http://www.nezine.com/

“I call my theatre as the Theatre of the Earth”- 

Heisnam Kanhailal

Jyotirmoy Prodhani

Date of Publish: 2015-11-15

INTERVIEW

“I call my theatre as the Theatre of the Earth”- Heisnam Kanhailal

An interview with the noted theatre personality of modern Indian theatre from Manipur, a recipient of Padma Shri award, Heisnam Kanhailal by Jyotirmoy Prodhani. This interview was taken when Kanhailal visited  North Eastern Hill  University in Shillong as the key resource person for a theatre appreciation course organised by National School of Drama in 2014.  There he had staged his plays and demonstrated his theatre methodology. In an intimate conversation he reflects on his own genre of theatre tradition that he has evolved.

JP: You have evolved a new theatrical idiom and have also incorporated various native elements from Manipur to give a specific identity to your theatre. How would you like to define your theatre?

H. Kanhailal:  “Theatre of the Earth. This is how I would like to call my theatre. My theatre is the theatre of the earth, it is essentially rooted in the earth and do not necessarily descend from heaven, it is informed by the accumulated wisdom that gathered from the earth, from here and now, our surroundings, our milieu. It intimately emanates from its own ecology, its own native landscape. After all, not only art, even science has emerged from the earth. If one looks at life away from this reality, one is unceremoniously dislocated from one's native ground. Even the social experiences of the individual and the community are actually solidified through its intimate linkages with the earth”

JP: How different is your theatre from that of Ratan Thiyam who is also known as one of the exponents of what is called “Theatre of Roots”?

H. Kanhailal: “Ratan Thiyam’s plays are fantastic; they make majestic theatrical presence and are superbly spectacular. It is a mindboggling visual treat. But for me theatre is not only about copious extravaganza, it is essentially about the intimate nuances, the raw earthy immediacy of experiences. This is what “Theatre of Earth” is all about. I strongly believe that theatre is essentially grounded with ideology and a deep rooted social commitment.”

JP: What is the inherent ideology of your theatre, ‘Theatre of Earth’ that is?

H. Kanhailal: “Theatre is not a detached art, it is strongly linked with its ideological commitments for it must become a voice for the voiceless, a means that gives the power and strength to the disempowered to resist and take on the challenges. Theatre must speak for the weak, the vulnerable, the voiceless. Or else what should theatre strive for? I always think of Jesus; he has been a constant inspiration for me. He has sacrificed himself for the weaker section of the people. Similarly, theatre too should act heroically like Spartacus who turned ordinary slaves into formidable soldiers to fight valiantly against the oppressive rule of the Roman oligarchy.”

JP: How do you think your theatre could achieve that goal?

H. Kanhailal: This has been my mission to bring theatre closer to the people not only as audience but as participants. One of my early experiments was Nupi Lan, (women’s war of 1939) which we produced in 1989. This was one of the first plays in Manipur where the women of Imphal’s famous all women market, Ima Keithel (mother’s market), were my actors who had  performed the play in the market shed itself. We had produced another play in 1979,   Sanjennaha (cowherd) which was performed in a remote village of Umathel where the local Paite tribal villagers were the performers. 

JP: What are the issues that you often try to address through your theatre?

H. Kanhailal: Theatre must be able to question the conventional representations and its politics. For example, even the great epic like the Mahabharata is not free from this vice. I was moved by the complexities of the character of Karna in theMahabharata. I was inspired by Karna to carry out a theatrical experiment. I wrote a play on him, Karna, which we produced in 1997. For me this is one of my most significant productions where I tried to raise the question of social segregation and politics of caste and marginalisation. The last scene of the play is very significant when Karna dies. Though his actual mother Kunti had abandoned him as an infant in order to avoid embarrassment but as he died she comes to claim the body of her son for cremation as an Aryaputra. It is an irony that when he was alive she never came to claim her motherhood upon him but when he dies she wants to preserve his caste sanctity.  There also arrives Radha, Karna’s shudra step mother. Interestingly, since she was a shudra, she was barred from shedding tears at the death her son. However, she also laid claim on the body of Karna for cremation. Now who actually had the real claim over the body of Karna? There I tried to answer the question through the spirit of Karna. The spirit of Karna said, ‘I am none of your son, I am the son of the author of this great epic, Vyasa. It is he who made me, it is he who orphaned me. I am his prodigy, only he has the claim over me, only he can bring finality to my present status of ambivalence.’ You see this question still persists as to who determines the mode of our representations in society, who has the rightful claims over the rights we often fight for. Through my theatre I try to address these issues though I do not claim that I have got those answers yet.”

JP: Your Dopdi is also quite significant.

H. Kanhailal: “It is one of the most controversial also. I had picked up the story from Mahasweta Devi’s short story. The story had a huge impact on me for I found the story to have strong relevance to our own context. This is a powerful story of universal experience of human suffering and oppression. This is the story of an adivasi woman of Bengal, whose husband was killed in a fake encounter, and was raped by a Senanayak, a captain of the Indian Army. Sabitri (Sabitiri Heisnam, Kanhailal’s actor wife) played the lead role in the play. In the play she peels her cloth off one by one and dares the Senanayak to rape her. The defenseless naked body of a woman turned out to be the most powerful weapon to mutilate the masochism of state brutality. In the play Sabitri actually removed all her cloth, stood all naked in front of the army Captain with the back of her body facing the audience. It was completely a new theatrical experience for the audience. The play was hugely appreciated in the metropolises like Delhi and Calcutta. The scene made the most powerful theatrical statement with that audacious act. The critics came and met me to shower their praises. But the same play when performed in Manipur drew strong reactions. It became a big controversy. I was threatened and was asked to pull out the play. But interestingly many NGOs of young people supported my play and wanted me to continue with the play. But quite significantly, the play turned out to be a prophetic premonition. The play opened in 2000, but when in 2004 (11 July, 2004) the Kangla incident happened with the Manipuri women stripped completely to protest against the killing and rape of Thongjam Manorama by the Assam Rifles personnel, with that famous banner, “Indian Army, Rape Us”, they found a strange resonance of the play I had produced some four years before. I received phone calls where the callers used to address me as “Ching’ü”, the foreseer or a prophet.

JP: You have an elaborate module of theatre training in your Kalakshetra Manipur, the most famous abode of learning theatre. What are the principles that are cultivated?

