MORANS OF ASSAM
Assam is a State in India in its northeast corner. It is divided into administrative units called Districts.
To assist you in finding some of the locations mentioned, several maps are provided including one each of the three northeast districts: Sibsagar, Dibrugarh and Tinsukia.
When looking at location names and even the names of individuals, be aware there are many spellings of the same place or person. Fr example Sibsagar is also seen as Sivsagar, but was originaly called Rangpur. The first Ahom ruler was Sukaphaa, which is also seen as Sukapha. The information in this section is from many different sources and has been piecemealed into place thus different spellings from different eras and historians.
A description of a typical Moran house is the last in a series of articles below.
This map is shown not to show the railroad but the Brahmaputra and Dibru Rivers which run to the East and North of Dibrugarh.
Using this map as a guide, you can find the two rivers with respect to Dibrgarh on the large map below. The area beneath the Brahmaputra and either side of the Dibru River was, at one time the location of a large Moran community. A large flood in 1950, politics and econmic conditions have moved some of the Moran population.
The Morans are a tribal group of Mongol origin who live in the Northeastern districts of Assam, though there are some in the Indian State of Arunachal Pradesh (north of Assam). It is believed they migrated from the Hukong Valley in upper Burma into Assam long before the Asom came to dominate Assam. Over time they moved from centers on the eastern edge of Assam, then to the Brahmaputra River and thence north to where they are found in numbers today in Tinsukia District but there are families of Morans who chose to stay in some of the early centers of Namrup, Sivsagar, Moran and Moranhat, Dibrgarh and Tinsukia. Tinsukia contains the town of Ledo which was the beginning of the famous Ledo Road of the China-Burma-Indian theater in WWII.
Small concentrations of Morans are also found in the cites that were a part of the Asom empire as the Morans were accepted as a part of that empire that would include Charaidoe, Che re gua, and Gahaon all in the Sibsagar area and Rangpur which was the Ahom name of Sibsagar proper, they also were in Bengmora the Ahom name for what is now Tinsukia and in the Chutyia capital of Sadiya, a related tribe, above Tinsukia across the Brahmaputra River (North).
There are a number of opinions regarding the meaning of Moran. According to certain numbers of Elders, the word owes its origin to a myth. It is said that an old lady of the Moran community, a physician by profession, had the supernatural power of giving life to dead ones, for which she was called 'Moran', meaning one who can call back a dead. "Mor" means die "an" means call back.
Kedar Brahmachari expresses the view that a people known as Maurang, Muurang or Morang, migrated to Saumar area (easternmost part) of ancient Assam from Nepal and in course of time, came to be known as Morans. There is in the southeastern corner of Nepal a district named Morang.
Morang District of Nepal, a part of Kosi Zone, is one of the seventy-five districts of Nepal, a landlocked country of South Asia. The district, with Biratnagar as its district headquarters, covers an area of 1,855 km² and has a population (2001) of 843,220.
The name Morang is derived from the name of the Limbu King Mawrong Mung Hang who established Morang Kingdom in the beginning of seventh century. His capital and fort was at Rongli, present day Rangeli. Morang was then annexed to greater Limbuwan by King Uba hang in 849 CE and ruled until 1584 CE when Limbu King Sangla Ing made Morang independent and ruled from Varatappa situated east of Modern Bijaypur. The Ing Dynasty and followed by Sen dynasty then Khebang dynasty ruled Morang until 1774 CE. Morang name fell from use after the annexation of all the Kingdoms of Limbuwan including Morang by King Prithivi Narayan Shah of Gorkha. The last King of Morang was Buddhi Karna Raya Khebang, who ruled from Bijaypur near Dharan.
Kingdom of Morang until annexation to Gorkha Kingdom of King Prithivi Narayan Shah comprised all the terai lands east of Kosi river and west of Mechi river.
The name Morang came into use again after the shah kings divided the country into administrative districts and Morang was named after the old Morang Kingdom.
The view that these Morang are connected in any way to the Morans of Assam is a minority view, most historians agree their origin was in the Hukong Valley of Burma/Myanmar.
Now back to Morans of Assam -
Noted Assamese historian Benudhar Sharma has mentioned that many years before the coming of Sukapha to Saumar, a man from the Meram clan of the kingdom of Dharampala (Centered in Bengal), a king of ancient Assam, became king in a place known as Lahdoi. The word Moran was coined from the name of this King.
According to the Reverend Sidney Endle (a missionary and chaplain in Assam for 43 years, he worked among the Bodos/Boros 1864 -1907 and did extensive studies on them, many published ), the original home of the Morans was in the Hukong Valley (located in Kachin State of Myanmar/Burma) and the term Moran comes from the name of their progenitor 'Moran' who came over to Assam and settled near the Tiphuk River. There is a Tiphuk tea estate, a Tiphuk postal code, and a Tiphuk oil find in the area of Sibasagar (also seen as Sivasagar) in the Sibasagar District immediately south of the Dibrgarh District. I have not yet located the Tiphuk River but feel it must be in this area.
From the literature it appears the Morans lived for quite a time in the Namrup Forest which is located southeast of Dibrugarh and west of the Patkai Pass that leads to the Hukong Valley.
J.P. Wade, one of the earliest British officers mentions the term 'Moran' to mean the rebels against the Ahom monarch.
The Morans are presently found mostly in Tinisukia district of Upper Assam with some sprinkling in Arunachal Pradesh and in Dibrgarh and Sibasagar
Timeline of history of Assam From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Timeline of the History of Assam, the important dates in its history against important events elsewhere.
Year ... Ancient Assam Contemporaneous events ........................................................................................................Source/Date
c350 ....Pushya Varman establishes the Varman dynasty in Kamarupa (ancient name of what is now Assam)..................... (Barpujari 1990:94)
636 .....Xuanzang visits the court of Bhaskarvarman in Kamarupa.
650 .....Bhaskarvarman dies. End of Varman dynasty
655..... Salasthamba establishes Mlechchha dynasty in Kamarupa
c900 ....Brahmapala establishes Pala dynasty in Kamarupa
12th Century
c1100.. Jayapala, the last Pala king removed by Ramapala of Pala empire
1185... Prithu establishes the Khen dynasty and the Kamata kingdom
1187 ...Birpal establishes Chutiya kingdom
13th century
1228 ...Sukaphaa (leader of Ahoms) enters Assam............................................................................................................. (Gogoi 1968:265)
1252... Sukaphaa establishes capital at Charaideo............................................................................................................... (Gogoi 1968:265)
15th century
1449.. Srimanta Sankardev is born
1490.. First Ahom-Kachari battle
1498 ..Alauddin Hussain Shah of Gaur removes the last Khen ruler of Kamata kingdom Vasco da Gama lands at Calcutta... (Barpujari 1992:47)
16th century
1515 Viswa Singha establishes Koch political power and Koch dynasty.............................................................................. (Barpujari 1992:70)
1522 Chutiya kingdom annexed to Ahom Kingdom under Suhungmung............................................................................... (Gogoi 1968:287)
1527 Nusrat Shah's invasion, the first Muslim invasion of the Ahom kingdom, ends in failure................................................. (Barpujari 1992:133)
1532 Turbak attacks Ahom Kingdom, the first commander to enjoy some success.
1533 Turbak defeated and killed. Ahoms pursue Gaur army to Karatoya river.
1536 Ahoms destroy Dimapur, the capital of the Kachari kingdom
1540 Nara Narayan succeeds his father to the throne of Kamata kingdom
1563 Chilarai occupies Ahom capital Garhgaon, end with Koch-Ahom treaty. ......................................................................(Barpujari 1992:79–80)
1568 Srimanta Sankardev dies
1581 Nara Narayana divides Kamata kingdom into Koch Bihar and Koch Hajo (to be governed by Raghudev).................... (Barpujari 1992:94)
1587 Naranarayana of Koch dynasty dies. ...........................................................................................................................(Barpujari 1992:74)
1588 Raghudev, son of Chilarai and ruler of Koch Hajo declares independence. ...................................................................(Barpujari 1992:95)
