Gurumayum Deepika
Gurumayum
Deepika currently teaches in the Department of English, GP Women’s College,
Imphal as an Assistant Professor. Her areas of interest include Women’s
Writing, New Feminisms, Northeast Literatures, and Translation Studies.
Abstract
Starting from Nupi Lan (Women’s War) in
1904, women have been forerunners of social movements against oppressive
regimes in Manipur. In comparison to North Indian Hindu societies, Meitei
women has been perceived as having relatively more freedom, and are often seen
at par with men socially, culturally, politically and economically. However,
their lived realities tell a different story. In this context, the paper would
attempt a critique of the narrative of the Nupi Keithel, the women
only market of Manipur, as a symbol of economic freedom of its women. An
alternative reading finds the space as one where patriarchal gender norms and
social hierarchies are prevalent, rather than being an exclusive space for Manipuri
women as endorsed by popular narratives. This concept of gendered spaces is
found adequately represented in many of the literary works by women writers
from Manipur, of which two short fictions by Nee Devi are examined here. Nee
Devi’s writings focus on the representation of trauma and hardships faced by
marginalized women in Manipur. Women’s sexuality and critiques of traditional
morality, themes rarely discussed earlier in Manipuri literature, also find
expression in her works.
Keywords: Nee Devi, Manipuri Women’s Writing, Meitei, Nupi
Keithel, Gendered Space
Introduction
“Shiba Ngamdaduna Hinglibashingda”1—
the dedication to Nee Devi’s latest anthology of short stories in Manipuri
reads “for those who are living only because they are unable to die” (Devi). When
her first work Kadaidano (novel) was published in 1987, Nee Devi
was barely twenty. Her other published works include the novel Cheithengfam
(1988), a poetry volume Chakngai Warisida (1995), and two anthologies of
short stories Shollaba Maree (2002) and Lei Manaa Amatang (2009).
Women’s writing in Manipur emerged very late owing to
their late access to formal education which came only in 1935 (Nahakpam 24).
Though there are a few women who wrote in journals as early as 1931, the year
1965 is “popularly regarded as the emerging point for women writers” in Manipur
with the publication of Thoibi Devi’s novel Radha, and Binodini’s
anthology of short stories, Nunggairakta Chandramukhi (27). Khaidem
Pramodini along with Thoibi and Binodini, belong to the first generation of
women writers in Manipur (24). While the “pioneers” (24) veered towards the
search for the ideal woman, it was the “second generation” (30) of women
writers who first began to explore the image of the new, educated, middle-class
women “negotiating with the boundaries of traditional patriarchal society….”
(31). Different from the conservative trends observed in the preceding
generations, the “third generation” (38) writers became more vocal about issues
such as women’s rights and gender equality:
Raising their voices against restrictive and
gender-biased customs, they began to explore new ideas such as women’s rights,
equality between genders, and so on. . .. along with related social norms— such
as the loss of women’s individuality within a marital bond, the sexuality of
women, and the relationships of transgender/non-binary individuals. (Nahakpam
40)
Nee Devi belongs to the “third generation” (Nahakpam
38) of Manipuri women writers who identify with a “new awareness of women’s
condition in Manipuri society and the attempt to delineate a new place for
women outside the subjugation of patriarchal, traditional and religious moulds”
(38) while reflecting these new sensibilities in their writings. This paper
attempts to examine the literary representations of women in Nee Devi’s short
stories through the concept of gendered spaces. In this context, a theorization
on Manipur’s famous women’s market, the Nupi Keithel2, becomes
pertinent.
Gendered Space and Nupi Keithel
From the 1904 British attempt to reintroduce a system
of forced labour, women have been forerunners of social movements against
oppressive regimes in Manipur. Following another upheaval in 1939 which was
also led by women, the two uprisings came to be known as the 1st
Nupi Lan and the 2nd Nupi Lan, respectively. A more recent
development could be observed in the significant role played by Meitei
women between 1972 and 1980 in the form of the Nisabandh or
prohibitionists, which gradually evolved into the present day Meira Paibi
movement (Kshetri 29). In comparison with women in North Indian Brahmanical
societies, Meitei3 women have thus been perceived as having
relatively more freedom, oftentimes at par with men—socially, culturally,
politically, and economically.
