Why Should Manipur Remember Ambedkar?

Today is Ambedkar Jayanti, the whole country remembers Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar as he is one of the founding fathers of modern India and for being a crusader of anti-caste politics. He is the face of the movement for the democratization of mainland India, a place plagued by caste system. People in Manipur must also remember Dr. Ambedkar, for the things that he said about Manipur and felt about the people of Manipur.  

Ambedkar Knows Manipur Enough  

Often, when we discuss mainland Indian political figures, or anyone from mainland for that matter, on what they say about Manipur, the first thing that comes is, they do not know much about Manipur. So, we must begin with what Dr. Ambedkar knew about Manipur. For that, we must go to the Constituent Assembly debates that took place on September 6, 1949. The debate happened just fifteen days before the merger of Manipur with the Indian Union. It should be highlighted that Manipur was not a part of India when the debate took place, yet Manipur figured in the debate. But, why was it?

In the constituent assembly debate on September 6, 1949, one contentious issue in the debate was the sixth schedule. Dr. Ambedkar, obviously, was in support of it along with many other politicians who took part in the debate. But, Kuladhar Chaliha, a representative from Assam in the debate, was the one who opposed the sixth schedule. He argued that

the Nagas are a very primitive and simple people and they have not forgotten their old ways of doing summary justice when they have grievance against anyone. If you allow them to rule us or run the administration it will be a negation of justice or administration and it will be something like anarchy. (Constituent Assembly of India Debates (Proceedings)-Volume XI, September 6, 1949) 

These statements must appeal the burden that brown men have, the burden to civilise the wild men of the hills in the region. Chaliha told these forefathers of modern India that the schedule would “keep them away from us and [it is] to create a Tribalistan” (ibid.). But it was not just the “anarchy” of the Nagas that worried him or that the Nagas would be away from them, another reason for his worry was the threat of communism (ibid.). He told

the result will be that there will be a communistan there. The communists will come and they will have a free hand, as in Manipur one of the ministers was already a communist. (ibid.)

Manipur came in the debate, in the context of communism. Chaliha was worried that the situation Manipur was facing, communism, would spread to then India if things were left unchecked. Therefore, he told Ambedkar, “as I commend this to the consideration of the Drafting committee. I commend this to Dr. Ambedkar who should think over again…” (ibid.). Dr. Ambedkar must have thought it over. We will not deal with what he thought over on the schedule, as he stood by it but we will only ponder over what he thought over when it came to Manipur after listening to Chaliha. Before that, we must first briefly talk about Manipur and about how Manipur came to have a communist as “one of the ministers” while Indians were discussing their constitution (ibid.).    

Manipur and Lamyanba Irabot, the communist 

Chaliha’s fear had reasons. He must have said what he said in the constituent assembly debate for good reasons. Communist movement was spreading in Manipur. From democratic agitations, it escalated into a full scale armed rebellion by 1950. One of the communists, who must have terrified Chaliha’s soul, was Lamyanba Hijam Irabot. Therefore, his story must be told with the story of modern Manipur as it is impossible to separate them. For this, we must begin from the beginning of modern Manipur.

The British abolished the old feudal system, lallup pathap, of Manipur in 1892. The abolition of lallup further fueled the rise of the Bamons, who migrated in Manipur from what we now call mainland, in the social hierarchy. As a result, the practice of amaang-aseng [pollution-purity, loosely translated] was instituted firmly in the late 19^th century as a means to collect taxes from the people. To pay huge tribute to the British, Meitingu Chura Chandra collected taxes using the practice of amaang-aseng. People must convert to Hinduism and pay tax for being Hindus. If a person or a community refused to be Hindu, they would be declared amaang-ba. Anyone who opposed this practice and who violated the norms of amaang-aseng, would be declared an amaang-ba, a person with whom one cannot maintain any social contact (Khuraijam 2016, 82). Lamyanba Irabot in the early 1930s started opposing the amaag-aseng practices. To manage the growing agitation, Meitingu [King] agreed for social reforms and constituted a cultural organisation called Nikhil Hindu Manipuri Mahasabha in 1934. Meitingu made himself the president of this cultural organisation and Lamyanba Irabot, the vice president. Later, Lamyanba Irabot removed the word, Hindu, from the name of the organisation and called it Nikhil Manipuri Mahasabha in 1938 for which he faced the wrath of Meitingu. Meitingu had to leave the organisation, accusing Lamyanba Irabot of making the organisation political after he removed the word Hindu from the name of the organisation. (Kshetri 2006, 53-54). Lamyanba Irabot was declared an amaang-ba for actively opposing and violating the norms of amaang-aseng and was fined in 1938 (Laishram 2018, 137). He would be charged with sedition in 1940 for supporting the Nupee Lal, a militant women’s movement against the monopoly of export of rice from Manipur by Mayang traders under the protection of British. He would stay in jail for three years, first in Imphal jail and later he was moved to Sylhet jail (Khestri 2006, 58). He would not be allowed to enter Manipur even after the end of his sentence and would remain in exile till the end of the Second World War. 

