Created by Homogenie
Last edited February 27, 2026
->Chaipau
Background: putting down reigning period of Pamheiba
slightly enhance intro per standard format and corrected details
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Legend about the burning of ancient writings in Manipur}}
{{Short description|Legend about the burning of ancient writings in Manipur}}


'''Puya Meithaba''' (''Burning of the puya'') refers to the annual commemoration of a legendary 18th-century [[book burning|scripture burning]] in post-colonial [[Manipur]] (since 1979) or to the original libricide in itself.{{sfnp|Ray|2009|p=132}}{{sfnp|Sebastian|2019|p=52}}<ref>"...yearly public event referred to as ‘Puya Meithaba’ since 1979..." {{harvcol|Brandt|2018|p=126}}</ref>{{sfnp|Ray|2000|p=120}}
'''Puya Meithaba''' (''Burning of the puya''), or '''Lairik Meithaba''',{{efn|A 1996 publication on the history of Manipuri literature by the [[Sahitya Akademi]] mentions the "historical bonfire" as ''Lairik Meithaba'', where old Meitei manuscripts were set to fire at the behest of Shantidas Goswami!{{sfnp|Singh|1996|p=11}}}} refers to the annual commemoration of a legendary 18th-century [[book burning|scripture burning]] in [[Manipur]] by a neo-convert Vaishnavite King, or to the original libricide itself. There is no historical evidence that the libricide happened. Nonetheless, the commemoration, organised by the Meitei National Front and others since 1979, has been a critical tool in the spread of [[Meitei nationalism]] and has mainstreamed a particular reconstruction of premodern Manipur, which has come to be uncritically reproduced even in academic publications.
 
According to local narratives, king [[Gharib Nawaz (Manipur)|Pamheiba]] (var. Garib Niwaz), after his conversion to [[Vaishnavism|Vashnavism]] (a form of [[Hinduism]]) went to extraordinary lengths to wipe out the local religion of [[Meitei people|Meiteis]], who are the predominant community of Manipur. This included a mass-incineration of their traditional texts written in the [[Meitei script]] ''—'' [[Puya (Meitei texts)|Puyas]].<ref>{{harvtxt|Brandt|2018|p=126}}: "Garib Niwaz then supposedly violently enforced Vaishnavism on all of his subjects, for example by destroying the temples of the local religion, today referred to as Sanamahism, and burning its old manuscripts, the so-called puyas, sacred texts, which were written in the original Meitei script, i.e. the Meitei Mayek."</ref> No historical evidence exists in support.
 
The present-day commemorative event began in 1979 with burning of books that portrayed [[Meitei people|Meiteis]] as [[Hindus]], but over the years converged onto more peaceful forms of cultural expression, encouraging the revival of the [[Meitei script]].<ref>{{harvtxt|Brandt|2018|p=127}}: "In the first commemoration event in 1979, organized by the Meitei National Front, books that portrayed Meiteis and their history as Hindu(s) were burnt. This seems to have borne fruit, for while only ‘two to three thousand people participated in 1979, more than eight thousand participated in 1990ʼ. According to Sohini Ray’s observations, later on this function changed into a more peaceful event in which, for instance, Meitei Mayek students received prizes."</ref> These events, organised by the Meitei National Front (and others), have been a critical tool of [[Meitei nationalism]] in portraying a rupture of their transcendental way of life under Garib Niwaz and influencing the collective cultural memory of [[Meitei people|Meiteis]].{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=126-127|ps= "However, the wide spread of the narrative mentioned above, also reflected in its uncritical reproduction in academic publications, shows that, despite the doubts listed above, it is today indispensable for the cultural memory of many Meitei people."}} They have also mainstreamed a particular reconstruction of history, which has come to be uncritically reproduced even in academic publications.{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=126-127|ps= "However, the wide spread of the narrative mentioned above, also reflected in its uncritical reproduction in academic publications, shows that, despite the doubts listed above, it is today indispensable for the cultural memory of many Meitei people."}}