The centrality of patriarchal values and strict
conformity to the patriarchal codes— “the Leimarel code4 and the
Emoinu code5,” (Chungkham 34) ensnared with the remnants of a
powerful ancient matriarchy (Arambam 11), and a still evolving aftermath of the
seventeenth century Sanskritization, however results in a paradox which is
complex and multi-layered. A closer observation thus points to lived realities
that reveal contradictions and paradoxes, thereby necessitating a re-reading of
the popular and culturally-endorsed narratives about women in a patriarchal Meitei
society, and a critique of simplified and simplistic understanding of cultural
symbols such as the Nupi Keithel (Women’s Market).
The concept of space as not-so-neutral but rather
highly gendered is central to understanding the power dynamics that operate
within all patriarchal systems. For instance, the division of space as polis
and oikos in ancient Greece with the former accorded to men and the
latter to women, clearly delineates one space as belonging to a particular
gender. In her book Space, Place, and Gender
(1994), Doreen Massey
foregrounds this politics of gendered spaces:
From the symbolic meaning of spaces/places and the clearly
gendered messages which they transmit, to straightforward exclusion by
violence, spaces and places are not only themselves gendered but, in their
being so, they both reflect and affect the ways in which gender is constructed
and understood. (179)
Thus, Massey reinforces the importance given
to not only what Lefebvre termed the “‘geometry’ of space but also its lived
practices and the symbolic meaning” (Massey, Politics 251). In the Indian
context, the discourse on space has conformed to a similar paradigm where
public and private spaces are problematically identified with male and female
genders respectively. Therefore, it becomes important to look at spaces as more
than just locational concepts. As McFadden emphasizes, “space is gendered and
highly politicised” (McFadden):
certain spaces have been culturally, religiously and
politically marked as either ‘male’ or ‘female,’…. The spaces we refer to as
public are assumed to be male, and for centuries men have excluded women from
the public where all the key decisions relating to power are deliberated and
implemented. (McFadden)
The Nupi Keithel is known all over the world as
being the only market in the world run entirely by women, and has often been
seen as a symbol of the economic freedom enjoyed by Meitei women. In
other words, Manipur’s Nupi Keithel is a unique manifestation of a
gender dynamic that departs from traditional gender norms practiced in other
Indian societies as women have access to the public space, enjoy mobility and
visibility, and are active participants in trading and commercial activities. The
market came into existence around the 16th Century as a consequence
of the Lallup system, a form of forced military service under the
monarchy (Kshetri 25). According to this system, adult males had to be in
service for ten out of every forty days. Therefore, in the absence of the men,
women had to take charge of their homes and economic affairs (25).
An attempt to comprehend the underlying politics of
the space leads to new questions that challenges this narrative of economic
freedom of Meitei women. The contestations range from administrative
control to the presence of class and ethnic hierarchies among the women. Though
Nupi Keithel has only women vendors, it cannot be claimed to be
independently operated by them since its administration (including the
licensing system) involves the Imphal Municipal Corporation, which keeps its
functioning far from being managed entirely by women. Additionally, an
understanding that the Nupi Keithel originated out of necessity in the
absence of men which compelled women to step out of their homes to earn a
livelihood, and not as a manifestation of an equal society, also undo this myth
of ‘freedom.’ As Kshetri comments, “economic necessity forced them to come out
from home with their products for sale in the small market of their
localities…. these markets developed into women’s market in every nook and
corner of Manipur valley” (25). The myth6 associated with the origin
of the market—of women as mediums to bring peace and a common culture, is also
problematic as pointed out by critics: “Women’s role is very much specified as
a carrier of culture and peacemaker, again a patriarchal construct where woman
has no power over herself. . .. The power and control are still manipulated by
the male authority” (Chungkham 36). Moreover, a recent observation has been the
presence of male vendors in this ‘female’ space that has led to a dilution of
the traditional definition of the Nupi Keithel (Manipur Govt Bans Male Vendors). This visible presence of males in the ‘female’
space, combined with its invisibility in the form of dominant patriarchal
norms, along with historical and cultural connotations, are instrumental in the
creation of the gendered politics of the Nupi Keithel, making it a space
which does not function entirely outside patriarchal bounds.