H. Kanhailal: “Theatre is not only about enacting roles on stage for the shows alone. It is an art of complete commitment. Acting is not as simple as it seems when one sees it on stage. Acting is a discipline of extreme rigour. You must have complete control over your whole body, mind and spirit. Here everyone goes through a rigorous training regime which includes voice coaching, physical training, martial art, meditation, training on music and dance and so on. We have picked up elements from various sources, for there are so many things we have to learn from. Our actors learn meditation from the Buddhist schools of meditation, they learn about physical movements and voice control and modulation from the movements and voices of animals, birds and even from the trees. It is a comprehensive training module, after all to become an actor one needs to be alert and be one with

Khan Choudhury Amanatulla Ahmed: Rediscovering the First Modern Historian of Kamatapur

Jyotirmoy Prodhani

Khan Choudhury Amanatulla Ahmed (1873-1957) is one of the major native historians during the colonial periods to have taken the task of writing the history of a very significant kingdom and its people – Koch Behar and the Koches. In fact, writing history was an intellectual resistance to the constant feeding of the colonisers about real and imagined stories that further demonised, denigrated and disfigured the natives. The substantial amount of texts produced by the colonial authors from the late 18^th century onward is symptomatic of a typical colonial design to map, interpelate and construct the natives. In the context of North East India there has been a significant proliferation of works pertaining to the documentation of the indigenous ethnic communities of the land. This includes the authors like B.H. Hodgson (Koch, Bodo and Dhimal Tribes, 1847), Alexander Mackenzie (The North East Frontier 1884), T.C. Hodson (The Meithis, in 1908), Sidney Endle (The Kacharis, 1911), William Carey (The Garo Jungle Book, 1919), J.P. Mills (The Rengma Nagas, 1937) and many more. Quite significantly most of these writers were not trained historians or professional academics; rather they were mostly mid level administrators or associated with their respective missionary dispensations with perhaps the exception of T.C. Hodson who was an acclaimed academician. The attempts have been largely anthropological, social and also historical, but almost none of them were known scholars of such disciplines, not even trained in the field. The colonial texts on the natives were not naive academic exercises either. This was part of specific colonial agenda – to govern, ‘civilize’ and, of course, to subjugate.

                The history written about the indigenous tribes by the colonisers reflect a typical pattern – that of distinguishing them from all possible traces of their pan Indian linkages. More tellingly almost all such accounts invariably express an anxiety when the respective communities seem to have intimate cultural and spiritual ties with that of Hinduism. The colonial historians have even invented a phrase, “Hindu converts or “Hinduisation”. Both these terms are the derivatives from the exercise of the Christian Missionaries that had conversion of the natives to Christianity en masse as one of its fundamental preoccupations. Therefore even apparently erudite and specialised works like Hodgson’s Koch Bodo and Dhimal Tribes mentions the native spiritual traits of the Koches as an effect of their conversion to Hinduism from the reign of Vishwa Singha. In fact, the use of the very term ‘conversion’ in the context of the North East tribes is a clear indication of the horrible lack of the proper understanding of the evolution of the Hindu spiritual order as a non invasive and accommodative discourse that has the inbuilt capacity to assign legitimacy to the diverse religious enunciations of indigenous cultures unlike the organised religions like Christianity and Islam which are primarily predicated upon the denial and discrediting of the indigenous faiths of the natives.

Conversion essentially entails abandonment or even metaphorical murdering of one’s native deity. Hence, when one is converted to Christianity or Islam or other such organised religion one must enact this act of either abandoning or even murdering one’s ancient God as the necessary precondition. Hinduism has sustained and expanded itself with the native rites rather than replacing it with in its own absolute terms. This incapacity of Christianity has made it an urgent task to denigrate the native faiths and their practices of regular spiritual rites, now entrenched into the Hindu fold, as something evil, self defacing and disparaging. This has been one of the absurd fundamentals of the colonial historiography.

                Amanatulla Ahmed was one of the very few native historians of the first quarter of the twentieth century colonial India. The task of writing history for a native historian under colonial regime was not easy.  But being a part of the ancient Kamrupa, Amanatulla has been a part of the great Kamrupi legacy of historiography. Among the native rulers of the medieval India the Koches and the Ahoms were the only dynasties that had promoted the writing of history under the full royal patronage. The Vanshavalis of the Koches and the Buranjis of the Ahoms are two of the most significant native historiographic traditions of medieval India. The great Koch regime in Kamatapur is known for the keeping of the royal record in the form of Vanshavalis. The Darang Rajvanshavali being one of the most significant historical documents of the Koches. With the advent of colonialism as the native kings became mostly subservient to the colonial rulers, the history of the land did not remain as glorifying to encourage the recording of that history under royal patronage. This led to the steady decline of indigenous history by native historians; besides the mode of writing history considerably changed under the colonial tutelage. Therefore this enterprise was taken over by the colonial writers instead, often with the objective to subvert the past and the present realities of the natives from within.  `

                This is significant that the reigning King of Koch Behar commissioned one of the most learned men of his land to write the history of his kingdom, and arguably Amanatullah Ahmed had emerged through his Cooch Beharer Itihas (1936) as the first native historian of Kamatapur to have mastered the art of modern historiography of the West to write the history of an indigenous kingdom. While writing the history of Koch Behar he had carried out an extensive research and drew up a broad canvas to construct a comprehensive narrative of the Kamatapur history beginning from the time of Kamrupa to Kamatapur to the present Koch Behar of his time. He had extensively travelled, collected materials, consulted documents, visited sites, explored the libraries, met the members of Koch royal families including the royal households in Bijni, Darang as well as Panga in Rongpur and so on. He had also covered a vast geographical territory that included the whole of North East including Koch Behar, Rongpur, Bihar, Bhutan, Nepal and also the major metropolises of the time like Calcutta and Delhi in order to obtain materials. In the ‘30s Rs. 3500/-was a substantial sum which the King of Koch Behar, Maharaja Raj Rajendra Narayan Bhup Bahadur, offered for the publication of the book. Though Amanatulla Ahmed was not a career historian but was a passionate social and cultural activist. His keen involvement with culture, language, people, society and history enriched his vision and immensely expanded his discursive range. This is one of the reasons that his magnum opus, Cooch Beharer Itihas is not only a political history of the land but also a social history of the people.

                For a historian of his generation in India, he had his predicaments – the limitations and restrictions. For good deal of basic sources he had to rely on the colonial accounts which were only relatively easily available resources which essentially narrated the colonial version of the native history. The task at hand for him was to decolonise history. This was a crucial challenge. Amanatulla’s history of Koch Behar was also an attempt to transcend the geography that was demarcated through political contingencies of the time. In fact, after a period of amnesiac spell, he had resurrected the memory of Kamrup Kamata in the consciousness of the masses through this book. When the colonial historiography affected a perceptive distance of the North East natives from the rest of India, Amanatulla reinvented the history of this place and people against a pan Indian ethos. The exoticisation of the North East has been a systematic enterprise effectively undertaken by the colonial observers who had projected the land as semi civilised, remote, hazardous, and primitive where any sign of civility was at best the result of discrediting aberrant apostasy.

                Amanatulla has not only been a historian but was also an intellectual activist of the time. His cerebral conviction, intellectual honesty, extraordinary urge for deeper historical queries made him one of the most active intellectuals to set up some of the most significant institutions and organisations in Assam and Koch Behar. Uttar Banga Sahitya Sanmelan and Coochbehar Hitasadhini Sabha were two of the major institutions of which he had been one of the founders. He was also one of the key architects of the Kamrup Anusandhan Samiti, which turned to be the most notable organisations to have begun the exploration of the linguistic, cultural and the historical past of the ancient territory of Pragjyotishpura – Kamrupa.