Lamyanba Irabot came back to Manipur in 1946. Immediately,  he initiated a united front with other political organisations for a responsible government in Manipur in 1946 against the monarchy. The United Front of Manipur consisted of Krishak Sabha, Praja Shangha, Meitei Marup, Nongpok Apokpa Marup, Tangkhul Long, Kuki National Assembly, Khulmee Union, Mizo Union and a representative from Pangal Community, called Suleman Mia (Dena 1995, 113). The united front consisted of the communists and representative organisations of all the communities from Manipur for a responsible government. After an intense struggle, Manipur got its constitution in 1947, three years before Indian Union’s constitution. The constitution had reserved seats for the population living in the hills of Manipur and for Pangals, the indigenous muslim community in Manipur. Further, the constitution of Manipur guaranteed a considerable degree of autonomy for the hill areas as the hills would come   “under the provisions of the Manipur State Hill (Administration) Regulation, 1947” (Manipur Constitution Act, 1947 ).  In 1948, men and women of all religion and ethnicity voted for the first time in the history of Manipur. The five members of the communist organisation, Krishak Sabha, were elected in the legislative assembly (Kamei 2016, III 26). This is why Kuladhar Chaliha tells Dr. Ambedkar that “in Manipur one of the ministers was already a communist.”

Lamyanba Irabot, who was elected from the Utlou Constituency, would not be allowed inside the legislative assembly. He was charged with fermenting instability in Manipur after a violent incident which took place in a protest against creation of Purbanchal Pradesh, a design to merge Manipur, Cachar, Lushai Hills and Tripura in 1948 (ibid., II 157). The incident forced him to go underground and to emerge as an armed communist guerrilla in 1950 (Khestri 2006, 62). 

On 21^st September, 1949, Meitingu Bodh Chandra, the nominal head of the state of Manipur with no power to decide the future of Manipur, signed the merger agreement with India. He did not consult the legislative assembly of Manipur (Parratt 2005, 117). The legislative assembly rejected the merger. But, Manipur was merged with the Indian Union. When Lamyanba Irabot heard the news of the merger, he told his comrade Soyam Chattradhari “now Manipur is finished” (Soyam 1972, 69). The students’ organisation of Manipur Communist Party, Manipur Students’ Federation, hoisted a black flag at Porompat protesting the merger of Manipur with India on August 15, 1949 (Nag 2018, 105) [1]. After the merger, Manipur with its historic struggle against amaang­-aseng­, its struggle against feudalism and colonialism and with its own constitution became a part C state of the Indian Union, ruled by a Chief Commissioner. These are not water under the bridge but flames simmering under it. Therefore, Lamyanba Irabot and his Manipur’s history must be silenced and ignored.  