A more challenging issue with regard to the Nupi
Keithel, the symbol of economic ‘freedom’ of Manipuri women, is that of the
homogenization of women belonging to different communities and ethnicities
within this space by looking at them from a majoritarian lens. The practice of
stalls being passed down from mothers-in-law to daughters-in-law could perhaps
be a reason for the space being dominated mostly by middle class Meitei
women who hold the license. Thus, despite being identified as a collective
female space, the fissures within and their ensuing politics cannot be ignored.
The women in the Nupi Keithel are divided along lines of class evident
from the division among the women themselves as licensed vendors who are
allotted a seat inside the building of the market, and unlicensed street
vendors who do not enjoy the privileges of ‘informal inheritance.’ There have
time and again been protests demanding an equal space which is denied to them,
ironically by women (Roadside Vendors Associations). Soyam Lokendrajit’s critique7 of the
conflation of visibility in public spaces with freedom is relevant here:
The proposition that women enjoy economic freedom in a
society that itself does not have economic freedom defies the logic of social
sciences. Toiling to make ends meet and yet silenced in the name of
tradition—it is exploitation of the highest order that only looks like freedom.
(54)
Based on the above premises, it would indeed be naive
to see the Nupi Keithel as an exclusive female space and a symbol of
economic freedom of Manipuri women. The divisions among the women themselves
lead to a hierarchy which is not so openly acknowledged. The market has
licensed women vendors occupying their spaces, but there are also unlicensed
women vendors who are deprived of access to these spaces, ironically by other
women. In addition, there are street women whose presence in the further
margins of the Nupi Keithel are omitted, and are excluded entirely from
this ‘female’ space. These women are among the most vulnerable sections in a
society deeply entrenched in patriarchal codes, and are more than doubly
marginalized. While many are forced to enter sex work, others resort to hawking
cheap items on the roadside. There are women who become part of the Nupi
Keithel, such as the madwoman Indrani, as well as those who stand in its
margins like Leibaaklei, both protagonists in Nee Devi’s works.
Nupi Keithel in Nee Devi’s Short
Stories
Nee Devi’s writings explore realistic
representations of women in the Meitei society and their silent sufferings. She
depicts the struggles of women, particularly those of socially ostracized and
marginalized women— the discarded women, widows, madwomen, and women disowned
by their families. Her works poignantly capture the
trauma, difficulties and hardships faced by women in a conservative Meitei
society. Nee Devi’s short
fictions also question patriarchal society’s association of traditional
morality and honour solely with women. More importantly, her writings boldly
reflect on the question of women’s sexuality, a theme not often addressed in
works of Manipuri literature.
The short story “Ashibagee Macha Ashiba” [Dead
Offspring of the Dead] is part of Lei Manaa Amatang [A Petal of Flower],
a collection of fifteen short stories published in 2009, which also won
the Katha Award. It recounts
the story of Indrani, a madwoman and widow, who does odd jobs and runs errands
for the women vendors in Nupi Keithel. Unlike other madwomen, she keeps
herself tidy and does not have an unkempt appearance. While alive, her husband
had brought home a second wife which tremendously affected Indrani, and it is
his sudden death that ultimately causes her madness (Devi 92). Years after her
husband’s death, she reveals to the women around her that he has come back, and
expresses her happiness. They play along as she shares her stories with some
even pestering her for more details:
What all did you talk about? When did he come?
Yesterday? Or was it the day before? . . . . . But did you really talk to him?