                Khan Choudhury, the royal title given him by Maharaja Raj Rajendra Bhup Bahadur, a polyglot with equal competence in many languages including Bengali, Assamese, Sanskrit, Parsi, Urdu, English etc. was a man of secular intellectual credibility. He was particularly interested in the history and archaeology of Kamrup- Kamata. He had also presented erudite papers in several scholarly gatherings in various parts of undivided India. Khan Choudhury Amanatulla Ahmed has become more relevant in the current context of contested historical claims made from numerous quarters for political gains.

                Kochbehaer Itihas  is a very important document as a comprehensive answer to the dubious and absurd claims, especially by an ill informed section of the Bodos, that the Koch kingdom was actually founded and ruled by some Bodo ancestors and not by the historically established Koches. They even went to the extent of inventing some fancy names distorting the actual names of the historical figures. It should be noted that the very term Bodo is a suspicious terminology for it was primarily an invention by a few colonial writers who had written on the past of the people of Assam mostly on the basis conjectures and plausible imaginations inventing curious stories. One such colonial author, B.H. Hodgson, invented the term ‘Bodo’ as a philological nomenclature to denote a group of Tibeto Burman languages in 1847. That is, the term is essentially a late 19^th century colonial invention. Later the term was used by the colonial rulers even to refer to the great Kacharis. But subsequently only a particular group retained the term as their community name which evidently suggests that prior to the colonial naming the group might not even have a proper name for themselves. The term Mech is a generic term with ample evidence in ancient texts, including the Sanskritic and Brahminical ones, that the ethnic communities that did not follow ritualistic Hinduism were considered as the Mech. The modern equivalent of the term is definitely ‘Tribal’ that included many ethnic categories like the Garos, the Rabhas, the Koches, the Dhimals and so on. Later the colonial historians liberally used the term interchangeably to refer to the communities randomly, betraying the veritable confusion of the colonial writers.

                It may be noted that Hodgson’s book Koch, Bodo, Dhimal Tribes (1847), despite limitations of antiquarian propositions, many of which were mostly based on assumptive surmises, made some very perceptive and authentic empirical observations. Through his intensive field studies he had discovered that as late as in the mid nineteenth century the Bodos were primarily nomadic with almost no connection with one spot. He even quite rightly points out that being nomadic, in their language there was no term for ‘village” let alone a kingdom. He writes, “The condition or status of the Bodos and Dhimal people is that of erratic cultivators of the wild....though cultivators, all and exclusively, they are nomadic cultivators, so little connected with any one spot that neither the Bodo nor the Dhimal language possesses a name for village!” (1847, 154).

From this highly informed observation it can be clearly concluded that till the mid nineteenth century the Bodos were essentially nomadic without any idea of settled village.  Hence it becomes quite amusing when they claim a historically established Kingdom of the Koches as their own when they were still nomadic, practising primitive method of agriculture from one place to another without the social capability for settled habitation. More importantly one can always find reason to interrogate the antiquarian claim of the community named as Bodos by the British colonisers for no such word ever existed in the great body of literatures of Pragjyotishpura, Kamrupa and Kamatapur that had proliferated till the early 19^th century. It is significant that Hodgson in the same book mentions that most of Koch Rajahs, following the maxims of Vishwa Singha, drove the Bodos into the forests from their kingdoms. (1847, 153) This indicates quite sadly that the community which was termed as the Bodos by the colonisers were actually a subjugated minor subjects of the Koch rulers across Assam and Koch Behar.    

                Khan Choudhury Amanatullah Ahmed’s historical work on Koch Behar is not only a priceless document pertaining to Koch Behar alone, rather it remains an abiding source of history for the Koch Rajbanshi people of Assam and Koch Behar, vis a vis the erstwhile Kamatapur.  

References

Ahmed, Khan Choudhry Amanatulla. Coochbeharer Itihas. Coochbehar: Coohbehar State Press,     1936.

Hodgson, B.H. Essay the First on the Koch, Bodo and Dhima Tribes in Three Parts. Calcutta:  Tomas         Baptist Mission Press, 1847.

Koch, Sibendra Narayan. Koch Janagosthir Atit Sandhanat Eti Khoj. Tura: Meghalaya Koch Sanmilan,      2012.  

The Shillong Times

BJP Should not Misread the Assam Victory

PUBLIC | FRIDAY, MAY 20, 2016

Shar

By Jyotirmoy Prodhani

In the wake of the unprecedented victory of the BJP and its allies, being overexcited, if it allows the elements like Yogi Adityanath or Girirarj Singh types to open their shops in Assam, it will be a costly mistake on its part. One must be clear about the fact that in Assam the voters are least bothered about the Hinduvta variety of politics that many in the BJP consider as the only source of their oxygen. Though cow is intrinsic to the cultural rite and roots of Assam, nobody voted to save the ‘gomata’, nor are they sentimental about the ‘mahan Bhartiya Parampara’ or the ‘shuddh Hindi Bhasha.’ On the contrary, quite paradoxically, it is a vote against all this, and more importantly, against communalism. Despite the constant efforts by a section of the intelligentsia in Assam to project the BJP and its allies in Assam as the vicious network of rabid communalism, clearly enough, the people at large were not convinced.

BJP and its allies, which included, apart from the AGP, the political outfits of the Bodos, the Tiwas and the Rabhas, have won because people wanted an end to an arrogant regime. Despite the obvious anomalies, the Congress government was in denial mode. After Himanta Biswa Sarma left Health and Education portfolios, the two departments quickly went to the docks. Gauhati Medical College Hospital that was competing with the high end private hospitals soon came back to square one as well as all other government hospitals in the state. NRHM in Assam, which had one of the most efficient managements in the country, virtually disappeared post Himanta Biswa Sarma. The rural health scenario was the worst affected.

In the education sector the new minister, Mr Sarat Borkotoky, showed his legendary inefficiency by stopping the TET examinations and clean appointments, rather he was more interested to retrieve some ancient government orders to gag the entire teaching community of the state. As for holding high school final examinations during his regime, which is one of the most important responsibilities under his ministry, answer scripts in thousands were either eaten away by cattle or gutted in fire. And corruption in recruitment made a resounding comeback!

Under Rockybul Hussain as the Forest Minister the killing of rhinos and the plundering of the forest resources were at their peak. Massive deforestation and encroachment of the reserved forests became routine. Not a word of regret was ever uttered by the government, instead Tarun Gogoi had tacitly encouraged poaching when he had made that infamous anthropocene remark accusing people of showing undue concern at the death of wild beasts and not showing similar emotion for humans (meaning the illegal settlers in the notified forest lands).

People had voted against such horrific indifferences to the seeping inefficiency, rampant corruption and mindless destruction of Assam’s ecology. It would again be a gross misreading to assume that only ‘Hindus’ had voted for the BJP and the Muslims had distributed their votes between the Congress and the AIUDF. BJP got the votes as a result of a resurgent ethnic collaboration, which included, inter alia, various ethnic communities of the state including the Ahoms, the Koch Rajbanshis, the Gorkhalis, the Adivsis, the Kalitas, the Assamese Sikh community, the Christians, the Bengalis, the Buddhists and other linguistic minorities, and of course the numerous tribal communities and so on and so forth and also, it must be noted, a large section of the Muslim community. The indigenous Muslims like the Gariya Marias and the Desi Muslims, like any other average Assamese individual, are hardly preoccupied with their religious identity. In fact, they see BJP in Assam as a mere political party like any other party, hence they are least bothered about it as a threat, as some observers would like to believe it, for these people are very much rooted and integral to the larger Assamese ethos of the state.

