Manipur Kings and Their Reigns

Wahengbam Ibohal Singh, in History of Manipur tries to redate the Manipuri kings, a more rational effort as compared to the traditional account based on Cheitarol Kumbaba. The main points are below.

  1. Ibohal Singh bases his dates on the founding of Chandrabda – 789 AD and the fact that Imphal valley is populated no earlier than 800 AD.
  2. Traditional accounts consider Nongta Larien Pakhangba, the first ruler of Manipur married Laisna, who accompanied Poireiton. However, Ibohal Singh attributes Pakhangba as a dynastic change.
  3. This is partly because Naothingkhong was ruling during Samlungfa’s invasion of the general area from East, a hint that Sukhapha hasn’t reached Assam yet. A backward interpolation any older than that seems impractical.
Traditional Wahengbam Ibohal Singh
King Start End Start End
1 Poireiton 810 850
2 Tabung 850 890
3 Pangminaba 890 905
4 Khunthiha 905 930
5 Luwang Punshiba 930 980
1 Pakhangba 33 154 980 1020
2 Khuiyoi Tompok 154 264 1020 1055
3 Taothingmaug 264 364 1055 1075
4 Khui Ningomba 364 379 1075 1092
5 Pengshiba 379 394 1092 1115
6 Kaokhangba 394 411 1115 1133
7 Naokhamba 411 428 1133 1110
8 Naophangba 428 518 1140 1171
9 Sameirang 518 568 1171 1190
10 Ura Konthouba 568 658 1190 1215
11 Naothingkhong 663 763 1215 1260
12 Khongtekcha 763 773 1250 1260
13 Keirencha 784 799 1271 1276
14 Yarba 799 821 1276 1278
15 Ayangba 821 910 1278 1281
16 Ningthoucheng 910 949 1281 1290
17 Chenglei Ipan Lanthaba 949 969 1290 1294
18 Yanglou Keipliaba 969 984 1294 1296
19 Irengba 984 1074 1296 1310
20 Lolyumba 1074 1112 1310 1336
21 Loitongba 1122 1150 1336 1346
22 Aton Yoiremba 1150 1163 1346 1347
23 Iwanthaba 1163 1195 1347 1353
24 Thawaathaba 1195 1231 1353 1356
25 Chingthang Lanthaba 1231 1242 1356 1358
26 Thingbai Shelhongba 1242 1247 1358 1360
27 Puranthaba 1247 1263 1360 1362
28 Khumomba 1263 1278 1362 1370
29 Moiramba 1278 1302 1370 1381
30 Thangbi Lanthaba 1302 1324 1381 1391
31 Kongyamba 1324 1335 1391 1398
32 Telheiba 1335 1355 1398 1401
33 Tonaba 1355 1359 1401 1403
34 Tabungba 1339 1394 1403 1415
35 Lairenba 1394 1399 1415 1419
36 Punsiba 1404 1432 1424 1437
37 Ningthoukhomba 1432 1467 1437 1467
38 Kyamba 1467 1508 1467 1508
39 Koiremba 1508 1512 1508 1512
40 Lam Kiyamba 1512 1523 1512 1523
41 Nongyinphaba 1523 1524 1523 1524
42 Kambomba 1524 1542 1524 1542
43 Tangjamba 1542 1545 1542 1545
44 Challamba 1545 1562 1545 1562
45 Mungyangba 1562 1597 1562 1597
46 Khagemba 1597 1652 1597 1652
47 Khunjaoba 1652 1666 1652 1666
48 Paikhomba 1666 1697 1666 1697
49 Charairongba 1697 1709 1697 1709
50 Pamheiba(Garib Niwaz) 1709 1748 1709 1748
51 Chit Shah 1748 1752 1748 1752
52 Bharat Shah 1752 1753 1752 1753
53 Maramba 1753 1759 1753 1759
54 Chingthangkhomba(Jai Singh) 1759 1762 1759 1762
55 Maramba 1762 1763 1762 1763
56 Chingthangkhomba(Jai Singh) 1763 1798 1763 1798
57 Labanyachandra 1798 1801 1798 1801
58 Madhuchandra 1801 1803 1801 1803
59 Chourjit 1803 1813 1803 1813
60 Marjit 1813 1819 1813 1819
61 Takuningthou (Herachandra) 1819 1819 Burmese Rule
62 Yumjaotaba 1820 1820 Burmese Rule
63 Gambhir Singh 1821 1821 Burmese Rule
64 Jai Singh 1822 1822 Burmese Rule
65 Jadu Singh (Nongpok Chinslenkhomba) 1823 1823 Burmese Rule
66 Raghab Singh 1823 1824 Burmese Rule
67 Nongchup Lamgaingamba (Bhadrasing) 1824 1825 Burmese Rule
68 Gambhir Singh (Chinglen Nongdrenkhomba) 1825 1834 1825 1834
69 Chandrakirti (Ningthem Pishak) 1834 1844 1834 1844
70 Nara Singh 1844 1850 1844 1850
71 Debendra 1850 1850 1850 1850
72 Chandrakirti 1850 1886 1850 1886
73 Surchandra 1886 1890 1886 1890
74 Kulachandra 1890 1891 1890 1891
75 Churachand Singh 1891 1941 Not in list
76 Bodhchandra Singh 1941 1955 Not in list

