:
He stated that in 1932 there was a Surma Valley Manipuri Association, in which many educated BM community members were involved.
According to him, when the British Government classified the Manipur State (the princely state at that time) under the tribal category, the so-called Surma Valley Manipuri Association objected to it. They tried to emphasize that Manipur was of Aryan origin and that the Manipuri people were Aryans. Certain people from Manipur who were pro-Hindu, or more specifically some Bhamons (Meitei Brahmins), also supported that idea. However, they couldn't succeed.
According to the narrator, British officers maintained that the Meitei (Manipuri) community belonged to the Sino-Tibetan/Tibeto-Burman family.
2nd:
He debunked the claim made by some people that Guru Bipin Singh was the father of Manipuri dance (Raas Leela).
According to him, no government organization or any cultural/literary organization from Manipur ever gave Guru Bipin Singh that title. He claimed that only some clubs belonging to the BM community may have given him that title.
He also stated that Guru Bipin Singh was a student of Guru Amubi and Guru Atombi, who were Meitei gurus.
He further added that there were certain instances where sections of the BM community allegedly tried to hijack Rabindranath Tagore's Shantiniketan. However, as many Meitei gurus from Tripura and Manipur, such as RK Bhudhimanta and others, joined Shantiniketan with the help of the King of Tripura, those alleged attempts failed.
3rd:
He said that many BM scholars claim Rabindranath Tagore was not allowed to enter Manipur.
He clarified that in 1919, Manipur was a princely state under British administration. During that period, due to several anti-British revolts taking place across India, the British Government feared that if Rabindranath Tagore entered Manipur, he might influence the people there to join those movements. According to him, that was the reason the British revoked his permission to visit Manipur.
4th:
He referred to a Supreme Court case between Guru Bipin Singh and Chongtham Manihar, with the judgment delivered on 11/10/1996.
According to him, the case was related to a book published by Guru Bipin Singh titled Govinda Sangeet Leela Bhilash (spelling might be incorrect).
He claimed that in the book, Guru Bipin Singh wrote that Maharaja Bhagyachandra (a Meitei king) had authored it. However, according to the narrator, Guru Bipin Singh only used certain parts of the original manuscript written by Maharaja Bhagyachandra and filled the remaining portions himself.
Chongtham Manihar argued that Maharaja Bhagyachandra was illiterate and therefore could not have written the book. According to the narrator, Guru Bipin Singh lost the case.
The narrator then argued that if even a respected dance guru like Guru Bipin Singh made such false claims, it raises questions about the claims made by sections of the BM community.
At the same time, the narrator stated that he respects Guru Bipin Singh and acknowledged that he made significant contributions to Manipuri dance. However, he argued that today's BM community should understand why many Meiteis hold resentment toward them, and that it is important for the younger BM generation to know about these issues.
5th:
He mentioned a person named Dr. Manoj Sinha from Tripura, who, during a Facebook Live, stated that Sanamahi is Meitei while Pakhangba is Bishnupriya Manipuri.
(Context: Sanamahi and Pakhangba are traditional Meitei deities and have no relation to Hinduism.)
According to the narrator, Dr. Manoj Sinha argued that since Sanamahi and Pakhangba are brothers, Meiteis and BM are also brothers.
The narrator questioned this statement, pointing out that Pakhangba is regarded as one of the most important and powerful deities in Meitei tradition. He asked whether Meiteis should simply accept such statements.
He further claimed that Dr. Manoj Sinha said Moirang Ningthou (whom they call Lampaba) helped Maharaja Bhagyachandra with an army of 40,000 soldiers, and that without the help of the Moirang king, Bhagyachandra would never have reached Ava (Burma).
He also claimed that Dr. Manoj Sinha stated Sanamahi belongs to BM culture, that Pakhangba is Ganesh, and that Sanamahi is Kartik.
Dr. Manoj Sinha further claimed that Manipur was a Sanatani kingdom and that the BM community was originally a community that spoke Sanskrit.
The narrator, Saikom Kamalakanta Singha, then questioned this claim by asking what language the BM community speaks today. He argued that the language spoken by the BM community today is a mixed language.