BJP will commit a grave error if they harp on the illegal immigration from Bangladesh in an accent suitable for election hooting and not at all desirable from the ones that have gained the mandate to govern, though they must take rational steps to solve the issue. A section of the Assam intelligentsia would quite uncritically lament it in their pet term as the rise of the ‘the communal forces’ or the ‘arrival of the fascists’ etc. but such interpretations, apart from having some legitimacy in the left literatures, would not necessarily be reflective of the ground realities. The people that have voted this alliance to power, by any stretch of left rhetoric, are not the epitome of communal politics in the state. Instead it is the other way round. That it was against communal politics has been well reflected by the fact that in many constituencies, where the Muslims are a majority, the BJP and its allies have won from the constituencies like Bilasipara East in lower Assam etc.

What has turned out to be the most significant in this election is that it is the Muslim voters who have rejected, in a decisive manner, the diabolic communal politics so viciously promoted by the Attar merchant Maulana Badruddin Ajmal of AIUDF. The people of South Salmara in Manikachar, a border district of Assam with absolute Muslim majority, have shown their extraordinary tenacity and determination to frustrate the design of the merchant of communal politics in Assam by rejecting him outright through a massive mandate. They have chosen a native Congress leader, Wajed Ali Choudhury, and discarded the one who had migrated to the constituency thinking that his vitriolic communal rhetoric and promotion of medieval superstitions and subjugations would be enough to wrest the Muslim majority seat in the border district. This ignominious defeat of Maulana Badhruddin should be the biggest lesson for the BJP that the people Assam, irrespective of their religion, caste and creed, are potentially capable of destroying the very foundation of the designs that is primarily predicated upon the ugly fangs of communal politics.

Nevertheless, one cannot miss the fact that for the first time in the history of Assam a leader belonging to a marginal tribal community, the Sonowal Kacharis, would lead the government. He would be the first tribal Chief Minister of Assam. For this reason alone, BJP deserved to win this election. The writer is Professor, Dept of English, NEHU, Shillong.

Read more at http://www.theshillongtimes.com/2016/05/20/bjp-should-not-misread-the-assam-victory/#MFXjSeUeLEP6axMB.99

The Shillong Times

Goalpara has its own identity: History never lies

UNI | MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2014

By Jyotirmoy Prodhani

I appreciate the two responses to my rejoinder on Goalpara and respect the views of the writers. However, I have decided to clarify certain issues as a moral imperative else numerous misgivings pertaining to Goalpara might unduly persist. Goalpara came under the Bengal Nawab when Koch King Laxminarayan of Coochbehar took the help of Nawab Alauddin Khan in 1612, to defeat his cousin Parikshitnarayan who ruled the eastern part of Kamata kingdom that comprised Goalpara. Though control of the Nawabs on Goalpara was never smooth. (Sir Edward Gait, A History of Assam, 1905/ 2000 pages. 63-70, and also Dharma Narayan Burma and Dhaneswar Manta, Kamrup, Kamata, Coochbehar Rajyer Itihaas, 2005, p. 146). On 12 August, 1765 Goalpra became part of the British territory and was attached to Rongpur district between 1765 and 1812. These two territories shared the same language, history and culture and were earlier together known as Rongamati (see S. Barman, Goalparar Jana Itihax, 2009, p 5) In 1815 Goalpara along with Garo Hills became a separate district; from 1826 to 1866 it was with Assam; in 1867 it was attached to Coochbehar and in 1874 back to Assam. In 1905, Goalpara was attached to what was termed as East Bengal and in 1912 Goalpara was finally attached to Assam. That is, Goalpara remained in East Bengal practically for seven years. (see Physical and Political Geography of Assam, Shillong, 1896; A Collection of Treatise, Engagements and Sanads, WW Hunter et al. Calcutta, 1931). During these periods the local rulers were the indigenous gentry including the king of Bijni. (see Amalendu Guha, Zamidarkalin Goalpara Jilar Artho Xamajik Avastha, 1984/2000). In 1989 Goalpara was split into four separate districts. But it is the information about Goalpara in medias res, in the middle, with which at best a short story can be written without a beginning or an end, but surely, not the history of a place.

The Ancient period: Goalpara’s association with Kamrup Kamata is more than 2000 years old. The territorial expanse of the ancient kingdom of Pragjyshpura or Kamrupa stretched up to the Bay of Bengal to its south (i.e, the whole of what is called East Bengal), to its west it was up to the river Karatoya (the present area of Malda in the so called North Bengal), Bhutan to its north and upto Dikhou river in the east. (Gait, pages 10-11, 15) Gait has suggested that either in Goaplara or in Coochbehar was the capital of Kumar Bhaskarvarman when he, along with Harshavardhan, vanquished the king of Gaud, Sashanka, whom P.W. Ingty described as the “chieftain of a small fortified town known as Rohtrasgarh…in Bengal also known as Gauda” (Bhaskara: The Last of the Varmans, 2013, page 57). Significantly, C.D. Tripathy mentioned that the Bengali year, Bongabdo, is based on Bhaskar Barman’s ascension to the throne in the year 593 AD (Aspects of the Medieval History of Assam, 2002, page, 14)

In fact, Edward Gait has concluded that the city of Gaur of Lakhnuati was founded by Sankaladip who was a Koch or a Garo from Kamrupa and suggested that the name Gaur might well have associated with Garo. (Gait, page 19). If this view of Edward Gait has to be accepted then the name Gaur has a very crucial link with Goalpara.

Language: The term “Goalparia Bengali” is not only a misnomer but also obviously motivated by a sense of frustrated jingoism. In fact such perverse move has been part of the attempt to dehumanize and de-historicize a nation by robbing them of the legitimacy of their tongue and to dislocating them from their native hearth in order to accomplish a hegemonic agenda of neo colonial imperialism. The people of Goalpara, as if, for the first time began to speak a language, called “Goalparia Bengali”, only after it developed some connection with Bengal. Before that, as it were, the people of Goalpara used to communicate in sign language or through physical gestures. This is certainly not only preposterous but also profusely hilarious.

In 1954, during the State Reconstruction Commission there was a vicious attempt to attach Goalpara with Bengal, a move spearheaded by the then CM of Bengal, Dr. Bidhan Ch. Ray. The people of Goalpara thwarted that attempt under the leadership of Sarat Chandra Sinha by establishing the fact that the language of Goalpara had nothing to do with Bengali. This move of Bengal had forced the people of Goalpara to carry out a massive public movement soon after to remove Bengali language from all vernacular medium schools. (see Satabdit Sarat Ed. Barkatulla Khan, 2013, pp 44; 64-65; 149-150; 215 etc.). Goalparia language which is also variously called Rajbanshi, Kamatapuri and also Desi is an independent language and is entirely different from Bengali language in terms of its linguistic properties like syntax, morphology, lexicography as well as its history (see Rajbanhsi Bhasha Parichay by Dr. D.N. Bhakat, 2000).

