This is a story I have read and been told more than once by friends from the Northeast bracketed within the so called ‘politically informed’. When the Simon Commission headed by John Simon was assessing the political situation in 1929 in the wake of intensified ‘freedom struggle’ by the people of the Indian sub-continent, the Naga leadership too submitted a memorandum to the commission. The memorandum, besides giving the raison d'être for an “independist” aspiration of the Nagas also had this to say, “(we are)…quite different from those of the plains… and had no social affinities with the Hindus or Muslims…we are looked upon by one for our beef and the other for our pork.” And over seven decades later, and in July 2007, it was the Delhi Police which inadvertently made an attempt to revive the memories of the memorandum to the Simon Commission albeit in a different context. In a booklet titled Security Tips for North East Students, the Delhi Police put a stricture on the food habits of students from the Northeast. Sample the wordings of the so called codes: “bamboo shoot, Akhuni and other smelly dishes should be prepared without creating ruckus in neighbourhood”.
From the doubt of being ‘disliked’ or ‘differentiated’ by the mainstream Indian Hindus and Muslims over Nagas eating ‘beef’ and ‘pork’ in the 1920s, the focus was shifted to the Delhi Police instructing the entire student community from the Northeast residing in the capital city to virtually refrain from the delicacies they love. Bamboo-shoots find special place in most cuisines of the Northeastern states while Akhuni is a mouth-watering Naga delicacy made from fermented soya beans. And honestly, these two are some of my favourites too. Before we embark on what has ‘food’ got to do with identity, let me also bring in one more experience or story that was written by a very senior journalist some years back on a reputed newspaper published from New Delhi. The abridged story goes like this. The journalist and a photographer went to Nagaland on an assignment during the height of armed insurrection circa 1974. The journalist admitted that the two were carrying too much “mental baggage” like that the Nagas were “naked” and they ate “dog meat”. But as the two went even to the interiors they saw no “naked” Nagas or were NOT offered “dog meat” to eat. Instead they had to eat their own words which were “burdened with preconceptions and prejudices”. He said the Nagas were not “hostiles” as claimed by many outsiders. The journalist even wrote that even the so called “Underground” members were far from being hostile. What they encountered in the villages was warm hospitality. The village chiefs would ceremoniously offer them delicious rice beer and “Chunks of pork fat”. But the most interesting was yet to come. While in Mokokchung, the sub-divisional officer offered him an “elephant trunk” delicacy! He tried the “elephant” dish too and all along, the journalist seemed to have enjoyed his “professional” sojourn far from the suffocating metro milieu.
The stories mentioned above are not available accounts recorded by anthropologists and social scientists in the course of their research. What was interesting to me was how these stories are related to ‘food habits’ of the people of the Northeast. One is not required to be a trained social scientist to be able to grasp these stories and read the “subtext”. Though these narratives are obvious research materials to a discerning scholar, each one of these stories will be meaningful to one and all in more than a singular sense. For the time being, let us forget the plethora of “hard boiled” political news, analysis and academic books. The first story on the Naga leadership’s representation to the Simon Commission is not only a story about “beef” and “pork”. It a story about how most of us from various ethnic backgrounds construct the primordial “WE” to make the first point entry to the idea and praxis of a ‘modern nation state’. A conscious recognition of WHAT we eat and DRINK is one way of exhibiting the collective identity. Some political theorists and activists have even recognized and eulogized this form of “social construct” as one of the many valid “qualifiers” of a community or a nation – however modern or primitive depending on the way one defines them. And what does it mean for us? It means that the subjective “taste and delicacy” acquired over centuries of interacting with the natural environment in some ways also define and construct “our collective SELF” just as we construct the idea of what constitute “food” in our own setting.
In the process of defining “our collective SELF”, we will keep encountering groups in the guise of people representing a supposedly modern institution like the “police”. And since when have “police” donned the role of advising people what to eat and what not to eat? That too based on the “much overrated notion” that smelly Northeast food stuff like Akhuni “creating ruckus in neighbourhood”. Here, what looks like an interference in one’s choice can be read as a way of “controlling” how we define ourselves in spaces on this earth we do not own (read inhabit). The Delhi Police advisory was a perfect case of “how WE/US have been defined as the OTHER through the prism of layered prejudices”. The worst part is that these very people create the idea of “difference” not via “self-definition” but through “the power to define others.” My idea of delineating “SELF”, “US” and the “OTHER” is not to essentialize IDENTITY and make it a static category bereft of other dynamics in operation. But at certain level, the necessity to do the same arises when one is confronted with constant “repression” of our own efforts to construct the SELF”. The third story about the senior journalist’s experience narrated above illustrates “momentary liberation” from the acquired identity based on prejudices and premeditated thoughts to dominate and define. This momentary liberation is one of the many things required for negotiating oneself with the idea of US and THEM. It is quite akin to taking a position of “unconditionality” in the conflict resolution parlance.
