By HH Mohrmen
While commemorating the 150 death anniversary of U Kiang Nangbah last year, Sein Raij Jowai organized a National Seminar in which scholars from various states and renowned personalities from Jowai presented their papers. Among the luminaries who presented their papers was Wa-isa Sumer a multi-talented personality and leader of the Women Wings of the Sein Raij, Jowai. Sumer, a teacher by profession also holds a Masters in Political Science but her paper was primarily based on the oral narratives of U Kiang Nangbah- stories that had been handed over by word of mouth from one generation to the next.
During the question hour a wise professor from the Department of History, North Eastern Hill University asked Sumer if the oral sources that she quoted could be corroborated. After all in academics everything rests on empirical evidence! I wondered what that question meant? How can we corroborate oral stories when people in Jaintia hills or for that matter even Khasi hills did not even know the art of writing then? There were no written records about the rebellion except those maintained by officers of the British government. The truth is there are no other written sources that we can consult in order to substantiate the oral stories about U Kiang Nangbah or any other legendary figure in the hills for that matter. The Khasi Pnar had not learnt the art of writing till the arrival of the Welsh missionaries to these hills, hence one cannot expect any local written source to substantiate the oral stories about u Kiang Nangbah. The question is, if oral stories can be corroborated then do we still call them oral stories? And the other pertinent question is, if they can be corroborated then they are no longer oral stories but historical facts aren’t they?
The major problem is that if we try to document lives like that of U Kiang Nangbah and rely only on written sources, which in Kiang Nangbah’s case mean only entries, letters, messages, and reports made by the British military officers and administrators to their higher-ups in Sohra or Calcutta, then we end up with half the story only. The British records provide us with only one side of the story which is obviously the government’s side of the story. These stories portray U Kiang Nangbah only from the colonial angle and the way British see him? It is also often said that only the victors get to write history, hence inadvertently the story of the vanquished are neglected or suppressed by those who record history. This is exactly what had happened in the case of U Kiang. Recorded history is only that which is documented by the British so if we depend solely on written records then U Kiang is but a trouble maker, a rebel or to be more specific a villain who fought against the British raj.
But thankfully we have the oral stories which allows even the vanquished to be remembered – stories as the local people knew and understood them to be – stories that made them feel proud of U Kiang Nangbah even if the Jaintias were defeated and he was hanged to death by the conquerors. Of course these stories cannot be corroborated with written sources but we have ample natural and traditional evidence some of which are available to this day to substantiate these stories. These are stories which also depict U Kiang Nangbah as a courageous young man who resisted the might of the British and fought for the freedom of his country. He was the first known freedom fighter from these hills. These stories portray the real u Kiang Nangbah as he ought to be known to the world – a Hero. But the most important point to note is that the oral sources not only provide us with the other side of the story, but it also gives us the correct names of the places which were mentioned in the stories. In the case of U Kiang Nangbah oral stories provide us with the local perspectives of the story and has a unique local take of the rebellion which are otherwise found missing in history.
Oral stories also provide us with names of characters that did not find mention in the historical records. For instance written records do not even provide us the name of U Kiang Nangbah’s mother but it was the oral stories which tell us that his mother’s name is Ka Rimai Nangbah, and their hut was located in a place now called Tpep-pale. Oral stories provide us the true-likeness description of u Kiang Nangbah and describe in detail his charming personality, which is again absent in the historical records.
According to local opinions the two immediate causes that led to the rebellion were the house tax and the unceremonious act of obstruction made by the British soldiers while the people of Raij ?along were performing their traditional chad pastieh or the warrior dance. The oral stories have it that the British on learning about the Pastieh dance at Ialong went to stop the ceremony while it was still going on and confiscated all the swords and the shields used by the young men in the festival. Local stories say that the British misunderstood the event and they were under the impression that the Pnar were gearing up to rebel against the government, and they went to stop the same. Chad Pastieh is a religious festival hence it was not only an act of sheer irreverence to the local ethos to interrupt the ceremony while it was still in progress but it is a sacrilege of the worst kind to confiscate objects used in performing the religious ceremony. This act of blasphemy has not only hurt the sentiments of the Pnar which also led to the rebellion but it was an irreversible loss to the Raij ?along because the Chad Pastieh which was a tradition was stopped for good. The incident caused a permanent damage to the religious activities of the Raij Ialong and since then the Raij has stopped performing the tribal warrior dance. This is one part of the oral stories which can be substantiated with facts available because the Raij has not been able to revive the tradition since it was stopped due to the interference of the British with the ceremony.
The British also used the syiem of the neighbouring Khasi states to negotiate with the rebel group but to no avail. Perhaps we would also have something to corroborate our oral stories if the said kingdom kept written records, but again in most parts of the thirty kingdoms and the twelve dalois-ship, people did not keep written records of their activities.
Obviously, in the history of U Kiang Nangbah history has its own role to play and yet oral stories too have their rightful place in keeping the local stories alive. The two have their own limitations. History in itself is incomplete and oral tradition too is inadequate by itself. In the case of U Kiang Nangbah the oral stories can help complement the historical evidences that are available about U Kiang Nangbah. If we put together historical evidence and also use the oral stories available, then only will we be able to have a complete story of u Kiang Nangbah and the Jaintia rebellion. In another seminar organized by the Sein Jaintia Shillong at St. Edmunds College Shillong, renowned historian of the state Dr. David Reid Syiemlieh challenged those present in the gathering and said that U Kiang Nangbah is yet to find his biographer. Hope this write-up provokes some of the readers to try their hand at the subject and come up with the biography of u Kiang Nangbah. We need these histories to add to our repertoire of narratives about those who made us proud of our heritage