By H.H.Mohrmen
The book ‘u Kiang Nangbah: The warrior with the stealth of the tiger’ launched recently owes it all to one incident that happened a decade ago. The book would not have seen the light of day if it is not for one prominent professor in the state. Ten years ago Seiñ Jaiñtia, Shillong organized a celebration to mark the 150 death anniversary of u Kiang Nangbah, which was held at St Edmunds College. While delivering his lecture one wise professor said, “U Kiang Nangbah is yet to meet his biographer.” I recall feeling as if the professor was looking at me and his piercing eyes were staring straight into my eye. The deep voice of the professor of history still echoes in my mind today and he is none other the Professor David Reade Syiemlieh.
I didn’t know until then that there are ample resources to work on the Jañtia rebellion led by U Kiang Nangbah. It was only after I did a little study and scratched the surface bit by bit that I found a gold mine of information on the revolt. Prof Syiemlieh in his speech hinted about the available resources, and in some way pointed his fingers in the direction of the treasures. Thus the journey began that day.
Who is u Kiang Nangbah
U Kiang Nangbah was a rebel who remained elusive to the British from the beginning till the last and the respect that he was given by his followers can be found in the records. To the locals, he was a hero, a legend who almost achieved a mythical status. Since the people who consider him a hero have not had their language written, much of what we know about him is in oral form. There are at least two versions of the story about u Kiang’s origin, but a commonly accepted story is that u Kiang belongs to the Soo kpoh khad-ar wyrnai clan and the Nangbah clan came from the Syngkon sub-clan of the Soo kpoh. He was an ordinary young man who answered the call to defend his motherland even though he was not even a daloi and he had no military training. He was respected by all and the rebels during the fight not only chose him to be their leader but also gave him the respect befitting the daloi of Jowai.
Many stories in the oral traditions described the fine qualities of U Kiang Nangbah. One particular story which best describes his passionate zeal to fight for truth, justice, and freedom was the story of the dorbar of u daloi Manik Pakyntein at Myngkoi Pyrdi, Loompyrdi Iongpiah, Jowai. U Kiang was also a noble soul; he fought for the poor, the downtrodden, and those neglected by society especially people who have no one to protect them. Again this quality of u Kiang Nangbah was demonstrated in the oral tradition; in the story of “ka Lakhi Pyrdiang.” U Kiang was a young boy when the Jañtia Kingdom was annexed to the British Empire in 1835 and Ksan Sajar Nangbah his maternal uncle was at the forefront of the Jañtia rebellion against the British before the 1862 rebellion.
The balancing act
The challenge in writing about the legendary figure is to balance the written records with the oral narratives. If we rely too much on the written records then one would fall into the trap of being biased and one-sided as the story is only written by the victors. The catch is if we depend too much on oral narrative there is always a tendency to mystify the story as the hero turns into a legend and a mythical figure.
The truth is there are no written records about the rebellion except those maintained by officers of the British government and no local sources than those recorded by the British that one can consult with to substantiate the oral stories. The Khasi Pnar had not learnt the art of writing until the arrival of the Welsh missionaries in the hills. Hence one cannot expect any local and non-British written source to substantiate the oral stories about u Kiang Nangbah.
The question is whether we can rely on oral narratives and tradition to corroborate oral sources? The authenticity of oral stories can be based on the fact that they mention the correct location of the events. The hills, the market, the places, the rivers, and even the caves which find mention in the oral narratives are true. The natural phenomena mentioned in the story are evidence that corroborates the authenticity of the stories. The oral narratives connect the life and the fight of U Kiang Nangbah against the British with the land, the nature around it, and the people who share the stories.
The problem is if we write about U Kiang Nangbah and rely only on written sources, we end up with half the story only. British records which include books written by government officials provide us with only one side of the story, obviously the government side of the story. These stories portrayed u Kiang Nangbah only from the colonial angle and the way the British see him. So if we depend solely on written records then U Kiang is but a troublemaker, a rebel or to be more precise a villain in the story who dared to challenge the British raj.
Thankfully we have oral traditions and stories as the local people knew and understood them. Of course, these stories cannot be corroborated with written sources but there is ample natural and traditional evidence some of which are available to this day to substantiate these stories.
The Conflict zone
The rebellion achieved the impossible which also took the British by surprise in that it was able to unite the entire hills portion of the erstwhile Jañtia Kingdom. Except for a few elekas which maintained neutrality, the fight happened in almost every part of the hills. From Nongphyllut, Barato to Mynso, to Amkoi and Nongbareh, to Shangpung and Raliang the rebels were found to give the British a tough fight. Even in the elekas where the daloi remained neutral, people joined the rebellion and battles happened even in those areas. The fight between the soldiers and the rebels also happened in the villages on the foothills bordering what is now Bangladesh.
The Capture of U Kiang
The oral stories blamed u Long Sutnga and his accomplices for betraying the cause by providing information to the soldiers -a story that is also corroborated by official documents. The records also provided startling information that the accomplice was not as the oral narratives mention – the daloi of Jowai. Instead it was the daloi of Nartiang. The daloi of Nartiang is considered to be ‘u kongwasan’ elder brother or the first-among-equals amongst the daloi, but unfortunately, he was part of the company that passed the information. The trial of U Kiang was also reported to their higher-ups and how U Kiang was pronounced guilty by the commission and subsequently hanged was also recorded.
Conclusion
The book is expected to be an eye-opener for those who are interested in local history. There is scope for more work on the life of U Kiang Nangbah, especially in placing the oral puzzles in the written sources available. One hope is that scholars will begin to study local history and bring that history to light which would otherwise be neglected.