== Background ==
== Background ==
{{main|Hinduism in Manipur}}
The Meiteis—including the royal house— traditionally followed an indigenous faith of worship that revered nature, ancestors, and fertility gods and goddesses, called ''lais''.{{sfn|Sebastian|2021}} Situated far outside [[Āryāvarta|Aryavarta]], the region was immune from Vedic and Hindu influences; until at least the sixteenth century, the royal culture did not bear any signs of Hindu influence.{{sfn|Sebastian|2021}}{{efn|In the absence of any primary source other than the royal chronicle, it is difficult to sketch a cultural history of premodern Manipur.}} In 1704, Charairongba, the incumbent King became the first royal figure to be initiated into Vaishnavism; coins inscribing "[[Krishna|Sri Krishna]]" were minted and Hindu temples were constructed but there is no evidence that the public sphere was affected to any significant degree.{{sfn|Sebastian|2021}} Five years later, his son [[Gharib Nawaz (Manipur)|Pamheiba]] ascended to the throne; he followed Meitei funerary rituals upon Charairongba's death and initially showed no inclination towards Vaishnavism, providing selective patronage to the shrines for ''lais''.{{sfn|Sebastian|2021}} However, in 1715, he adopted the [[Sakta]] tradition under one [[Bengali Brahmin]] and two years later, followed his father into being initiated as a [[Gaudiya Vaishnavism|Gaudiya Vaishnava]].{{sfn|Sebastian|2021}} Nevertheless, while Hindu temples were increasingly commissioned, the patronage of Meitei sites continued as before.{{sfn|Sebastian|2021}}
The late 17th-century ruler of Manipur, Pamheiba, was converted to Vaishnavism by Shantidas Goswami, a missionary from [[Sylhet]], and came to be known as [[Gharib Nawaz (Manipur)|Garib Nawaz]]. In popular Meitei narrative, his reign serves as a moment of rupture in their transcendental history.{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125–126}} He is said to have violently suppressed [[Sanamahism]], the local religion as referred to today, forcibly imposed Vaishnavism on his subjects via different oppressive means, and even banished those who refused to convert.{{sfnp|Ray|2015}}{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125-126}}{{efn|For an assessment of Garib Nawaz's religious policy, see {{Cite journal|last=Parratt|first=Saroj Nalini|date=1989|title=Garib Niwaz Wars and Religious Policy in 18th Century Manipur|url=https://crossasia-journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/iaf/article/download/1837/1795/3654|journal=Intemationales Asienforum|volume=20|issue=3–4|pages=298–302}}}}


== Book burning ==
C. 1720, [[Shantidas Adhikari|Santa Das Goswami]], a missionary from [[Sylhet]] arrived in his court, preaching [[Ramanandi Sampradaya|Ramanandi Vaishnavism]] and upholding it as the most appropriate sect for warrior-kings.{{sfn|Sebastian|2021}} Facing an increasingly recalcitrant Cachar and [[Twipra Kingdom|Tripura]]—and Burma, their traditional enemy—the martial ethos of the sect suited Pamheiba’s expansionist ambitions. He converted in 1728 and, in the words of Rodney Sebastian, "re-grammared the very concepts of kingship and the sovereign from within the religio-political authority of Ramanandi Vaishnavism," adopting the title of Maharaja and identifying his realm as the "Manipur" of Indian epic literature.{{sfn|Sebastian|2021}} Pamheiba, unlike his predecessor, tried to unify the masses under a single religio-cultural authority, extensively Hindu-ising the cultural milieu in the process—mass-conversion rites were frequently held, translation of [[Puranas]] and [[Ramayana]] were commissioned,{{Efn|A copy of Bhagavata Purana was supposedly stolen off from a convoy of the Tripura Raj who were bringing it from Assam! See {{cite journal |last1=Dutta |first1=Deepashree |title=From Bandit Raja to Exemplary Devotee: Vaishnav Accounts of the Kingdom of Bishnupur |journal=Religions of South Asia |date=5 June 2025 |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=58–81 |doi=10.1558/rosa.26038}} for a similar case in contemporary Bengal.}} Hindu cultural norms like prohibition on beef were legalized, [[Meitei festivals]] were hybridized with Hindu ones while ''lai'' shrines were destroyed, images of Meitei deities dismantled and recast into coins, and worship of some ''lai''s consigned only to the (Hindu) Brahmins.{{sfn|Sebastian|2021}}
Popular narrative and certain local scholars hold that that during the reign of Garib Nawaz, [[Puya (Meitei texts)|Puyas]] — the ancient traditional texts of [[Meitei people|Meiteis]] — were destroyed at his orders.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=15}}{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125–126}}{{sfnp|Sebastian|2019|p=52}} The precise date is disputed.{{sfnp|Singh|2014}} Since viewed as part of an overall royal policy to purge traditional knowledge systems, this alleged libricide has spawned multiple strands of narratives in popular Meitei culture.{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125–126}}{{sfnp|Ray|2015}} It is also held that the usage of [[Bengali script]] in place of [[Meitei script|Meitei Mayek]] began after this purge.{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125–126}}{{sfnp|Chelliah|2005}}