17th century
1609 Momai Tamuli Borbarua restructures Paik system in Ahom kingdom.
1609 Koch Bihar becomes a Mughal vassal.......................................................................................................................... (Barpujari 1992:98)
1613 Koch Hajo is annexed by the Mughal Empire............................................................................................................... (Barpujari 1992:103)
1615 Ahom-Mughal conflicts begin .......................................................................................................................................(Barpujari 1992:148)
1637 Bali Narayan dies of natural causes, and Koch rebellion again Mughals collapse............................................................ (Barpujari 1992:161)
1639 Treaty of Asurar Ali signed between the Ahom kingdom and Mughal Empire................................................................. (Barpujari 1992:164)
1659 Ahoms take possession of Koch Hajo (up to Sankosh river). Koch Hajo was occupied by rulers of Koch Bihar earlier, who drove out the Mughal faujdar from Guwahati...................................................................................................................................................................... (Barpujari 1992:165)
1662 Mir Jumla occupies Garhgaon, the Ahom capital........................................................................................................... (Barpujari 1992:177–178)
1663 After Treaty of Ghilajharighat Mir Jumla returns to Dhaka, dies on the way.................................................................... (Barpujari 1992:188–189)
1667 Ahoms wrest Guwahati and extend control up to Manas river; begins defence preparations ............................................(Barpujari 1992:207)
1668 Mughals under Ram Singh I advance up to Guwahati to retake it.................................................................................... (Barpujari 1992:211)
1671 Ahoms win Battle of Saraighat and Ram Singh I retreats to Rangamati............................................................................ (Barpujari 1992:227)
1679 Laluk-sola Borphukan deserts Guwahati........................................................................................................................ (Barpujari 1992:245)
1681 Gadadhar Singha becomes Ahom swargadeo .................................................................................................................(Barpujari 1992:252)
1682 Ahoms win battle at Itakhuli. End of Ahom-Mughal conflicts with Ahom win ...................................................................(Barpujari 1992:253–256)
18th century
1714 Rudra Singha dies, and with him dies the Kachari, Jaintia etc. grand alliance to remove the Mughals from Bengal ..............(Gogoi 1968:503–507)
1769 First phase of Moamoria rebellion, Ahom capital falls but recaptured in April, 1770 .........................................................(Baruah 1993:60)
1783 Ahom capital Rangpur fell the second time to Moamoria rebellion. Rebel leaders strike coins in their names. .....................(Baruah 1993:90)
1794 Captain Thomas Welsh restores Rangpur to Ahom king from Moamora rebels. ................................................................(Baruah 1993:133)
19th century
1805 Ahoms come to terms with Sarbananda, the last Moamora rebel leader holding out in Bengmara (Tinsukia). Ahoms declare Sarbananda the Barsenapati of Matak Rajya............................................................................................................................................................................ (Baruah 1993:164)
1817 The first Burmese invasion of Assam. Burmese occupation was complete by 1821............................................................ (Baruah 1993:213)
1826 Treaty of Yandaboo signed between Honourable East India Company and King of Ava; end of Burmese and beginning of British occupation of Assam (Barpujari 1992:363)
1861 Phulaguri Dhawa, the first peasant uprising against British rule was repressed
1894 Patharughat raijmel fired upon, villagers tortured and property confiscated .........................................................................(Guha 1977:53–54)
Year Post Indian Independence
1979 Assam agitation begins
1985 Assam Accord signed. End of Assam agitation
References
Barpujari, H K, ed. (1990), The Comprehensive History of Assam: Ancient Period, 1, Publication Board, Assam
Barpujari, H K, ed. (1992), The Comprehensive History of Assam: Medieval Period (Political), 2, Publication Board, Assam
Baruah, S L (1993), Last Days of Ahom Monarchy, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi
Gogoi, Padmeshwar (1968), The Tai and the Tai kingdoms, Gauhati University, Guwahati
Guha, Amalendu (1977), Planter-Raj to Swaraj, Indian Council of Historical Research
As you may have noticed, the Morans are not mentioned (other than the fact they were the major element in the Moamoria Rebellion) in the timeline of Assam history above, that is because they are but a small number in the total of the diverse population of Assam. The Moamoria Movement and Rebellion was made up of representatives from many groups inluding the Ahoms. Even so, it was the Morans who gave the name to Assam when they named the migrants under Sukaphaa - "Ahoms", the h having a 'sh" sound in Moran and thus it later became "Asom" which then still later became "Assam."
We do not know when the Morans entered what became Assam as there are no written records. They are related to the Chutyias so they could have come in about the same time as they did in 1187 AD, but they could have been in the Assam area earlier. The Morans we know were in Assam when the Ahoms under Sukphaa entered Assam in 1228AD. After making it clear the Ahoms were in control, Sukaphaa invited the Morans to be a part of their kingdom and even allowed intermarriage. The Morans were never truly totally assimilated, they offered essential services especially a unique talent with the elephant. They were allowed to stay in their area undisturbed for the most part as they continued to provide the service for which they were well known. There area was adjacent to the jungle so as to be near the elephant and thus it was always on the frontier and mostly remote. They did eventually lose their language, Moran, an offshoot of Bodo as it was replaced by Assamese. Likewise they, like others tribes that existed during the 600 year Ahom Kingdom, follow them in their trend away from animal and forest worship to Hinduism but they retained customs and rituals peculiar to the Morans. The elephant too is largely gone from the Morans as the encroachment of civilization has decimated their numbers. There was a time when every Moran household had an elephant who was an important member of the family.
From a history of Assam -
As participatory and egalitarian tradition suited their way of life the Morans became disciples of the Moamora Satra in the eighteenth century. They joined his community which became known as the Moamoria. The Morans made up the largest single group to join and thus the names were sometimes used interchangeably which was accurate usage. Neither the Ahom state nor the Satra Guru had absolute authority over the Morans. A highly independent community that co-existed with the Ahom system for over five hundred years without following their dictates, the Morans functioned only through their traditional organization. Their obligation to the Ahom state rested in supplying forest products like elephants, firewood, raw cotton and vegetable dyes. In lieu of this they were exempted from militia service. The Maomara Satra's following was not just confined to the Morans, it included Ahoms, Brahmans and also those Morans who had assimilated with the Ahom system. But the fact that they had a large following of the despised Morans, untouchable fishermen and sudras were viewed suspiciously by the state. The Maomara satra was denied royal patronage and were constantly persecuted.
In 1769 the Morans rose in revolt. They won over an exiled Ahom prince by promising him the throne. They occupied the capital, imprisoned the King and murdered the Barbarua who was the main patron of the Dihingya branch of the Kaal Samhati. All offices usually held by Ahom nobles were thrown open to the Morans. The paik-militia system was totally transposed. The Moamora Guru pleaded with the rebels to compromise with the nobility. But it fell on deaf ears. However the royalists recaptured the capital after six months. The rebels were ruthlessly annihilated. The Moamora Mahant and his son were executed. The causes of rebellion lay elsewhere but most of the rebels were associated with the Moamora Satra. So the rebels were called Moamoriyas. In 1783 the rebels tried unsuccessfully to storm the Ahom capital of Rangpur (now Sibasagar) and the fort at Garhgaon. The royalist reprisals were brutal. The paiks who collaborated with the rebels fled to the hills. A massive depopulation took place.
Later the Morans north of river Dibru rose in revolt. In the north bank foothills, one Harihar Tanti managed to mobilize the fugitive Moamoriyas from the hills of Arunachal Pradesh as well as the Daffla-bahatiya (Tagins of present Arunachal who had taken to settled cultivation under Ahom prescriptions) into a militia. They along with the Morans conducted a protracted engagement for nearly two years. The royal forces were defeated in important battles. The Maomara Gosain pleaded for a compromise with the Ahom king but he was not heeded. The rebels occupied the Ahom capital and one Bharat Singha, a distant relative of the earlier Moamora Gosain, was placed on the throne (1788). Harihar had a free reign in the present Dhemaji district. One Howha ruled over the Majuli Island. Sarbananda, a Matak of Chutiya origin, was elected a raja of the Morans. In the meantime the Khamtis, who had recently migrated from Upper Burma and were settled by the Ahom administration in Sadiya, took it over. The Ahom king Gaurinath Singha exiled himself in Guwahati The Burhagohain shifted to Jorhat (1790) and set up capital there. The rebels could not proceed west of Rangpur, as there was fortifications set up by the royalists. Jorhat became an asylum of refugees.