. . . . You should’ve asked him where he was all this while. (88)
Not too
long after, news of Indrani’s pregnancy shocks everyone causing widespread
scorn and contempt for her. She is ridiculed and mocked at by those in the
market calling out to her, “Indrani, who is the lucky father?” (93). Indrani
disappears for months after this incident and it is only towards the end that
she reappears, dishevelled and completely devastated. As she tells everyone,
her child was stillborn and “they flung it into the river, calling it dead”
(94). At the end of the short story, she walks away sobbing and talking to
herself as the women remain staring at her.
In the short story, the Nupi Keithel becomes
the site of humiliation of a woman by other women. Nee Devi raises questions of
traditional morality in relation to Indrani, the madwoman protagonist whose
husband is long dead and is chided for having sexual desires— “‘This’ madwoman
is a flirt, she’s certainly going to end up with a bastard child, god knows
which madwoman takes so much fancy to looks...!” (Devi 91). The writer goes
beyond the private to locate Indrani only in public spaces—bus parkings and
crowded market places in and around the Nupi Keithel. Though she is not
involved in any economic activities, she becomes a part of the space, spending
all her time there and running errands for the women vendors. In the short
story, society takes the liberty to assume that Indrani is devoid of sexuality
because she is a ‘madwoman’. The writer’s protest against Indrani’s humiliation
by both men and women in the middle of the Nupi Keithel is seen in her
calling them “god-like people who have never committed any wrong in their lives
and will never do so” (93).
The story therefore is the writer’s critique of a
society that fails to hold perpetrators of violence responsible while wrongly
blaming the victim. It also questions a patriarchal Meitei society that
refuses to accept women as individuals with emotions and desires, and only sees
them as sacrificing wives and mothers or the chaste widow. Nee Devi questions how women like Indrani are stripped
off of humanity and sexuality by the patriarchal society which judges women
through its skewed moral codes. The short story also highlights the glaring
presence of women as agent perpetrators of patriarchy within the space of Nupi
Keithel, undoing the narrative of an impenetrable female space. The writer
thus comments on how the physical invisibility of men in the female space does
not necessarily point to its absence. Rather, patriarchy is manifested within
the space in its presence as oppressive norms, as is evident in the case of
Indrani:
Some look at her and chant god’s name, while some spit
at her in disgust. Everyone began to distance themselves from Indrani. Nobody
sends her to run errands like before, none allowing her to come close, or
indulge in playful banter with her. (92)
Indrani is
humiliated by the women in the place which she had considered herself a part
of. The writer’s rejection of society’s different moral yardsticks for men and
women is expressed by a woman in the short story— “You dogs! Do women get
pregnant without men?!” (93), which is a powerful assertion through which the
writer questions society and more specifically, women for their complicity in
enabling the oppression of other women. She chides society for blaming only
women, while ignoring the men who victimize them, and the system that enables
such oppressions. Indrani ultimately is left out from everywhere because she is
a madwoman and ‘immoral’—she is driven away from her home and excluded from the
female space. A most poignant example of a socially marginalized woman, Indrani
disappears, victimized by patriarchal gender norms and its skewed moral codes.
She is ostracized by the market women, and the Nupi Keithel which was
earlier a space for sisterhood metamorphoses into a site of her exclusion and
ostracism.
Nee Devi depicts Indrani not just as a ‘madwoman’
but also as a woman of flesh and blood who has emotions and desires like other
women. For the society, Indrani wandering around the market is acceptable and
appropriate. She is treated with sympathy, if not love, by the women in the Nupi
Keithel, and is wholeheartedly accepted as one of their own. However, they
immediately abandon Indrani as they come to learn of her pregnancy. There are
no questions asked and no explanations sought from her. The women in the market
and society as a whole assumes that she has committed an act of transgression
by having sexual relations with a man. For them, Indrani despite her madness,
transgresses the boundary set by a patriarchal society, and is therefore to be
punished.