Details of the precise accounts vary among the local populace and are often legendary in nature — some mention that the puyas were scheduled to be incinerated but flew away from the fire, another version mentions that they were indeed burnt but copies were already made of them, yet another mentions that that they were successfully transported out of the valley, whilst some even hold that the puyas were written in water-resistant ink and preserved underwater.{{sfnp|Ray|2015}}{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125–126}} Local scholars have even produced lists of the burnt Puyas.{{sfnp|Ray|2000|p=120}}{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125–126}} A few however doubt the authenticity of the event, too.{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125–126}}
== Contemporary Narrative ==
In contemporary Meitei culture, which bears a deep ambivalence towards mainland India (and Hindu ethos), Pamheiba's reign serves as a moment of rupture in their transcendental history.{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125–126}} He is alleged to have violently suppressed [[Sanamahism]], the local religion as referred to today, and imposed Vaishnavism on his subjects via oppressive means.{{sfnp|Ray|2015}}{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125-126}}{{efn|For an assessment of Garib Nawaz's religious policy, see {{Cite journal|last=Parratt|first=Saroj Nalini|date=1989|title=Garib Niwaz Wars and Religious Policy in 18th Century Manipur|url=https://crossasia-journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/iaf/article/download/1837/1795/3654|journal=Intemationales Asienforum|volume=20|issue=3–4|pages=298–302}}}} In furtherance, many local scholars hold that [[Puya (Meitei texts)|Puyas]]—the ancient traditional texts of Meiteis—were destroyed at his orders with an explicit aim of purging the traditional episteme; this narrative of libricide has gained immense popularity among Meiteis, notwithstanding the presence of hundreds of extant Puyas.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=15}}{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125–126}}{{sfnp|Sebastian|2019|p=52}}{{sfnp|Ray|2015}}


=== Historicity ===
The precise date of the event is disputed.{{sfnp|Singh|2014}} The details vary with authors and are often legendary in nature since they need to account for the sheer number of extant Puyas—some mention that the Puyas were scheduled to be incinerated but flew away from the fire; another version mentions that they were burnt but copies were already made of them in secret; yet another mentions that they were transported out of the valley using secret messengers.{{sfnp|Ray|2015}}{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125–126}} A few scholars have even produced lists of the burnt Puyas.{{sfnp|Ray|2000|p=120}}{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125–126}} It has also been propounded that the usage of [[Bengali script]] in place of [[Meitei script|Meitei Mayek]] began after this purge.{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125–126}}{{sfnp|Chelliah|2005}}
No primary source exists for the event.{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125–126}}{{sfnp|Roy|1973|p=39}}


While some mention the event to have been chronicled in the ''[[Cheitharol Kumbaba]]'', scholars reject these claims.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=15}}{{sfnp|Sebastian|2019|p=142}} The manuscript of the royal chronicle in Meitei Mayek, preserved by the royal palace and authorized by the last Maharajah [[Bodhchandra Singh]], don't mention any such libricide.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=9,16,141}} A 1925 Bengali transliteration (published c. 1945–1946) by Thongam Madhab, a royal scribe employed under [[Meidingngu Churachand]], does not mention anything similar either.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=9-10,16,142}}{{efn|A superficially edited version of Madhab's transliteration was published by Lairenmayum Ibungohal Singh and [[N. Khelchandra Singh|Ningthoukhongjam Khelachandra]] in 1967 from under the banner of [[Manipuri Sahitya Parishad]].{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=9-10}} This did not mention the events, too.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=16,142}}}}
== Historicity ==
No contemporaneous source exists for the libricide.{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125–126}}{{sfnp|Roy|1973|p=39}} Some scholars claim the event to have been chronicled in the ''[[Cheitharol Kumbaba]]'' but such claims do not withstand scrutiny.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=15}}{{sfnp|Sebastian|2019|p=142}} Neither the manuscript in Meitei, preserved by the royal palace, nor the Bengali transliteration by Thongam Madhab, a royal scribe ({{circa|1925}}) mentions any such event.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=9,16,141}}{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=9-10,16,142}}{{efn|A superficially edited version of Madhab's transliteration was published by Lairenmayum Ibungohal Singh and [[N. Khelchandra Singh|Ningthoukhongjam Khelachandra]] in 1967 from under the banner of [[Manipuri Sahitya Parishad]], which did not mention the events either.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=9-10,16,142}}}} Some late apocryphal manuscripts do assert that Meitei texts were destroyed by the incumbent king Garib Nawaz on the 17th of Mera (?) in Sakabda 1654 (1732 CE) but these were likely forged to support the then-dominant collective memory of a libricide; all of them emend a word from ''Leima'' to ''Lairik''.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=9-11, 15-16, 141-142}}{{efn|The actual line is ''Meetei Leima manghanye'' (lit. The Meitei Queen was destroyed; mean. The Queen was declared to be ritually unclean and/or excommunicated). ''Leima'' means queen whereas ''Lairik'' means books.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=16}}}}{{efn|The first manuscript to carry this emendation was copied by one Kharaibam Deva in Bengali script, which Parratt found to be incomplete and in places, badly copied.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=xi,9,141}} In 1987, a second "critical" edition of Madhab's manuscript (see endnote e) was published by Khelachandra by extrapolating details from three other extant manuscripts — the one by Deva, and another two kept by Nameirakpam Dinachandra and Moirangthem Chandra — and even other Puyas; this mentioned the libricide and even provided a short account of the event but Paratt notes the descriptions to be unreferenced and mostly from sources, which had little historical worth, having never been subject to textual-historical criticism.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=10-11, 142}} For what it is worth, Dinachandra's manuscript did not mention the event and Manipur Sahitya Parishad's latest edition of the Kumbaba has since silently reverted to the 1967 version.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=16}}}}


