Lin Laishram and Coronavirus in the time of Mayang Racism

Mayang racism is an already existing fact. Coronavirus has just arrived to put it in the limelight while Lin Laishram comes to the rescue of the racists.

Coronavirus in the time of racism

Racism in India is not new. It has always existed, but most of the time, we can only see the tip of the iceberg. Only a part of it is visible as Indians keep it suppressed, yet it resurfaces from time to time as the chinkies show resistance. This time, coronavirus provides India with a magnifying lens that exposes the deep-rooted racism against chinkies in India. It also disturbs the suppressed and normalised everyday racism which the whole of India has been sweeping under their brown rug. It lets the racism resurface, making it prominently visible. Calling “northeastern” people “coronavirus” spreads faster than the virus itself. Indians put coronavirus to shame. It is not just a matter of name-calling, instead, it is what such oppressive language does to the racially marginalized people. Like Toni Morrison said, “Oppressive language does more than represent violence; it is violence, does more than represent the limits of knowledge; it limits knowledge.” It is a form of violence that denies chinkies of spaces, food and knowledge. “Coronavirus” – the racial slur – has inflicted fear and discomfort among the chinkies in the Indian spaces, denying them of the basic necessities. One does not need an intellectual analysis on it, the testimonies and videos of the chinkies in the social media say it all. Amid all this, a racism-apologist chinki referred to speaking out against racism as “cribbing” (maybe her reference is in general). “Discrimination happens in many layers, in many category, in many hierarchy, I have gone through it, but I would address it in a very different way because I didn’t like to crib about it,” said Lin Laishram.

Lin Laishram – A product of trading their own

Lin Laishram needs to explain what is “cribbing” and who is “cribbing” about racism. If she is referring to the chinkies speaking out against racism, she needs to answer all the students, workers, and chinkies who are at the receiving end of the racial attacks. The issue of racial attacks is not just of today’s; it has been going on for ever. Apart from calling “coronavirus,” people have been pushed from a train, spat on, thrown out of houses, denied access to grocery stores, denied food, shelter, harassed every day, etc. Other than the coronavirus racism, she also needs to answer the murder of Nido Taniam and Richard Loitam, among many. Back home (speaking of Manipur), racism has a different form – it is militarised. Here, she needs to identify who is “cribbing.” Are the victims of thousands of fake encounters and their families “cribbing”? Are the widows “cribbing”? Was Sharmila’s fast against AFSPA a “crib”? Was the naked protest by twelve Ema also a “crib”? Was Pebam Chittaranjan “cribbing”? Apart from her privilege, it is also the bootlicking attitude of the privileged class from Manipur that makes Lin Laishram display her desperation to please the powerful lot to climb the ladder of success.The access that her privilege offers has gone so much into her head that she does not even bother considering years of militarised oppression that costs many indigenous lives in the whole of “northeast”. Instead, she resorts to victim blaming all those chinkies who ever speak about racism at different levels.

Militarised racism

Apart from the businessmen and labourers, Indian military also constitutes a massive influx of mayangs into the indigenous soil of the “northeast”. The former two act as tools of settler colonialism to slowly occupy the indigenous spaces and economy on the one hand. On the other hand, the latter inflicts violence, suppressing indigenous voices and striking terror in the indigenous minds. Acts like AFSPA legitimises this systemic violence perpetrated by the mayang state.  The number of rape and murder as a result of militarized racism in this region tells a horrific history of violence and oppression that still prevails. Miss Rose Ningshen (1974), Miss Luingamla Muino (1986), Elangbam ongbi Ahanjaobi (1996), Nandeibam Sanjita (2003), Thangjam Manorama (2004) are some reported cases from Manipur alone. There have been massacres too. Even in recent times, the attack on the Manipur University hostels in the wee hours of September 21, 2019, by police personnel and CRPF speaks volume. On the top of that, there still exists an Indian army camp inside Manipur University. However, it seems that all of this is mere “cribbing” or unworthy of consideration while addressing racism, according to Lin Laishram. She suggests education and changes in the Indian curriculum to make Indians aware of the indigenous peoples of the “northeast” as the solution.

Indigeneity erasure and misplaced identity

Educating the mayangs and making them “aware” of us indigenous people and our culture by introducing us in the Indian curriculum is a very popular opinion. It is popular because it plays into the comfort of the mayangs. This narrative allows the racists to evade from holding themselves accountable for the historical and systemic racism. Speaking of educating them, how much do they need to know about us in order for them to not be racists? Is knowing our culture and identity going to avoid them from being racists? In case Lin Laishram and the likes of her were not aware, chinkies have been facing racism because of their distinct culture, looks, and identity. Is she downplaying mayangs’ racist attitude as “ignorant” people who lack knowledge about us? The real issue with the Indian education system is that it has managed to erase the history and identity of the indigenous people, imposing their history onto us and misplacing our identity. It has kept us away from knowing who we are and what our history is. The very reason indigenous people are trying to revive our indigenous identity, culture, and history is solely because of the indigeneity erasure through such colonial education systems. People like her who are apologetic about racism are mayangs’ favourite form of chinki representation because it comforts them.

