Manipur Research Forum

Home > Archives > Volume3 Issue III > Kaleidoscope > Lai Haraoba: Discursive Practices & Cultural Contestations

Kaleidoscope



	Current Activities
	Manipur Research Forum regularly organises seminars, conferences, lectures and workshops.
	Monthly Seminars (every second Saturday) / Special Lecture:
	April 2008:
	Speaker: Nongmaithem Manichandra Singh, Lecturer, Ram Lal Anand College, University of Delhi
	Topic: “Issues in Food Grain Economy: A State Level Analysis of Manipur”
	March 2008:
	Speaker: Sumitra Thoidingjam, Lecturer, Janki Devi Memorial College, University of Delhi
	Topic: “A Post-colonial Reading of Kanhailal's Pebet as a Text of Cultural Resistance”
	More >>
	Photo Gallery

	Click here >>

	Those who are interested in presenting papers on various aspects of Northeast can write to mrfd.quarterly@gmail.com


	Archived Section
	Website Articles
	Contact Technical Queries
	Duran Thiyam Web Technical Consultant cyberdura(@)yahoo(dot)com

Lai Haraoba: Discursive Practices & Cultural Contestations
By Rekha Konsam

Lai Haraoba festival exemplifies the very essence of the Meitei community. Two contesting discourses—the Hindu and the non-Hindu—each claiming ‘distinctiveness of the Meitei cultural identity’ are associated with this festival. It also becomes a space for non-ritual cultural elements reflecting the popular cultural current in wider society.

INTRODUCTION:

Collective rituals characteristically observed in the public domain call forth the participation of the community as a whole. Beyond their specifically ritualistic intent, they quite often come to assume centrality in social life beyond the religious. Recent studies on specific religious festivals have tended to move beyond the ritual thrust concentrating instead on other aspects of sociological significance. They bring to the fore questions concerning the web of social relations and everyday practices of human agency and cultural continuity or discontinuity:

Globalization has thrown open many new alternatives including the need for constant stress on identity, re-instating identity, re-identification, re-formation of identity and formation of new identities. The use of the sphere of the public, that is to say the public culture, takes on new meanings. Herein, the case of those specific rituals which occupy or have come to occupy a privileged position for that particular society assume significance that cannot simply be explained with reference to their ritualistic content or their places within ceremonial wholes. It is within this frame that the present essay is located.

This essay attempts to examine Lai Haraoba within the context of the articulation of Meitei ethnic identity. It addresses two concerns. Firstly, Lai Haraoba as it figures in popular as well as academic discourses. This is contextualized within the Meitei ‘lifeworld’ (1) taking into account native categories of thought according to which the Lai Haraoba tradition embodies the very essence of that which is truly Meitei. As such, it comes to occupy a position that can only be described as paradigmatic in the re-instating of a distinct ethnic identity. Secondly, the jealously guarded physical space of the festival. It attempts to direct attention towards a public culture within the sanctified ‘non-ritual’ space of the Lai Haraoba.(2)

The Lai Haraoba has been posited as the prime ritual, the ultimate source from which originates not only dance and music but also marks the birth of man, of lais,(3) of the cosmos and of the whole creation. The festival exemplifies the very essence of the community. An aspect that is constantly brought to the fore is its resilience to change under the impact of the eighteenth century religious conversion orchestrated by King Garibniwaz (1709–1751). The process of mass sanskritization is something which remains associated with forcible conversion in popular memory.(4) The emphasis on the resilience of the Lai Haraoba in the face of this impact could be seen as a statement in itself, a reflection of a growing consciousness and a struggle of a people to assert autonomy by re-establishing/re-affirming their ethnic rooted-ness. As such it is also a struggle against cultural (and political) homogenization that is per-ceived as threatening to local interests. (5)

THE LAI HARAOBA:

Sociologically festivals constitute a break from the normal, the mundane everyday existence. It thus has a temporal dimension to it. As a festival of an agrarian society, it marks a break from the agricultural cycle—the closing in of the previous cycle before the commencement of the next, for it collides with the agricultural slack season (March-June) and the onset of the monsoon.(6)

As a religious event, the Lai Haraoba marks the coming together of the world of lai and of humans. The rituals venerate not one particular deity but deities under the generic category of umanglai.(7) These include certain ancestors, tutelary deities besides some deities of non-Meitei origin. Charac-teristically they are guardian deities of delimited areas which venerate them annually alongside their spouse as a couple (a male and a female). Propitiation of deities in Lai Haraoba is a step away from ancestor worship Apokpa khurumba though undeniably rooted in it.