However, some late apocryphal manuscripts of the ''Cheitharol Kumbaba'' mention, that on the 17th of Mera (?) in Sakabda 1654 (1732 CE), Meitei texts were destroyed by the incumbent king Garib Nawaz.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=9-11, 15-16, 141-142}}{{efn|The original Meitei manuscript was copied by one Kharaibam Deva in Bengali script; Parratt found this to be incomplete and in places, badly copied.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=xi,9}} This version mentioned of the book-burning.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=141}}{{pb}}In 1987, a second "critical" edition of Madhab's transliterated manuscript was published by Khelachandra (Ibungohal Singh had expired years back) by extrapolating details from three other extant manuscripts (the one by Deva, and another two kept by Nameirakpam Dinachandra and Moirangthem Chandra) and even other Puyas.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=10-11}} This again did mention the libricide, and in an accompanying footnote, commented on it whilst referring readers to his two monographs on Manipuri history.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=142}} The date is given as 5th October 1732.{{sfnp|Singh|2014}} Parratt however notes that Khelachandra's random additions were not referenced and mostly from sources, which had little historical worth and had never been subject to textual-historical criticism.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=10-11}}{{pb}}For what its worth, Dinachandra's manuscript did not mention the event.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=16}}}} These variant versions, which claim of a libricide, change a single word in the particular line — "''Meetei Leima manghanye"'' to "''Meetei Lairik manghanye''".{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=141-142}}{{efn|''Leima'' means queen whereas ''Lairik'' means books.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=16}} A 1996 publication on the history of Manipuri literature (by [[Sahitya Akademi]]) mentions the "historical bonfire" as ''Lairik Meithaba'', where old Meitei manuscripts were set to fire at the behest of Shantidas Goswami.{{sfnp|Singh|1996|p=11}}}} Parratt holds that these copies were likely forged to support the collective memory.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=15}} The latest "official" edition of the chronicle, brought out by Manipuri Sahitya Parishad, has since reverted to the palace manuscript.{{sfnp|Singh|2014}}
[[Gangmumei Kamei]] notes the libricide to have been referenced for the first time in the works of Khumanthem Kaomacha, a Brahmin balladist-turned-historian in his 1934 publication, ''Manipur Itibritti''.{{sfnp|Kabui|1991|pp=253}}{{efn|Kaomacha even listed the names of the 123 puyas, which were burnt.{{sfnp|Kabui|1991|pp=253}} See {{Cite book|last=Kaomacha|first=Khumanthem|url=http://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.466529|orig-year=1934|edition=1|volume=1|title=Manipur Itibrita|date=1980|pages=68–70}}}} Pandita-Raja Atombapu Sharma reiterated these claims in his 1952 work ''Pakhangba'' and the claim soon made into every local publication.{{sfnp|Kabui|1991|pp=254}} Carmen Brandt, Jyotirmoy Ray, and others have doubted the historicity of the libricide and criticized scholars who had uncritically accepted the popular narratives; they note that local sources give low and contradictory values about the number of burnt scripts, highlight the numerous documents that were written in Meitei during and well after the reign of Pamheiba including the very ''Cheitharol Kumbaba'', and interpret Nawaz's attitude towards religion as one of strategic ambivalence than as one of missionary zeal.{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125–126}}{{sfnp|Aggarwal|1992|p=31}}{{sfnp|Sebastian|2019|p=142}}{{sfnp|Roy|1973|p=39}}
 
In 1891, an English translation of the chronicle was requested by the newly installed British administrator from Bamacharan Mukherjee, erstwhile secretary of [[Kulachandra Singh]]. This was completed by 1904 but featured extensive additions and alterations when compared to the Meitei version and shew profound Hinduisation.{{sfnp|Parratt|2005|pp=11,17}} This translation mentioned of the book-burning, as well. [[Gangmumei Kamei]] however notes that the libricide was referenced for the first time in the works of Khumanthem Kaomacha, a Brahmin balladist-turned-historian in his 1934 publication ''Manipur Itibritti''.{{sfnp|Kabui|1991|pp=253}}{{efn|Kaomacha even listed the names of the 123 puyas, which were burnt.{{sfnp|Kabui|1991|pp=253}} See {{Cite book|last=Kaomacha|first=Khumanthem|url=http://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.466529|orig-year=1934|edition=1|volume=1|title=Manipur Itibrita|date=1980|page=68–70}}}} Pandita-Raja Atombapu Sharma reiterated these claims in his 1952 work Pakhangba{{sfnp|Kabui|1991|pp=254}} and the claim soon made into every local publication.
 