Ambedkar on Manipur, the land of uneducated 

After Manipur merged in India as a part C state, the question of how the people of Manipur must express their political will came under discussion in 1950 when Part C States (Laws) Bill was tabled in the parliament. Dr. Ambedkar, during the discussion, urged that Manipur needed to be dealt with as an exception; Manipur was different from other part C states. It was different from the other part C states as “manners and modes of life” of the people of Manipur “are considerably different” from the rest (Ambedkar 2014, 112). He acknowledged the difference, and he must be appreciated for it. Further, he mentioned that he came to the acknowledgement of this difference “as a result of a conference which was held between the representatives of the Home Department and the Chief Commissioner of Manipur” (ibid., 120). But, what does this exception entail for Manipur? His true colour came out when he discussed whether the people of Manipur should elect their own representatives and rule themselves. He told:   

Election will not be possible, for the simple reason that so far as these two states [Manipur and Tripura] are concerned, there are hardly any local authorities existing there…Manipur is a very backward area. There are any of these local bodies and organisations. The educational status of these two states [Manipur and Tripura] is also very backward…Consequently, it is felt that the only course left is to secure the representation of these two states by nomination by the President… (ibid., 207) 

His statement above is a minefield. First, Dr. Ambedkar argued that election would not be possible because there were “hardly any local authorities existing there” about a place, where an election had already been held (ibid.). He knew very well, as we have seen above, that what sort of local authorities the people of Manipur had till the territory was merged in India. Did Kuladhar Chaliha, in the constituent assembly debate on September 6, 1949, not tell him that there were elected representatives and one of them is a communist? He addressed him directly and told him this. Moreover, it is impossible that Dr. Ambedkar did not know about the constitution of Manipur and that the people of Manipur had an elected legislative assembly, even if he was sleeping while Chaliha was speaking. Manipur was one of the first among the South-East Asian countries whose people came together to make a constitution. He must have known this as the chairman of the drafting committee of the constitution of the Indian Union. Did he not count these elected representatives as “local authorities existing there”(ibid.)? It seems he did not. There must be a reason for this. Second, he stated that Manipur was a backward area. He acknowledged the differences in the modes and manners of lives of the indigenous people of Manipur from the rest. He saw this difference and measured it through a colonial lens, calling it backward and uncivilised. Third, he claimed that there were no local bodies and organisations. Should we not count, Krishak Sabha, Praja Shangha, Meitei Marup, Nongpok Apokpa Marup, Tangkhul Long, Kuki National Assembly, Khulmee Union, Mizo Union, the pangal representative, Suleiman Mia, who came together to struggle for a responsible government fighting the British and monarchy as local organisations? Did he not know that there were communist party’s guerrillas building bases in Kabaw Valley (Parratt 2005, 105)? Did the Home Department and the Chief Commissioner of Manipur not know the immediate history leading up to the merger? Did they not tell him? How is it possible for the chairman of the drafting committee of Indian constitution to miss these things? It is impossible to miss these things. Fourth, he claimed that “the educational status of these two states [Manipur and Tripura] is also very backward…”(ibid.). What did he mean by education? The people of Manipur had their own indigenous education system, we still study an ocean of both oral and written materials passed down from generation to generation in disciplines ranging from norms of society to medicine to rules of combat. If he sought a modern answer, Lamyanba Irabot must come here to answer. Lamyanba only studied till eight standard in the western education system but he was the one who fought against amaang-aseng, for a constitution, for universal adult franchise and for a classless society. 

Would Ambedkar say that dalits should not be allowed to elect their representatives on the account of their lack of modern education? Then, why was this exception for the people of Manipur? What was the reason that made him feel that “the only course left is to secure the representation of [Manipur]…by nomination by the President” (ibid.)? The matter did not seem to be western education. Is the answer Lamyanba Irabot and his communist comrades? Did Ambedkar and Kuladhar Chaliha share the same worry? Given his experience with the communists in the mainland, which he called upper caste, it seemed that he wanted to punish the people of Manipur for allowing communism, as a dutiful educated civilised master. He ignored their struggles against amaang-aseng, the Nupee Lal, their becoming a people through a constitution and their armed critique of their own constitution. He silenced their history telling his countrymen that they were uneducated, they had no local authorities and they had no local organisations and bodies. In doing so, instead of speaking the truth and revealing his fear for the future generation to judge, he chose to harp on the racism that his countrymen have till now for the people of the region. And, he concluded that the people of Manipur cannot rule themselves.  