Variations can be noted in the observance of Lai Haraoba rituals across the valley of Manipur. This prompts the question—‘why is it that a common name has been allotted to something that exhibits distinct differences?’ As a mode of worship, the rituals follow a particular structure: it commences with descent of the deities (lai eekouba) and concludes with their departure in lairoi (8). Daily rituals observed in between similarly follow a particular structure. Thematically, the festival celebrates the essence of living—of life itself, fulfilment of the purpose of living and continued existence through procreation. Its rituals revolve firstly around the origin myth enfolding within it the various ethos that shape the Meitei cosmic universe. Secondly, any celebration of the ongoing process of living cannot do away with the idea of procreation; but it is neither the biological fact of reproduction nor motherhood that is being upheld, rather it is sexual congress that is celebrated. To paraphrase an informant, Lai Haraoba is the outward expression of the inward state of fulfilment. Thirdly, as a festival of an agrarian community, fertility, both human and agricultural, is a prominent aspect.
Lai Haraoba has been classified into three variants—Kanglei, Moirang and Chakpa—each claiming a different origin. The use of the term ‘variant’ should not be taken as suggesting a notion of one true form of which the others are variations. (9) The variants reflect the settlement pattern in the valley which groups different categories of people possibly indicating different stocks of knowledge. This calls for the need of mapping them out in view of the fluid nature of the Meitei identity formed out of a conglomerate. In other words, none of its constitutive groups of people necessarily share a common history beyond a certain point. (10)

MYTHOLOGICAL ORIENTATIONS OF LAI HARAOBA:

Lai Haraoba celebrates the Meitei origin myth. Its rituals recount the beginning of creation. In this, dance and music form an essential part. The process of creating the universe is enacted by the ritual functionaries through mime, dance and anti-phonal songs to the accompaniment of indigenous and non-indigenous music. Meitei belief starts with a supreme being, Tengbanba Mapu, who is the source of all manifestation and to whom all manifestations ultimately return. The emanation of different deities from him is the beginning of creation. His earliest manifestations are that of Atingkok, the infinite expanse, and Amamba, the infinite darkness.

For the purpose of creating the world of living beings, he manifested himself into Lainingthou Salailel Sidaba (Atiya Sidaba) and Leimarel Leishi Leipunbi, the supreme male Pa and female Pi principles associated with his right and left, respectively. Atiya Sidaba was commissioned the task of creating the universe. He went up to Atingkok to ask how the earth was to be created. The latter opened his mouth and showed within him the stars, sun, moon, galaxies, water, air, fire and so on. Atiya Sidaba threw himself within in an attempt to drive out all the elements with the cry ‘Ahei He Hoirou Hoirou Nakese’.(11) To help Salailel in creating the world of living beings, Atingkok descended as a three-day-old child. This child, Konsen Tuleihenba (Aseeba, who later comes to be known as Sanamahi), grew up and created the different orders of living beings but these creations were unsatisfactory. Human being was then created based on Salailel’s image. Seeing Me-Khalouba, the first man created, Leimarel wanted to have a child. This child born to her was Konchin Tukthaba, who later became Pakhangba. The process of creating the world was filled with numerous obstacles. Atiya Sidaba and Aseeba were aided by nine male deities and seven female deities.

The episode of Sanamahi-Pakhangba refers to the contest between the two sons of Salailel to win his throne. The test was to circle the universe seven times and whoever returned first would succeed him. Konsen Tuleihenba, the elder and stronger of the two, sets off immediately for the journey while Konchin Tukthaba sought the advice of his mother. She advised that since the universe was created in the image of Salailel, encircling him seven times would be equivalent to encircling the universe seven times. Acting on her advice, he won the throne and assumed the title ‘Pakhangba’ meaning, ‘the one who knows his father’. On his return, Konsen Tuleihenba found his younger brother seated on the throne. He became furious and was about to challenge him, but the latter was protected by seven female deities who encircled him. He then declared that if the advisor was a male, he would kill him and if a woman, he would marry her. On realizing that it was his mother, he exiled himself to the moon, from where he started on a mission of destroying the very world that he had created. Salailel pacified Konsen Tuleihenba by bestowing him the status of a household deity to be worshipped in every Meitei household while Pakhangba would be worshipped only by the ruling king.