Carmen Brandt, Jyotirmoy Ray (and many others) have doubted the historicity of the libricide and criticized scholars who had uncritically accepted the popular narratives — there are no reliable primary sources, various local sources give low (and contradictory) values about the number of burnt scripts, numerous documents were written in Meitei during the reign of Garib Nawaz including the very ''Cheitharol Kumbaba'', and Nawaz's attitude towards religion might be well-described as ambivalent.{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125–126}}{{sfnp|Aggarwal|1992|p=31}}{{sfnp|Sebastian|2019|p=142}}{{sfnp|Roy|1973|p=39}} In any case, the puyas are still found in Manipur.{{sfnp|Ray|2015}}


== Commemoration ==
== Commemoration ==
The narrative about the burning of Puyas alongside the forced change of script occupies a prominent place in the collective memory of the Meiteis as to their religious past. It has become increasingly popular in Manipur since, in 1979, the nationalist-revivalists (from under the banner of [[Meitei National Front]]) decided to commemorate the libiricide in a heavily publicized annual event on the 23rd of January and evoke nostalgia for the Meitei script which was in disuse.{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125–126}}{{sfnp|Ray|2000|p=120}}{{sfnp|Sebastian|2019|p=52}}{{Efn|Other Meitei organisations have contested that this was the first commemoration of the event.{{sfnp|Gurumayum|2015}}}}{{Efn|Metei National Front asserts the original event to have occurred on the 23rd of Wakching, a Thursday, in Sakabda 1651 (1729 CE).{{sfnp|Singh|2014}} This date is disputed by other factions, who choose to commemorate the event on a different day. Even assuming the date to be true, the day would have been a Saturday. {{sfnp|Singh|2014}}}}
The narrative about the intentional arsoning of the Puyas alongside a forced change of script occupies a prominent place in the collective memory of the Meiteis. It has become increasingly popular in Manipur since 1979{{Efn|Other Meitei organisations have argued that this was not the first commemoration of the event.{{sfnp|Gurumayum|2015}}}} when the nationalist-revivalists—under the banner of [[Meitei National Front]]—decided to commemorate the libricide in a heavily publicized event on 23 January, every year, and evoke nostalgia for the Meitei script which had gone into increasing disuse.{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125–126}}{{sfnp|Ray|2000|p=120}}{{sfnp|Sebastian|2019|p=52}}{{Efn|Metei National Front asserts the original event to have occurred on the 23rd of Wakching, a Thursday, in Sakabda 1651 (1729 CE).{{sfnp|Singh|2014}} This date is disputed by other factions, who choose to commemorate the event on a different day. Even assuming the date to be true, the day would have been a Saturday. {{sfnp|Singh|2014}}}}  
 
The main function remains restricted to the Sanamahi Temple at Imphal.{{sfnp|Ray|2000|p=120}} The 1979 commemoration had burnt books that portrayed [[Meitei people|Meitei]]s as [[Hindus]]; the attendees grew in number over the years but of late, the event has took on more peaceful forms.{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|p=127}}{{sfnp|Ray|2000|p=120}}


Brandt notes such events to "serve the construction of a history of oppression" and thus, strengthen [[Meitei nationalism]].{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125–126}}
The main function remains restricted to the Sanamahi Temple at Imphal.{{sfnp|Ray|2000|p=120}} The attendees have grown in number over the years but of late, the event has taken on more peaceful forms—for example, books are no more being burnt for portraying [[Meitei people|Meitei]]s as [[Hindus]].{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|p=127}}{{sfnp|Ray|2000|p=120}} Brandt notes these commemorations to "serve the construction of a history of oppression" and thus, strengthen [[Meitei nationalism]].{{sfnp|Brandt|2018|pp=125–126}}