The writer’s scathing critique of the society arises
from the ambiguous nature of Indrani’s ‘transgression.’ Indrani thinks that it
is her dead husband who came back, and she continues to engage with him perhaps
mistakenly encouraged by the women who delighted in her stories. On the other
hand, the women turn a deaf ear to her stories and continue to do so until they
hear of her pregnancy. In the story, they make no attempt to find out the
truth, nor do they try to comfort Indrani who until recently was one of their
own. Not for once do they consider Indrani as a victim of sexual violence by a
man who took advantage of her condition and made her believe that he was her
dead husband. There is no anger directed at the man who “came only when it’s
dark” (88) and he is left untouched—it is the madwoman who bears the brunt of
traditional morality codes, leading to her repeated victimization.
Nee Devi in this short story deconstructs the
idealised representation of the Nupi Keithel in popular narratives as
symbolic of women’s economic freedom in Manipur through her depiction of
Indrani’s social ostracism and humiliation within the ‘female’ space. Besides
the representation of women vendors as active participants in trade and
commerce and the Nupi Keithel as a space representative of the
empowerment of Manipuri women, Nee Devi in locating a madwoman in the centre of
the Nupi Keithel and her narrative questions the existing narrative.
Subsequently, it is in Indrani’s humiliation that Nee Devi highlights the
prevalent gender norms of the Meitei society which is represented in the
microcosm of the Nupi Keithel. The writer in the short story thus
highlights the undercurrent of the politics—of gender, class, and traditional
morality, of the cultural monolith that Nupi Keithel is.
In other works, Nee Devi’s female protagonists
confront patriarchal scrutiny in their quest of a livelihood and forage beyond
the ideal, submissive woman. As she explains, her characters are not restricted
to portraying the ‘ideal’ women (Devi 292). It is perhaps in line with this
that many of her female characters exhibit grit and challenge of the oppressive
norms of a deeply unequal society.
Nee Devi’s short fiction “Leibaaklei” is from her
anthology of short stories Shollaba Maree [Frail Relations] which was
first published in 2002. It tells the story of a woman Leibaaklei who struggles
to make ends meet for her family of five, while also facing her husband’s
taunts about her ways of earning. Leibaaklei collects leftover rice from rice
mills and also goes around collecting food waste from the locality to feed
their pig. She goes to the market to earn a livelihood, and takes care of all
household chores alone. Her bedridden husband continues to judge her even as
she alone suffers to run the house. Leibaaklei unlike other Meitei women
does not even go to her parents’ home to celebrate the annual festival of Ningol
Chakouba8, as her only resolve is to earn money to feed her
family. As she stands in front of the movie theatre selling tickets, the police
suddenly appear and she along with some other women are taken away to the
police station.
In this short story, the character Leibaaklei is someone
whom society labels as a kaalaa bazar toubi— a derogatory and demeaning
term for women hawkers who stand on the busy streets, a “fallen” woman. Women
like her exist in the margins with no designated place within the previously
discussed female space. With no help from her husband who is rendered disabled,
she does odd jobs and singlehandedly runs a household of five. She goes to the
market to earn a livelihood and resells cinema tickets in an effort to make
ends meet. Though he in no way contributes to the household, her husband Lukhoi
is quick to judge Leibaaklei for what he and the society sees as not so
respectable a means of earning a livelihood— “From the day Leibaaklei stood on
the roadside to sell movie tickets, all her efforts became sinful indulgence in
her husband’s eyes, her sweat and blood turned poisonous, and everything she
did began to be deceitful” (Nee, Leibaaklei 46). The question of honour,
and patriarchal constructs of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ women is dealt with sharp
criticism by Nee Devi in the short story.
The writer locates Leibaaklei in public spaces like
Indrani, but interestingly, Leibaaklei is not entirely part of and welcome in
the female space of the Nupi Keithel. She literally stands in the
margins, on the road— an open and vulnerable space for marginalized women like
her in a gendered, patriarchal society. Towards the end of the story, the
police take her away along with some others— “Leibaaklei was also among the
ones herded onto the police car” (48). Unlike the ostracism of Indrani from the
‘female’ space, Leibaaklei is never considered a part of that space from the
beginning. She does not own a shed with a license, nor does she attempt to make
herself a part of it. On the other hand, she stands and moves around the
margins of the Nupi Keithel trying to earn a livelihood. Leibaaklei is
not only excluded from this space, but her presence is totally omitted— it is
as if she does not exist at all.