In Lai Haraoba the myth of Nongpok Ningthou and Panthoibi also makes recurrent appearances through the rituals. In fact it is to Nongpok Ningthou that some trace the origin of the festival. There is another version that is distinctly Hindu in its orientation tracing itself to Shiva and Uma. Accordingly, they descended from Kailash to settle down in the land of Manipur for a brief sojourn. They first came to Nilakantha hills (Nongmaiching) and selected certain hills for their residence. Here, Shiva was given a new name Poireiton meaning ‘he who has come to a new place’. They then stopped at Kumara hills (Koubru). Another reason for their sojourn was the intention of organizing the rasa dance for they had once acted as doorkeepers to the rasa dance of Krishna with the gopies (maidens). Enamoured by the accompanying music, Uma wished to see the performance but was denied permission. Krishna suggested that they find a suitable site and organize one for themselves. This was how they came to Manipur; but the land was wet and moist. They then prayed to Krishna to intervene. When the country was dry and purified, the rasa dance of Shiva and Uma was arranged. Many gods and goddesses were invited to the dance of which Anantanag, the king of the nags, was one. He lit up the site for the entire duration of the dance with the magical jewel mani on his forehead. Henceforth, the place originally named Siva-nagara after Shiva came to be known as Manipura after the maharasa dance. In this way, the land was sanctified at the dawn of creation. (12)

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND CONTESTING DISCOURSES:

The distinctiveness of the Meitei cultural identity can be seen as shaped through two forces—the forces of sanskritization on the one hand and indigenization on the other. In a way, it balances identification with the Indian mainstream culture and its indigene tribal roots. The demarcation between the two elements can be located at the level of discourse, each speaking a different language.(13) The Hindu discourse speaks in a language orienting itself to the ‘great tradition’, of the mainstream Indian Sanskritic culture positing historical origin within this context. But the non-Hindu discourse emphasises the ‘tribal’ rootedness in the pre-Hinduised state. It draws strength in oral history, native categories of thought and popular consciousness.

Meitei oral history starts with Pakhangba, the mythico-legendary hero to whom the Meiteis trace descent and to whom the establishment of a Meitei state is accredited. He appears in three forms—as the son of Salailel, as the first Meitei king and as a serpent. In the Hindu narrative, he is traced to Babhruvahana, the son of Arjuna and Chitrangada. Further on, Pakhangba is believed to have waged several wars in the process of establishing his suzerainty over the valley. One of these was with Poireiton whose sister Laisana ultimately became the former’s wife. Positing ‘Poireiton’ as incomer from the west, he has been put forth as a corrupt form of ‘Purohit’.

Examined in terms of historical layering, there is an acceptance of Vaishnavism as a later phase. The issue is the question of the phase preceding it—the culture of the pre-Vaishnavite valley society. As embodying the tradition of this contested phase, the Lai Haraoba assumes centrality in both discourses. In Hindu narrative accounts a phase of ‘non-Hindu’ never existed so far as the Meiteis are concerned. It upholds the existence of Shaivism-Tantricism as evidenced in the veneration of serpents, the worship of the mother goddess. The worship of umanglai hence comes to be relegated to Shiva and Devi.

In non-Hindu narratives the Lai Haraoba is perceived as the single greatest key to that remote tribal past. For Parratt and Parratt, this tradition diverts in many ways from the ‘North Indian’ culture while showing distinct affinity towards the Indonesian cultures.(14) This affinity is drawn in traditional techniques of rice cultivation, weaving, iron work, flower and boat culture, not to mention the racial stock of the Meitei people. Further, in the search for history within its text and tradition, myths incorporated in the Lai Haraoba are interpreted as embodying certain facts of historical importance. Herein the theme of conflict occupies centre-stage—be it the conflicts in the origin myths or the antagonism interspersed within love lyrics in the rituals. These are contextualized within the early stages of Manipuri history. It is questionable how far myths can be read as history. The view of myth as trying to tell us something is but one way of looking at it. For Roland Barthes, myths are nothing but dominant ideologies of our times while for Levi-Strauss, it does not attempt to tell us anything. It follows its own structure which is located at the level of the sub-conscious and is ultimately linked to the innate mental capacity of the people. Hence, he studies them as structures of transformation. Studying myths in terms of public domain could perhaps prove to be a fruitful sociological exercise.