==Notes==
==Notes==
Line 42: Line 31:
==Bibliography==
==Bibliography==
{{refbegin}}
{{refbegin}}
* {{Cite journal |last=Aggarwal |first=Kailash S. |date=1992-01-01 |title=To Include or Not to Include: An Attempt to Study the Language Conflict in Manipur |url=https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/lplp.16.1.02agg |journal=Language Problems and Language Planning |language=en |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=31 |doi=10.1075/lplp.16.1.02agg |issn=0272-2690}}
* {{Cite journal |last=Aggarwal |first=Kailash S. |date=1992-01-01 |title=To Include or Not to Include: An Attempt to Study the Language Conflict in Manipur |url=https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/lplp.16.1.02agg |journal=Language Problems and Language Planning |language=en |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=31 |doi=10.1075/lplp.16.1.02agg |issn=0272-2690|url-access=subscription }}
* {{Cite journal |last=Brandt |first=Carmen |date=2018-01-02 |title=Writing off domination: the Chakma and Meitei script movements |journal=South Asian History and Culture |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=116–140 |doi=10.1080/19472498.2017.1411050 |s2cid=148911026 |issn=1947-2498}}
* {{Cite journal |last=Brandt |first=Carmen |date=2018-01-02 |title=Writing off domination: the Chakma and Meitei script movements |journal=South Asian History and Culture |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=116–140 |doi=10.1080/19472498.2017.1411050 |s2cid=148911026 |issn=1947-2498}}
* {{Cite journal |last=Chelliah |first=Shobhana L. |date=2005 |title=Asserting Nationhood through Personal Name Choice: The Case of the Meithei of Northeast India |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25132326 |journal=Anthropological Linguistics |volume=47 |issue=2 |pages=169–216 |jstor=25132326 |issn=0003-5483}}
* {{Cite journal |last=Chelliah |first=Shobhana L. |date=2005 |title=Asserting Nationhood through Personal Name Choice: The Case of the Meithei of Northeast India |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25132326 |journal=Anthropological Linguistics |volume=47 |issue=2 |pages=169–216 |jstor=25132326 |issn=0003-5483}}
Line 53: Line 42:
* {{Cite book|last=Roy|first=Jyotirmoy|title=History of Manipur|date=1973|publisher=Eastlight Book House|edition=2|language=en}}
* {{Cite book|last=Roy|first=Jyotirmoy|title=History of Manipur|date=1973|publisher=Eastlight Book House|edition=2|language=en}}
* {{Cite thesis |last=Sebastian |first=Rodney |title=Cultural Fusion in a Religious Dance Drama: Building the Sacred Body in the Manipuri Rāslīlās |date=2019 |publisher=University of Florida |id={{ProQuest|2464172212}}}}
* {{Cite thesis |last=Sebastian |first=Rodney |title=Cultural Fusion in a Religious Dance Drama: Building the Sacred Body in the Manipuri Rāslīlās |date=2019 |publisher=University of Florida |id={{ProQuest|2464172212}}}}
* {{Cite journal |last=Sebastian |first=Rodney |date=December 2021 |title=Refashioning Kingship in Manipur in the 18th Century: The Politico-Religious Projects of Garibniwaz and Bhagyacandra |journal=Religions |language=en |volume=12 |issue=12 |page=1041 |doi=10.3390/rel12121041 |issn=2077-1444|doi-access=free }}
* {{Cite book |last1=Singh |first1=Aheibam Koireng |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HiR-oAEACAAJ |title=Bonfire of Books: Cataclysmic Rupture in the Early 18th Century Manipur |last2=Singh |first2=Sanasam Amal |date=2014 |publisher=Centre for Manipur Studies, Manipur University |isbn=978-81-8334-057-1 |language=en}}
* {{Cite book |last1=Singh |first1=Aheibam Koireng |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HiR-oAEACAAJ |title=Bonfire of Books: Cataclysmic Rupture in the Early 18th Century Manipur |last2=Singh |first2=Sanasam Amal |date=2014 |publisher=Centre for Manipur Studies, Manipur University |isbn=978-81-8334-057-1 |language=en}}
*{{Cite news|last=Singh|first=Chabungbam Amuba|date=3 March 2014|title=Puya Meithaba: The Date Controversy|work=[[The Sangai Express]]}}
*{{Cite news|last=Singh|first=Chabungbam Amuba|date=3 March 2014|title=Puya Meithaba: The Date Controversy|work=[[The Sangai Express]]}}
Line 58: Line 48:
{{refend}}
{{refend}}


[[Category:History of Manipur]]
[[Category:18th century in the Manipur Kingdom]]
[[Category:Meitei culture]]
[[Category:Meitei culture]]

Latest revision as of 11:57, 27 February 2026


Puya Meithaba (Burning of the puya), or Lairik Meithaba,[lower-alpha 1] refers to the annual commemoration of a legendary 18th-century scripture burning in Manipur by a neo-convert Vaishnavite King, or to the original libricide itself. There is no historical evidence that the libricide happened. Nonetheless, the commemoration, organised by the Meitei National Front and others since 1979, has been a critical tool in the spread of Meitei nationalism and has mainstreamed a particular reconstruction of premodern Manipur, which has come to be uncritically reproduced even in academic publications.