If System is Designed to Support an Individual – The Case of Henry Inglis

As one goes through a British report on Khasi and Jaintia Hills titled Report On The Administration Of The Cossyah And Jynteah Hill Territory, he will be surprised at the omnipresence of Henry Inglis in the area. This single episode gives a clear picture on why Robert Mugabe necked out all the Europeans from Zimbabwe.

It looks like Henry Inglis entered Khasi and Jaintia hills as the son in law of the then Political Agent of that area, FG Lister. The British tried to whitewash his legacy, but the reality is that everyone had problems with him. He has taken control of every business legally or illegally, and spread his tentacles everywhere. Note that this information is only till 1857 and he seemed to have had a happening life much further than that.

By the time the report was written, he controlled 88% of limestone trade and almost 100% of orange trade (only the orange groves of Ootma, Oomwa and Abrah were out of his control and they were not of any major market value). He seems to have controlled both the coal mines of Cherra and Lakadong but relinquished control once they stopped yielding making him a complete master of all organized exports out of Khasi and Jaintia hills with 50% of the revenue and 62% of profits going to his pockets. Does this include any cuts which go to the government, I don’t know. For 1857, the numbers show the below.

Screen Shot 2017-06-18 at 23.36.32

Coming to exports. It’s alleged that all the British traders left the hills because of the influence Inglis held and the open support he got from the Political Agent, his father-in-law and then his successor, Hudson using which he ensured absolute control of trade in the area. Also, it is alleged there was never justice involving him in Cherra court. After one such coercion exercise, an order was passed on 17 Oct 1856 prohibiting outsiders with large retinue into the Hills. There was a follow up order on 31 Oct 1856. In all, 57 cases were filed against him in Cherra(21 cases) and Sylhet(36 cases) courts and he was declared innocent in all of them.

A few of the details are below.

  1. There was an attempted personal assault at Kuppreya Bazaar and Oomkhaboo on Mr. Coleman by the local Dolois. Coleman filed the case in Sylhet even though the incident happened in Cherra because they didn’t have confidence in Cherra Court and that they decided not to enter the hill territory till they are provided personal protection from Inglis. Verdict: There is nothing to link Inglis to the attacks.
  2. Haddan and Brownlow were going to Cheyla to inspect a petroleum well when they were roughed up by some locals near Katta Ghat on 17 Oct 1856. Enquiries proved that a tent and some elephants belonging to Inglis were located at the same place at that time. Verdict: There is nothing to link Inglis to the attacks.
  3. Oseep Sing, Dholah Raja of Mahram complained Inglis took control of Mahram lime quarries. Verdict: Not guilty. Inglis claimed he leased them. Raja Ramsye, Kalah Raja of Mahram claimed that the lease was signed under duress. Verdict: Not guilty – there is nothing to prove duress. Ramsye’s brother was possibly bribed to take Inglis’s stand.
  4. Inglis had a dispute over Byrang Poonjee mine with the Raja of Cherra.
  5. Sweetland, agent to Sylhet coal company complained Inglis forcibly removed limestone belonging to Moran and Co, Calcutta from Choon Cherra Lamasain and Burr Ghaut and couldn’t get redress from the Principal Asst Commissioner. Verdict: Sweetland was given a cut off to remove the lime quarried. Only after the expiry, Inglis’s men took control of the lime since it’s legally theirs.
  6. Besides this, by ensuring there is no opposition, all import trade is under his control. Verdict: Those who filed complaints are deceived by the representations of their local agents.
  7. Raja Hazar Sing of Moleem(Khyrim) clamed that he was evicted out of the Elaka of Paunch Poonjee in 1849 by Lister on the instigation of his son-in-law. Verdict: The lands were surrendered to British in 1835 as a part of Jaintia Hills settlement. They were handed over to Moleem under the condition that a bridge is to be built on Lingteah between 1837 and 1840. No explanation why there was a delay of 9 years.
  8. 74 inhabitants of Cheyla Poonjee district in writing and 74 verbally complained that they are not permitted to sell oranges in open market and are forced to sell it to Inglis for less than market price on the instigation of Wahadadars and Zamindars of the area. Verdict: The groves were leased to Inglis in 1845 and it is his legal right to get the oranges from his farms. It is important to note that the first lease with Inglis was made on Feb 15 1830 for 15 years against a loan of Rs 3000. Well, the story looks like someone leasing someone else’s property without the owner knowing about it. The table below clearly shows the dependency of Cheyla Wahaddars on Inglis with heavy debts at 24% interest per annum, with the orange groves given as surety in 1857.

