By: Parratt
The theory that Buddhism was widespread in Manipur before the hinduisation of the State in the 18th century has been advanced by a minority of scholars, and has also on occasion been proposed in the popular press. In this short paper I shall the examine the arguments for and against this thesis.
What may be called the Buddhist theory has probably found its most aggressive advocate in the archeologist A.K. Sharma. Sharma?s Manipur: the Glorious Past evidently has a hidden agenda, namely that what he calls ?Indian culture? dominates over ?Chinese culture? in Manipur. It also displays the all too familiar inability of main stream Indian scholars to see the north east through any other lens than that of the Indian sub-continent. Sharma?s thesis revolves around two main arguments:
1.That there were very early trade routes from India through Assam and Manipur into Burma, and thence further east. This would suggest to him that Buddhism spread eastwards through these routes and that consequently Manipur would have come under the influence of this religion (Sharma 1994:15ff.)
2.Artifacts discovered in Manipur, especially at the Sekta and Pungdongbam secondary burial sites, are identified by Sharma as of ?typical Buddhist origin? (1994:25). He especially refers to the ?relic casket? (1) and the beautiful horse. In addition there are the numerous Buddhist icons discovered in various parts of the Valley. In Sharma?s view ?the evidence of prevalence of Buddhism in the valley is available at Sekta in the form of a bronze casket from period V. As this could be dated to 100-200AD it appears the religion reached Manipur at around the beginning of the Christian era or even a little earlier? (Sharma 1994:77).
Both these arguments seem to me to be seriously flawed. With regard to the first, it is of course true that there is substantial evidence for an early northerly trade route through the Assam into China, and for a more southerly route through Manipur. This is too well documented to deny, and incidentally must have been the route through which the earliest inbahitants of Manipur entered from Yunnan. However it is historically wrong to claim that this was the way Buddhism expanded eastwards from India. All authorities are agreed that Theravada Buddhism spread east by sea, from south India to Ceylon and then later to Burma. This was an established ancient trade route, which was utilised by the Buddhist missionaries possibly as early as the first century AD. The land route through which Buddhism spread was not via northeast India, but via the northwest, along the famour Silk Route, which went north of the Himalayas through central Asia into China. Only in the 5th century AD at the earliest did Buddhism, now in its Mahayana form, begin to return westwards from China to reach Tibet and subsequently the Bay of Bengal. The Buddhist pilgrim routes followed the same course, that is either along the Silk Route or by sea. There is no evidence whatsoever of any Buddhist influence along the route from Manipur eastwards.
Sharma?s second argument is no more convincing, and is indeed extremely confused. His chronology is wildly speculative, in that he dates the occupation of Sekta between 200BC and 400AD. He can offer no scientific evidence for this, and his dating is based on the very insecure ground of a vague comparison with Tripura. His dates seem far too early. Furthermore his argumentation is very muddled. The primary finds in Sekta and Pungdongbam are the extraordinary materials connected with the practice of secondary burial, including the ossuaries (in this case earthen pots) and the death masks in copper, silver and gold which cover some of the skulls. Also present were items which can reasonably be regarded as being interred with the bodies or bones, namely beads, ornaments, cups and vases. The latter are of traditional design, colour and materials, which are still found in some parts of the valley today. The 7kg gold death mask recovered from Lamboiching, furthermore, was buried along with weapons.
Secondary burial has nothing directly to do with Buddhism. It is widespread throughout several cultures, and has been recorded in South America, Australasia, Melanesia and China (de Groot 1982 vol III: 1057ff.) The latter connection is especially interesting, and might provide a key to the Manipur usage. Secondary burial has also been recorded among the Kukis and the Khasis (though the latter cremated, rather than buried, the bones) (2). Significantly I can find no evidence of it on the Indian sub-continent. This would suggest (contrary to Sharma) that the early inhabitants of manipur adopted the practice from China, not India. However that may be, the covering of skulls with masks of precious metal seems to have no documented parallels. Manuscript evidence indicates that this was a very ancient Meitei (or perhaps we should say proto-Meitei) practice (seethe famous Loiyemba Shinyen from the 12th centry, and also Paroi Masin and Thowantha Hira). Taking this into account then, the artifact evidence for Buddhism is limited to the Buddha icons (to which we shall return below), the caskets and the riderless horse. These latter may reflect a style common in Buddhist designs, though Sharma offers no evidence for this and it is not immediately obvious. It seems to me that what we have here are examples of the kind of artifacts which were not uncommon in east Asia in general. Even if it could be demonstrated that they reflect Buddhist motifs it would prove nothing as to the general religion of Manipur, but merely that they had either been imported or that local artisans had adopted this style. We are then left with the Buddhist icons.
Before we examine these it is necessary to mention the silence of the Meiteiron sources on Buddhism. We are fortunate in having a chronicle which purports to trace the history of the state back to the 1st century AD, and which after about the 15th century becomes quite detailed. The the Cheitharol Kumbaba contains multiple references to the traditional lai, and gives us very full information about the hinduisation of the Manipur Valley, and even of the entry of Muslims. It is completely silent as to Buddhism. It is inconceivable, if Buddhism were ever a force in Manipur, that it would not have been mentioned. Even after the suppression of the traditional lai by Garib Niwaz, they are frequently mentioned in the Cheitharol Kumbaba. It is stretching credulity to the limit to believe that for some reason all traces of Buddhism could have been removed from the chronicle. Furthermore, there is no evidence for Buddhism in Manipur in any of the other archaic manuscripts, nor indeed in the writings of those British colonial officers (McCulloch, Brown, Shakespear, Hodson, Higgins) who showed a particular interest in Manipur?s culture and religion. This is a very strong argument from silence.