During this period of revolt (1786-94) the Ahom administration had several other problems in Darrang, Nagaon and Kamrup to contend with. The full force of its might could not be applied against the fortified rebels.. The rebels too were not allied to the classical neo-Vaishnavite faith though they called themselves Moamoriyas. In the early 18th century a few unorthodox and esoteric practices found their way into the religious fold of some minor satras of Easternmost Assam. It has been mentioned earlier that the Kaal Samhati satras were very numerous in the Sibsagar district, which was the core area of the Ahom system. Secrecy thrives under strict supervision. Again persecution for over a century led to secrecy of religious practice and the revival of magico-religious aspect of fertility cult and debased Tantricism. The common feature was the extreme secrecy by way of night-worship (rati-khowa). The chronicles refer to these pseudo-Vaishnavite night worshippers as a- ritya- mat. Most of the disciples of these minor satras were tribals. But rebels too used these night sessions to secretly stir up discontent and hatch conspiracies. Magic and miracles were interwoven with egalitarian principles. The rebels were ill armed except for carrying bamboo sticks consecrated with so called magical charms. Belief became current that they could make cannon balls ineffective. Harihar, it was said, could cast a spell on the enemy by throwing charmed cloth. These myths helped instill fear and panic amongst the royalist rank and file. The lower ranks were totally demoralized and they refused to fight their fellow peasants. Many paiks deserted or joined the rebels.
Thus non-conformism in the neo-Vaishnavite creed had a serious role to play in the decline of the Tai-Ahom power. Ahom commoners were involved in these revolts and their hatred was directed towards the oppressive section among the nobility. This helped accelerate the complete breakdown of their revenue-linked militia system The Ahom King in exile had to implore the Jaintia, Kachari, Manipuri and the Nara (Upper Burma) Rajas to help subjugate the rebellion. But it was ultimately the East India Company who had to dispatch a team of mercenaries under Captain Welsh to recapture the Ahom capital Rangpur (1794).
But the complete subjugation of a rebel leader like Bharat, for instance, took another 5 years. Sadiya was reoccupied and the Khamptis subjugated only in 1800. Sarbananda, the Moran chief, had to be conferred the title of Barsenapati. He enjoyed a free jurisdiction over an area of 1800 square miles with a new capital at Rangagora (in present day Tinsukia District between the Dibru Saikhowa National Park and the town of Tinsukia). His son inherited this title. When the Singphos began to raid Assam they found the people ruled by the Bar Senapati better able to defend themselves than the subjects protected by the ragtag Ahom militia. So the Singphos termed the people residing in the Bar Senapati's territory as Matak (meaning strong) and the Ahom plebian as Mulung (meaning weak). The term Matak thus began to be applied to the people residing in the tract of country ruled by the Moran chief and has no denotation to any specific caste or tribe. As majority of the inhabitants of this tract were disciples of the Moamora Gosain the Moamora rebels were also known as Matak. Of course there is a sectarian rendering of the word Matak as a compound of mat (faith) and eka (one) i.e. men of one faith. Once again a word, Matak, became interchangeable with the word Moran and it also is not accurate to do so.
The Morans, Moamoria and Mataks were ultimately subjugated by the British (1820) and the Bar Senapati's territory annexed to British India in 1839.
Acknowledgements:
Banikanta Kakati Mother Goddess Kamakhya P.P.Duara, Guwahati 1948
Maheswar Neog: Sankardeva And His Times. Guwahati University 1965.
H.K.Barpujari ed. Comprehensive History of Assam Vol. II & III. Publication Board Assam, Guwahati 1990
S.N.Sarma. The Neo-Vaishnavite Movement and the Satra Institution of Assam. Guwahati University 1996.
Amalendu Guha: Medieval and Colonial Assam: Society Polity Economy Center of Social Sciences Calcutta 1991.
Sivnath Burman: An Unsung Colossus, Forum of Sankardev Studies Guwahati 1999.
Bhaba Prasad Chaliha ed. Sankardeva: Studies in Culture. Srimanta Sankardeva Sangha, Guwahati 1978
Jogendranath Sarma Axomor Nad-nadi, Assam Sahitya Sabha, Jorhat 1993
N.N.Acharya. A Brief History of Assam. Omsons Publication Guwahati 1990.
THE MORANS
A field note by:
N.Shakmacha Singh, Srikant, Kumud Saikia, Jitu Goswami Moran
Largely concentrated in the Tinsuka district of Assam, the Morans inhabiting in this region (traditionally called the Samarpith area) identify themselves as the people who devote their life with the domestication of elephant. According to a native of Ubon village, "elephant has been our cultural property and we have been living together with elephant since time immemorial". It is also said that their ancestors came to the region with elephants and during the days of monarchy, the Morans were the only people who fulfill the demand of elephants to the King.
Well trained in the catching of wild elephants, they are also the true friend of this beautiful animal. In the olden days it is said that the life of a Moran family is incomplete without elephant. Inherited from their ancestral past, the Morans have the knowledge to read the mind of an elephant.
Their traditional house has a reserved place at the front varendah especially for keeping the belongings of their elephants. Traditionally, Moran house is constructed in a rectangular ground plan with an extension of Kitchen as another segment of the house followed by rooms for the family members. The uniqueness of traditional Moran house is the way they use huge wooden pillar (Komar Khuta) and the horizontal posts resting on it. This super structure makes the house unique and one can feel the pillar as the legs of an elephant.
There is more on the Morans after the map below.
Morans and the Mataks of Assam
The historic Bengmora (now Tinsukia) was the capital of Matak Kingdom. The Matak Kingdom occupied a distinct place in the history of Asom. The first king of the Matak Kingdom was Sarbananda Singha, who was never power hungry and despotic. Sarbananda Singha maintained a sense of equality among his subjects and always gave importance to democratic values. Taxes in Matak Kingdom were hardly imposed and people were so free that many people from Ahom kingdom migrated to Matak territory to evade taxation. Even the British praised the Mataks as hard working race and king Sarbananda Singha as an efficient administrator. The Mataks preserved their independence since the later part of the nineteenth century until its annexation by the British in 1842.
Once considered a granary of the North East Tinsukia became a commercial hub with the discovery of tea and subsequent extraction of crude oil and coal.
Fortune-seekers from different parts of India were thronging into Tinsukia. It became necessary for British interest to construct Railways as the modern means of transport. In 1884 the first railway line passed through this town from Dibrugarh to Ledo and a new railway station was built near a tank. The tank having three corners was dug by Godha Borbaruah, a Minister of King Sarbananda Singha and in course of time the new railway station got its name as Tinisukia or Tinsukia from this tank. The old name of the town `Bengmora' had fallen into disuse.
Guwahati, Friday, November 24, 2006
EDITORIAL
Tinsukia College marches ahead
— Dr Achyut Kumar Borthakur
The following is from a paper by D. Nath, The Mataks and their Revolt against the State in 18 Century Assam, Searching for Ethno-Religious Roots
Among the various religious communities of Assam known since at least the middle ages, the Mataks are perhaps the best known for playing a historic role in the political process of the State. They are found scattered almost over the entire State of Assam, although they are concentrated in the upper Assam districts of Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Sivasagar and Jorhat. They organized a great revolt against the Ahom state of Assam in the year 1769, and continued it till the beginning of the 19th century, when they obtained an autonomous territory for themselves centering on the present Tinsukia town. There are local sources in the form of chronicles, and accounts left by the early British writers, where the history of the community and their revolt against the state have been recorded. Besides, there are oral and folk records in the form of public memories and sayings among the members of the community reflecting on their revolt, bearing enough psycho-historical evidence. The present paper is an attempt, on the basis of these materials, to look into the formation of the Matak community and the ethno-religious background of their revolt.