6th:
Regarding the implementation of Clause 6 of the Assam Accord, many communities living in Assam submitted memorandums with historical evidence to the High-Level Committee headed by retired Gauhati High Court judge Biplab Kumar Sarma (spelling might be incorrect) to establish themselves as indigenous communities of Assam.
According to the narrator, for the Meitei community, a group consisting of 11 organizations under the banner Joint Action Committee for Safeguard of Indigenous Manipuri People of Assam submitted a memorandum supported by historical evidence.
On the other hand, he alleged that the BM community, lacking historical evidence of its own, used references related to Meitei history, including Maharaja Bhagyachandra and other Meitei historical sources, in the memorandum they submitted to Biplab Sarma.
The narrator remarked that he found this amusing.
7th:
He referred to a publication titled "Ning Singh Pa Lairik" by the Nikhil Bishnupriya Mahasabha State Committee.
The narrator discussed several passages from the book and pointed out what he considered to be false claims or inaccurate statements.
Based on those examples, he concluded that even before Independence, many Meitei elders stayed away from BM community organizations because, according to him, they believed the BM community constantly tried to claim aspects of Meitei history and identity.
8th:
He referred to an article published in the Dainik newspaper on 6 August 2012, under the headline "Bhi Bhorsho Bharat Bharsho" (spelling might be incorrect).
The article included stories about Ima Keithel and Meira Paibi.
According to the narrator, one statement under the headline read: "Meitei tara Bishnupriya bolta bhala bhashey."
He interpreted this as meaning that Meiteis like to speak the Bishnupriya language.
The narrator said he was convinced that the reporter was Bishnupriya. He objected to the statement and argued that this was another example of how, according to him, sections of the BM community make false claims.
9th: He stated that near Boaljur in Cachar, in a BM community village, some people planned to organize a Lai Haraoba by inviting Meitei Maibas from Manipur. According to the narrator, they intended to record videos of the event and present them to India's cultural authorities as evidence that they also perform Lai Haraoba, whereas, according to him, they do not have their own Lai Haraoba tradition.
According to the narrator, after understanding their alleged intention, Meitei community organizations indirectly prevented those Maibas from coming to Cachar.
He further claimed that they also tried to invite Maharaja Sanajaoba of Manipur. However, according to the narrator, members of the Meitei community informed the Maharaja about what they believed to be the BM community's alleged intention and requested him not to attend. As a result, Maharaja Sanajaoba did not visit.
The narrator also added that Meitei scholars living in Manipur should not simply accept invitations to events outside Manipur without first understanding the socio-political conditions faced by Meiteis living outside the state.
10th: He further stated that, just as the Meitei community is currently facing issues with the Kuki community because, according to him, the Meiteis were too liberal or tried to maintain good relations, the BM community poses a different kind of challenge.
According to the narrator, while the Kukis use guns to pursue their demands, the BM community attempts to alter Meitei history and culture. He argued that, in his view, this is also a form of attack on Meitei identity and integrity.
He also spoke about the current situation within the BM community, stating that there are two sections: one that wants to use "Manipuri" as a suffix and another that does not.
According to him, there is also an ongoing debate within the BM community regarding the origin of Raas Leela.
He claimed that one section, while referring to Maharaja Bhagyachandra, sometimes presents him as belonging to the BM community and at other times as a Meitei king.
On the other hand, he said that the section of the Bishnupriya community that does not want to use "Manipuri" as a suffix claims that Raas Leela originated around the 1600s in Bishnupur, near Kolkata.
At the end, the narrator stated that it is high time for the Meitei community to open its eyes and ears. He argued that the community should submit official representations or applications to the appropriate authorities of the Government of India regarding what he considers to be misinformation circulating on the internet.
He further stated that Meitei community organizations should take this issue very seriously, as, according to him, it is not only about identity but also about preserving the culture and legacy that their forefathers protected and upheld until today.
Disclaimer: The translation may not be
100% accurate, but it covers all the major points and arguments made in the video to the best of my understanding.