NATURE OF THE RITUAL:

The term ‘Lai Haraoba’ can be differently translated in the active and passive voices. In the active voice lai is the subject celebrating the festival, while in the passive voice, it is the object towards whom the celebration is directed. The latter translation points towards a ritualistic intent. Seemingly inconsequential, these translations underlie two different viewpoints on the question of the nature of the Lai Haraoba rituals. (15)

E.N. Singh’s translation in the active sense as ‘merry-making of the gods’ premises itself in the idea of a re-enactment of the rejoicing of the gods.(16) This re-enactment described as ‘dance drama’ is conceived in terms of the Natya-shastra tradition in the Shaivite-Tantric context. The ritual functionaries assume the roles of directors and star performers. The sophisticated dance movements are seen as echoing the concept of kundalini. Dance movements of the Lai Haraoba are focused on curves, spirals and circles. This is perceived as corresponding to the figure ‘O’ considered to be the most powerful figure in Tantricism. The basic triangular hand position of the maibi denoting birth canal in the beginning of the birth cycle (laibou) is identified as shivamudra. Following this view, the Lai Haraoba has preserved remnants of the Tantric tradition in form if not their nomenclature. It does not however concern itself with the nature and content of the rituals. It leaves the question ‘why is it observed?’ unanswered.

J. Shakespeare first translated the term ‘Lai Haraoba’ as ‘the pleasing of the god’.(17) Improvising on it, Parratt & Parratt translates it as ‘the pleasing of the gods’ taking into account the fact that the rituals venerate a male and a female deity as a couple. Ritualistic intent is seen as directed towards appeasement of the deities. Appeasement is sought in various ways through words, dance, play, offerings of fruits, flowers and food grains, etc. As a religious event it can only be grasped within the Meitei experience of lai as the ultimate reality, the rituals as intended to bring about an interaction between the other world and this world within the wholeness of a sacramental universe.

THE SACRED SPACE OF THE LAI HARAOBA:

The Lai Haraoba opens up a social space. What takes place within this space is largely constituted under the authority of the organising committee of each festival site. For analytical purposes, the site can be demarcated into ritual and non-ritual on the basis of its usage. The ritual space then represents the ‘courtyard of Leimarel where all creations took place’ and is manned by the ritual functionaries, viz. maiba, maibi and pena player. Everyday rituals commence with yakeiba (awakening prayer) and conclude with naosum (lullaby) at the end of the day.

The non-ritual space literally opens out as the ritual closes in. This is an aspect of the festival that has not merited much attention. It lends an interesting hue just beyond the manifest ritual focus. While the ritual arena is imbued with its richness of the ancient Meitei tradition, the non-ritual is ensconced in the contemporary individual, social and political context. It is perhaps the increasing visibility of this space, used for entertainment, that has lent the notion of the Lai Haraoba as being increasingly ‘secularized’. Without doubt this is a much later addition to the festival.

The non-ritual space in different sites can be seen as contributing towards a public culture. It is an arena where different trajectories of local and regional interests, forces of modernity, globalization, indigenization and micropolitics of space intersect. While the items presented are drawn from a multiple range, symbolic boundary is being reconstituted within this spatial idiom. Arguably, there is a reassertion of cultural autonomy vis-à-vis the overwhelming ‘mainstream’ influence, in content if not in form. Thus, while plays and ballad based on indigenous folk culture are popular, those on Hindu religious themes do not form a part of these presentations today. Again with the ban on Hindi films, music and the public usage of the language, sound tracks and performances based on popular Hindi music are tabooed while those of Manipuri and even English numbers are watched with fervour. The least controversial of the ‘secular items’ seem to be—traditional dances, ballads, the indigenous theatre Shumang Lila, etc. This reassertion, however, needs to be situated within global flows of culture, of an image wherein the twin processes of globalization and indigenization are constantly at play.

Bharucha’s observation, set a few years ago, reflects on the dance rendition of a young girl dressed as Madhuri Dixit which regales the audience while a young man’s rendition of a Michael Jackson number is enough to disrupt the day’s celebration. (18) Today, in view of the socio-political scenario along with the younger age of the organising committee, Dixit by virtue of her iconic status as representing the national imagery of commercial cinema may no longer remain an option in terms of performative roles. One wonders, what would be the fate of Michael Jackson? Would he still suffer the same fate?