Formation of the Community
Known variously as Moamara, Moamariya, Mayamara, Mayamariya, Matak or Moran, the Matak, and that is the name used here to mean the community, stands for both a religious sect and a community consisting of its followers. Belonging to the Vaishnavism of Assam affiliation developed by Sankaradeva (1449-1568) in the 16th century, this religious sect was developed by Aniruddhadeva (1553-1627), a nephew of Sankaradeva, and a disciple of Gopal Ata (1476-1541), founder of the Kala Sanghati order of Assam Vaishnavism. To understand the emergence of this sect, and the sectarian community, a more detailed narration is necessary.
The religion, known as Neo-Vaishnavism in Assam, developed by Sankaradeva, became divided into four independent sectarian divisions called Sanghati/Samhati after the death of Sankaradeva. The process of the division began immediately following the nomination of Madhavadeva, by Sankaradeva, as the successor in his religious order. Damodardeva, a Brahman disciple of Sankaradeva, who did not like to see Madhavadeva as the head of the order, seceded from it establishing his own order, making inclusion of all Brahmanical practices (karma-kanda) which the founder of the sect had rejected as meaningless. Thus with Damodardeva, a Brahmanical section emerged undermining the original ideals of Sankaradeva's bhakti religion and allowing Brahmanical ideals to filter back into the religion.
This division was soon followed by another division created by the descendents of the saint himself. Known as the Purusha Sanghati, this division too rejected Madhavadeva's headship, and claimed Sankaradeva as the Guru, and did not give much stress on ritualism. The third division came when Gopaldeva alias Gopal Ata, a disciple of Madhavadeva, founded his sect with all forms of liberality in the practice of religion as allowed originally by Sankaradeva.
Known as the Kala Sanghati, Gopaldeva's sect was the most radical of the divisions where Brahmanical practices were totally discarded, and even 'a rosary was considered redundant'; and reverence to the Guru was given the supreme place. After thus the three Sanghatis were created, there remained the main stream directly under Madhavadeva. His disciple Mathuradas Burha Ata, therefore, in order to maintain the purity of the sect from further dilution, encompassed his own stream after the death of Madhavadeva, which soon came to be called Nika or Nitya Sanghati or the clean division, where ritualism played a minor role, but asceticism assumed prominence.
Kala-Sanghati and the Mayamara Sect - Searching for the Ideological Background
According to Maheswar Neog, "The liberalism of bhakti came to have its full social play in the Kala-sanghati fraternity, and the sect easily spread to the very grass-roots of society, acquired large followings everywhere and gained great social strength." The sect did not attach any importance to the Brahmanical ritualism, and even the Brahman followers of this sect discarded observing sandhya and gayatri and did not treat the sacred thread as necessary. This ideological base was given an established form by Aniruddhadeva in whose hands social equality and predominance of the preacher - the Guru - became its chief features, and the Guru was considered superior even to the God. It recognized no barrier in community dining on the basis of caste differences, and there was no place for untouchability. This space for liberality and sense of equality and dignity attracted the mass of the people, particularly of the upper Brahmaputra valley, where the Mongoloid tribes had overwhelming predominance. Thus, Aniruddhadeva and his descendents easily accepted neophytes from among the Morans, Ahoms, Chutiyas, Kacharis, Kaivartas and other ethnic communities and lower classes into the fraternity. The biographical work of Aniruddhadeva and his descendents records that during this initial period, Aniruddhadeva also initiated into his sect one Dheli, a Muslim tailor, who was baptized as Dheli Bora, and registered among the Ahoms. Thus, Aniruddhadeva started with the 'lowlies' and the (so called) untouchables, going even against the ideals of his family and other influential sections of the society.
According to Neog, "The simplified and liberalized form of the bhakti religion presented no difficulty for these socially down-trodden peoples to adjust themselves to it, while their conversion gave them an unprecedented social uplift and a sense of bliss too." According to S. F. Hannay, "disciples seemed to flock into him (Aniruddhadeva) from all the different tribes, such as, Cassarees, Ahoms, Dhooms, Kuleetas, Kayasts, Harees, and others of the lowest classes. And from the upper part of the valley may be added Sooteas, Morans, &c. &c". This social composition in the eyes of the 'pernicious casteism' was 'low', and hence the Mayamara sect itself was considered as low. Thus, the followers of the sect were pushed to the precipice of a social landslide.
Nomenclature of the Sect: Searching for Roots of Discontent
The sub-sect of Aniruddhadeva's Vaishnavism was called Mayamara. An understanding of the origin of this name tells much about the formation of this religious community, and about the seed that contained the possibility of a future upheaval. It is stated that Aniruddhadeva first preached his tenet among the members of the fishing community living on the bank of a lake where a small variety of fish called Moa was found. It is further stated that these people used to kill (mara) the Moa fish and lived on fishing; and it was due to this reason that Aniruddhadeva's sect was finally termed by the non-believers as Moamara i.e. a sect of the killer of the Moa fish. There is no doubt that the Moamara is a contemptuous and derogatory remark used to ridicule the sect and its preachers who were proselytizing the lower echelons of the society. One of the Assamese chronicles, the Tungkhungiya Buranji, has clearly mentioned the Mayamara pontiff as 'Moamara.'
According to Hannay, "This residence of the first priest of this sect is said to have been on the Majoilee, on the banks of a small lake, which is now carried away by Burhumpooter. The name of this lake, from the circumstance of its abounding in a description of small fish, called Moa, was named in the usual style of Assamese phraseology Moa Morah, from whence arose the name of the sect, but which has been turned by those of the Brahmanical faith through a spirit of contempt to Moa Mureeah."
That Aniruddhadeva's sect was despised as 'Moamara', and that the term originated from the people who killed and lived on selling (or exchanging) the Moa fish, is also supported by some internal sources. Utsabananda Goswami, who was the Satradhikara of the Puranimati Mayamara Satra, has referred to an old biographical work to say that 'Mowamara' came from the name of a bil (fishing swamp) abounding in mowa fish and standing near the northern barrack (hati) of the original sattra.
There is an interesting myth recorded in the genealogical work of the pontiffs of the sect about the origin of the term Mayamara. According to it, Aniruddhadeva was believed to have possessed supernatural power for which King Pratap Singha (1603-1641) was said to have invited him, a heretic by religion by his (the king's) own term, to show his miraculous power before the king. Accordingly, Aniruddhadeva was put to a test. The mouth of a large empty pot was covered with a piece of cloth, put before the public, and Aniruddhadeva was asked before the audience to say what the pot contained. Looking at the pot Aniruddhadeva is stated to have said that there was a large cobra inside the pot. The king was then inspired, having found an excuse to punish Aniruddhadeva. So, he opened the mouth of the pot only to show that it was empty; but to his astonishment, he found that Aniruddhadeva was right, and a large cobra really came out of the pot. However, Aniruddhadeva lost no time to quell the magical snake to show his further miraculous power. Seeing the entire event, the king called the sect of Aniruddhadeva as Mayamara, that is, killer of illusion (maya+mara).
There is no doubt that the name Mayamara was thus created to erase the name Moamara, which was not only ridiculous but was also one of contempt towards a supposedly heretic religious community. The discovery of a myth to defend the sect from being ridiculed is a clear example to show that there was an element of continued dislike of the Mayamara pontiffs against the orthodox Brahmanical section of the society represented by the other Sanghatis. The distinction is clearly recorded in the Tungkhungiya Buranji by mentioning the two factions as 'Moamariya' and 'Bamuniya'.
It is therefore clear that in parallel with the dislike was also a sense of protest from the Mayamariyas against the Brahmanical order which, as we shall see, emerged under direct state patronage.
The Moamara or Mayamara is also known as Matak religion, a name the origin of which involves much controversy. It appears that the name was derived from the name of the Moran tribe who were also called Matak, a term which was also despised for being as low as the Moamara. The fact that some of the early British writers have mentioned the Brahmaputra-Dihing triangle on the southeast as Matak (region) is indicative of a tribe of the same name who were aboriginal to this region. Assamese chronicles mention a tribe called Matak who were subjugated by king Sukapha, the founder of the Ahom kingdom in Assam in the early 13th century.
