Receiving
Communities: The Encounter with Modernity
By Bhagat Oinam
The problem of the receiving communities has been
of handling the 'bundles of contradictions' brought
by colonialism. The doctored version of modernity
in the package of 'colonial development' has created
exclusivist tendencies among the receiving communities,
particularly that of the Northeast India.
Dialogue in our time depicts a tale of negotiation
(for control of space) in disguise. The assumption
that participants in a dialogue are 'equal partners'
seems to be a misnomer since dialogue mostly turns
out to be between unequals. Tale of dialogue between
modernity and tradition precisely falls within this
category. In the face of such a projected dialogue,
what is generally missed out is the inseparable nature
of these two phenomena. The space that the two occupy
within the receiving communities is historically twined
that cannot be displaced, yet are constantly in surge
with contest and adaptation. With the world turning
global, projection of 'tradition' in purity is an
illusion, so is an unchanging modernity having an
essence.1
The crisis with modernity has become more problematic
for the receiving communities than its advocates largely
because of being positioned at the receiving end.
Import of modernity along with colonialism has created
existential and intellectual anguish among the elites
of the receiving communities. While at few historical
moments, response of these elites was of accommodation
and assimilation, at other, it was of protest and
denial. These responses were marked by the politics
of the time. Negotiation on power and control was
not merely between the receivers and the advocates,
but also among the receivers, some among them playing
the role of second fiddle advocate. The way, at times,
the Indian state operates with a neo-colonialist attitude
towards its marginal communities (on development and
security) serves as a case in point. The marginal
communities are not homogenous either, and do not
show similar forms of response to the forces of modernity.
While variation in responses depends largely on several
historical and social factors, role of collective
consciousness and subjective interventions must serve
significant causal factor.2 The contest of modernity
and tradition is not about two phenomena in alterity,3
but of negotiation within the self for a space of
identity and assertion.
For the Northeast
India, like many other colonized worlds, it is of
wearing a permanent garb of a 'receiver'. The 'bundles
of contradictions' that the colonial rule brought
during the first half of 19th century has created
fractured self/selves with several ideational and
ideological divides. A longing to discover or invent
a 'past', through which the self could be recovered,
not merely for functional deliberation but for providing
a paradigmatic account, has become a daunting task.
This is much more urgently called for with the expansion
and intensity of turmoil that the region at the moment
is faced with.
The paper is an indicator,
not in the sense of measuring a standard, but as hinting
at a possible methodology for studying the marginal
communities. Its engagement, more than the interpretation
of events, is of enacting a discursive framework.
While historical narratives of the Northeast have
brought out rich information about kings, communities
and their rule, these have remained partial with many
communities being absent in these narratives. Pluralism,
representation, objectivity and transparency ought
to mark the future of Northeast India's narratives.
MODERNITY BY PROXY,
COLONIALISM BY CONTENT
Modernity's entry
into the Northeast was by proxy. Entry of science,
technology and education took a pace that suited the
colonial rule. Freedom, human rights, right to speech,
which were the major foci of modernity in the West,
did not quite figure in the modernity programme in
this part of the world. My difficulty is not so much
with the critique that modernity 'while being rational
within its confine, refused to be rational about other
traditions of knowledge.'4 Enlighten ment programme
had been equally harsh with its own traditional values.
It was by breaking the cultural foundation of the
medieval Europe that modernity emerged. My problem
is of the hypocrisy with which colonialism operated
its modernity programme. It was inconsistent and driven
by imperial design.
Modernity was packaged
with many other forces that were inherently opposed
to its own programme. Take for instance, the Church.
It was against the Church and Christendom that Enlightenment
programme stood on its ground. But the two antithetical
poles happily mingled in the colonial frame of operation.
As much as Hume saw 'reason as the slave of passion',5
modernity in the colonized world became a tool for
exploiting the receiving communities. Even it opens
up to the question if those were modernity at all.
The contra- dictions that constituted colonialism
not only made it internally unstable but also made
scattered selves out of the receiving community. Take
the case of some ethnic communities of the region.
So mesmerizing is the gospel of Christ and white man's
sermon that pre-conversion state of these communities
was revealed as a state of barbarism, people hunting
down heads as trophy. This was the first time I saw
people narrating the same undifferentiating tale in
one of the seminars organised by the Centre for the
Studies in Civilizations recently held in Guwahati.
