What have compounded the complexity of Bishnupriya Manipuri Orthography? Compound tenses — ill-considered view on compound tenses, to be precise. It’s as simple as that. Simple tenses, as their names suggest, are plain. Plainly, present and past indefinite tenses are simple tenses in English. In English a simple tense form of a verb is a single word augmented by affixes and words. All the future tenses and all tenses in past and present tenses, barring their indefinite ones, in English are compound tenses. A compound tense form of a verb has several words, and at least one of them is an auxiliary. Thus, all perfect and all progressive (continuous) tenses in English are compound tenses.
Going by this rule, future indefinite is also a compound tense as it has modal auxiliaries ‘will’ and ‘shall’ apart from the main verb. Though passive forms of present and past indefinite tenses have auxiliaries and the main verbs in their past participle forms, they aren’t considered compound tenses. This is because passive forms aren’t separate tenses. Likewise, interrogative and negative forms of present and past indefinite tenses also fulfill the conditions that a compound tense has. Like any other compound tenses, interrogative and negative sentences of present and past indefinite tenses do have auxiliary verbs as well as the main verbs. However, they are not separate tenses.
In Bishnupriya Manipuri and its sister languages, all continuous tenses, perfect tenses and perfect continuous tenses are compound tenses. Dr. Smriti Kumar Sinha had to study the entire episode right from the scratch to get deep into the crux of the orthographic problem. And he has come out with the logical conclusion to the dispute over Bishnupriya Manipuri verbs in coumpound tenses. One can solve the crux of the problem just by disintegrating the‘conjugated verb’, say ‘অছু, অছিলু’ into their invidual components (morphemes) [অছু= √অ+ইয়া+ √আছ্+উ; অছিলু= √অ+ইয়া+ √আছ্+ইল্+উ]. It’s glaring that the components of each of these two ‘conjugated verbs’ has two roots – √অ and √আছ্. The suffix ইয়া renders the root √অ infinite to make a stem to pave the way for conjugation, for two roots don’t combine directly while conjugating. The conjugated verb is অছু. This is the rule being followed in Assamese and Bengali as well, both sister languages of Bishnupriya Manipuri. In Sylheti Bengali disintegration of the ‘conjugated verb’ অইছি yields [অইছি= √অ+ইয়া+ √আছ্+ই]. The disintegration of the ‘conjugated verbs’ অছু and অইছি makes it crystal clear that, barring the markers উ in Bishnupriya Manipuri and ই in Sylheti Bengali, the two sets of components are one-to-one matching. This is the fact of life, and the facts speak for themselves. There has been a long-drawn-out debate on this issue in the community, even as KP Sinha made enough attempts to solve it. The oeuvre of the Indologist on the Bishnupriya Manipuri language has inputs more than enough to solve this orthographic problem.
The problem, however, keeps on lingering as the other side, knowingly or unknowingly, is not ready to buy his arguments. It has long been a deadlock. Ever since KP Sinha passed away, the community has been in the need of a serious academic work on orthography to put an end to the debate, for once and for all. The community is fortunate to get an academician in Dr. Smriti Kumar Sinha. He had to study the entire episode right from the scratch to get deep into the crux of the problem. And he has come out with the logical conclusion to the dispute over Bishnupriya Manipuri verbs in coumpound tenses, among other disputed issues. However, his academic research has found that a number of orthographic rules putting forward by the scholars who are allegiant to the Bishnupriya Manipuri Sahitya Parishad are also just. We are prepared to adopt those just decisions of the Parishad with an open mind.
He did well in his last article “Bishnupriya Manipuri Bananor Neeti Baro Rajneeti“ on orthography in Kaliprasad Darshan Vol. 2 and has done one better with his article “Bishnupriya Manipuri Banaan“ in volume 4.
Having reached such a logical end in orthography, we hope that the dynamic leadership of the NBMM and the skill set of seasoned BMSS leadership will bridge the orthographic gulp, so will the writers.
Bridge-building amongst the Bishnupriya Manipuris who burn the midnight oil could have been quite an easy task had the rival parties really wanted to sink their differences. It has been virtually an impossible task over the years since the parties concerned have been trying to break each other’s adamantine ego. Trying to break adamantine egos, as often as not, proves to be a futile exercise. It is about time for each of the parties involved in the logjam stopped following the path that proved futile. Adamantine egos, if not anything else, are susceptible to melting. A glimmer of hope! This job is treading a tricky path with the hope that the truth will out someday. Kaliprasad Darshan is fully aware of the fact that there are many who say fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
From this long-drawn-out episode each of the rival parties might have learnt a lesson that they have been engaged in some sort of shadow boxing over the years. When all the rival parties only want to see their language and literature prosper and thrive, the existing differences between them cannot linger long if they try their level best to woo each other so as to establish what they think right and just.