Sometimes, it is also used synonymously with the term Moran, or else equated with it, and the Moran formed the bulk of the disciples of Aniruddhadeva. It is a fact that next to the fishing community, which formed the first batch of the converts, were the Moran alias Mataks, a jungle tribe, according to the early British records; and among the converts, the Morans were the only single largest ethnic community which could give an identity to the religious sect. Thus, it was natural that the sect of Aniruddhadeva was also called Matak, a name that was used in much the same derogatory sense as the Moamara. As a matter of fact, there was an attempt to redefine it, as in the case of the creation of the term Mayamara, eradicating the tribal root. So, the same reason that was at work behind the development of the term Mayamara from the term Moamara, by creating a myth, had acted again to erase its tribal stamp by attempting to derive it otherwise. The genealogical work on the family of the pontiffs of the Mayamara sect, mentioned above, has attempted to derive the term from the conjugal
word Matek, which means people of one (ek) opinion (mat). (There could not be coined, fortunately enough, any such word or conjugation to be used to define the name Moran!).
An explanation given for this derivation is that their tenet teaches men to be united in their views in their stress on the Guru, for, the Guru is more important to them than any other being; even God was treated as inferior to him. Grammatically infeasible, this forceful derivation of the name Matak on the part of the Mayamara pontiffs to eradicate the tribal origin of the Mayamara or Matak pontiffs, simply de-recognized the attempt of the Brahmanical society to undermine them. It was here that we find the root of an inherent enmity between the two religious groups. But this derivation facilitated one thing; it helped in the inclusion of its followers coming from various ethnic and caste groups into a single community stamped as 'Matak.'
In this connection one interesting development was the concerted attempt outside the Mayamara cult to defame Aniruddhadeva as a magician, who was alleged to have stolen a magical book from the store of Sankaradeva, and therefore, who was reported to have been publicly condemned by Sankaradeva. It was all publicized through, and recorded in, a book called Adi Charit or Bhuyanar Puthi, said to have been composed by Madhavadeva. The fact is that Aniruddhadeva was a contemporary of neither Sankaradeva nor Madhavadeva. Therefore, the famous Vaishnava leader and littérateur par excellence could not be the writer of the work. It was simply an attempt on the part of the orthodox section to defame the Guru. Be that as it was, in the tradition of the great saint Sankaradeva, Aniruddhadeva translated a part of the Bhagavata Purana, composed the Bhakti Mangal Ghosha, a book on prayer songs, about two hundred devotional songs, and a sacred book in both prose and poetry called Nij-Sastra. The last one is a secret scriptural work used in the society of the devotees of very high order. These writings supplied the ideological store of the sect.
The Revolt - The Reality
In the above socio-cultural background, there occurred a series of events of suppression of the Mayamara pontiffs by the state since the beginning of the Hinduisation of the Ahom kings. There is no doubt that the Ahom kings had no concrete religious affiliation to a particular sect. But, they were more attracted to the Brahmanical and Sakta practices than to the puritan form of Vaishnavism of Mayamara order. As a result, like the movement of Sankaradeva which was attacked in different ways by the Brahmans through the use of the state machinery, the sect of Aniruddhadeva also was subjected to the same sort of atrocities and attack in the later times. Assamese chronicles and the biographical works of the Mayamara pontiffs contain evidence to that effect.
Starting with the rule of Susengpha alias Pratap Singha (1603-1641), the Mayamara sect met with a tartar in the state machinery. This king, under the influence of the Brahmins, practised a series of cruelties upon the Sudra Gurus (Thakuriya Medhis - non Brahman preachers), killed many of them, and forced others into exile in the forest of Namrup (incidentally, the homeland of the Moran tribe). The king was informed that the disciples of Mayamara sect did not bow their heads before the king on the ground of their sectarian belief that this kind of reverence was reserved for their Guru alone.
Accordingly, four of the Ahom officers serving at the capital itself, who were known for their affiliation to the sect, were summoned and put to a test in which three of them preferred death to submission, while the life of the fourth was spared through the king's own interception. M. Neog has stated that this "was possibly the first glaring demonstration of such all out devotion of the Mayamariya denomination to the Guru, which persisted through later centuries and made the rebellion possible."
The same Brahmanical predominance prevailed at the time of the neophyte Ahom king Sutamla alias Jayadhvaj Singha (1648-1663). This king was so blind to his religion that it was said that the pontiff of the Dakhinpat Satra belonging to the Brahmanical order of Vaishnavism (Brahma Sanghati) was summoned to the side of his death bed when his time of death was nearing.
Even during his two successors - Chakradhvaj Singha (1663-1669) and Udayaditya Singha (1669-1671) - his predominance did not diminish. It is recorded that during the reign of Surampha alias Bhagaraja (1644-1648), the Mayamara Mahanta Nityanandadeva was killed at the Ahom capital at the king's order. His crime was that he was accompanied by a huge number of disciples to attend a king's invitation - in contrast to the others of his class (the Mahantas) attending the same invitation at the king's court. It was alleged that looking at the strength of his following the Mahanta remarked: "These Mahantas are nothing compared to me. I am equal to the princely family of the Tungkhungiyas." This being reported to the king commenting that keeping such a large following by a simple Mahanta, that is, Guru, is a blatant affront to the king, the latter ordered for killing the Guru by throwing him into the Dikhow river. His dead body was later recovered by his disciples who promised at the crematorium of their Guru to kill the king and his intelligence in order to repay the debt to their Guru (maari jaao, mari jaao, Gurur rin suji jaaon. We shall kill and get killed, and thus repay the debt of our Guru).
Thus, the conflict between the state and the followers of the Mayamara sect became inevitable. Udayaditya Singha took initiation from a monk from Gakula named as Paramananda Vairagi, and issued orders that the non-Brahman preachers should take initiation from Paramananda. This was resisted by the Sudra Gurus, particularly, by the Mayamara pontiff. Thus, a strong possibility of conflict between the state and the Brahmins on one side, and the Sudra pontiffs, and more particularly, the Mayamara pontiff on the other side, soon surfaced to a visible extent even as early as the early 17th century.
King Gadadhar Singha (1681-1696) bore a grudge upon Vaishnavism, particularly, upon the Sudra Mahantas and their so-called low caste disciples. Edward Gait has rightly pointed out that "the neo-Vaishnava sects, founded on the teachings of Sankar Deb, had now attained remarkable dimensions. The country was full of religious preceptors and their followers, who claimed exemption from the universal liability to fight and to assist in the construction of roads and tanks and other public works. This caused serious inconveniences, which the Sakta Brahmans, who had the king's ear, lost no opportunity of exaggerating." The king therefore started persecuting the Vaishnava Gurus by adopting the same old method - deporting them to the jungle of Namrup. And among those killed there was Vaikunthanath of the Mayamara sect.
Thus, the second Mayamara Mahanta was killed by an Ahom king at the instance of the Brahman priests. He did not spare the disciples of the low castes, such as Kewats, Koches, Doms and Haris, who were hunted down, robbed of their property, and forced to eat the flesh of swine, cows and fowls. Under this order for penalty, the disciples of the Mayamara sect suffered the most.
Gadadhar Singha's successor, King Rudra Singha, went a step further. This king imported a Bengali Sakta Brahman called Krishnaram Nyavagish Bhattacharyya to Assam, and took initiation from him. He also made it a rule that since that time, all his descendants will take initiation from Krishnaram and his descendants, and that all Mahantas, irrespective of their affiliation, will henceforth have to take initiation from him. This king called a great assembly where he declared that henceforth no Sudra Guru shall have a Brahman disciple, a custom prevalent since the days of Sankaradeva.
The Sudra Gurus were also directed to worship idols, a system introduced to appease the Brahman Gurus. According to Maheswar Neog, "the tenet of Sankaradeva thus continued meeting with heavy rebuffs in the hands of the greatest Ahom ruler through the instigation of Brahman priests."