Almost all the Christian scholars, mostly Reverends
of Protestant denominations, spoke with confidence
and surety about their past. Contrary to such revelations,
political discourse in many of these communities,
Nagas in particular, project a contrary tale: 'of
their unique history, of village republic, of their
living independently from time immemorial.' Different
domains of the same self discover their past so varyingly
that accepting contrary narrations becomes untenable.
It is manifestation of a deeper crisis that colonialism
earlier possessed and imparted, and continues to be
internalized and carried forward by the colonized
mind. The past is unendingly discovered in varied
ways.
Another colonial
policy of 'divide and rule' operated by forging unity
and inventing new identities. Seed of structural conflict
in the region was sown by this policy. Division of
Manipur into hills and valley, and altering the boundary
of the state to serve colonial interests, created
drastic changes not only in the socio-cultural lives
of the people but also affected inter community harmony.
While a new king was installed to look after the administration
of the valley, hills by and large came under the direct
control of the British. Installing a king reduced
the colonial power of the day-to-day administrative
responsibility, though the British political agent
took major political decisions by proxy. Subsequent
policies introduced in the valley showed naked economic
exploitation of British colonialism. The British did
not interfere much with the village administration
of the communities in the hills except for a few additions
like introduction of lambus.6 Hills were left as playfield
for evangelising activities. An understanding was
arrived between the Baptists and Presbyterians to
mark respective jurisdiction of operation. The entry
of the missionaries in the hills enabled influence
on the cultural/spiritual domain of the hill people
leading to clear divide between the hills and valley.
Since administrative division made valley and hills
as two segments in the material domain, entry of Christianity
in the hills sharpened the division in the cultural
domain. It made the division between the two segments
complete. Formalisation of categories like Naga and
Kuki,7 even though for administrative purposes, later
helped in consolidation of identity in the cultural
domain. The present Naga movement is a gift of British
colonialism.
In contrast to the
hills, the target of the British in the Manipur valley
was to have control over the material domain. Though
administrative changes were in the field of revenue,
trade and economy in general, its impact was indirectly
felt in the cultural domain as well. The shift from
the lallup to the patta system8 enabled the British
to control the revenue of the state. In order to enhance
trade, cartable road was developed from Moreh to Dimapur.
In fact, British interest in Manipur, in addition
to creating a buffer state, was marked by need for
a free trade route between Indo-China and British
India. Colonial adminis-tration also brought about
a more structured form of market economy. These changes
led to 'dual government' that was witnessed in Bengal
during 1757-1764. The British enjoyed all the power
without responsibility while the king was given responsibility
without economic power. This compelled the king to
look for revenue in the cultural domain. New taxation
such as Chandan senkhai, Mangba sengba9 was introduced
to increase royal exchequer, which in turn led to
consolidation of orthodox Brahmanism in the valley.
Never before in the history of Manipur was untouchability
witnessed as during the colonial period. This is against
the background that Hinduism arrived at Manipur during
15th century AD. The episode is blown out of proportion
by few vested interests that Meiteis practised untouchability
against the hill communities. More than the hill communities
it was the Meitei subjects, particularly the marginalized
and the underprivileged, who were the real victims.
Emergence of Sanamahi movement10 as a protest against
such atrocities, which later contested the control
of the cultural space, serves as an important historical
marker.
What have been witnessed
as a whole are several contradictions with which colonialism
operated. While the British administration projected
an image of a benevolent master bringing about transformation
in each sphere of life, modernity has been selectively
used. Though modernity's characterization lies in
the primacy of reason and self-criticism that operate
in each sphere of human endeavour, either towards
capturing the knowledge about the physical or the
life worlds, or understanding the intricacies of human
reality, the same do not get reflected in the lives
of the people in the region. This is an area where
not only the colonial rule failed, but the present
'liberated' state equally fails to address to the
need.
DISCOVERING THE PAST
& MAKING OF NARRATIVES
The need for highlighting
the idea of 'past' in a tradition seems to be a post-colonial
articulation. Since it was coined as a counterpoise
to modernity it has ideationally accepted the 'arrival'
of a phenomenon called modernity. Tradition is always
seen from the prism of the present even if conceived
as a process. Our past does not remain independent
in isolation in pure form. If one argues for events
in purity without a value or meaning, it will fall
well in the Kantian category of noumena11 of which
we do not know. All that we know or claim to know
is about what we perceive. And what we perceive is
through a prism already construed and formalised.
Tradition is perceived through a prism, and is not
divorced from the present and a desired future. And
that prism could be the 'prism of modernity'.