Time is a great healer. Even though the rival parties are yet to sink their differences on the origin of the Bishnupriya Manipuri language and its orthography the gulf has almost been bridged with the passage of time. The difference on the origin of the Bishnupriya Manipuri language is not a difference at all and what is left seems to be mere formality – the endorsement. Aside from what KP Sinha said, the Assam OBC Commission is also on record saying ‘…the Mayangs or Bishnupriyas in Manipur spoke different form of dialects of late middle Indo-Aryans or Apabhramsa in which Eastern Magadhi was predominant’. In fact, the OBC Commission has no difference with Dr. K P Sinha in so far as the origin, the way and the time of formation of the Bishnupriya Manipuri language is concerned. This, in all likelihood, is because the statement submitted by KP Sinha to the OBC Commission, Assam suited the Commission down to the ground. Since the order of the Commission has been upheld by the Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court of India it is beyond doubt that the judiciary of India has no difference with KP Sinha on the issue of the origin of the Bishnupriya Manipuri language. However, none of those who do not accept the Magadhi origin theory of the Bishnupriya Manipuri language has registered their protest before the OBC Commission, the Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court of India on their opinion on the origin of the Bishnupriya Manipuri language. Their silence on this issue bears testimony to the fact that they ‘accept’ the Magadhi origin theory of their mother tongue when its identity is at stake. This silence on their part also bears testimony to their love for their language and literature. Kaliprasad Darshan would like to say hats off to them for their silence and not being a spoilsport.
In his write-up in the first issue of Kaliprasad Darshan Tezpur University (TU) professor Smriti Kumar Sinha made it quite simpler even for a layman to understand the mismatch of the timescale when ‘Khashtriyas and Brahmins’ who reportedly accompanied Babhrubahana on his way back home (Manipur) from Hastinapur and the period of prakrits in no uncertain terms. In fact, this is one of the major points with which KP Sinha rejected the theory supporting the Sauraseni origin of the Bishnupriya Manipuri language. Though the essay of the TU professor has been contradicted, its essence – Magadhi origin of the language – has not been proved wrong.
In order to solve this vexed problem all the parties involved should respect some points of reference that have been considered ‘established facts’ even though some have ‘serious reservations’ about them. By ‘established facts’ Kaliprasad Darshan precisely means the OBC Commission, the Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court of India agreeing to KP Sinha’s findings on the Bishnupriya Manipuri language. This is an endorsement from the judiciary of this land apart the one from the linguistic world. Things would have been different had those who are still sceptical of KP Sinha’s findings on this language could convince the linguistic world, the OBC Commission, Assam, the Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court of India. They still fall far short of proving the veracity of their theory – Sauraseni origin of the Bishnupriya Manipuri language – let alone convincing the judiciary. What is the rationale behind all sorts of activities to undo a lot of positive works that have been done towards the development of the Bishnupriya Manipuri language and literature just to uphold a theory that has not been established as yet? The research findings of a scholar withstand all criticism from his/her linguistic fraternity if they are based on reasons and convince authorities in diverse fields. So far, KP Sinha’s findings have convinced his linguistic fraternity, the OBC Commission, the Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court of India. This apart, these findings of the scholar have left their imprint distinctly on the statement of the legal authorities of this country when they say that ‘Bishnupriya’ is also a Manipuri language and the ‘Bishnupriyas’ are also Manipuris in consonance with what KP Sinha’s monographs say. The order of the OBC Commission, Assam bears testimony to this fact.
This is the acceptable position on this issue as of now. We have put an end to the dispute over the term ‘Manipuri’ mostly at the strength of KP Sinha’s monographs (see the discussion on OBC Commissioner’s order in the article ‘Want to Paint a KP Portrait? Just Say No to the Broad Brush’) and strongly backed by other points of reference. However, when it comes to orthography, why do not we all do as what a Magadhi-origin language ought to do? Languages are like living things. They keep on changing, but the rationale mortal beings accept what is proven right and just and not what is likely to be proved right and just some decades or centuries later. When this writer was a school student it was right and just for him that ‘the sun has nine planets’. Now with scientific research discovering the fact that ‘the sun has eight planets, not nine’ the new science textbooks of school have shown eight planets of the sun, and there is no reason for any ruckus on this issue. This has been accepted because the scientist who has discovered the fact that the sun has actually eight planets has been able to convince his professional fraternity spread all over the world. Researchers should engage themselves in research so as to establish the veracity of their theories instead of campaign to sell their yet-to-be established theories. The bottom line is that one should establish a theory first and then sell it, and never sell the theory before establishing it. The established theory right now is the one given by KP Sinha.
Src : Editorial, Kaliprasad Darshan Vol. 2 & Vol. 4