Ambedkar must not hang out with Lamyanba Irabot 

Lamyanba Irabot’s political life did not start from being a communist radical to being later educated on the need for social transformation and at last accepting the path of electoral politics. He began with his fight against amaang-aseng, struggled for a constitution, became an elected representative and at last became an armed communist rebel. Therefore, he still remains a dangerous man. So, he must be appropriated if his voice cannot be silenced. And, there have been attempts to appropriate. We saw this attempt to appropriate first when Dalit Sahitya Academy started paying joint tribute to Lamyanba Irabot and Dr. Ambedkar since 2015. On the 123rd birth anniversary of Lamyanba Irabot, Dalit Sahitya Academy again brought in Dr. Ambedkar’s photo and paid tribute to both of them. We have seen what Dr. Ambedkar thought of Lamyanba Irabot’s Manipur and his struggles. For Dr. Ambedkar, he was an uneducated man who must not have the rights to elect his own representatives. Another attempt we saw was the celebration of Lamyanba Irabot’s birth anniversary by the Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students Association (BAPSA) of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in 2019. First, they did not bother to check when he was born and celebrated his 123rd birth anniversary as the 124th birth anniversary. It is not the mistake that bothers but their casualness in appropriating, the strangeness with which they do. They are strangers to him. Second, it is quite ideologically shocking that those who oppose communism and armed rebellion are appropriating an armed communist rebel. Is this their ideological bankruptcy or their sheer opportunism? But one thing must be said to those who shout, laal bhawa eek hai, saare comrade fake hai [red and saffron are the same, all comrades are fake] and are now appropriating Lamyanba Irabot. The comrades of Lamyanba Irabot must reply: Mayang red, mayang saffron, mayang blue, are all the same, they are all mayangs. 

Endnotes 

[1] Sajal Nag (2018, 105) cites Praja Tantra newspaper article published on August 17, 1948. He quotes:    

On the 15^th August 1949, the Manipur Student’s Federation held a protest meeting by hoisting a Black Flag at Porompat. Cyclostyled bulletins were also distributed. Last year, Dr. Leiren Singh, the present Minister-in-charge of Education held a procession by hoisting a black flag on the 15^th August, 1948, at Khurai (Lamlong). By that time this gentleman had not been selected a Minister. This year Srijut N. Binoy Singh, who is the son of this gentleman has performed the function on behalf of the Manipur Student’s Federation.  

References 

2019. “KSA fumes over Dr. Ambedkar photo at Irabot’s tribute event.”  September 30 2019. https://www.thepeopleschronicle.in/daily/english/4777

2019. “Remembering Lamyanba Hijam Irabot on his 124th Birth Anniversary.” BAPSA. September 31, 2019.  https://twitter.com/bapsa_jnu/status/1178737188210495493

Ambedkar, Bhimrao. 2014. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches. Vol. 15. Edited by Vasant Moon. Delhi: Dr. Ambedkar Foundation. 

Constituent Assembly Debates of India (Proceedings) – Volume IX. https://www.constitutionofindia.net/constitution_assembly_debates/volume/9/1949-09-06

Dena, Lal. 1995. Annexation of Manipur 1949. Imphal:  PDM. 

Parratt, John. 2005. Wounded Land: Politics and Identity in Modern Manipur. Delhi: Mittal Publications. 

Kamei, Gangumei. 2016. A History of Modern Manipur, 1826-2000: A Study of Feudalism, Colonialism and Democracy. Delhi: Akansha Publishing House. 

Khuraijam, Bijoykumar Singh. 2016. “Religious revivalism and colonial rule: Origin of the Sanamahi Movement.” In Colonialism and Resistance. Edited by Arambam, Noni and Sanatomba Kangujam. Delhi: Routledge. 

Kshetri, Rajendra. 2006. The Emergence of Meitei Nationalism: A Study of Two Movements among the Meeteis. Delhi: Mittal Publications. 

Laishram, Sotin. 2018. Irawat and Left Movement in Manipur. Imphal: Progressive Literature House. 

Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947.  https://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/manipur/documents/actsandordinances/manipur_state_constitution_act_1947.htm

Nag, Sajal. 2018. India and North-East India: Mind, Politics and the Process of Integration 1946-1950. Delhi: Regency Publications. 

Soyam, Chattradhari. 1972. Manipuri Itihasta Irawat. Imphal: Soyam Publications.