Coming to the throne under this tradition his successor king Siva Singha (1714-1744), and his wife queen Phuleswari, went much further to insult the Mayamara Mahanta by compelling him to attend the Durga Puja held at the palace, and bow down before the idol, and besmeared their forehead with the stain of a sacrificed animal's blood, an act which was for them like going to the hell. Phuleswari also made them pay obeisance to the idols of the Brahmanical Satras of Auniati, Dakhinpat and Garamur.
This shows how the Raghunandan code of the Bengali Brahman and the Brahmanical sect of Vaishnavism (Brahma Sanghati) became united to form a house at the initiative of the state to fight the non-Brahman sect spearheaded by the Mayamara faction of the Kala Sanghati sect. This was clearly a planned act of Vaishnava persecution on the part of the state, and exclusion of the Sudra Mahantas from governing the religious life of the people. The Mayamariyas therefore raised a protest, not caring for their life, which they sacrificed for the maintenance of their faith. Thus, as pointed out by S. K. Bhuyan, "The adoption of Sakta Hindusm by the Ahom monarch followed by the conversion to that faith of his principal nobles introduced a new factor in the social and political life of the people tending towards the acceleration of that decline which had already commenced."
By the second half of the 18th century, a conflict of a greater intensity between the king and the Sakta-Brahmanical religious group on one side, and the Mayamaras headed by their Guru on the other side, became apparent. The indication of a kind of rehearsal for that purpose was seen in the act of the junior pontiff, Deka Mahanta Gagini, in the year 1768, when he invited the disciples from all over the kingdom to build a big plinth, bar bheti, at the low-lying field called Malau Pathar near Jorhat by the side of their Satra at Khutiya Pota. It is recorded that eight lakh odd disciples gathered at Malau Pathar, and built a very large plinth for a prayer hall the remains of which still measures 900 ft x 200 ft x 13 ft (at the top) after a period of about two hundred and fifty years of exposure to erosion and demolition.
This act of building the plinth indicated what manpower the Mahanta could command if and when necessary. It is stated that after having thus assessed the strength of his disciples, the Deka Mahanta conferred with the regional leaders of the community, the Gaonburhas, and observed: "With all the large laity at my back I can be a king. They have killed our Guru. If my father permits, I can fight with these followers as my force." There was no further development in this regard, but that there was a rehearsal to contest the state against oppression and insult on a particular sectarian community, now became clear.
In the summer of 1769 the war of succession came; and Mohanmala Gohain, elder brother of the deceased king Rajeswar Singha (1751-1769), who was deprived earlier of the throne, now put his claim and approached the Mayamara Mahanta for support. This shows that the situation that had emerged was not remaining secret by now, and the Mayamara Mahantas' preparation to fight the royalty was a known fact. It was under this situation that Chief Executive of the State Kirti Chandra Barbarua insulted the Mahanta by returning with disdain the monthly presents (nirmali) sent by the Mahanta to the newly anointed king Lakshmi Singha (1769-1781). Two months after, the same Chief Executive further aggravated the situation by severely beating two leaders of the Mayamariyas - Naharkhora Saikia and Ragha Neog - who came to supply the king with elephants caught from the forests. It was in this situation that Ragha Neog shouted curses upon the Barbarua in the "name of the elemental forces in the presence of all on the spot." Ragha Neog was then carried in bandages to the Mahanta who exclaimed: "May the permission be given to lay down my life in order to repay the debt of the Guru [deh eri Gurur rin sujibalai bolak]". The Mahanta, who had already borne heaps of insults and atrocities, now became sorely afflicted. He now gave permission to his son and the disciples to fight and dethrone the wrongdoers. With the permission of the head of the religious sect, the Moamariya Revolt became a reality.
The two leaders of the Moran tribe, Ragha Neog and Naharkhora Saikia, initiated the process at the Namrup forest with their own men to "repay the debt of the Guru." The chief architect of the revolt was the Deka Mahanta, Gagini, who deputed the head of the villages (gaonburhas) to organize people of their respective villages to join the revolt. The revolt started in the form of a protest against the state act of felling down trees in the jungles of the Moran tribe. Assamese chronicles have recorded that the Morans raised the banner of revolt against the Ahom king's order to cut down a kind of large tree called dhak in the forests of Namrup in Upper Assam, the home land of the Morans. "In the same year in obedience to the royal orders, the Barbarua sent some men to cut bardhaks or drums. These men came back and reported to the Barbarua that they could not cut the drums, as the Hati-Chungi Morans acting in a heretical and disloyal manner had made their own Raja and Barbarua and launched a war or rebellion."
They also cut down the bridge over the river Dibru, and separated their territory as an independent zone. It is to be noted that the region of upper Assam on the banks of the rivers Checha and Dihing beyond Dibru formed the base of the revolt from where it spread to the other parts. There are historical reasons for that.
The Morans still form a major ethnic community of the Dibru-Checha regions. They along with their brethren, the Borahis, had their own Chiefs and territories when Sukapha, the founder of the Ahom kingdom in Assam, came from Upper Burma in the early 13th century. Sukapha and his men took over the territories and Ahomised most members of the tribes, and appointed them to serve the newly founded state with the supply of resources from their jungles, such as the wood, elephants, honey, fuel wood and so forth. Thus, while the Morans, at the cost of losing their territories to the incoming invaders, had also to lose their right over their own resources, the Borahis completely lost their identity as a separate tribe. There is no doubt that these tribes submitted to the foreign rule because of their lack of an organized force, being then under an inferior economy. But they nurtured a natural dislike against the Ahom monarchy since inception as not only they had to submit to the intruders, but they had also to pay regular revenue to the state with whatever natural resources they had in their jungle habitat. The way they had subsequently protested under the leadership of Ragha Neog and Naharkhora Saikia against cutting down of trees in their jungle is a reflection of their traditional dislike for exploitation of their resources by an alien force. It was natural that they should unite, and at the extreme point of their exploitation, they would protest. The only requirement was an economy to sustain and a leadership to direct them.
By the 18th century the Morans had an established agrarian economy that they attained being a part of the Ahom system itself, and in the personality of the Mayamara Mahanta they found appropriate leadership. It is significant that the Tungkhungiya Buranji records how the Ahom forces used communal terms to heap contempt upon the Morans as an unsophisticated tribe (gandhikhowa Moran, i.e. eater of an insect having dirty smell called 'gandhi'), and despised them as 'Moamariya', being different from Bamuniya. Thus, the Moamariya Revolt was a result of both ethnicity and religion; while the first precipitated the organization, the latter provided the ideology to create it.
Assamese chronicles therefore very clearly named it as Matak or Moran Bidroh. According to Maheswar Neog, it is significant that even though the laity of the Mayamara Sattra was spread over the whole length of the kingdom from Sadiya to the Manas, the war of rebellion was to be spearheaded by the Morans under the command of a Moran leader, Raghava, and that the action was confined to a single line from the Mayamariya camps on the Checha river through the capital at Rangpur to the king's fugitive camp on the Chintamanigarh on another small river, Sonai, to the northwest of the capital.
The Moran revolt soon took the form of a civil war provoking various communities to participate. At the accession of the king Gaurinath Singha, it widely spread among the Kaivartas of Majuli and Jorhat living all around the Khutiyapota Satra. The Kaivartas were called in Assam as Dom and were treated with much contempt. In the caste hierarchy they were put in the lowest rank. There are references to the effect that they were put to various kinds of oppression and insult by the newly Brahmanised kings of Assam. It was reported that one of their members was killed by the king Jayadhvaj Singha, because he performed a congregation prayer at his house which he was supposed to have no right to perform according to the king. On another such occasion, a member of the same community was killed for his keeping long hair, which again his community was not supposed to do.
As we have pointed out earlier, the name Moamara was coined to ridicule the sect of Aniruddhadeva because he began his act of proselytization first with the people living on the bank of a fishing pond and killing and exchanging its fish. This attitude of the Brahmanical society attained more strength after the arrival of Krishnaram Bhattacharyya, a Brahmin from Bengal, and his Raghunandanian code. The emergence of the Brahmanical sect of Neo-Vaishnavism and the importation of the Sakta Brahman from Bengal, and their united growth under the royal patronage, proved detrimental to the subaltern communities which had experienced a lift and a relief from social suppression during the Vaishnava movement of Sankaradeva, and later within the sect of Aniruddhadeva.