Background[edit | edit source]

The Meiteis—including the royal house— traditionally followed an indigenous faith of worship that revered nature, ancestors, and fertility gods and goddesses, called lais.[2] Situated far outside Aryavarta, the region was immune from Vedic and Hindu influences; until at least the sixteenth century, the royal culture did not bear any signs of Hindu influence.[2][lower-alpha 2] In 1704, Charairongba, the incumbent King became the first royal figure to be initiated into Vaishnavism; coins inscribing "Sri Krishna" were minted and Hindu temples were constructed but there is no evidence that the public sphere was affected to any significant degree.[2] Five years later, his son Pamheiba ascended to the throne; he followed Meitei funerary rituals upon Charairongba's death and initially showed no inclination towards Vaishnavism, providing selective patronage to the shrines for lais.[2] However, in 1715, he adopted the Sakta tradition under one Bengali Brahmin and two years later, followed his father into being initiated as a Gaudiya Vaishnava.[2] Nevertheless, while Hindu temples were increasingly commissioned, the patronage of Meitei sites continued as before.[2]

C. 1720, Santa Das Goswami, a missionary from Sylhet arrived in his court, preaching Ramanandi Vaishnavism and upholding it as the most appropriate sect for warrior-kings.[2] Facing an increasingly recalcitrant Cachar and Tripura—and Burma, their traditional enemy—the martial ethos of the sect suited Pamheiba’s expansionist ambitions. He converted in 1728 and, in the words of Rodney Sebastian, "re-grammared the very concepts of kingship and the sovereign from within the religio-political authority of Ramanandi Vaishnavism," adopting the title of Maharaja and identifying his realm as the "Manipur" of Indian epic literature.[2] Pamheiba, unlike his predecessor, tried to unify the masses under a single religio-cultural authority, extensively Hindu-ising the cultural milieu in the process—mass-conversion rites were frequently held, translation of Puranas and Ramayana were commissioned,[lower-alpha 3] Hindu cultural norms like prohibition on beef were legalized, Meitei festivals were hybridized with Hindu ones while lai shrines were destroyed, images of Meitei deities dismantled and recast into coins, and worship of some lais consigned only to the (Hindu) Brahmins.[2]

Contemporary Narrative[edit | edit source]

In contemporary Meitei culture, which bears a deep ambivalence towards mainland India (and Hindu ethos), Pamheiba's reign serves as a moment of rupture in their transcendental history.[3] He is alleged to have violently suppressed Sanamahism, the local religion as referred to today, and imposed Vaishnavism on his subjects via oppressive means.[4][5][lower-alpha 4] In furtherance, many local scholars hold that Puyas—the ancient traditional texts of Meiteis—were destroyed at his orders with an explicit aim of purging the traditional episteme; this narrative of libricide has gained immense popularity among Meiteis, notwithstanding the presence of hundreds of extant Puyas.[6][3][7][4]

The precise date of the event is disputed.[8] The details vary with authors and are often legendary in nature since they need to account for the sheer number of extant Puyas—some mention that the Puyas were scheduled to be incinerated but flew away from the fire; another version mentions that they were burnt but copies were already made of them in secret; yet another mentions that they were transported out of the valley using secret messengers.[4][3] A few scholars have even produced lists of the burnt Puyas.[9][3] It has also been propounded that the usage of Bengali script in place of Meitei Mayek began after this purge.[3][10]

Historicity[edit | edit source]

No contemporaneous source exists for the libricide.[3][11] Some scholars claim the event to have been chronicled in the Cheitharol Kumbaba but such claims do not withstand scrutiny.[6][12] Neither the manuscript in Meitei, preserved by the royal palace, nor the Bengali transliteration by Thongam Madhab, a royal scribe (c. 1925) mentions any such event.[13][14][lower-alpha 5] Some late apocryphal manuscripts do assert that Meitei texts were destroyed by the incumbent king Garib Nawaz on the 17th of Mera (?) in Sakabda 1654 (1732 CE) but these were likely forged to support the then-dominant collective memory of a libricide; all of them emend a word from Leima to Lairik.[15][lower-alpha 6][lower-alpha 7]

Gangmumei Kamei notes the libricide to have been referenced for the first time in the works of Khumanthem Kaomacha, a Brahmin balladist-turned-historian in his 1934 publication, Manipur Itibritti.[19][lower-alpha 8] Pandita-Raja Atombapu Sharma reiterated these claims in his 1952 work Pakhangba and the claim soon made into every local publication.[20] Carmen Brandt, Jyotirmoy Ray, and others have doubted the historicity of the libricide and criticized scholars who had uncritically accepted the popular narratives; they note that local sources give low and contradictory values about the number of burnt scripts, highlight the numerous documents that were written in Meitei during and well after the reign of Pamheiba including the very Cheitharol Kumbaba, and interpret Nawaz's attitude towards religion as one of strategic ambivalence than as one of missionary zeal.[3][21][12][11]

Commemoration[edit | edit source]