Well, from “pork”, “beef” and “identity” to conflict resolution!! The following is a legend associated with a very popular Khasi dish called Doh Khleh (Thyllied Masi). During the reign of U Niang Raja, the king of Ummulong, the Khasis spread over the entire region were not united. Most of them fought bitter wars against each other. To unite all the warring Khasi kingdoms, U Niang Raja called a great durbar of the Khasi kings. For three months the kings discussed federation, equality of states, politics and trade matters. On the last day of the durbar, U Niang hosted a great feast. Hundreds of bulls and cows were slaughtered for the feast. It was the convention then that the brains of the animals slaughtered must be given to the person with the highest status and the tongue to the ones considered lower. Now, all the kings who attended the durbar have sealed a deal on equal treatment. U Niang could not offend them by offering the tongues to the rest of the royal participants. He wanted to avoid confrontation and war and called up his wisest minister named Monkut. The wise Monkut, went to the U Niang’s kitchen and ordered the royal cooks to boil the tongues along with the brains. After boiling, the cooks mixed the meat with chillies, onions, ginger and Khar (diluted bamboo ash). The never-tasted-before dish (now called Doh Khleh) was offered to all the royal participants from each of the kingdoms and they reluctantly tasted it. To their utter surprise, they really found Doh Khleh was delicious and also understood what U Niang had on his mind. They praised him for having such a wise minister and even asked for the recipe of the dish. The rest of the kings began cooking the same dish whenever they wanted to resolve warring feuds between clans in their respective kingdoms. This is a story of how a new dish called Doh Khleh helped in preventing hostility between warring principalities and clans and in the process creating a unified identity of all the Khasis. I guess, there is no one in the entire Ri Khasi-Jaintia (all the Khasi and Jaintia hills of Meghalaya) who does not love the dish. That the Ri Khasi-Jaintia had another turbulent history after the fall and death of U Niang is a different matter all together.
There are times when the “food” that humankind consume can be the rallying point for identity formations and political assertions. This does not mean we should lose track of the assumed truth of all liberal political discourse that have hinged on the idea of “equality and emancipation”. Given the frenzied and bloodied multifarious movements for identity and political assertions around the world and some caught in such situations, I think, it will be wise a decision for a person to not only appreciate the different food cultures of the world but also respect them for their uniqueness. Is this the key to the mystery doors to world peace? I am not sure. And now, why further complicate the story. Honestly, Doh Khleh is another favourite dish of mine from Meghalaya. Why has it become so difficult to say, “Well, you can have your Dal Makhani with Parathan while I enjoy my Doh Khleh”. Anyone can ask, “Can we have Doh Khleh with Parathan? Certainly Yes!! But when you try the combination, you might acquire a completely different taste. I may like it and you may not.
From the doubt of being ‘disliked’ or ‘differentiated’ by the mainstream Indian Hindus and Muslims over Nagas eating ‘beef’ and ‘pork’ in the 1920s, the focus was shifted to the Delhi Police instructing the entire student community from the Northeast residing in the capital city to virtually refrain from the delicacies they love. Bamboo-shoots find special place in most cuisines of the Northeastern states while Akhuni is a mouth-watering Naga delicacy made from fermented soya beans. And honestly, these two are some of my favourites too. Before we embark on what has ‘food’ got to do with identity, let me also bring in one more experience or story that was written by a very senior journalist some years back on a reputed newspaper published from New Delhi. The abridged story goes like this. The journalist and a photographer went to Nagaland on an assignment during the height of armed insurrection circa 1974. The journalist admitted that the two were carrying too much “mental baggage” like that the Nagas were “naked” and they ate “dog meat”. But as the two went even to the interiors they saw no “naked” Nagas or were NOT offered “dog meat” to eat. Instead they had to eat their own words which were “burdened with preconceptions and prejudices”. He said the Nagas were not “hostiles” as claimed by many outsiders. The journalist even wrote that even the so called “Underground” members were far from being hostile. What they encountered in the villages was warm hospitality. The village chiefs would ceremoniously offer them delicious rice beer and “Chunks of pork fat”. But the most interesting was yet to come. While in Mokokchung, the sub-divisional officer offered him an “elephant trunk” delicacy! He tried the “elephant” dish too and all along, the journalist seemed to have enjoyed his “professional” sojourn far from the suffocating metro milieu.
