When Kanglasha was destroyed by the British colonialists in 1891 just after they occupied one of the ancient Kingdoms in this Indo-Burma Region, history did not only witnessed the shock of the people but also the barbaric act of ‘English Gentlemen.” Kanglasha was destroyed because arrogant British officers who had killed innocent civilians were killed in front of it; destroying the Kanglasha was just a symbolic act of British revenge on the Manipuris, who did not surrender to British expansionism. The Manipuri preferred to fight back the British provocations rather than surrendering themselves to the “British empire” who occupied all the neighboring areas. To die for their country, they believed, led to Moksha directly; sacrifice for the State was considered as part of their dharma. Their act of heroism is far thus remembered by the Manipuris and even by the British colonialists.
The history of Manipur could not give the political importance of Kangla and its Kanglasha even after the British left the sub-continent in 1947. When independence gave back Kangla to Manipur, the people of Manipur had to fight for regaining the ancient political power for more than five decades. The symbol of Manipuri civilization was still occupied by paramilitary forces.
Now, the question arises whether Kangla should be considered as a place of religion (traditional Meitei religion or Manipuri Vaishnavism or both) or feudal remnants or symbol of long political history of Manipur or just a part of our heritage or museum specimen. Different scholars have different meanings of Kangla. To look after the conflicting views of Kangla, a board of experts called the Kangla Fort Board was formed by the Government of Manipur to look into the issues, maintenance and carving of Kangla horizon in the ongoing historical process of Manipur. Unfortunately, the matters are handled either by the thoughts of historians of dead pasts who have no sense of ongoing history or religious sentimentalists whose sole obsession is “Anti-Garibaniwaz.” Kangla demands, at this juncture of history, its historical position and reconstruction of its historical and political role in the minds of the people. Kangla is a living symbol of Manipuri civilization; it is not merely a religious and sacred place. The current history of Manipur (a democratic order) should not be conceived as medieval Manipur ruled by a despotic (in the language of some western writers or some Marxist thinkers) king. Hence any change in Kangla and its historical objects (even construction of new buildings) should not led by whims of a ruler.
Recent action on the statue of Kanglasha is not mere political bad maneuvering of the ruler (if you think he is) to reveal the medieval concept of kingship. Without taking larger people into consideration, destroying or modifying the statue is the most undemocratic and barbaric action. The aftermath of modification, a few anti-modification comments and the hate-protest against the comments show the ugly turn of feudalism in a democratic order. One may not like “kabak” that disable Kanglasha to attack (apart from the question, whether it was really a kabak), a few individuals like to put Kabak in the mouth of resistant individuals. We demand immediate restoration of the Kanglasha as similar to one just one month before; and let us debate. Let us debate in the Kangla committee (Kangla Fort Board), Cabinet council and even Assembly and other people’s forums. Let us show how our symbols and political objects of the past are handled democratically in this changing scenario. Even the Chief Minister of Manipur is not the sole authority to alter, modify or rectify historical objects. Those historians who advised the State should understand the political process undergoing in Manipur and the political significance of each object. Mere historical documents are not enough to justify feudal actions in a democratic society.