Many of the protests
that are taking place in Manipur in the name of preserving
traditional values and heritage, such as 'script movement'
and 'traditional dress code for girl students', have
nothing traditional about them. The image of a tradition
that these movements project has already incorporated
the modern political ideas such as 'right to culture',
'civil disobedience and courting arrest', 'language
and script as vehicle for inculcating nationalism',
etc. Even the idea of a denial of Westernisation or
Indianization has already incorporated the image of
that which they wish to deny. Though images of a past
heritage are projected, these images are not only
very modern but the mode of agitation is equally so.
For instance, take the writings of Atom Bapu Sharma,
Wahengbam Yumjao Singh, Asangbam Miniketan Singh and
many others who engaged in the process of discovering
a past that was close to Vedic lineage. Migration
of Kiratas was thrown up to make the Meiteis closer
to Vedic Bharata. The other group, Meitei Marup, completely
rejected such a narration of the Hinduised Meiteis
seeing it as concocted myth. Kangjiya Gopal's book
Adungeigi Manipur Kangleipak Natte (The Distant Manipur
is not Kangleipak) rejected the myth of locating the
present Manipur (then Kangleipak) in the Mahabharata.
While the two hold opposing positions, both look for
traces of the past through the discourse of modernism.
Linearity in modern historiography guides their perceptions
that both fall back on constructing a long past heritage,
of 2000 years old history. More than the validity
or invalidity of the narration what is important is
the mode of narration -of construing a tradition from
the modernist perspective.
Anxiety of having
a genuine tradition or a modernity of the indigenous
kind is based on two criticisms: one, of encompassing
and homogenising tendency of modern science, and two,
of anxiety of being a part of the colonized self.
Both are facticity faced by the self of the receiving
communities. But the world has witnessed tremendous
change in the last few decades. Enlightenment programme
has undergone drastic changes. Positivism, for instance,
is no more fashionable. But problem with the receiving
communities, to my mind, seems to be arising from
encountering and fairing the complex 'bundles of contradictions',
which colonialism brought. The dilemma and the anguish
are not confined to the academia alone but also visibly
witnessed in the day-to-day life world of the receiving
communities. Complexity and paradoxes do not stop
the ongoing journey of life. We continue to live with
these bundles of contradictions.
Discovery of tradition
among these communities is more about manifestation
of anxiety of a scattered self. The failure at the
material domain led to resurgence at the spiritual.12
Defeat from the colonial rule gave birth to this new
programme. The resurgence specifically tends to look
towards a past. The nationalist movement in Bengal,
for instance, in order to reject the colonial rule
started looking at superior image of the natives in
their pre-colonial time. Siraj-ud-daula, for instance,
became the hero and Mir Zafar a villain in Bengali
theatre and plays. Apart from the recovery, the attempt
was also a search for an alternate space. What came
quite natural was search for a political space in
the cultural/spiritual domain. This was projected
to counter the British onslaught that had already
overtaken the receiving communities in the material
domain.13 Discovery of Ramakrishna in the Bengali
middle class14 enabling assertion of middle class
hegemony in Bengal was a case in point. This trend
got reflected in Manipur through educated Manipuri
middle class, who, from their education in Bengal,
brought the spirit of nationalism. Introduction of
print technology, inception of Nikhil Manipuri Maha
Sabha, etc. were manifestations of the trend.
Similar cases had
been witnessed in Manipur during the post 1891 colonial
rule. Manipuris, unable to reconcile with the defeat
in the Anglo-Manipuri War (1891), looked for areas
where the natives' supremacy could be recovered. Loss
in the war meant loss of control over military, political
administration, economy, and trade. The defeat in
the political and economic sphere led the traditional
Manipuri elites to look into the private domain. British
were projected as impure and the 'dirty other'. There
had been cases where houses entered by the British
officials were destroyed and new houses built.15 These
were collectively sanctioned and performed. It was
a fight, more a protest, to a dominating power. It
was not a direct fight as the domain of operation
for the two were different. It was a judicious and
selective move by the traditional elites not to directly
confront the British yet register their protest differently.
Responses to modernity
showed a complex phenomenon than a homogenous archetype.
Differences in the responses of these communities
were shaped not only by the varying administrative
policies of the colonial rule but also by the dynamics
of power struggle among the receiving groups. In fact,
complexity is shown by the varied and multi layered
character of these responses. Manipur, for instance,
showed an interesting trend of elite formation. First
was the traditional Brahmins and royal clan who still
carried the legacy of a pre-colonial state authority.
