Pic. Courtesy: Imphal Free Press
Pebet by Heisnam Kanhailal portrays a clear depiction of the evil and cunning mayang bamons (Hindu Brahmins) at a time of imposition of hinduism in Manipur, yet fails and makes a metaphorical-blunder in the representation of the weakest and misses out on the role of powerful middlemen. The play has stirred a lot of conversation around indigeneity and the imposition of Hinduism since its first performance. People from different walks of life and backgrounds have already established this idea underlying the play on different platforms. However, everyone seems to have missed out on some key historically relevant elements in the play. Having said that, this piece does not deal with the artistic technicality, instead, it delves into the political artistry of the play and its relevance.
One cannot deny the creative mastery of this political artistry. The use of an indigenous folklore to narrate the history of Manipur and the encroachment of Hinduism with metaphorical expression, is in itself a great work of art. Speaking of metaphors, the subtlety and stealthiness of the mayang bamon in the first half of the play give a clear picture of the slow yet sly plots and tactics of colonisation and corruption of the indigenous minds. As Patrick Wolfe, an Australian anthropologist and ethnographer, said, “Settler colonisation is a structure, not an event.” The carefully placed silent steps of the mayang bamon, him sneaking into the space of the Pebet while they are asleep, and comfortably sleeping there, replicate how Hindu Brahmins encroached on indigenous spaces right under their noses. Similar repetitive episodes show that what is in store is not a sudden, noticeable event, but a calculative step-by-step process. As the mayang bamon’s attempt to get into their space becomes more intense, two stronger male pebets resist and aggressively drive him away, and that is where the conflicting historical (ir)relevancy appears for the first time. The matter of historical fact is that at the time of Hindu Brahmins’ encroachment, it was the kings and their royalty (the stronger of the indigenous lot) who welcomed the Hindu Brahmins and embraced Hinduism. I’m not saying that these two pebets represent the kings, but then interpretation freedom comes along with artistic freedom. Moreover, them being the stronger of the lot and the kings playing an important role in Hinduism encroachment, I can’t help but to relate the former to the latter. If someone says, none of the pebets can be a representational metaphor of the kings, I say, there lies the problem. (I am stating the reason at the end.)
As the play proceeds, we notice one pebet who is the weakest, stumbling and struggling to stand or fly on their own. Later, the mayang bamon gets hold of the weakest because of their inability. He tries to teach the captured pebet his quite evidently cunning language “ngararao”, but the pebet fails. So, he changes his language to “samu kaka lili kaka”, which he uses as a chant. It sounds calmer and comforting to the pebet. Soon, the pebet gets corrupted and plays into the hands of the mayang bamon, even to the point of coaxing other pebets to disown the mother and follow the footsteps of the mayang bamon. Here, the weakest acts as a puppet-turned-traitor who ruins the life of other pebets, following the mayang bamon’s instructions.
As much as the mayang bamon’s tactic of change in approach fits just right, the representation and portrayal of the weakest is far from what it is. On the contrary, it was the kings and their royalty who fell for the Hindu Brahmins, followed them, and acted according to them. As a result, it amounted to great suffering of the weakest – the poor, who bore the brunt of the introduction of Hinduism, in addition to the feudal system. Amang-aseng, for instance. The depiction of the mayang bamon getting hold of the weakest, luckily for him, because of their inability is a mislead because nothing about the Hindu Brahmins’ encroachment happened out of luck of them meeting the poor. If there was any sort of luck involved, it would be the luck of the kings welcoming and embracing the Hindu Brahmins.
Later in the play, we see that the mayang bamon rewards any pebet loyal to him and who fulfills his wishes. He even makes the pebets fight among themselves and rewards the strongest, followed by instigating the strongest to torture the rest, so much so that they fall unconscious. Soon, the mayang bamon teaches the two loyal pebets “janani janmabhoomishya swargadapi gariyasi” and further whispers it into the ears of the pebets fallen unconscious. This part of the play holds great relevance and is also one of the strongest moments, I feel. It is during this unconsciously fallen state of the pebets, which interprets of a time when the indigenous people of Manipur were tortured and left helpless, that the mayang bamon along with his cronies sing the Sanskrit verse into their ears. When the pebets wake up, they wake up singing the sanskrit verse in their indigenous tune, making what is imposed onto them sound familiar and like their own. Although the verse translates to “Mother and motherland greater than heaven”, the pebets now know their mother and motherland through the foreign lens and language, changing the whole perspective of how they look at their mother, so much so that they end up harming their mother under the influence of the mayang bamon. The play shows how language is used as a tool of colonization for colonizing indigenous minds. Teaching his language, the mayang bamon bridges the communication gap with the pebets and, slowly, infuses his ideas and strategy into the minds of the pebets. It helps in erasing the indigeneity while replacing it with foreign elements. The impact is seen in the way the pebets (the indigenous people) start speaking, thinking, and acting like the mayang bamon.