Already excluded from the Nupi Keithel, she is
further victimized by the police action. Nee Devi reflects on the cruel
circumstances that women like Leibaaklei have to face at every juncture of
their lives. The short story highlights the plight of marginalized women
victimized by a patriarchal ideology in the public as well as the private.
Leibaaklei discards social acceptance and is no more bothered by its judgements
in her struggle to survive and feed her children. Her husband Lukhoi, on the
other hand, thinks that she ‘enjoys’ her work so much that she cannot even wait
for daybreak to set out, even going to the extent of calling it an “addiction”
(47). His disability which makes him unable to contribute anything for the
family, coupled with an “inferiority complex” (45) makes him question his
wife’s morals. He forgets that it is Leibaaklei who is the sole breadwinner and
she struggles to earn as well as take care of the house. Lukhoi’s character can
thus be read as symbolic of an ailing patriarchy, one ever to judge and preach,
while not offering any respite to the sufferings and difficulties.
Nee Devi in the short story tells the story of
Leibaaklei and her struggles for livelihood in the margins of the Nupi
Keithel. In doing so, she sheds light on a previously unseen side of the Nupi
Keithel and its politics of exclusion. Unlike the women vendors who are
part of the space of the Nupi Keithel, Leibaaklei is depicted as far
distanced from it and can only move around the margins of the Nupi Keithel.
In a sense, her exclusion from the representative ‘female’ space is a form of victimization
meted out by the women in the Nupi Keithel who judge her like her
husband. This could be ascribed to her mobility being associated with being a
morally loose woman as reinforced by ideals of traditional morality. As much as
Nee Devi critiques the women of the Nupi Keithel as upholders of
patriarchal moral and social codes, she also highlights the space as being exclusive
at more than one level— gender and class. Leibaaklei’s exclusion from the space
is enabled by the women who collectively represent the Nupi Keithel, who
follow unspoken rules of ostracism and marginalization of women like Leibaaklei
and Indrani. Thus, she is rendered vulnerable and has no place within the
‘female’ space. As in the case of Indrani, Leibaaklei’s location in relation to
the Nupi Keithel is symbolic of her position within a patriarchal Meitei
society.
Thus, we see these women who literally as well as
metaphorically stand on the margins. Both Indrani and Leibaaklei are excluded
from the ‘female’ space of the Nupi Keithel, and are subjected to
discrimination and judgement grounded on patriarchal moral codes. Their
location in and around the female space, in no way offers them any respite from
discrimination and ostracism. Nee Devi thus highlights the issue of women being
active participants in subjecting less-privileged women to discrimination and
humiliation. Through her two protagonists, she decries the patriarchal norms of
Meitei society that holds only women culpable while overlooking the role
of men as perpetrators of violence and injustices. As the writer herself says, “men
are also involved, it is not only the women who are at fault” (Devi 292). Therefore, the concept of space in a patriarchal society needs to be
understood in terms of more than just physical and geographical locations. Far
from being neutral, spaces are rather highly gendered as well as politicised in
patriarchal societies, as in the case of Manipur’s Nupi Keithel.
Conclusion
The understanding of Nupi Keithel as a site
within which complex politics of gender, class, and marginalization intersects,
rather than looking at it simplistically as a symbol of economic freedom
enjoyed by Manipuri women, is vital to a more inclusive discourse on gender in
the context of Manipur. Though a certain degree of agency and ‘freedom’ is
manifested in their mobility, access to public spaces and roles as leaders, as
well as in their abilities to make choices to some extent, it does not, in any
way, come close to a question of feminist autonomy.