These were the priestly and feudal classes who were
not very cordial, if not hostile, to the British.
Slowly, this class was co-opted by the new state,
took to English and Bengali education, leading to
the formation of new elites. Some members of this
class with the addition of a few other sections of
the society formed a new group-the middle class. This
second group was mostly educated at places like Sylhet,
Dacca and (then) Calcutta. These emerging new elites
were progressive, but used traditional idioms to register
and propagate their political aims. They were the
brands of middle class 'intelligentsia' as witnessed
elsewhere in India. A case of Hijam Irabot could throw
light into the trend and exceptions.16 The third group
emerged out of an existential crisis of being left
out, took contrary positions to the ones held by other
elite groups. This traditionalist Meitei Marup (Pre-Hindu
Sanamahi sect) took to indigenous pre-Vaisnava values
and life style. Impressions of the trend still find
traces in many of the organisations of the present.
Contemporary Manipur
experiences two most popular narratives: 'merger of
Manipur in the Indian union' and 'unique history of
the Nagas'. In the former, annexation of Manipur by
the newly independent India on the 15th October 1949
is highlighted as the black day in the history of
the state. To strengthen the narrative, pre-merger
state of Manipur during 14th August 1947 to 15th October
1949 is often projected in the minds of the people
as 'atemporal space' of free and independent Manipur.
The real duration of the period was not considered
important. State of freedom as an atemporal concept
was shown in continuity by bracketing the consciousness
of temporality. This was made possible because the
immediate preceding event was the Anglo-Manipuri War
of 1891 where Manipuris fought a loosing battle with
pride and glory. Projection of Manipur as an independent
kingdom before the British invasion, and an independent
state after the British left, has been successfully
made as continuity in the minds of the people. But
the protagonists of the narrative fail to see the
importance of colonial regime as a basis of nationalist
historiography. They fail to see that Manipur not
only lost many parts of its territory in the treaty
of 1834, but also gained several parts. During the
span of a century, the territory of Manipur fluctuated
to a considerable degree. When territories are lost
inhabitants too are lost, and when territories are
gained new populations are added. The experience of
Manipur falls within this trend. Perhaps, the India-Pakistan
experience of partition was among the exceptional
few. Further, the protagonists fail to see that nationalism
is built not merely by projecting geographical space
and past heritage of a few, but by accommodating the
world views of all. In a similar tone of 'Merger'
narrative, Nagas (particularly of Manipur) come out
with an equally exclusive narrative. The projection
is of a unique history: of village republic, an unconquered
Naga territory even during the height of British imperialism.
This narration though initiated by NNC, has been given
a new direction in recent times by the protagonists
of the Naga cause. The direction of freedom has changed,
so much so has the concept. Just as the notion of
'sovereignty' is talked in terms of a 'special federal
relation' with India, freedom from 'Indian imperialism'
has shifted to freedom from 'Meitei imperialism'!
There is nothing new about such a concept. 'Right
to Self-determination' has varied layers of interpretation.
The present case is about discarding one concept and
appropriating another.
The crisis is of
contradicting narratives that seem to have become
a trend than exception. This can be witnessed not
only between the Meiteis and the Nagas of Manipur,
but also between the Bodos and chaste Assamese in
Assam. Similar is the case found in Meghalaya where
the Bengalis and the Assamese struggle to get a place
in the historical narrative of the state, which tends
to selectively erase certain past memories involving
their origin in the state. While the Assamese, Bengalis
and Manipuris (particularly Meiteis) are being charged
of denying possible spaces to other communities in
the region in their long drawn historical narratives,
the new trend by the protesting communities to carve
a space for themselves through a new historical narrative
rather denies than supplements the existing narratives.
At the end, it turns out to be a contest for the control
of space among different communities.
A FOONOTE TO HISTORIOGRAPHY
The highlight of
these narratives is that each goes on 'totalizing'
not only the goal but also the narration. Each act
excludes the other act, so much so are the goals (as
'totality')17 mutually exclusive and opposed. In principle,
two totalities cannot be realized simultaneously.
A nation cannot have more than one 'totality' at a
time unless it suffers from split personality. Even
if the narratives (totalization) differ, as in the
case of a dialogue, the goal (totality) ought to be
closely similar if not identical. The projection of
the Nagas in Manipur narrating an alternative totalization
and totality is with the presupposition that there
is more than one nation in the present state of Manipur.
And totality is of an independent Naga inhabited land.
