Of late, the distortion of historical facts has played a quintessential role in manipulating the pasts to suit certain vested interests and hidden agendas. Altering events, creating events that did not happen and omitting historical facts altogether are ways of distorting the historical pasts.
A select line is chosen from written records to make tall claim for setting right the history. Also selective colonial documents are presented to the larger public without critical approach and reading. The following provides a way of correcting the distortions of history by reading colonial text and archives “against their grain”:
The establishment of Dimasa Kingdom at the fertile valley of the Dhansiri with Dimapur as its seat of capital dates back to the 9th -10th centuries. The main evidence of Dimasa kingdom and city lies in the ruins of the fort with gateways built out of burnt bricks and carved stone monoliths of different sizes.
Referred by different names (such as Kachari Rajbari, brick-city, old Dimapur fort), these archaeological sources are evidences of royal grandeur of the Dimasas that dates back to the 9th -10th centuries. Several water tanks located in different localities in Dimapur are suggestive of the prowess and resources of Dimasa kingdom.
The fertile valley with provisions of water-reservoirs (tanks) ensured economic prosperity of Dimasa kingdom but also at same time attracted continuous invasions from outsiders.
A reading of Ahom chronicles (buranjis) throws light on Dimasa kingdom sphere of influence at Dimapur. And thereafter, in the 16th century, the Dimasa sovereignty extended to Maibang (in Dima Hasao) and in Cachar valley in the mid-18th century.
The last Dimasa chief Tularam remained an important ally of the British Government until 1854. Tularam’s jurisdiction (frequently referred as Toolararn Senaputtee’s country in British records) extended a large tract between North Cachar hills to the Jamuna valley and the Dhansiri valley which was formally annexed in 1854 by the British Government incorporated as part of Assam province. Since then, the British officials had introduced many changes for their ease of their administration.
The main attractions of the Dimapur Kachari Rajbari are the stone monoliths.
These monoliths are varied in sizes and shape. These Dimasa remnants have mainly animate objects of elephants, tigers, deer, peacocks, rhinoceros and few floral motifs such as lotus.
Though practices of erecting stone and wooden monoliths existed amongst other cultures, the Dimasa stone monoliths are very uniquely distinct.
In few writings as appeared in newspaper, there was claim that Dimasa stone monoliths have sculptures of traditional Angami spear and daos. Such claims are not supported by any historical facts.
No similar carved stone monoliths have ever been found beyond Dimapur (except in Kasomari, Golaghat).
There is no dearth of both rich oral and extensive written accounts of Dimasa pasts.
Contents of folklores, tales, stories are kept alive over successive generations. There are also many pre-colonial texts, coins, inscriptions and colonial records on the Dimasa kingdom.
The battle between the Ahoms and Dimasa kingdom in the 16th century are recorded in both Ahom chronicles and in many British records, books. However, neither these written sources nor Dimasa oral narratives mentioned about Dimasa rulers alliance with Angami warrior Thezhaüu.
The claims of Thezhü-u and 30 warriors assisting in establishing Dimapur kingdom and Thezhü-u marrying daughter of Dimasa king are historically incorrect and not supported with any historical records. Such tall claims wholly based on oral narratives which do not really stand up to historical scrutiny for a number of reasons, in view of the recorded sources, dates and time it mentioned.
In Lieutenant Grange’s account of his visit to Dimapur in 1839, he furnished a list of Dimasa kings and description of stone monoliths. Grange’s list of Dimasa rulers of Dimapur is very extensive that includes names— from its founder to till Tularam and his sons.
Grange writes “I proceeded with half of the Shan Detachment to Dhemapore Nugger [Dimapur] to which place I had requested Tularam rajah to cut a road” (Page 953, Grange’s Expedition into the Naga Hills, Journal of Asiatic Society, 1840) Though Grange noticed a closed affinities between Rengmas and Dimasa, but do not mention of Thezhu-u and 30 warriors and Thezhü-u marrying daughter of Dimasa king (Journal of Asiatic Society, 1840).
Neither such claims are mentioned in Captain John Butler in his account, though he provides detailed description of stone pillars and forts (John Butler ‘Travels in Assam’). In his account on the Angamis, J.H. Hutton writes “legends of the Kachari King Bhim are still current among the Kacha Nagas and the Angamis of Khonoma.
They believe that he yet sleeps in a cave among the hills immediately to the south of Japvo, whence he will come at some time in the distant future to struggle with the British Raj and eventually to rule over all who eat from the wooden platter” (Page 13, J.H. Hutton ‘The Angami Nagas’). Nowhere, had J.H. Hutton ever discussed about Thezhü-u and his taking over Dimapur.
The same is true with many standard historical books written by Edward Gait and other historians. None of these historical texts have any reference to Thezhü-u.
The book of Alexander Mackenzie ‘History of the Relations of the Government with the hill tribes of the North-East Frontier of Bengal’ which discusses Lieutenant Grange’s expedition in the Naga hills in 1840 have clearly reference to many essential details.
In page 104, Alexander Mackenzie mentioned that “at Beremah he [Grange] was shown the remains of a circular fort built by Raja Kishen Chunder of Cachar, who had, the Nagas [Angamis] said, once invaded their hills.
He saw also an old 10-pounder which the Raja had left behind him on his retreat. Possibly this trophy was exhibited by way of a significant hint; for, though some clans made professions of amity, hostile war parties hovered constantly about the camp, and speared one or two of the sentries.”
It is important to note at this point, that the Dimasa King Kishen Chunder ruled the Dimasa kingdom between the year 1778 to 1813.
In another claim based on distorted history, it was said that present day Dimapur and beyond belonged to the people of Chümoukedima.