Maharaja Naranarayan’s letter to the Ahom King, Swargdeo Sukhampha, in July 1555, is considered as one of the early examples of the Kamatapuri/ Rajbanshi/ Goalparia language, which is also considered as an example of early form of Assamese language which was first published in Asom Banti on 27 June, 1909. Interestingly Dr. Surendranath Sen in his book, Prachin Bangla Patra Sankalan, published in 1942, claimed it to be one of the earliest examples of old Bengali language. (also see Gauri Mohan Ray, Kamata Rajyer Itihas 1998, pages 36-39) Thus Dr. Sen quite candidly admitted that the source of the Bengali language lay in Kamatapur, the language which is still spoken by the people of Goalpara. For the sake of argument one can say that the language spoken in Bengal then can actually be called “Bengali Goalparia” or “Bengali Kamatapuri”. (Though it is as unacceptable as it is absurd and ignominious to utter a term like “Goalparia Bengali”)

Some Influences of Goalpara: However, mutual cultural influences and exchanges are not only inevitable but also welcome. Kamrup Kamata being the seat of shaktism and tantrism, Durga has been one of its reigning goddesses. In 1496 the Koch King Bishva Singha of Kamatapur began the worship of Durga in Coochbehar as part of a royal ritual which is still continuing. (Gait, p. 50 ) The Jaintia Kings also worshiped Durga since 1500 AD from the reign of King Parbat Ray or before (Gait pp. 313-320) In Bengal Durga Puja is recorded in 17th century, gaining popularity only in the 18th century as a festival of the nouveau riche largely celebrated to entertain their British guests. As is evident through the Kalika Purana, a 10th century text of Kamrupa, Kali has been one of the most popular tribal goddesses, which was also the reigning deity of the Chutiya Kings of Sadiya in upper Assam since 13th century (Gait, page no. 43). But Kali was worshipped and became a popular goddess in Bengal only in the 18th century, more than 500 years later than in Assam vis-à-vis in Goalpara. Seemingly, some fundamental aspects of Bengal’s culture then evolved, quite evidently, after Bengal was exposed to Goalpra, at least chronologically.

Coochbehar Annexation: Following Merger Agreement Coochbehar was declared a ‘C’ category state on 12 September, 1949. On 1st January, 1950 Dr. Bidhan Ch. Ray came to Coochbehar and, to the utter shock of the people, declared Coochbehar a district of West Bengal, which was a part of what Dr. Ray himself termed as a “propaganda” (his letter to Patel on 11 May, 1949). He wanted Coochbehar as a buffer zone to accommodate the huge chunk of refugees from East Pakistan. (Capt. Nalini Ranjan Ray, Koch Rajbanshi and Kamatapuri: The Truth Unveiled, 2007, page, 131). This merger of Coochbehar with West Bengal was considered illegal and a great betrayal by the natives of Coochbehar (see Dangor Coochbehar Bashir Koyta Kotha, 2003, Edited by Bongshi Badan Barman of Greater Coochbehar Movement) Since 1950 the native Rajbanshis of Coochbehar observe 1st January every year as the day of betrayal and the beginning of a neo colonial subordination of the natives by Bengal in the most diabolic way just the way it has subjugated the Gorkhalis of Darjeeling.

It may be noted that on 3rd September, 2013 eleven organizations from Assam and Bengal submitted a memorandum to the Union Home Minister demanding removal of the term “North Bengal”. It reads, “The term ‘North Bengal’ is humiliating and insulting to the indigenous people of the region. Hence, the term ‘North Bengal’ should be removed from all public institutions, offices, universities, trains, organizations etc…” (Demand Charter no. 8 of the Memorandum submitted to the Union Home Minister, Govt. of India).

It is a matter of conjecture as to when the demand will be fulfilled, but the deep resentment and volatile anger of the people against the regime of neo colonial oppression cannot be ignored. The term “Goalparia Bengali” is an invention of such neo-colonial rhetoric of subjugation.

(The writer teaches English at NEHU and can be reached at j_prodhani@rediffmail.com)

Read more at http://www.theshillongtimes.com/2014/10/27/goalpara-has-its-own-identity-history-never-lies/#DYWDwpWTWkfJxrJy.99

               

Sibendra Narayan Koch (1937-2015): A Scholar Par Excellence

Prof. Jyotirmoy Prodhani

                

The movement demanding ST status for the Koch Rajbanshis was carried out in a very strong way during the eighties by the leaders like Phani Medhi, Ambika Charan Choudhury, Gopal Singha Ray, Kabir Chandra Ray Prodhani, Dr. Durlabh Chamua, Dr. Harendra Narayan Dutta, Purna Narayan Singha , Bhanu Bhushan Barman, Sibesh Chandra Prodhani, Rukmini Kanta Roy, Dr. Upen Sarkar, Dr. Ramen Adhikary, Purnima Dutta et al under the aegis of Koch Rajbanshi Kshatriya Samnilani. The demand for ST status for the Koch Rajbanshis became one of the first major democratic ethnic movements of Assam with unprecedented popular support. The term Khsatriya was later dropped following the suggestion made by union minister for social welfare, Sitaram Kesari, in a huge public rally organized by the Sanmilani Guwahati, argued that Sanmilani should drop the word ‘Kshatriya’ in order to strengthen the demand for ST status. According to him the term was indicative of caste Hindu status rather than tribal one. In his understanding to be kshatriya meant to be part of the Hindu castiest hierarchy therefore the claim to be part of tribal ethnic identity became a misplaced venture. However, in that movement Sibendra Narayan Koch was actively involved as one of its intellectual guides.

                Sibendra Narayan Koch belonged to the Koch community which has been one of the minority tribes of Meghalaya, yet he could represent the community as a member of the legislative assembly of Meghalaya as an elected member. The biggest contribution that he had made for the community was to have the Koches recognized as Scheduled Tribes in the state of Meghalaya. The recognition of the Koches as ST in Meghalaya turned out to be one of the strongest arguments for the Rajbanshi leadership in Assam to press for similar status for the community in the state of Assam as well.

                I met him personally quite closely during my stay in Tura, Meghalaya, as an Associate Professor at the Tura Campus of NEHU (North-Eastern Hill University). He built quite an imposing house at Babupara, a central location of Tura town, by a stream overlooking the majestic Tura  peak. In Tura he was one of the major patrons of the Bihu celebration which they have turned into a cultural melting pot with the free participation of many other ethnic communities including the Rabhas, Hajongs, Koches, Bodos, Garos and  many others.

                During my several visits to his house I realised that he was a keen student of political and cultural history; more a scholar than a lawyer, which he actually was as a professional. His knowledge on history was quite stupendous. That he was a voracious reader was quite evident given the huge collection of books he had in his library. In fact, I came across as many books on literature, culture, history and language in his collection as I had seen books on law. His collection included all the volumes of the Vedas, Upanishads various editions of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata and many other classical titles as well as all the significant books like the famous ODBL (The Origin and Development of Bengali Language) and Kirata Jana Krti by Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, Banikanta Kakati’s Assamese Language and its Development and Formation, almost all the volumes by the patriarch of history from the east, H.K. Barpujari, books on Garo history and culture from William Carey, Major Playfair to Milton Sangma and the list goes on.