We turn then to the only substantive evidence for the presence of Buddhism, the Buddha icons which have been found in various parts of the valley. The question raised here is whether these are sacred artifacts which were manufactured by the local population for their own use, and thus provide clear evidence for the practice of Buddhism, or whether they were brought into Manipur by foreign traders or invading forces from the east.
There are six Buddha icons in the State Museum (3). Three of these are made of bronze. One, only 6 inches in height, was found in Imphal. It is provisionally dated in the Museum records as 15th AD, though Kumar Singh (1992) regards it, on comparison with similar Burmese icons, as from the 17th century. The other two are of bronze and are a few inches bigger. They are from Chandel district and are undated. There is also a 12 inch wood icon from Kakching which is also undated. The remaining two are marble. The smaller is about 18 inches and is stated as having been recovered from Utlou Langpok. The Museum dating gives this as 15th century, but Kumar Singh believes this also to be 17th century. The larger marble icon is about 18 inches and was found at Langthabal; Kumar Singh dates this too as 17th century. The images have certain common features. The facial appearance is Mongoloid, suggesting an eastern rather than an Indian origin. The pose is generally with legs crossed, the left hand in the lap, and the right hand hanging free, and with single or double head pieces. The robe position is not always clear but some at least leave the right shoulder bare. O. Kumar Singh also describes an image in the Mutua Museum, which he regards a a boddhisatva. This is bronze, and in a kneeling position. Once again the right shoulder is left bare.
The are a number of points that can be made about these icons. Firstly they all seem, from the style, to emanate from a similar period. Secondly, since marble is not found in Manipur, two of them at least must have been imported. Again, the Mongoloid features suggest an origin to the east of India. More significantly, all are small ? some very small ? and easily carried. Icons made for local use, to judge from Buddha statues in India and Asia generally, are often very large indeed. Small portable images must have been used by travellers (or soldiers) to carry with them, which suggests, again, an origin outside the places where they were found. Most interesting is the folding of the robe under the right armpit to leave the right shoulder bare. According to Eliot (1921 vol III:62) earlier Buddhist custom was to wrap the shawl around both shoulders. In 1698 a controversy arose in Burma because of a new practice of leaving the right shoulder bare. If this is so, then the manipuri images cannot be dated early than the beginning of the 18th century. Even if some of the images were manufactured in Burma before this date we have no clear evidence as to exactly when they were brought into Manipur.
How did they get to the various locations in and around the Valley of Manipur? It is possible of course that some individual Buddhists, most likely from Burma, may have entered as traders and brought them with them. It is more likely however that they were brought in by Burmese troops during the Seven Years Devastation. We know that in 1825 Gumbhir Singh and the Manipur Levy recaptured Manipur with some speed. It seems probable then, that the Buddha icons were left behind by Burmese troops and camp followers when they made their hasty retreat. It is also possible that some of them may have been taken as booty during Manipuri raids into Burmese territory. There is in fact incidental confirmation of the latter possibility in one of the entries to Shakespear?s Tour Diaries (for 19/10/1911). He records there that he received a request from the Pongye of Tamu for the return of a Buddha image apparently stolen in a Manipuri raid and then taken to a Naga village. Shakespear subsequently found this to be untrue (entry for 13/11/1911), but the fact he took the complaint seriously indicates that Buddhist icons, just as much as anything else of value, could be seized in border raids. The mere presence of Buddhist icons in Manipur then is not conclusive proof that they were ever used for religious purposes by the local population, still less that the population of Manipur ever adopted Buddhism as its religion
One other argument which has sometimes been advanced is that some of the temples in Manipur seem to have been built in the style of pagodas, and that this suggests that they were formerly places for Buddhist worship which were later hinduised. This seems to be based on a misunderstanding. We know from the Cheitharol Kumbaba that architects from Burma were employed by the Manipuri kings from quite an early period. The chronicle makes it clear that they designed temples for the lai or for Hindu gods, not for Buddhist worship. Though the style might reflect Buddhist style architecture, their purpose was quite different.
In sum there is no convincing historical or archeological evidence that the population of Manipur ever came under Buddhist influence, or even, apart from the limited period of the Burmese occupation, it even hosted a minority of non-Manipuri Buddhists.
NOTES
(1) A similar casket was found at Lamboiching in 1980.(2) It was also practised in Medieval Europe, probably because burial grounds were re-used.(3) See also the careful discussion of O. Kumar Singh (1982).
REFERENCES
Aneskari, Masahavu Buddhist Art in its relation to Buddhist Ideals (New York 1978) J.J.M. de Groot The Religious Systems of Ancient China vol III (Taipei 1982, reprint of Leiden 1897 edition)Eliot, Sir Charles Hinduism and Buddhism vol III (London 1921)Kumar Singh, O ?Iconographs of Manipur? in Mutua Museum Bulletin no 2 1992, pp 1-18+ivIbungohal Singh, L. and N. Khelachandra Singh eds. Cheitharol Kumbaba (Imphal 1987)Shakespear, John Tour Diary (Manipur State Archives)Sharma, A.K. Manipur: the glorious past (New Delhi 1994)Zirchner, E Buddhism: its origins and spread (London 1962)
No comments:
Post a Comment