It is surprising that the lift to the 'lowlies' allowed by the Mayamariya sect earned for it a low social status and social hatred. It is therefore natural that both the Kaivartas and the Mayamara Mahanta had a strong hatred towards the Brahmanical system and the state that patronized it. But they being handicapped in all aspects could not find enough scope to protest; fortunately the Moran revolt gave them that opportunity to rise in revolt. Thus we see the Kaivartas joining the Morans under their leader Hauha, who occupied the north bank and the Majuli Island, and ruled the area for a few years.
It is significant that the rebels meted out punishments to their opponents everywhere and fined the big Satras - Auniati, Dakhinpat and Garamur - in the Majuli island and Kuruwabahi on the south bank of the Brahmaputra, which got much of the royal patronage, to the tune of Rs. 8,000.00 from each of Auniati and Dakhinpat, and Rs. 4,000.00 from Garamur and Kuruwabahi. The development in the north bank and the Majuli Island shows that there was a strong Kaivarta element too in the total fabric of the Mayamariya Revolt.
The significance of the Moamariya Revolt perhaps does not end here. As we have pointed out earlier, the term Matek was created to form an integrated socio-religious community into which were brought a few ethnic elements other than the Moran and the Kaivartas. These included the Chutiyas and the Ahoms in the main. While the Ahoms maintained their state, the Chutiya state was occupied by the Ahom giving the Chutiya princes a simple zamindary status within the Ahom state itself. Assamese chronicles maintain how the Chutiyas continued to revolt against the Ahoms for more than a century for the recovery of their state.
It is significant that immediately after the creation of an autonomous territory for the Mataks in Tinsukia in Upper Assam, Sarbananda Singha, its ruler, declared himself to be a Chutiya by clan (Buruk branch of the Chutiyas). The concern for establishment of an ethnic identity immediately after assumption of political power is not without significance. It is interesting that the Matak alias Mayamara community maintains within itself distinct ethnic identity for each of its social factions.
Thus, there are Ahom Matak, Chutiya Matak, Kalita Matak, Moran Matak, Kaivarta Matak and so forth. The assertion of the Chutiya identity on the part of Sarbananda Singha can thus be seen as having a link with the Chutiya revolt after they had lost their state to the Ahoms. That this is not altogether baseless can be presumed from the fact that immediately after assumption of his power and establishment of an identity as a Chutiya, the Morans, who in fact created the revolt, became sidelined, and concentrated within the jungles far away from the capital at Tinsukia. This has been noted by Sristidhar Dutta in his The Mataks and Their Kingdom.
It is due to this reason that there remained space enough for a second phase of the Moran revolt seeking a separate territorial jurisdiction and an ethnic identity, which are still marking the socio-political condition of this part of the country. Hiren Gohain, a noted social scientist from Assam, has
therefore stated that the element of ethnicity cannot be ignored in evaluating the Moamariya revolt, or
can it be treated as a classical example of class struggle. Even Amalendu Guha, who has examined the nature of the revolt on a Marxist line, and emphasized economic reasons, at its background, has noted the predominance of the Kaivartas and the Morans within the Mayamara community, and the tribal character of their socio-economic structure that was under suppression from the state.
The Moamariya Revolt is a very significant event of 18th century Assam. It marked the beginning of an attack on what was typically medieval, and ended with the assertion of ethnic constituents of its society to political power and social right against a system of oppressive religious and political power. It was this trend in the assertion of identity and acquisition of political power that formed the basis of the history of 20th century Assamese society. The interesting aspect of this significant development was that the ideology at its backdrop was provided by a sectarian belief, perhaps like that provided by Sikhism in the growth of the Sikh struggle against the Mughal authority1, and its organization by an ethno-sectarian community.
1
S. K. Bhuyan writes: "The transformation of the Moamariyas into a military body has its parallel, though in a much larger scale, in that of the Sikhs who contributed to the subversion of Mughal authority in India. In both cases the fighting element in their sectarial organizations was introduced as a result of the clash of the Gurus with the Government of the land." Cf. Bhuyan, ed., Tungkhungiya Buranji, pp. 256f.
References:-
1 Maheswar Neog, Socio-Political Events in Assam Leading to the Militancy of the Mayamariya Vaisnavas, Calcutta, 1982.
2 Shri Shri Aniruddhadeva Charitra aru Mayamara Gosain Sakalar Vamsavali by Chidananda Das, Chabua, 1933.
3 Maheswar Neog, Sankaradeva and His Times: Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Assam, Gauhati, 1965.
4 Sristidhar Dutta, The Mataks and Their Kingdom, Allahabad, 1985.
5 S. F. Hannay, "A Short Account of the Moamarah Sect and the Country occupied by the Bur Senaputee," Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, No. 80, August 1838, Vol. VII, Part II.
6 Edward Albert Gait, A History of Assam, 2nd ed., reprint, Gauhati, 1981.
7 S. K. Bhuyan, ed., Tungkhungiya Buranji, 2nd ed., Guwahati, 1963.
THE MORANS AND THEIR TRADITIONAL HOUSE
- N.Shakmacha Singh
The Moran House with traditional Bhoral Gar (on left) located outside the Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya Museum in their outside exihibition area in Bhopal, India
The Morans are mostly found in the Dibrugarh and Tinsukia Districts of Assam. Larger concentration of this population exists in the eastern extremity of the Tinisukia district, and those inhibiting in this region are traditionally known as Morans of the Samarpith. We often find that Moran-Matak as a single nomenclature is simultaneously used and sometimes they are also called the Mayamaria or Moamaria. This creates a some kind of confusion to the people who visit them. It seems sometimes that Moran and Mottok are synonymous to one another. This juxtaposition, however, is confusing, but provides some interesting aspects of their socio-cultural and historical blending of their ancestral past. Prior to 1251 A.D., the region between the Brahmaputra and the Burhi Dihing in Dibrugarh district, was called Matak country and was ruled by Bor Senapati. (Sipra Sen 1999:154). Matak is a politically organised, greater community formed by several groups of tribal and folk communities who belonged to a Mayamaria/ Moamaria sect of Vaishnav religion.
According to S. Dutta (1985:20), Moran is a tribe, Moamaria or Mayamaria is a sect whose followers are called Maomarias or Mayamarias and Matak is a community which includes all the disciples of Mayamaria Satra belonging to different castes, tribes and professional groups. The Morans constitute one of the very old ethnic groups and on the basis of their racial and linguistic affinities, they are ascribed Bodo origin. The Morans of Samarpith area identify themselves as the people who devote their life with the domestication of elephants. According to a native of Ubon villager Sri. Dilip Moran, "elephant is our cultural property and we have been living together since time immemorial. Our ancestors came to this land with elephants".
Well trained in the catching of wild elephants, people also refer them as the true friend of this beautiful animal. Several years of co-existence between the Morans and elephants have emerged into a position, that the elephants, now find an important place in socio-cultural, religious and economic life of the Moran people. Although, Morans are the elephant catchers, trainers and care takers, but the tradition keeping elephants, merely not as an animal but as a family member makes this tribal group unique. The Morans live in close conjunction with the elephant territory. However, they never violate the territorial respect, rather they believe in harmonious co-existence. Their love and affection to the elephant is well reflected in their culture too. According to a Moran folk saying, elephants are complemented to be one of the dearest member of the family. It is said that,"Atikoi Senehor nati, tatootkoi Senehor hati"which means that 'Grandson is dear to the grandparents but elephants are the dearest'. The elephants are not merely a property of pride and honour among the the Morans but they become their cultural symbol and identity. Most of the folk sayings, idioms and riddles used in the social life of the Morans are complemented to the elephants. They have a wealth of traditional wisdom which they apply in reading the mind of an elephant. They have good knowledge of elephant behavior. In some instances, the Moran celebrate Hati Bihu in honour of their elephants.