In another episode, the weakest-turned-puppet-turned-traitor pebet steals food while everyone is asleep. This is confusing because, as a historical matter of fact, it was the kings and their royalty who stole everything from the people in the name of lallup, pothang and senkhai. The poor – the weakest – suffered to a great extent because of this. Even the Nupi Lan, 1939, was triggered by yet another famine due to mayang marwaris selling the rice outside of Manipur while the people of Manipur were suffering. The poor people, the weakest, were not the stealers, instead, they were the robbed ones.
Another significant aspect of the play is the loyal pebets ass-licking the mayang bamon, which clearly signifies how the more powerful ones among the indigenous people are playing into the hands of their ruler who rewards them for being good puppets. The hunger for rewards is too much that it even makes the more powerful indigenous people (the stronger pebets) to torture the poor indigenous people (the weaker pebets). At one point, one of the pebets rises up and stands up to the mayang bamon, displaying an act of resistance by biting his ass. Angered by this, the mayang bamon orders his loyal ass-lickers to punish the disloyal pebet, and they do so. The act of resistance is soon suppressed by the use of force as per the ruler’s instruction.
The play does bring out a lot of historical elements behind cultural and linguistic domination as a tool of settler colonialism. However, it misses one very important aspect, which is the powerful middlemen – the kings and their royalty. It is them who welcomed the Hindu Brahmins, embraced the religion, and helped them in imposing it onto the weaker indigenous people of Manipur. Therefore, leaving these powerful middlemen out and portraying the weakest in such a light reinforces the narrative of not questioning the powerful lot among us for all their wrongdoings, making the poor pay for it. Yet, blame the poor to be responsible and not fall for any trap from the outside while completely ignoring the fact that the cruel outsiders come to this powerful lot in order to lay their hands on the land and torture the poor. Lastly, the play connects a lot of missing dots while missing out and misplacing a few important ones.
WeRetrospect 
Ruth Chawngthu
Interesting! There are full of flaws in your writings. You are interpreting the play in the way you want it to be and using your interpretations to say that the play fails for not living up to your interpretation of what it represents. Firstly Pebet is not a historial play, even though there are bits of historical reflections. In the 70s, critics had appreciated it as a wonderful ‘poetry of body’ (hakchanggi seireng). Hope you are aware of the debate on poetry and history.
Secondly it is important to understand the form of theatre Kanhailal employed, a theatre doing away with the western notion of characterization but more of representations and communicate through the political impulses. That doesn’t mean he is totally doing away with characters.
Thirdly, you seem to miss out a sequence. If you remember it, before stealing food, all pebets were going around and collecting fruits/eatables as ordered by the cat-monk (mayang bamon). Can it be read as collecting tax if you are looking for middlemen in the play? They were middlemen used by the cat-monk. Later in the midnight when one is hungry and ate some, he was punished; means he does not have freedom to even eat what he had collected himself.
I also have a critical question to this play even if I consider it as a masterpiece. My question is, “are we saved from the clutches of cat-monks in reality/history?” Kanhailal did agree to my question. But as an artist he wanted to end the play like the folktale ends which gives a hopeful catharsis at the end.
Lastly, I do not think that your writing is doing away with technicalities and mean for ‘common people.’ I do not think common people will quite easily understand your writings. Your use of the phrase like ‘metaphorical-blunder’ is a technically loaded word and it concerns with the artistic technicality as well. And without understanding the artistic technicalities, since the play is not a historical play, it is a different ball game to interpret this play. By the way, I do not quite understand why a play should be reviewed anonymously.