CONCLUSION:

The resurgence of the Lai Haraoba on a much grander and stylized scale cannot be treated as coincidental or be simplified as cultural and religious revival. It needs to be located within the wider social and political landscape. The essay attempts to locate the religious festival within a broader articulation of the Meitei identity in particular and also towards contributing to a public culture. On one hand, it reflects unease within the politically demarcated landscape of the national stream within which the Meiteis, as part of the Northeast, are constituted at the margins. On the other hand, within the state, they constitute the dominant section. The tension between the two is spelt out in terms of a sanskritic influence which bridges the Meitei culture with a pan-Indian cultural entity while paradoxically distancing themselves from their more immediate neighbours. Taking into account the socio-cultural and geo-physical positionality of Manipur, the specific ways in which the dynamics between the various discourses are acted out and perceived, call for further research.

NOTES & REFERENCES:

1. Habermas’s concept of ‘lifeworld’ refers to the taken-for-granted pre-theoretical stock of knowledge that is shared, yet constitutes a knowledge that forms and remains in the background, surviving so long as it exists in the background and is not brought to the foreground. See Jurgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and Rationalization of Society, Vol. 1, (London: Heiniman Publication), 1984.

2. The ethnographic field of observation constitutes a neighbourhood in Imphal; the variant of the Lai Haraoba observed here is the Kanglei Haraoba.

3. Much like the Nuer term kwoth, lai is the Meitei term whose nearest English equivalent would subsume gods, spirits, and deities.

4. The terms sanskritization and Hinduisation have been used loosely here. In Srinivas’s use of the term, sanskritization refers to the attempt at upward mobility by a lower caste through emulation of the culture of a higher caste as a reference point. See M.N. Srinivas, ‘A note on Sanskritization and Westernization’, Far Eastern Quarterly, Vol. 15, 1956, pp. 481–96.

5. In the Meitei experience, the change in values and lifestyles in accordance with a Sanskritic pattern is also associated with conversion to Hinduism (Vaishnavism). As such it need not necessarily be an attempt to upward mobility. However it remains that the imported religion was not open to everyone. The idea of ‘mainstream’ may be problematic but it cannot be refuted that such an idea exists in popular as well as national imagery. Instead of recognizing the multiplicity, a composite culture which implies homogenization is theorised (K.M. Chenoy, ‘Nationalist Ideology, Militarism and Human Rights in Northeast’, Eastern Quarterly, Vol. 3, Issue I, April–June, 2005). Moreover, Hinduism as it emerged in the present century began to equate itself unequivocally to Indian tradition at large. See V. Dalmia & H. von Steitencron (eds.), Representing Hinduism: The Construction of Religious Traditions and Religious Identities, (New Delhi: Sage Publications), 1995.

6. Here we may bring to mind the view of time as a social construct. Every society has different notions of time. In an agrarian society, it is the agricultural cycle that decides the concept of time.

7. Umanglai etymologically means ‘forest deity’.

8. Lairoi is the concluding part of the festival.

9. This follows the lines of Levi-Strauss’ study of myth whereby there is no one true form of a particular myth but variations of the same may appear among different people. See C. Levi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology, (London: The Penguin Press), 1963.

10. Originally ‘Meitei’ referred particularly to the Ningthouja clan who became the Meitei kings. Hence the other name of the Kanglei (from Kangla) variant is Meitei Lai Haraoba. Today, however, the term is used within the context of the conglomerate identity.

11. These are the words which mark the commencement of the Hoi Laoba song at the beginning of the rituals of the Laibou cycle that form an essential part of the daily observance of the Lai Haraoba rituals. This phrase has been variously interpreted as unintelligible words expressing happiness ‘in coming out’ [L.B. Singh, A Critical Study of the Religious Philosophy of the Meitei Before the Advent of Vaishnavism in Manipur, (Manipur: L. Momon Devi), 1987)] and as a call for physical intimacy [Parratt & Parratt, The Pleasing of the God: Meitei Lai Haraoba (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.), 1997].

12. Abridged from S.K. Chatterji, Kirata-jana-kriti: The Indo-Mongoloids, their Contribution to the History and Culture of India, (Calcutta: Calcutta Asiatic Society), 1974.

13. Discourse, here, is to be understood in its basic understanding as speech backed by power.

14. Parratt & Parratt, op. cit.

15. There is also a third view which takes the term as derived from lai ha laoba meaning the declaration of chak/time orders.

16. E.N. Singh, Manipuri Dance, (New Delhi: Omsons Publications), 1997.

17. J. Shakespeare, ‘The pleasing of the god Thangjing’, Man, Vol. XIII, No. 1, 1913, p. 112.

18. Rustom Bharucha, ‘The shifting sites of secularism’, Economic and Political Weekly, January 24, 1998.