                Sibendra Narayan Koch was well versed in Assamese, Bengali, English, Hindi, Sanskrit, Garo, and Koch languages. He was a polyglot in the true sense of the term. He has been a voracious reader and also a prolific writer. Quite significantly, he used to write in English and Assamese only. His most significant book is on the history of the Koches which he wrote in Assamese. He had been kind enough to have entrusted me with the task of translating the book into English, which I have been doing but unfortunately could not complete during his lifetime. However, one of his major articles on the Koches was published in the book, Culture, Ethnicity and Identity: A Reader which was published in 2012 and was co edited by me and Mr R.S.Thakur.

                Siben Koch as a scholar belongs to the class of thinkers who have given primacy to the mythic dimensions of historical discourses thereby opening up a fresh insight to look at the entire enterprise of historical exploration of the past. As a scholar he has maintained a very informed consistency when it comes to taking an ideological position in respect to the position of the Koches and the Rajbanshis in terms of their historical as well as cultural identity. One of his significant theses is that the trajectory of the movement of the Koches was not the one associated with the southern Tibet down to the eastern mountain range onto the valley of the territory of the present North East. Rather, according to him, the arrival of the Koches happened through the Western terrain onto the Eastern territory. In making his claims he has extensively cited illustrations from numerous ancient texts and has also made an extensive philological enquiry to corroborate his arguments. He even quite substantially argued that the Indus Valley civilization bore crucial evidences of the presence of the Koches as its actual architects. He has also provided a long list of place and geographical names that etymologically belonged to the Koch lexicography that included the places like the present Punjab, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Bengal, Assam and the whole of North East.  

                He was genuinely interested in having the Koch Rajbanshis be granted the ST status in Assam and also in Meghalaya (in Meghalaya the Koches are recognized as ST, but the Rajbanshis are seen as a different category and have been included in the OBC list). However, as a strategic move he had emphasised more on the Koch aspect of the identity rather than giving primacy to the Rajbanshi aspect of the community identity which, however, might not be feasible given the long historico- cultural legacies that the community has evolved over the years as the Koch Rajbanshis.

                One is amazed to see the extraordinary energy and passion that he had exuded till the last of his days. His life would always be a source of profound inspiration and aspirations for the community so long as the community survives on this earth.

An Open Letter to Kabir Suman

I have been an ardent fan of your songs and nurtured great respect for you. But the moment I saw your disgusting antics with folded hands pleading to the Gorkhas expressing your concern for the Lepchas of Gorkhaland, you got so unceremoniously exposed with your fake humanism, artificial creative commitments, intellectual duplicity and disdainful opportunism. The way you gestured with stilted intonation for the Lepchas was so overwhelmingly reprehensive, as if the Gorkahas were the most dreaded violators of basic human rights of the minor communities, as if the Gorkhas were a criminal lot, hell bent on destroying and dislocating the natives of Gorkhaland. This was the most disdainful image I could ever imagine about you. The Lepchas are one of the original inhabitants of the present Gorkhaland and they have become an integral part of the composite culture of the land. And at the common level there has never been mutual animosity between the two communities. Is it not ironic that the Bengal regime and ruling elites, of which you are a part, shedding tears for them only for the last couple years or so? Why did not you compose a few songs on their plight in the beginning of your career? Even a fool can understand that it is a part of a naughty Bengali chauvinistic politics to use the Lepchas as mere conduits to neutralise and discredit the people’s movement for Gorkhaland. The irony is this that the Bengal ruling regime, including the earlier clique of notorious Bengal communists, always considers itself as the smartest lot of the world because they can play well with rhetoric and consider the rest as a collection of idiots.

                Mr. Suman you should go for an encore of your latest performance. You should also fold your those two hands to the Bengalis of Tripura exhorting them to stop injustice against the indigenous native Tripuris; you should also fold your hands to your own government, your lady boss and to your Bengali compatriots expressing your concern for the Rajbanshis, the Bodos, the Rabhas, the Dhimals in North Bengal; you should also fold your hands and shed tears for the atrocities being meted out to the Adivasis and other tribal in rest of Bengal.

                But you are not entirely to blame. You belong to an intellectual legacy which is largely characterised by duplicity and vicious doublespeak. Most of them speak and profess one thing in academic debates and practice quite another in practical context. And it is not limited to the mediocre Bengali intellectuals only; this duplicity applies even to the so called intellectual icons from Bengal including Gayatri Spivak, Amartya Sen, Ranajit Guha, Paratha Chatterjee et al. How come they are so conspicously silent at this juncture of a momentous crisis of a peripheral and a marginal nation like the Gorkhas who have been subjected to the most draconian state terrorism by the present Bengal regime? Why Mr. Suman have you failed to raise a voice of disapproval when hundreds of innocent women have been picked up by the state armed forces and put behind bars for their crime of longing for a space of their own? Why have you failed to raise your voice when false cases are being slapped against the innocents, acting so cheap and nasty by going to the extent of impounding the passport of the Gorkha leadership, showing utter disrespect to the entire people who represent the voice of a marginalised nation? Some of them, with the air of an expert, deliver long discourse on the futility of smaller states. If this is the case why don’t you people chop Bengal into three solid pieces and let it merge with Orissa, Bihar and Assam then the present Bengal can become parts of really big states and prosper?

                Mr. Suman, you have been a creative genius, but you acted like a third grade clown. People will only remember your latest image, and your songs then will be cited as mere jokes of a fake artist, like a lesson on ethics by a castiest Brahmin.   

Ethnic Movements and the Post Development Paradigms: Crisis of the Rajbanshi Consciousness

Abstract 

Development is a problematic term because it is, unlike a Biblical axiom, not morally transcendental and, unlike the presumed neutrality of scientific interpretations, it is not secular either. Development is a political term with its intense significance as part of a strategy not only of economic alone but also of cultural politics. After the failure of the western model of development as a universally applicable mode of human redemption, thinkers have engaged in problematising the entire discourse of development from the point of view of post development parameters. Ethnic movements often transform into intense articulations to eventually degenerate into vociferous claims of racial supremacy, particularly because the question of ethnicity eventually devolve into a strategy towards a redemption through the received notions of development. There are counter strategies to neutralize ethnic saliencies by the skilled operators of development idioms by seducing the energy and intensity of such ethnic efforts with supposed exaltations of growth and ‘progress’.

Most ethnic movements fail to reach their vaguely defined goals as they are yet to formulate a narrative free from the erogenous allurements of development rhetoric. The proposed paper seeks to examine the Rajbanshi consciousness movement in Assam and Bengal against its proclaimed goal of achieving ‘Development’ for the community and the subsequent crises it encountered.  