Token representation

“Representation” is inherently oppressive when the power is still in the hands of the dominant community, in this case the mayangs. It is just a mirage of racial equality. Like Aph Ko said in Aphro-ism – Essays on Pop Culture, Feminism, and Black Veganism from Two Sisters, “One of the shortfalls of representation rhetoric is that it advertises a simplistic blueprint for racial equality in which people of color [chinkies] are visually “included” in spaces regularly reserved for white people [mayang]. The dominant thought is: If we just show more minoritized faces in the white marketplace, then progress is being made.” On top of that, the kind of representation mayangs prefer are these token representations that do not challenge the brown status quo and play into their comfort. The token comes in exchange for some crumbs of benefits. The benefits being mayang-approved success and material gains. This is also the reason Lin Laishram speaks of racism within the bounds of mayang approval, as she is promoting her film. The task is to please the master to climb up the ladder, otherwise the masters will take away the ladder and you will fall back to the ground.

Powerful meets the powerful

The very act of Lin Laishram is not an individual issue; it is a trait of the privileged class among indigenous people. One can see the pattern of these sell-outs always trying to step over their own people in order to appease the more powerful for their personal benefits. We have seen this during the time of imposition of Hinduism in Manipur, wherein the kings and their royalty played along with the mayang bamons (Hindu Brahmins) and tortured the weak. Even recently, the people of Manipur have criticized Leishemba Sanajaoba, the titular king, for joining BJP, betraying the people for his personal gain. In the case of Lin Laishram, she has even compromised racism for a crumb of a role in racist Priyanka Chopra’s act as Mary Kom. Here, it seems to be the right place to assert loudly that Mary Kom will never be our Muhammad Ali. Mary Kom’s take on the question of indigeneity and racism was exposed when she voted for the Citizenship Amendment Bill when her brothers and sisters back home were protesting against it. It seems in order to be accepted by the mayangs one must act “neutral” and be “critical” by resorting to the outdated, age-old rejected idea of reverse racism. “We are so racist back home, we have names for you, we have, like, mayang. We are equally racist,” says Lin Laishram after her mayang friend said that they need to tell a “balanced” story and discrimination happens everywhere.

Mayang, a political marker, and Racism: Not a two-way street 

Unlike the give and take relationship of these sell-outs and the powerful mayangs, racism does not go both ways. Racism is not a mere name-calling challenge. Racism comes with institutionalized power as a result of imperialism or colonisation. As Claudia Jones said, “Imperialism is the root cause of racism. It is the ideology which upholds colonial rule and exploitation.” Regarding the usage of the word, ‘mayang’, it comes with the idea of oppression and resistance. It has a historical aspect to it as well. Just like we have reclaimed ‘chinky’ in our stride to fight racism, we use ‘mayang’ as a political marker to identify our oppressor and to resist the oppression.

The question that we must confront now is: Is the word, mayang, racist? To answer this question we must go to the meaning of the word.  It is an old word. We find this word in the early sixteenth century entries of Cheitharon Kumpapa, the court chronicle of the Meitei Kings. Mayangs, at that time, referred to people of Cachar and Tripura. Mayangs with Meitei saageis started appearing in Cheitharon Kumpapa as early as the sixteenth century, meaning that mayangs were integrated in the Meitei society. The word, till the beginning of the twentieth century, was also used to refer to the Bishnupriya community who are now assimilated in the Meitei society. There is no historical evidence to suggest that the word had any racist connotation. The meaning of a word might change from time to time but for this word, the underlying reference, people from the west, seems to remain the same for centuries. Now, it refers to those migrating from mainland India and Bangladesh. 

When we consider who are the people who use this word and for whom now, the picture becomes clearer. It is indigenous people who use this word for the colonial settlers who migrate to Manipur as a part of the design of the powers that may be after the second half of the twentieth century. If we consider the relationship between the mayangs, or people who migrated from the west after the second half of the twentieth century, and indigenous people of Manipur, we must not ignore the merger of Manipur in the Indian union in 1949, which many academics have called a forceful one. The mayangs or people migrating from the west from this very moment of merger became settlers brought in through a colonial design to force demographic changes. And, when we look at who controls the economy of Manipur, we clearly see that it is the mayang traders who run Manipur. In matters of politics too, the indigenous people of Manipur have very little to no say. Here, the question that is pertinent can be answered. The indigenous people cannot be racist to the mayangs, even if they want to. You cannot be racist to your masters. Unless one conjures up the notion of reverse racism, which the white scholars brought in to voice their fragility when blacks got their birth rights.    