The narrative about the intentional arsoning of the Puyas alongside a forced change of script occupies a prominent place in the collective memory of the Meiteis. It has become increasingly popular in Manipur since 1979[lower-alpha 9] when the nationalist-revivalists—under the banner of Meitei National Front—decided to commemorate the libricide in a heavily publicized event on 23 January, every year, and evoke nostalgia for the Meitei script which had gone into increasing disuse.[3][9][7][lower-alpha 10]

The main function remains restricted to the Sanamahi Temple at Imphal.[9] The attendees have grown in number over the years but of late, the event has taken on more peaceful forms—for example, books are no more being burnt for portraying Meiteis as Hindus.[23][9] Brandt notes these commemorations to "serve the construction of a history of oppression" and thus, strengthen Meitei nationalism.[3]

Notes[edit | edit source]

  1. A 1996 publication on the history of Manipuri literature by the Sahitya Akademi mentions the "historical bonfire" as Lairik Meithaba, where old Meitei manuscripts were set to fire at the behest of Shantidas Goswami![1]
  2. In the absence of any primary source other than the royal chronicle, it is difficult to sketch a cultural history of premodern Manipur.
  3. A copy of Bhagavata Purana was supposedly stolen off from a convoy of the Tripura Raj who were bringing it from Assam! See Dutta, Deepashree (5 June 2025). "From Bandit Raja to Exemplary Devotee: Vaishnav Accounts of the Kingdom of Bishnupur". Religions of South Asia. 19 (1): 58–81. doi:10.1558/rosa.26038. for a similar case in contemporary Bengal.
  4. For an assessment of Garib Nawaz's religious policy, see Parratt, Saroj Nalini (1989). "Garib Niwaz Wars and Religious Policy in 18th Century Manipur". Intemationales Asienforum. 20 (3–4): 298–302.
  5. A superficially edited version of Madhab's transliteration was published by Lairenmayum Ibungohal Singh and Ningthoukhongjam Khelachandra in 1967 from under the banner of Manipuri Sahitya Parishad, which did not mention the events either.[14]
  6. The actual line is Meetei Leima manghanye (lit. The Meitei Queen was destroyed; mean. The Queen was declared to be ritually unclean and/or excommunicated). Leima means queen whereas Lairik means books.[16]
  7. The first manuscript to carry this emendation was copied by one Kharaibam Deva in Bengali script, which Parratt found to be incomplete and in places, badly copied.[17] In 1987, a second "critical" edition of Madhab's manuscript (see endnote e) was published by Khelachandra by extrapolating details from three other extant manuscripts — the one by Deva, and another two kept by Nameirakpam Dinachandra and Moirangthem Chandra — and even other Puyas; this mentioned the libricide and even provided a short account of the event but Paratt notes the descriptions to be unreferenced and mostly from sources, which had little historical worth, having never been subject to textual-historical criticism.[18] For what it is worth, Dinachandra's manuscript did not mention the event and Manipur Sahitya Parishad's latest edition of the Kumbaba has since silently reverted to the 1967 version.[16]
  8. Kaomacha even listed the names of the 123 puyas, which were burnt.[19] See Kaomacha, Khumanthem (1980) [1934]. Manipur Itibrita. Vol. 1 (1 ed.). pp. 68–70.
  9. Other Meitei organisations have argued that this was not the first commemoration of the event.[22]
  10. Metei National Front asserts the original event to have occurred on the 23rd of Wakching, a Thursday, in Sakabda 1651 (1729 CE).[8] This date is disputed by other factions, who choose to commemorate the event on a different day. Even assuming the date to be true, the day would have been a Saturday. [8]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. Singh (1996), p. 11.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 Sebastian 2021.
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 Brandt (2018), pp. 125–126.
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 Ray (2015).
  5. Brandt (2018), pp. 125-126.
  6. 6.0 6.1 Parratt (2005), pp. 15.
  7. 7.0 7.1 Sebastian (2019), p. 52.
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 Singh (2014).
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 Ray (2000), p. 120.
  10. Chelliah (2005).
  11. 11.0 11.1 Roy (1973), p. 39.
  12. 12.0 12.1 Sebastian (2019), p. 142.
  13. Parratt (2005), pp. 9,16,141.
  14. 14.0 14.1 Parratt (2005), pp. 9-10,16,142.
  15. Parratt (2005), pp. 9-11, 15-16, 141-142.
  16. 16.0 16.1 Parratt (2005), pp. 16.
  17. Parratt (2005), pp. xi,9,141.
  18. Parratt (2005), pp. 10-11, 142.
  19. 19.0 19.1 Kabui (1991), pp. 253.
  20. Kabui (1991), pp. 254.
  21. Aggarwal (1992), p. 31.
  22. Gurumayum (2015).
  23. Brandt (2018), p. 127.

Bibliography[edit | edit source]