Giorgio Agamben in his, Infancy and History: The Destruction of Experience (NY: Verso, 2007), while speaking of the character of experience in the contemporary reality, suggests that nowadays experience can be approached ‘only with an acknowledgement that it is no longer accessible to us’. (2007, 15) Agamben points out that modern man has been deprived of his biography and similarly his experience has also been expropriated. A modern man lay claim only to his incapacity to have and communicate experience. Agamben underlines the destruction of experience in the ‘humdrum daily life in any city’ which, ‘no longer necessitates a catastrophe’ for ‘modern man’s average day contains virtually nothing that can be translated into experience.’ Agamben goes on to describe the inconsequential details of daily life that an urban man encounters and describes how despite theses experiences being seemingly harrowing or pleasurable, entertaining or tedious, they cannot become experiences. He proclaims that this non translatability into experience has made life intolerable rather than an ‘alleged poor quality of life’ or ‘its meaninglessness compared with the past’. He explains, ‘When humankind is deprived of effective experience and becomes subjected to the imposition of the form of experience as controlled and manipulated as the laboratory maze of rats…then the rejection of experience can provisionally embody a legitimate defence.     

What is the experience of development for an ordinary individual, vis-à-vis the community having intense cultural intimacy with the landscape? Can the received notions of transformation and development ever assume the redemptive warrant of emancipation through development? Can it ensure them a collective experience of ‘progressive growth’?  Why does a community living in the adjunct against the environment of aggressive intervention of ‘development’ fail to experience the transcendental exaltation of emancipation and instead find itself alienated from its native milieu resulting in the deeper awareness of loss and defeat?   

The term ‘development’ is a loaded concept. It is politically relative and intrinsically susceptible to ideological orientation of the agents who ‘imposes’ it. Unlike our common perception, ‘development’ is not a transcendentally locatable mode of human nirvana, hence at various levels of ‘development’ initiatives the affected subjects may not necessarily be the beneficiaries of their benefactors, but might as well be its victims, therefore articulations of discontent gains the warrant of legitimacy within their communal ambit despite the apparent antidote of development being adequately applied by the state agencies.

The concept of development that is in force is largely either capitalist or a sociologist mode of ‘development’ operations which are primarily western imports. Jan Nederveen Pieterse, a postdevelopment theorist, in his essay, ‘After Post Development’ (Third World Quarterly, Vol. 21, 2000, pp. 175-122), emphasised on ‘consensus building’ on development measures. The postdevelopment discourse aims at arriving at a situation that provides, what they call, ‘alternative to development’. Post development thinkers (Arturo Escobar, Gustavo Estevaet al) have challenged the very meaning of development as it, according them, emanates from the essential structural orientation of the colonial discourse that sees development in terms of the conformity to the ‘West-North’ paprameters.

Development entails a set of values, knoweldge, methods of intervention, tools of defining the subjects in accordance with its needs. Hence, not only in terms of its ideational form but also in its actual applied form, development is quintessentially political, ideologically driven process with the potentiality for power, capacity to control, possibilities to rule. The dialectics of power relations become central to the operational dimension of development politcs, and in the process, there are voices that gain saliencies and the voices that are efectively silenced. Development discourse is also characterised  by the rationalising rhetoric forcing voices of dissension sound incongruous and illogical. Postdevelopment underlines development as a discourse with underlying political ideology which is policy oriented and problem driven. It is essentially effective only against a supposed pre-exisiting social theory. It also points out how development has a strong socially cinstructed aspect through which the hegemony of the rulers is reinforced.

Historically, development, in Indian context, has been a legacy essentially predicated upon the normative categories of the colonial regime. As development is not a non ideological/ apolitical idea, it is essentially political, ideologically oriented and discursively potential. Development paradigm under planned structure for the last five and a half decade has been a regime of re-modelled neo-colonial economic practice with zealously guarded over emphasis on extreme centralisation, concentration of development initiatives in the select metros, bureaucratic over dependence making the fundamental development initiatives like basic education, health care, power, road and communication as the breeding ground of redoubtable corrupt practices; more importantly, reducing the marginal territories into raw material territories for the industrial needs of the mainland cities. In fact, in Indian context, the pattern of development regime has been the same as it was in force in the pre independent India despite having rhetorically transformed into a policy regimen driven by the so called tenets of liberal socialist paradigms.

While praising certain achievements of India as a democracy with, at least regular elections, change of regime as per the voting results, free press etc,. Amartya Sen has been critical about the social progress and equity in India. For him this sector has fared worse than the democracy itself. (The Argumentative India 2005, 195) Paradoxically, Sen has been critical about the ‘weakness of the voices of protest’ which, according to him, only contributed in unnecessary slowing down of social opportunities. But at the same time, he argues ‘political voice is extremely important for social equity, and to that recognition we have to add the connection between equitable expansion of social opportunities and the force, range and reach of the process of economic development.’ (2005, 201)

The question of the Rajbanhsi social movements and the subsequent distillation of its consciousness and identity, like most other ethnic entities, have certain common historical parameters and at the same time it has its own unique character primarily because of its dual location in a major way in two neighbouring states- Assam and West Bengal.

The Rajbanshi movement began as a major social movement through its Kshatriya Anodolan having gained its formative shape in the year 1891 under the leadership of widely respected Har Mohan Ray who was the zamindar of Shymapukur in Rongpur of present Bangladesh. The Rajbanshis were organized under the banner of ‘Rongpur Bratya Kshatriya Jatir Unnati Bidhayani Sabha’ and presented a deputation on 10 February, 1891, in front of the Rongpur District Magistrate with the plea to include the Rajbanshis as a separate ethnic entity in the census that was to begin that year. Later under the leadership of Thakur Panchanan Burma the Kshatriya movement of the Rajbanshis took a more comprehensive shape. The first Kshatriya Sanmilani of the Rajbanshis was held on 1^st May, 1910 at the Theatre Hall of Rongpur. The session was presided over by an eminent lawyer, Madhusudhan Ray. That was a movement that for the first time, in a major way, made the Rajbanshis aware of themselves as a distinctive social entity that was needed to historically place themselves against a changed social reality in the wake of colonial rule in India that made some different entities as the major players of administrative and economic activities.

The Kshatriya movement was aimed at gaining a social position that was compatible within the casteist structure of Hindu society. It is interesting that in the mainstream society of Bengal, which claimed its Aryan legacy, identified itself as Brahmins, Vaishyas and Shudras but there was no Khastriya community among the mainstream Bengali people. They called themselves as Bratya Khastriyas. The claim of the Rajbanshis to assert themselves as Khastriya had another justification. That is prior to the 1891 census, the Rajbanshis were in fact officially identified as Dravido-Mongoloids. Buchanan Hamilton in his book, Eastern India, (1838) called the Rajbanshis as Koch Rajbanshis. The view was endorsed by other researchers like William Hunter, Hodgson et al and even in the 1872 census identified the Koches and the Rajbanshis as the same ethnic category. This created a peculiar social crisis for the Rajbanshis in the late 19^th century. The Rajbanshis could not be ignored simply because they did not conform to the emerging dominant identity category of the Bengalis and at the same time they could not be defined as the Bengalis despite the fact that the geographical territory of the Rajbanshis was made into a part of administrative territory of Bengal. Apart from the sheer number of the Rajbanshis, estimated to be 22 lakhs in present North Bengal and Coochbehar alone before the first general assembly election in 1920 (see the letter written by Panchanan Burma to the Chief Secretary of Bengal on 5 November, 1917), the Rajbanshis were the main owners of the land and were the major peasant community. It  was difficult to write them off.   

