“Sahib, we do not agree with what you say. You have killed many women and children by firing in the night. You have tried to kill me. You know no justice. This day you have tried to kill the king and all the country. You have stopped only because you were not able to do so. You have burnt Chingnangkhongnang in the east. What have we Meiteis done to wrong you? You wish only to attack us and we do not trust you.” [Queen Empress vs Tikendrajit Prince of Manipur: The Anglo Manipuri Conflict of 1891]
This is a statement made by Prince Koireng while conversing with Chief Commissioner Mr. Quinton on March, 1891. The sense of nationalism displayed by Prince Koireng is extraordinarily unique to find its place within the structural framework of popular political practices prescribed by the West, and its conception of the broad idea of nationalism. The political scenario of 1891 Manipur, mysteriously resembles the present condition in Manipur. Had there been no Prince Koireng, then Manipur could not have found its place within the history of defiance to the Queen. It could have been an insignificant event that happened while surveying for an eastern corridor.
Prince Koireng’s personality, according to the historical narratives, was more inclined to the characters of a crowned king. This does not mean he behaves like a king, imitating the king and its way of exercising power. Prince Koireng was a class in himself. After the demise of King Chandrakirti, Prince Surchandra ascended the throne. Starting from the very day of Chandrakirti’s demise, there were three rebellions led by, first, Prince Borachaoba, second, by Wangkheirakpa, and third led by Jogendra Singh. History tells us that Senapati Koireng was the key person who suppressed the rebellions. The ironic part is that the fourth rebellion was led by Koireng himself.
That being said, the question is, was it truly a rebellion? The implication here is the true implication and intention of dethroning Surchandra. What matters is the role of Koireng as a visionary prince who envisioned the self-destructive internal flaws occurring within the palace. From the very beginning Koireng never initiated his arguments straight against the British. He was always aware of the help extended by the empire during the reign of Gambhir Singh. Above that, he was also not blind to the political intricacies adopted by the colonial expansionists. Koireng’s position implies two rationales both implicit in the post event analysis: 1. His sense of awareness to the sinister imperial policy. & 2. He being a whistle-blower, and hence he acted. Both needed an extreme form of courage, sound and composed mental set-up, and a strong moral stand integral in upholding and retaining the regional sovereignty.
Koireng’s situational approach is commendable in all possible aspects. The semantics of family grudge as projected by the few, is highly shallow and superficial for alluding the cause of the Anglo-Manipuri War. To infer such things is overlooking the true character of Koireng, and his role as a savior. He may have failed to protect the suzerainty, but he revived the ancient civilizational and cultural glory of the region. Koireng’s sword was dedicated and devoted to the land and the throne. The functionality of his moral compass is evident both during his support to Surchandra, and during his days of defiance.
If we are to witness people like Koireng in these days who have a seat at the high table, but still possessed with an uncompromisable integrity, this land could be a merrier and a proud one. Recent events have proved that mistakes are being made in the form of irrational decisions from the high table. But non have the courage to withstand the calamity by pointing the gross indulgence. We can blame our fate because we find non who are at least aware of the ongoing procedural defilement. Another logical corollary speaks about sadistic character of such person who still seats at the high table but remains dumb, deaf, and blind to the suffering of the general public. Now, when someone addressed us as savages, is he pointing to the people who are fighting for rights, and for humanity? Or, is he referring to the sadistic individuals who remains indifferent to the pain of a man, gutted to death with a scythe?
The writer is Assistant Professor, Imphal College