Another version of 'totality', largely held by majority
Meiteis, is seeing the entire people of the state
as one nation in evolution. A careful study will reveal
that totalization as present has deeper philosophical
underpinning. Sartre's formulation that 'totalising
present is conditioned by totalised and totalising
past of the process of human development' could serve
as a point for reflection. Totalization projects a
'cultured' man (including illiterate societies) who
totalises through centuries of history, through experience.18
In fact, each act of totalization projects a long
trace of historical origin of the people. The often-used
phrase in these narratives is 'from time immemorial'.
Through the phrase, legitimacy is sought for a narrative
to become historical. Two options clearly emerge:
one, whether to see multiple totalizations and totalities
as prelude to smaller nation states, or two, that
these are the voices of a fractured self. The problem
is not only unique to the state of Manipur. This is
witnessed at every level of political discourse, whether
one looks at Northeast India as a whole or the Indian
nation state as one.
The moral is: understanding
the plural character of the Northeast shall fulfil
the task of disseminating factually accurate social
reality of the region. Such an effort will not only
be comprehensive in capturing the region in its totality,
but also overcome the limitations of exclusivist narratives.
The present political crisis in the region is largely
because of the gap that exists in our knowledge of
the other. It is the lack of what Ricoeur calls 'pairing'
(paarung) of individuals' temporal fields, which form
a historical field of experience that correlates gaps
in our perception of the surrounding.19 It is not
merely about non-Northeasterner not understanding
the Northeast but about Northeasterner not understanding
the region and the people. A stereotype exists within
the region itself. In the face of such crisis, need
for a comprehensive historiography becomes eminent
and urgent.
To draw a comprehensive
history of the Northeast fulfilling representation,
we must focus on the colonial period. This is not
to denounce the already existing narratives. Chronicles,
such as Buronji, Cheitharol Kumbaba and Rajmamala
will continue to have their own significance. But
we have to be critical of the narratives that project
a mere imaginative fantasy20 without pairing. It needs
to be clearly shown that arrival of modernity in the
package of colonialism shaped the consciousness of
the communities in a particular direction. It was
the colonial rule that paved structural changes to
almost all the communities in the region. Northeast
was physically bridged and spiritually distanced by
the British colonial power. A narrative that comprehends
the historical fields of experiences of the region
with a comprehensive rationality seems to be the most
reasonable approach to understand the region-of its
past and future, through an accommodative present.
NOTES & REFERENCES
1 Essentialising
modernity is to make it (as an idea and process/act)
stagnant which would be self-contradictory. Modernity
characteristically is self-critiquing, and its goal
lies in the act/process. It is in our performing the
act(s) that modernity is envisaged and accomplished.
2 Collingwood's 'free
and deliberate act of a conscious and responsible
agent' as a historical cause needs a special highlight.
See, R.G. Collingwood, An Essay on Metaphysics, (Oxford:
The Clarendon Press), (first published 1940) 1962,
p. 290.
3 Alterity is about
'those' outside the self. But what is outside is not
free from the actor who is an 'inside'. The conception
goes closer to the ideas of Levinas where the outside
gets meaning through the inside. See Michael B. Smith,
Towards the Outside: Concepts and Themes in Emmanuel
Levinas, (Pittsburg, Pennsylvania: Duquesne University
Press), 2005.
4 Ashis Nandy, The
Intimate Enemy, (New Delhi: Oxford University Press),
(first published 1983) 2002, pp. 2-3.
5 David Hume, A Treatise
of Human Nature, L.A. Selby-Bigge (ed.), (Oxford:
Clarendon Press), 1978.
6 Roles of Lambus
were traditionally the intermediary between the king
and the tribal chieftains. The same post was retained
by the British administration who engaged them for
collecting taxes from the villages in the hills.
7 Gangmumei Kamei
(then Kabui) highlights 'common place' of origin of
several tribes who are now clubbed within the category
of the 'Naga' primarily to justify the earlier period
of origin of the term as well as identity of the group.
This does not, however, justify the present day expanse
of tribes subsumed in the category as have existed
during the pre-colonial or colonial period. What was
known as 'Naga' to the Assamese before the advent
of the British were limited to a few tribes inhabiting
in the hill ranges south of the Brahmaputra valley.