 The Kshatriya movement of the Rajbanshis cannot be seen as a mere aspirational move to attain respectability within the casteist framework of Hindu society. This was also necessitated to resist mass conversion of the Rajbanshis by the Christian missionaries. The non political character of the Rajbanshi Khsatriya Samiti was changed when Panchanan Burma turned it into a political organization and all its candidates were victorious in the 1920 election.    Panchanan Burma even defeated the candidates fielded by the Swaraj Party of Chittaranjan Das. The move was effective towards gaining limited political empowerment by the community. But at the social level, the status of the Rajbanhsi remained the same. There was racist segregation of the native and indigenous Rajbanshis as the social pariah in Bengal (both in East and West Bengal). The discrimination and racial disdain of the section of mainstream Bengali was acutely experienced by Panchanan Burma himself when he was practicing law in Rongpur district court as one of the most successful advocates.

It is, however, apparently paradoxical that after having led a movement for the Kshatriya status of the Rajbanshis, Panchanan Burma began a movement for scheduled caste status for the Rajbanshis. In fact, being a member of the constituent committee, Panchanan came into close contact with Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar and began the campaign to include the Rajbanshis as scheduled castes in the constitution to gain constitutional safeguard for the Rajbanshis who were subjected to prolonged state of social deprivation and economic backwardness.  The movement did not gain much support in Assam. However, he was successful in making the Rajbanshis in Bengal as scheduled castes. The move ensured certain immediate advantages. Way back in 1931 when the Colonial government declared ‘Communal Award’ for the Muslims and backward class communities including the scheduled castes, Panchanan Burma joined Baba Saheb Ambedkar to demand reservation for the Rajbanshis as well and spearheaded the movement for the SC status of the Rajbanshis. Nevertheless, he did not find much supporters for the movement in Assam, apparently because the Rajbanshis were not subjected to acute racial discrimination as in Bengal because Assam being a  multi ethnic society with the pre eminent dominance of the indigenous ethnic communities did not experience acute racial and casteist segregation as in Bengal and other parts of India. Hence the leaders like Sarat Sinha, Bhuban Ch. Prodhani and others were not convinced to inspire the Rajbanshis in Assam to go for similar demand. The Rajbanshis in the erstwhile Goalpara district later had to make very strong opposition to the proposal of Mr. Atulya Ghosh, the then state president of Bengal Congress who proposed to annex the district of Goalpara with Bengal in 1955. The Congress committee president of Dhubri district, Sarat Ch. Sinha and other members like Jadabananda Adhikary, Dhirendranath Das as well as Man Gobinda Chakraborty, Dinesh Ranjan Sarkar, Subhash Chakraborty, Giasuddin Ahmed, Hemanta Barkalita, Shibendra Narayan Koch, Kalindranath Nath, Kalicharan Bharali and others also vehemently opposed the proposal of annexing Goalpara with Bengal. There was a major social movement to replace Bengali from all spheres in this part of Assam as a symbolic social resistance against the chauvinistic Bengali designs.

From such a backdrop the renewed agitational movements of the Rajbanshis in recent times both in Assam and Bengal seem redundant and misplaced. But the ongoing movement of the Rajbanshis is a political reality. What does necessitate the continuation of such a long social movement of Rajbanshis? What might have been the reason to seek the same old constitutional safeguards?

Once their relationship with Assamese language and culture was settled in Assam, the movement for Scheduled Tribe status for the Rajbanshis began in 1968. In the All Assam Koch Rajbanshi Kshatriya Sanmilani convention held at Chautara in Kokrajhar, on 7 & 8 February, 1969, this demand for ST became part of the formal agenda of the Rajbanshi movement. Later the movement got a fillip with the leaders like Kabir Ch. Ray Prodhani, Jadabananda Adhikary and others. The Rajbanshis in Bengal began Kamatapur Movement and Greater Coochbehar Movement. As the ST movement failed to yield desired results, the frustration and the deep sense of betrayal crystalised into a major articulation for a separate Kamatapur State.

           One wonders, was there no substatntial development of the Rajbanshis in aspect of their life experience that the political history of the Rajbanshis turns out to be only a long chronicle of movements and agitations?  For the Rajbanshis as an ethnic entity to reach a definable selfhood becomes a continuous project. This has engendered their consciousness as a nation which is associated with the inherent awareness about the issues relating to their identity and ‘nation-ness’. As Puala Moya points out that the theory of identity is inadequate unless it allows to analyse the epistemic status and political salience of any given identity as well the possibilities and different limits of identities. As part of standard strategy, the nations in the periphery have been essentialized[1] by the operators of power and state. However, owing to the limitations of both essentialist and postmodern theorists they tend to overestimate or underestimate political salience of actual identities.

Development as an empowering intervention has apparently failed in case of the Rajbanshis in both Assam and Bengal. The devastating impact of development in Bengal is more acute primarily in relation to the notorious Land Reform initiatives through which the land of the indigenous Rajbanhis were forcefully confiscated rendering them both geographically and culturally displaced and homeless. In Assam the absence of any initiatives to integrate the Rajbanshi people of erstwhile Goalpara to become part of any conceivable economic intervention has progressively alienated and deluded the people. They initially aspire to be co-opted by the  mainstream as they are perpetually threatened of loosing opportunities of both economic and political representation. They eventually discover themselves as entities devoid of experience, or as a collective consciousness that has nothing to translate into experience When one makes a retrospective survey of their social history, it only becomes an exercise to come across the same old juncture from where they found their issues got diluted about one hundred years ago. They discover themselves as entities devoid of experience or as a collective consciousness they find that there is nothing to translate into the logos of experience. As Agamben would point out, he is deprived of his biography and is made to realize that his experience is no longer accessible to him. This is the inevitable experience of the communities continually relegated as the ethnic other.

End note

The West-North parameters have the in built formulaic mechanism to categorise  the North and the West as ‘advanced’, ‘progressive’ and the South, the East as ‘backward’ and ‘primitive’. Wolfgang Sachs would radiacally comment, ‘the idea of development stands like a ruin in the intellectual landscape, (hence) it is time to dismantle this mental structure’

Works Cited

Agamben, Giorgio. Infancy and History: The Destruction of Experience, NY: Verso, 2007.

Pieterse, Nederveen. ‘After Post Development’ Third World Quarterly, Vol. 21, 2000.

Amartya Sen, Argumentative Indian, New Delhi: Penguin, 2000.

Ray, Dr. Deepak Kumar. Manishi Panchanan O Asom. Siliguri, Rajbanshi Akademi,  

         2009.

Das, Dr. Dhirendranath. Ed. Panchanan Smaranika. Dinhata, Coochbehar, Thakur  

         Panchanan Jagriti Mancha, 2005.

---

[1] Essentialism entails the understanding of individual or groups as having immutable or discoverable ‘essence’- a basic unvariable and presocial nature. As a theoretical concept essentialism expresses itself through the tendency to see the other as one social category (class, gender, race, sexuality etc.). As a political strategy essentialism has both liberatory and reactionary effects.

Presented in the National Seminar on Social Exclusion and Inclusive Development in North East India: Challenges and Opportunities at North Gauhati College, Guwahati in collaboration with UGC, on 10-11 June, 2011.