Screen Shot 2017-06-18 at 17.44.59.png

Fireworks for India’s Loss – Seriously?

Tags

,

In one word, ASHAMED. My housemaid was asking today morning, why are they celebrating? Who won the match. And when she got to know that the celebrations are for India’s loss against Pakistan, she was very sad.

In such a tense situation, first of all, India shouldn’t play the match. But it played. India being trashed, is it a matter of pride for Indians? Or is it that the celebrations are for Pakistan defeating India? Is that the level of patriotism we have got? Or, does this mean people are not happy that India is cutting down Pakistan to size?

Golwalkar quoted

The law-abiding citizens are told to restrict themselves, and those who are out to indulge in violence are given a free hand to do what they like. This is in a way admitting, though indirectly, that within the country there are so many Muslim pockets, i.e., so many ‘miniature Pakistans’, where the general law of the land is to be enforced only with certain modifications and the whims of the miscreants have to be given the final say. This acceptance, indirect though it may be, implies a very dangerous theory fraught with possibilities of destruction of our national life altogether. Such ‘pockets’ have verily become centres of a widespread network of pro-Pakistani elements in this land. 

That was a different age and that was a different social scenario. Even after 70 long years, why are those comments still relevant? I am not passing any judgements. My question is simple. Why are we in such a situation? Below tweets are a glimpse of what happened after the match. It’s time for us to seriously introspect what is the mistake we are doing.

                       

 

via Blogger http://ift.tt/2shk5qM

Dissensions Regarding the Succession to the Cherra Raj – A typical British Report on a Tribal Kingdom

On my arrival at Cherra Poonjee I found that violent dissensions were raging between Rajah Ram Sing, of Cherra Poonjee, and almost all the principal Sirdars of his district. The last Rajah, Soubah Sing, died on the 5th of June 1856, and Rajah Ram Sing, who is the eldest nephew of the deceased, represented to the Principal Assistant Commissioner, that he had succeeded his uncle. The succession was reported to the Supreme Government, and the Right Hon’ble the Governor General in Council was pleased to sanction the succession of Rajah Ram Sing to the Raj of Cherra Poonjee. Rajah Ram Sing, however, had not been elected, according to the custom of the country, by the Heads of the twelve tribes or clans in whom the power of election is vested, and in consequence a great many of the most influential people refused to acknowledge him as the lawful ruler of Cherra Poonjee. As the performance of the funeral ceremonies of the late Rajah, by Rajah Ram Sing, would, according to the usage of the country, have beon conclusive in regard to the succession, the opposition party would not permit the dead body of Soubah Sing to be burnt, and in consequence it was kept in the village for nearly a year. After I had given the Heads of the twelve tribes an assurance that the Government would maintain the just and ancient rights of both parties, the representatives of the twelve tribes withdrew their opposition, and the funeral ceremonies of the late Rajah were celebrated in the usual manner on the 4th of May 1857, without any disturbance.

It is, I think, beyond dispute that Rajah Ram Sing has succeeded to the Cherra Raj in an irregular manner and that he has not been elected, as all his predecessors have been, by the representatives of the twelve tribes or clans, who, by immemorial usage, have the right of election. The local authorities, I think, ought to have taken care that Rajah Ram Sing had been duly elected before they reported his succession for the sanction of Government. As he had been recognized as Chieftain by the Supreme Government, and was not personally disqualified for the office, it appeared to me inexpedient to listen to the request of the representatives of the twelve tribes to be allowed to elect a Chieftain. An election when the passions of both parties were inflamed, and during the critical period of July and August 1857, might have been attended with untoward consequences; under these circumstances I thought it advisable to settle the matter amicably at once. The representatives of the twelve tribes were not unreasonable; they held a durbar, by invitation, at my office. I represented to them that the appointment of Ram Sing had been sanctioned by the Government, and that it was inexpedient to reopen that question, and I gave them an assurance in writing that the succession of Ram Sing should not be taken as a precedent, but that in all future successions the ancient and established usages of the country should be strictly abided by and faithfully observed. With this compromise both parties appeared to be satisfied, and the dispute-regarding the succession has been settled; the result, however, might have been different, had the disputed succession occurred in one of the distant states where the people are more wild and bigoted than those of Cherra Punjee ; the Cossyahs are very touchy about their political rights; and the district officer should see that they are respected. In this instance Rajah Ram Sing was clearly in the wrong throughout; he is a head-strong, arbitrary and unpopular Chieftain, and I took this opportunity of intimating to him quietly that he must not expect the Government to support him in any encroachments on the liberties of his people.