Proof of tribute paid by few Kacharis living in an around present-day Manja area and British officers’ policy discussions were attest to support this claim. Due to reports of frequent Angami raids in 1839 (in areas ruled by Dimasa chief Tularam’s territories), Lieutenant Grange was sent to investigate the causes of Angami raids.
Lieutenant Grange provides minute details taking stock of these raids and suggested measures in order to prevent further Angami raids. Grange noticed and reported that the Angamis raided Dimasa village settlements in Mohon Dijua. It is in this context, Grange reports “the Cacharees here, till within two years past, have been obliged to pay tribute to the Nagas of Sumoogoding, to preserve peace.
The tribute consisted of a cow, or a bullock, and one maund of salt per annum” (Journal of Asiatic Society, 1840). It is important to note and understand these sentence ‘till within two years past’ and paying tribute ‘to preserve peace.’ Tribute was paid to the raiders and for maintaining peace not to rulers of Dimapur. Tributes are gift giving and does not involve ruler-subject relations. Paying tribute in the form of kinds does not translate to legal rights or legal claims to land.
Further, Lieutenant Grange located the villages that had raided and he writes the raiders “found a way out of the hills to Assam via Samoogoodting, at which place he advocated the establishment of a permanent military post” (page 105 in Alexander Mackenzie’s book “The North-East Frontiers of Bengal”).
This was the context of setting up of British military outposts at Mohan Dijua, Dimapur and later in Samaguting.
In Page 106, Alexander Mackenzie further discusses Grange’s expedition reports that “the two Ganw Boorahs or Chiefs of Samoogoodting, came down and entered into written engagements, to be friendly, expressing a wish to settle on the plains.”
Here, ‘the plains’ is referred to the Dimapur plains and these two Angami chiefs wished to settle on the’ plains in 1840.
Further, in the same page it says “lands east of Mohung Dijooa were promised them,” and the Angami prisoners were all released, but “it does not appear that any active steps were taken” to induce a Angami immigration to the plains.
These lines clearly states that though the British officers planned to encouraged Angami immigration to Dimapur plains but no effective steps were carried out.
Moreover, there is no British document on this land transaction either in Grange’s report, Captain Butler’s report nor in Mackenzie’s book. As part of the British pacification policy, the British attempted to encourage Angamis for immigration in Dimapur plains.
The success of this policy would mean an end to the frequent raiding of Angamis in Dimapur and nearby areas under Tularam. Since, Tularam was an ally to the British Government by Treaty of 1834, the British officers are obliged to protect his territories. However, such inducement policy of settlement was never implemented at least during that period.
The British Government sent another expedition to Angami country in 1841. This time Lieutenant Bigge succeeded in concluding friendly agreements with Angamis and accepted their request for opening salt depots at Dimapur.
Lieutenant Bigge writes “should I be able during my present expedition to reduce the Nagah [Angami] chiefs to any state of order, it would be desirable further, to try and settle a few of these men in the neighbourhood, on the East bank of the Dhansiri, allowing them to occupy any lands they choose, exempt entirely from all rent or taxation, until such time as matters shall be so changed, as to seem to call for fresh arrangements” (Page 135, Despatch from Lieut. H. Bigge, Assistant Agent, detached to the Naga Hills, to Capt. Jenkins, Agent Governor General, N.E. Frontier, JASB 1841).
In 1846, a police post, under Bhogchand Darogah, was established at Samaguting on a hill overlooking the Dhansiri valley south of Dimapur. However, he was killed in 1849 at Phiphema.
Then the British followed non-interference policy against the Angami until 1860s. Meanwhile, Dimasa chief Tularam had died and in 1854 all of his territory was annexed by the British Government.
Tularam’s territories were again divided into different administrative districts. Asalu sub-division & military post at North Cachar was abolished and this British military post was shifted to Samaguting.
It was at this time in 1866, the British Government created a new Naga hills district with headquarter at Samaguting. Lieutenant Gregory was appointed as the first Deputy Commissioner of this new district. In 1878, the British Government shifted the district headquarter to Kohima due to being more centrally situated.
According to Nagaland District Gazetteer (1970), the districts in 1878-79 had comprised of 18 Kachari hamlets, 30 Mikir hamlets along with many other villages (Please find the details of number of villages in Page 39 of Nagaland District Gazetteers: Kohima edited by Dr. H. Bareh,1970). In Page 9 of the Gazetter, editor Dr. H. Bareh remarked that these Kachari villages have survived from olden days in Dimapur.
Therefore, establishing of salt depots, setting up military outposts or police thana, building Dimapur-Kohima roads are some of the various ways the British Government established power and rule.
Each of these administrative measures and as well as boundary creation, administrative expansion represent a distinct phases in the process of colonial expansion and incorporation of this region into British Indian Empire,
The coming of Assam-Bengal Railway in the year 1903 further opened up Dimapur and further brought changes in the demographic compositions. Many Dimasas had lived through the experience of the World War II.
So, it is wrong to assume that there are little records to prove the existence of any tribe or Dimasas in Dimapur prior to the World War II.
As these British archival records are in the form of policy discussion, administrative arrangement, one needs a deeper critical awareness of how archives are produced and then reading archives against the grain Many of these colonial texts are also merely in the form of proposals and policy discussions.
A selective reading distorts the historical pasts and should not be basis for furthering any agenda and vested interests.
However, the above write up based on colonial records is not to demean anybody or any tribe or an attempt to distort history but an attempt to throw lights on the history of Dimapur in the true perspective.
Pizu Langthasa,
President,
Dimasa GBs Union,
Rubinon Naben,
General Secretary,
Dimasa GBs Union