Moran people were expert in catching and training elephants, the Ahom elephantry was practically monopolised by them. Because they were brave warriours, they also contributed a major share to the man-power of the Ahom Army. Thus the service of the Morans was of great help in the expansion and consolidation of the Ahom power in Assam (S.Dutta 1985).
Traditional Moran houses are very few in existence. Even in the Samarpith belt, where larger concentration of the Moran tribe is available, only three traditional houses are found existing. Among these houses, the one which is located at Ritukothalguri village is the oldest and aged about half a century old. Now-a-days, Moran villages and their settlement patterns had undergone a great deal of changes. It is difficult to distinguish them from other communities at an instance. Apart from these changes, they had retained and continue to use some of the basic structures like Bhoral ghar (granary), Randhoni ghar (the place of Randhon-cooking members of the house), Sora Ghar (a place of the household head). This traditional spaces are more or less existed in an innovated forms but the elements of culture and tradition are still in practice. Morans live in a joint family. Father or elderly male member being the head of the house is obeyed by all the members of the family. No separate hearth is allowed to use in the family unless a new establishment of the married son is allowed to set up.
Moran settlement are found often in close proximity of the jungle and those inhabiting in the Samarpith area are surrounded by a thick natural forest cover to the east extending Myanmar and Arunachal Pradesh. According to the Morans, this is the home to a large number of wild elephants.Fenced with uniformly weaved bamboo fencing, Moran settlement at present gives a clear demarcation of family and individual landholdings. Apart from the common house, Moran habitat also consisted of Bhoral ghar, Guhali ghar, Tantor hali and Hahor goral. Traditionally, Moran house is constructed in a rectangular ground plan with an extension of Kitchen as another segment of the house followed by rooms for the family members. The house is constructed with bamboo as wall structures and roofing frames, Jengu/ Toko Pat as thatching leaves, Komor Khuta, Pasor Khuta, Soti etc. as wooden pillars, post and beams. Huge wooden pillars and beams called Komor Khuta and Soti are used in the interior super built up structure to support the entire house. The appropriate use of Komor khuta (huge wooden pilllar) rested horizontally with Soti (wooden beams) presents a magnificent look of the house from interior and these massive wooden structures symbolically represents the power and strength of an elephant and believed to withstand from any kind of untoward incidence of natural, man and spiritual forces. Their traditional house has a reserved place in the front the front varendah called Arula. This space is used especially for keeping the belongings of their elephants.
The Moran house has three rooms arrayed with bamboo wall partitions. The front hall called Sora ghar is regarded as the most important part of the house. This common room has a fire place called Jui Hali, and surrounding of which is a meeting place. The space adjoining to the main Khuta (pillar), is the place for the household head. According to the Moran tradition, Jui Hali (fire place) should remain litted all the time through out the year, be it winter, summer or rainy season. It is the place where every important decision of the family is taken. Morans are very hospitable, and those who visit them are given warm welcome. The guests have to take their seat in the Sora Ghar, where various items of food, tea and fresh Tamul-\pan etc are offered to entertain them. Hanging platforms are used above the Jui Hali to preserve food items and also for stacking items of household use. Dhenki (husking lever) for pounding grains are generally installed or kept in this room.
The main entrance door of the house lies at left side of the front wall and this serves as a corridor which is unidirectional with another door passing to other rooms like Huwa ghar. Side door called Pet Duwar lies at the left side wall. It is used by the family members especially the women when respectable persons are present in the Sora Ghar. Adjoining to the Sora Ghar is the Huwa Ghar (Bed rooms) and sometimes extended with partitions depending upon the number married Sons and family members.
The last room of the extension called Randhoni Ghar or Pak Ghor (Kitchen). Randhoni is a title associated
with the female member of the family who hold the responsibility of cooking. The one who prepares meal for the day becomes Randhoni of the day. Randhoni alone for the day, holds the complete responsibility for managing, preparing, serving of food for the family and any guests who visit them. She takes utmost care in satisfying all those, who seat to taste the Meal prepared by the Randhoni. Meals are generally served at Randhoni Ghar. It is arranged in a fashion that, members can easily take their seat in a descending order, depending upon the age groups. Unless, all the members complete their meal, it is a tradition that one should bear in mind to avoid untimely lifting up of their hands from the dish/ plate as a mark of respect. When all the members take their meal, the Randhoni sprinkles some water and rub on the floor preparing a circular pattern. This traditionally marks the completion of Meal.
Bhoral Ghar (Granary)
The Bhoral Ghar (granary), that lies in the courtyard is apparently more interesting. The Bhoral structure is unique, and raised upon nine pieces of wooden log that are arrayed in rows. These logs are called Lotikai that sometimes are very huge ranging from 3 to 5 ft in diameter. Use of Lotikais in the Bhoral structure, is meant, not only to provide firm support to the entire structure, but also to present the underlying idea of their socio-cultural and economic relation with their elephants. It is said that in the olden days, rich people among the Moran used to construct as many as Bhoral ghar, some of which, they construct in the name of their elephants. They do not consume grains from those granaries which are dedicated for their elephants. They rather spend it for the care of their elephants. Bhoral Ghar has four side-walls covered with tightly weaved bamboo matted structure. This raised structure is constructed in a manner that it looks proportionate with the size of logs they use. Roof structure is two-sided and thatched with locally available leaves called Tokou pat/ or Jengu Pat. It is generally believed that the grains should be stuffed inside the Bhoral ghar in such a way that it virtually represents a fully eaten and pot-bellied elephant sitting in the yard. The side walls of the granary are used for keeping and hanging agricultural implements, fishing tools and sometimes large size ropes for elephants.
There are three other essential structures generally used in every Moran family. These are;
1. Guhali Ghor (Cow shed)
2. Tantorhali (Weaving shed)
3. Hahor Ghoral (Duck enclosure)
The position of the Guhali Ghor is generally in south direction to the Sora Ghor. It is a simple shed without any wall structures. Guhali ghor is used as cow shed for keeping domesticated Cows and Bulls. Tantorhali is a separate shed prepared in a convenient place keeping looms and other weaving materials. Female members of the family weaves clothes in this shed. The position of the Hahor Ghoral is generally in west direction to the Sora Ghor. Hahor Goral is circular bamboo enclosure raised and shortened to the top. It is used for keeping Duck, Goose etc.
Remembering the past, Sri. Tarun Madhav Moran narrates, "two and half decades from now, there were 15 to 20 Elephants in every Moran villages. The surrounding of Moran inhabiting areas were abundant with large vegetation and thick forests. Those days every family of the Moran were capable of constructing the unique traditional house of this kind. But with the passage of time, the Morans gradually became unable to support their elephants as the forests and grassland got reduced with the intervention of human activities of felling trees and destroying the jungles. Middle class families among the Morans used to engaged their elephants for transporting these logs from one place to another and one could earn handsome money and could afford to feed their elephants. Now-a-days, they are unable to keep an elephants. Keeping elephant in a Moran family was not only the matter of pride and prestige, but also a symbol of identity among us".
It seems that the traditional design and structure of Moran house is not only determined by the environmental conditions alone but also have a great influence of culturally defined elements, that gives a clear picture of their age-old co-existence and harmonious relation with the elephants. A team of IGRMS conducted extensive field visit to the Moran villages in Tinisukia district of Assam.
An attempt have been made to collect and transport the material cutural items of the tribe together with traditional housing materials from the villages. Museum have been successful in adding traditional Moran house in its open air complex. It was in the month of April and May 2010, a team of Moran people from the villages of the Tinsukia district of Assam were invited by the museum. They had constructed their house and exhibited many items of their cultural belongings. The Moran house as an exhibit is ready and open for the visitors.
References:
1. Dutta. S. (1985), the Mataks and their Kingdom; Castes and Tribes of Assam, Chugh publication, Allahabad
2. Sen Sipra (1999), Tribes and Castes of Assam; Anthropology and Sociology, Gyan Publishing House, Delhi
3. Mahapatra Sitakant & Patnaik Nityananda (1986), Patterns of Tribal Housing, Academy of Tribal Dialect and Culture, Orissa.
Return to Introduction > 