You are interpreting the play in the way you want it to be
– Shouldn’t one interpret a play their way?
and using your interpretations to say that the play fails for not living up to your interpretation of what it represents.
– how can a play live up to my interpretation? The interpretation comes later and there is no question of failure/living up to. No art form has limited interpretation. It’s upto the audience how they want to interpret.
Firstly Pebet is not a historial play,
– never claimed that. That’s a strawman.
In the 70s, critics had appreciated it as a wonderful ‘poetry of body’ (hakchanggi seireng). Hope you are aware of the debate on poetry and history.
– That’s an appeal to authority fallacy. The piece also has nothing to do with the medium.
Secondly it is important to understand the form of theatre Kanhailal employed
– Not necessarily. It’s irrelevant. It’s denying a person with no knowledge of a form of theatre from presenting their views based on what they have observed. It’s putting an elite barrier. It’s claiming monopoly over access of interpretation. It’s gatekeeping.
a theatre doing away with the western notion of characterization but more of representations and communicate through the political impulses.
– the piece never claims otherwise. Also, the piece never talks about not having enough characters. A part of the piece is about the representation of the weakest.
That doesn’t mean he is totally doing away with characters.
– irrelevant.
Thirdly, you seem to miss out a sequence. If you remember it, before stealing food, all pebets were going around and collecting fruits/eatables as ordered by the cat-monk (mayang bamon).
– You seem to have missed the part that talks about the mayang bamon choosing the strongest who makes the others work. The piece acknowledges the middleman here.
Can it be read as collecting tax if you are looking for middlemen in the play? They were middlemen used by the cat-monk.
– The piece is not looking for any random middleman. It is about who is represented as a middleman.
Later in the midnight when one is hungry and ate some, he was punished; means he does not have freedom to even eat what he had collected himself.
– If you have missed it, it’s mentioned in the piece but different from your interpretation. It was the weakest who stole the food while others were asleep. “In another episode, the weakest-turned-puppet-turned-traitor pebet steals food while everyone is asleep. This is confusing because, as a historical matter of fact, it was the kings and their royalty who stole everything from the people in the name of lallup, pothang and senkhai.” Also, in the play, the weakest who ate was not involved in the process of collecting.
I also have a critical question to this play even if I consider it as a masterpiece. My question is, “are we saved from the clutches of cat-monks in reality/history?” Kanhailal did agree to my question. But as an artist he wanted to end the play like the folktale ends which gives a hopeful catharsis at the end.
– I agree with Kanhailal to an extent because art as such should tell the social reality yet show some hope. However, how effective is it, is a different question altogether.
Lastly, I do not think that your writing is doing away with technicalities and mean for ‘common people.’ I do not think common people will quite easily understand your writings.
– That’s your personal opinion.
Your use of the phrase like ‘metaphorical-blunder’ is a technically loaded word and it concerns with the artistic technicality as well.
– ‘Metaphorial-blunder’ is not a technical word. It is not even a word. It is a hyphenated made-up word.
And without understanding the artistic technicalities, since the play is not a historical play, it is a different ball game to interpret this play.
– There is no such requirement to understand artistic technicalities to interpret a play. To think otherwise defeats the purpose of the art. That kind of thinking is quite feudal and elitist, denying room for common people with no technical knowledge of theatre to make their own interpretation.
By the way, I do not quite understand why a play should be reviewed anonymously.
– There is no thumb rule that a play cannot be reviewed anonymously. Forget about reviewing, there are anonymous writers as well. It’s the message that’s important, not the messenger.
> “You are interpreting the play in the way you want…”
– Simple question. What is interpretation?
> “Your use of the phrase like ‘metaphorical-blunder’ is a technically loaded word and it concerns with the artistic technicality as well. And without understanding the artistic technicalities, since the play is not a historical play, it is a different ball game to interpret this play.”
– Metaphors may have to do with style (technique) but it is not a technical term. People commit metaphorical blunders all the time.
– You are incoherent. A literary work doesn’t exist outside of history. Even artistic techniques (style, for instance) are historically contingent. Historical link-up is therefore a part of the critic’s job. Basic.
> About Kanhailal.
He was not a very educated man. He knew very little history or philosophy. At best he was an artist with very little perspective.