“The victorious career of Gureeb Nuwaz clearly proves, that during his reign the Muneepoorees had acquired very considerable power; and as the events just narrated (Pamheiba’s achievements in the first half of the 18th Century) are drawn almost exclusively from Burmese historical works, and are the acknowledgments of a defeated enemy, all suspicion of their truth must cease to exist.” – Pemberton Report, 1835
“With regard to Munnipore, it is stipulated that, should Gumbheer Singh desire to return to that country, he shall be recognized by the King of Ava as Rajah thereof.” – Treaty of Yandaboo, February 24, 1826
History has many things to say regarding the rise and fall of an empire. But in those sayings, are we sensitive enough to conceive the meanings and its interpretations that arises out of the historical events? If such is the case, that we are able to sow and reap something out of the richness of history, then we could have been a part of something profound and glorious. Interpretations of the themes of history is hardly done with unwavering wisdom. When history supplies data and facts, the unsettled humans prematurely reconcile the meanings with his own present necessities. The benefits of such reconciliation are on the other hand looting the rest in many ways.
In this era of copy and paste, people are dangerously familiar with the habit of copying past thought and actions. When they try to imitate the greatness of their forefathers, they end up boasting among the weak and feeble laymen. The notion of ‘my father is a hero’ is proving to be goofy in this present epoch. The greatness in the past was not necessarily determine by their actions alone, but the underlying thoughts behind the actions, which are historical in character, played the key role. Decisions were made amid pressures and instability, and those decisions that seems futile during those days, proved to be a remarkable precedence in history. Again, if one simply repeats history, in the form of a decision, copying exactly what was done in the past, without considering the historical situation that has its impact on that particular decision, is committing a foolish crime. Decisions were never independent of the incumbent environment, despite its uniqueness and effectiveness. Dissociating decision from its relative time and space, is inviting an unwelcomed peril.
To be very frank, Pamheiba’s feat was nonetheless remarkable in history. His political and military accomplishments were generally regarded as the greatest among the Meitei monarchs in the last ten centuries. But his loss of sight in the religious domain cost him his entire achievements in other fields. On the other hand, Gambhir Singh’s negotiation, though it led to the loss of many precious things, had resulted in the restoration of the Meitei throne. Neither of the case prove to be essentially right or wrong in the true sense of the term. However, one can witness the unfairness and tragedy of different epochs. If one attempts to accuse Pamheiba of dismantling the indigenous faith and fostering a foreign one, one must also deport the entire historical epoch of Pamheiba at this very moment of accusation, and judge accordingly. The petitioner will be struck by a hurricane of Pamheiba’s feat. He could be a victim of a dilemmatic choices that lies ahead of him in the form of a dharam-sankat. I don’t know how Pamheiba would justify his deeds if he is given the opportunity to speak before a supreme court. But, for most of us, his accomplishment might outlast his mistakes.
In the same tone, Gambhir’s negotiation that ultimately leads to the loss of major sections of the eastern part of Manipur, had succeeded in restoring the kingdom in the hands of the Meiteis. The historical epoch where Gambhir Singh and Herachandra belongs to, has its own uniqueness. What really counts was the rational decisions made during their days.
That being said, the rise and fall of an empire is evident in both the cases. It is not the case that Khagemba’s achievements was ended during the reign of Pamheiba, or Pamheiba’s accomplishment was compromise during the time of Gambhir Singh. It is the case that in Pamheiba’s time itself, the rise and fall of his empire occurred. Similarly, in the time of Gambhir Singh, the same rise and fall occurred. What differentiates between the two is simply the epochs.
The problem arises when pseudo intellectuals began to interpret history, denigrating its epochs and the fundamental moral standards that belongs to those particular epochs. This was never about Pamheiba or Gambhir as person, but how they decide in the course of history. My personal opinion will hypothetically insist that, had Pamheiba disallowed the introduction of the western civilization and its related cultures, we could have been entirely annihilated in 1826 (though very debatable). The knowledge of the technology of military assistance and collaboration were moderately weak in the days of ancient Meitei monarchs. And if Gambhir Singh had remain silent, stuck to the ancient pride and glory of his forefathers, the sacred throne of Pakhangba could have been lost forever. On the one hand, Pamheiba’s achievements aroused the Avas for military campaigns in Manipur, and on the other hand, his mistakes proved to be useful in saving the kingdom.
That being said, any attempt to create another Manipur Levy, or any attempt to reintroduced more advance western cultures, in this 21st Century, might not yield the same reward.
The writer is Assistant Professor, Imphal College