Mayang fragility

Mayang fragility is the defensiveness and inability of the mayangs to simply hold themselves accountable for the racism against chinkies. Sometimes, it is aggressive. Sometimes, it is subtle. The most common forms of mayang fragility are calling racism “ignorance”, “not all Indians are racist,” immediate introduction of “we are all Indians” narrative which when denied results in “anti national” rhetoric, “calling mayang is racist,” and many more. Challenging this mayang fragility may lead to confrontations, which can result in the mayangs denying to support the chinky. Therefore, it is necessary to not put the mayang in a position of discomfort if you need their support, which is exactly what Lin Laishram and the likes of her do. On the other hand, the subtle form of mayang fragility does not immediately take away the support, but tries to impose their idea onto the chinky. In a recent interview of a Meitei woman regarding a racial attack, Barkha Dutt, instead of listening to the Meitei woman, imposes the idea of Indianness as a trump card against racism. “You are also from our country only no, you are part of us, you are Indian,” she insists. This kind of mayang fragility comes from the desire to portray themselves as an ally, yet ends up just as a performance. The mayang needs to protect this false idea of shared nationality in order to uphold their power over the chinky.

Another instance of mayang fragility came out during the anti-CAA movement. Many liberal and so-called radicals conveniently forgot their beloved state has been practicing settlement colonialism in the “northeast” though asserting the same for Kashmir. Instead of recognizing the rights of the indigenous people, they accuse the indigenous people with xenophobia.  It does not show their hypocrisy but racism that is buried deep inside them. They have completely forgotten that it is their caste system, their savagery, that has driven many to the “northeast” to be pitted against the already marginalised. Instead of solving the problem at their home, they pass on the problem to the others, those they discriminate because of ethnicity.

What makes a Chinki, Indian?

The popular opinion that has never been able to solve the issue of racism in India is that it is necessary for one to assert that one is an Indian to be treated with dignity. No, one does not need to be an Indian in order to be treated with dignity. But it seems necessary in this country. Does it help if one asserts oneself as an Indian? It does not help for the people of the north-east” because being Indian means to look like an Indian. Shouting at the top of our voice that we are Indians does not make us Indians. The question is about how we “became” Indians, how our forefather “became” Indians. Whether they consented to it or not is the question. A chinky never fits into the idea of being an Indian. The Indianness of a chinky is just an imposed idea in order to control our bodies and minds.

Only some chinkies are able to become Indians in their privileged spaces where the exchange of a crumb of benefits for the chinky happens in return of a bigger material gain for the mayang. These chinkies become sub-Indians. Even these chinkies, the sub-Indians, get their Indianness stripped off when they are outside these privileged spaces. Lin Laishram is one such sub-Indian. For the rest of us, it is a vain attempt to even try to claim to be an Indian. Now is the time that one can clearly see that chinkies are begging to the mayangs to accept them as Indians, yet denied.

Indianness – Imposed then, begged now

In case of the Indian identity which has become attached with us, one needs to understand how we “became” Indians. Our history tells a drastically different story. The education system that erases our indigenous history and imposes the mayang history, the cultural imposition through mindful assimilation of mayang culture into the indigenous cultures, the widespread of Bollywood at a time as the dominant form of entertainment, these factors manipulate and shape us into thinking that “we are Indians.” Are we truly Indians then? In the current context of coronavirus racism, a new incident has surfaced where two Naga boys are denied entry into a supermarket. It is one of the most heartbreaking incidents of racial discrimination. The boys begged the guards to let them enter because they needed food and begged to be accepted as Indians. “You guys don’t accept us as Indians. Why are you discriminating [against] us? We are Indians. We too are human beings. We too need groceries to survive. We are living a human life,” the Naga boys begged. Yet the onlookers stood by being complicit to the racism right in front of them. So, the idea of being an Indian is no longer about nationality; it is about who is considered a human being in this nation called India.

Lastly, racism cannot be fought with toxic positivity

Someone like Lin Laishram who does not like to have uncomfortable conversations and  difficult discussions about racism, tells you to not be so negative, implicitly implying that  others are insecure, narrow-minded or having a victim mentality for acknowledging their hurt and pains of being racially discriminated against. The slogan here is: To forgive and to forget  the loss of lives and dignity, without justice. To be advised to have thick skin and not be sensitive to discrimination is minimizing it. Telling the vulnerable to be the bigger person is just  another form of cruelty. Someone who does not question the system and status-quo, justifies it as the way of the world is an enabler of racism. Instead, it tells you to have the right attitude, to be bold  and confident and passively tell you that there is no room for cribbers. To tell one to choose happiness and positive vibes to fight racism is gas-lighting the victim. It suppresses and stifles the voices of the oppressed.  Preaching love and peace to others invalidates the criticisms. It is simply toxic, it invalidates the real consequences of racism. To not address and pay much attention to discrimination and be positive is unsustainable living.  All the trauma associated with racism should be processed and tried not to be fixed with empty slogans of peace, love and positive vibes. It is positivity at its worst. It is toxic positivity.