Further, many tribes of Kuki-Chin linguistic group
today claim themselves as 'Naga'. The term was formalised
by the colonial administration, and later internalised
during the post-colonial period. The strength of identity
formation lies not in merely tracing the origin but
in futuristic engagement in the present. Naga identity
formation precisely does that. To continue the debate,
see Gangmumei Kabui, 'Genesis of the Ethnoses of Manipur',
in Naorem Sanajaoba (ed.), Manipur: Past and Present,
Vol. 3, (New Delhi: Mittal Publications), 1995, pp.
21-25.
8 Lallup is a form
of military, administrative and civil services rendered
by the subjects to the state. The subject in lieu
of his service is entitled to hold land for cultivation.
The practice was abolished to bring in patta system
which enabled the British to have direct control of
the revenue. See N. Joykumar Singh, Social Movements
in Manipur, (New Delhi: Mittal Publications), 1992,
pp. 29-30. Also see N. Lokendra Singh, Unquiet Valley,
(New Delhi: Mittal Publications), 1998, pp. 29-30.
9 Chandan senkhai
was a form of taxation against the use of chandan
as tilak on the Vaisnava population. Mangba-sengba
was the purification fee paid by those ostracised
as impure either by the king, king's brother, or the
Brahmin. Purification fees varied depending upon the
nature of the declaration. New forms of taxation made
the king increasingly unpopular, but substantive revenue
could be gathered through these ill practices.
10 Sanamahi movement
aims at reviving the indigenous religious and cultural
practices of pre-Vaisnava Meiteis.
11 Immanuel Kant,
Critique of Pure Reason, Norman Kemp Smith (trans.),
(New York: St. Martin's Press Inc.), (first published
1929) 1961, pp. 266 ff.
12 Partha Chatterjee,
The Nation and Its Fragments, (New Delhi: Oxford University
Press), 1993, p. 26.
13 Ibid. p. 26.
14 Ibid. pp. 36-37.
15 B.C. Allen, Assam
District Gazetteer: Naga Hills and Manipur, Vol. IX,
Part 2, (Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press), 1905, p.
61.
16 Leaders like Hijam
Irabot, who were co-opted by the king, did not succumb
to the pressure but genuinely worked for the people.
He stood for the modernization of economy, social
reforms and justice that shakened the existing feudal
structure. He believed that Meitei society could be
regenerated by rectifying the evils in the Hinduism
itself. Activities of such middle class leaders were
influenced by the dominant ideology of Indian freedom
struggle. For instance, Irabot interacted with many
leaders of Indian freedom struggle in Sylhet and Cachar.
See, Yambem Sanamani, 'Nupi Lan: Women's Agitation,
1939', Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XI, No.
8, February 21, 1976, p. 327. Also see, Karam Manimohan
Singh, Hijam Irabot Singh and Political Movements
in Manipur, (New Delhi: R.B. Publishing Corporation),
1989, pp. 153-54.
17 For Sartre, 'totality'
and 'totalisation' refer to goal of praxis and act
of praxis respectively. Human praxis is narrating
and asserting about oneself, which is about creating
history. The difference between the two is that totality
is totalized and the totalisation totalises itself.
While the former is projected as 'become', the latter
is 'becoming', which suggests that it is locating
in time and, as such, totalizes itself. So totalisation
as an act in the present encompasses the past acts
as well as the future goal. If history is totalisation
which temporalises itself, culture is itself temporalising
and temporalised totalisation. Although one totalises
individually, one's culture cannot be treated as mere
subjective accumulation of knowledge as 'my own',
but is conceived as specific participation in interiority
in the objective culture. See J.P. Sartre, Critique
of Dialectical Reason, tr. Alan Sheridan-Smith, ed.
Jonathan Rée, (London: Verso/NLB), (first published
1960) 1982, pp. 53-56.
18 Ibid., p. 54.
19 Paul Ricoeur sees
'imagination' as an individual action. Each individual
imagines independently in isolation that creates a
flux. It is through the idea of 'pairing' that one
temporal flux accompanies another. This leads to a
higher order temporality that categorises isolated
events and actions. The formulation largely explains
intersubjective understanding of imagination as an
act of constructing history. However, it remains to
be seen how far it successfully explains inter-community
understanding of imagination. See, Paul Ricoeur, 'Imagination
in discourse and in action', in Gillian Robinson &
John Rundell (eds.), Rethinking imagination: Culture
and creativity, (London & New York: Routledge), 1994,
p. 127.
20 To illustrate
the point, take the case of Meities as descendents
of mythic figures of the Mahabharata. Such attempts
are manifestation of a desperate self to equate with
an imagined superior race and tradition.
<<
BACK TO CONTENTS