The stories mentioned above are not available accounts recorded by anthropologists and social scientists in the course of their research. What was interesting to me was how these stories are related to ‘food habits’ of the people of the Northeast. One is not required to be a trained social scientist to be able to grasp these stories and read the “subtext”. Though these narratives are obvious research materials to a discerning scholar, each one of these stories will be meaningful to one and all in more than a singular sense. For the time being, let us forget the plethora of “hard boiled” political news, analysis and academic books. The first story on the Naga leadership’s representation to the Simon Commission is not only a story about “beef” and “pork”. It a story about how most of us from various ethnic backgrounds construct the primordial “WE” to make the first point entry to the idea and praxis of a ‘modern nation state’. A conscious recognition of WHAT we eat and DRINK is one way of exhibiting the collective identity. Some political theorists and activists have even recognized and eulogized this form of “social construct” as one of the many valid “qualifiers” of a community or a nation – however modern or primitive depending on the way one defines them. And what does it mean for us? It means that the subjective “taste and delicacy” acquired over centuries of interacting with the natural environment in some ways also define and construct “our collective SELF” just as we construct the idea of what constitute “food” in our own setting.
In the process of defining “our collective SELF”, we will keep encountering groups in the guise of people representing a supposedly modern institution like the “police”. And since when have “police” donned the role of advising people what to eat and what not to eat? That too based on the “much overrated notion” that smelly Northeast food stuff like Akhuni “creating ruckus in neighbourhood”. Here, what looks like an interference in one’s choice can be read as a way of “controlling” how we define ourselves in spaces on this earth we do not own (read inhabit). The Delhi Police advisory was a perfect case of “how WE/US have been defined as the OTHER through the prism of layered prejudices”. The worst part is that these very people create the idea of “difference” not via “self-definition” but through “the power to define others.” My idea of delineating “SELF”, “US” and the “OTHER” is not to essentialize IDENTITY and make it a static category bereft of other dynamics in operation. But at certain level, the necessity to do the same arises when one is confronted with constant “repression” of our own efforts to construct the SELF”. The third story about the senior journalist’s experience narrated above illustrates “momentary liberation” from the acquired identity based on prejudices and premeditated thoughts to dominate and define. This momentary liberation is one of the many things required for negotiating oneself with the idea of US and THEM. It is quite akin to taking a position of “unconditionality” in the conflict resolution parlance.
Well, from “pork”, “beef” and “identity” to conflict resolution!! The following is a legend associated with a very popular Khasi dish called Doh Khleh (Thyllied Masi). During the reign of U Niang Raja, the king of Ummulong, the Khasis spread over the entire region were not united. Most of them fought bitter wars against each other. To unite all the warring Khasi kingdoms, U Niang Raja called a great durbar of the Khasi kings. For three months the kings discussed federation, equality of states, politics and trade matters. On the last day of the durbar, U Niang hosted a great feast. Hundreds of bulls and cows were slaughtered for the feast. It was the convention then that the brains of the animals slaughtered must be given to the person with the highest status and the tongue to the ones considered lower. Now, all the kings who attended the durbar have sealed a deal on equal treatment. U Niang could not offend them by offering the tongues to the rest of the royal participants. He wanted to avoid confrontation and war and called up his wisest minister named Monkut. The wise Monkut, went to the U Niang’s kitchen and ordered the royal cooks to boil the tongues along with the brains. After boiling, the cooks mixed the meat with chillies, onions, ginger and Khar (diluted bamboo ash). The never-tasted-before dish (now called Doh Khleh) was offered to all the royal participants from each of the kingdoms and they reluctantly tasted it. To their utter surprise, they really found Doh Khleh was delicious and also understood what U Niang had on his mind. They praised him for having such a wise minister and even asked for the recipe of the dish. The rest of the kings began cooking the same dish whenever they wanted to resolve warring feuds between clans in their respective kingdoms. This is a story of how a new dish called Doh Khleh helped in preventing hostility between warring principalities and clans and in the process creating a unified identity of all the Khasis. I guess, there is no one in the entire Ri Khasi-Jaintia (all the Khasi and Jaintia hills of Meghalaya) who does not love the dish. That the Ri Khasi-Jaintia had another turbulent history after the fall and death of U Niang is a different matter all together.
There are times when the “food” that humankind consume can be the rallying point for identity formations and political assertions. This does not mean we should lose track of the assumed truth of all liberal political discourse that have hinged on the idea of “equality and emancipation”. Given the frenzied and bloodied multifarious movements for identity and political assertions around the world and some caught in such situations, I think, it will be wise a decision for a person to not only appreciate the different food cultures of the world but also respect them for their uniqueness. Is this the key to the mystery doors to world peace? I am not sure. And now, why further complicate the story. Honestly, Doh Khleh is another favourite dish of mine from Meghalaya. Why has it become so difficult to say, “Well, you can have your Dal Makhani with Parathan while I enjoy my Doh Khleh”. Anyone can ask, “Can we have Doh Khleh with Parathan? Certainly Yes!! But when you try the combination, you might acquire a completely different taste. I may like it and you may not.
Khorjei Laang wrote this for
www.northeasterner.in
1 comment:
When someone writes an article he/she maintains the image of a user in
his/her mind that how a user can know it. Thus that's why this article is perfect. Thanks!
Here is my weblog: Read www.bioagroinsumossas.com
Post a Comment