Nee Devi reflects these complexities vis-à-vis women in the Meitei
society in her literary representations. Though there is no radical subversion
of patriarchal stereotypes,
her works question traditional morality and the burden it places solely on
women as its upholders. Her writings also critique the patriarchal polarization
of the ‘ideal’ woman who is shy, docile, submissive and oppressed, and the
non-conforming ‘bad’ woman. The writer recognizes the lived realities of
marginalized women in a male-dominated Meitei society, and therefore
writes about their experiences, questioning deep-rooted patriarchal values in
the process. Nee Devi in her writings builds up a feminist resistance if not outright rebellion.
Notes
1.
Nee
Devi writes in Meeteilon, the language spoken by the Meiteis of
Manipur.
2.
Nupi
Keithel is the women only
market in Manipur, probably the only of its kind all over the world. It
comprises of different buildings that sell different items ranging from clothes
to ritual offerings. It is also known as the Ima Market or Mother’s
Market.
3.
Meitei is the major community that inhabits the Manipur
valley. They are also termed as Meetei.
4.
Leimarel
is the Supreme Mother Goddess of the Meiteis. According to the creation myth of
the Meiteis, the Supreme Father wanted his son, Sanamahi, to become the king of
gods. But the ancient supreme mother goddess plotted against him and made the
younger son Pakhangba the king. As a punishment, the supreme mother goddess
had to serve as a slave/wife to Sanamahi who became
the king of the household
and was worshipped as a house god. Thus, according to
Chungkham, the Leimarel code stands for the female principle being subsumed
into the male principle and of sons dominating over the power of the Mother.
5.
Emoinu
is the Goddess of the household, and symbolizes the patriarchal moral code that
justifies and consolidates the location of the ‘good’ woman inside the house.
She is the representative figure of the ideal Meitei woman whose main role,
according to Chungkham, is that of housekeeping and motherhood. She further
likens it to Victorian codes, calling them “more moralizing than practical.”
Chungkham is of the opinion that though the object of such a moral code is
intended to nurture an ideal woman and an ideal man, its hierarchical and
patriarchal nature inevitably breeds an uncontrollable male dominance.
6.
Oral
sources tell of bloody battles between the gods and humans, or among different
clans. The goddesses were asked to sell things for both groups and to arrange a
feast. The warring groups were then made to eat a common dish, symbolically
binding them in a bond of brotherhood.
7.
Soyam
Lokendrajit’s critique is premised on the assumption that Manipur has a
dependent economy.
8.
Ningol
Chakouba is one of the
most important festivals of the Meiteis. On this day, married women
visit their parental homes for a meal and gifts are exchanged.
Works
Cited
Arambam O, Memchoubi.
“The Indigenous Meitei Women.” Quarterly Journal, edited by Ng.
Iboton, Manipur State Kala Akademi, vol. V, no. 23, Feb. 2007, pp. 1-18.
Chungkham, Sheelaramani.
“Gender Construction in the Meetei Society.” Quarterly Journal, edited
by Ng. Iboton, Manipur State Kala Akademi, vol. V, no. 23, Feb. 2007, pp.
32-44.
Devi, Nee. “Ashibagee Macha Ashiba.”
Lei Manaa Amatang. Writers’ Forum, 2009, pp. 87-95.
---. Dedication. Lei Manaa Amatang. Writers’
Forum, 2009.
---. Interview by
Thingnam Anjulika Samom. Being Carried Far Away: Poems and Stories of Women
in Assamese, Bengali, Garo, Manipuri and Mizo, edited by Shoba Venkatesh
Ghosh, Sparrow, 2009, pp. 280-293.
---. “Leibaaklei.” Shollaba Maree. 2nd
ed., Chanu Shintha, 2013, pp. 43-48.
Kshetri,
Bimala.
“The Changing Role of Manipuri Women.” Quarterly Journal, edited
by Ng. Iboton, Manipur State Kala Akademi, vol. V, no. 23, Feb. 2007, pp.
19-31.
“Manipur Govt Bans Male Vendors Near All-Women Ima
Keithel Market.” April 13 2018. The Indian Express. www.indianexpress.com/article/north-east-india/manipur/manipur-govt-bans-male-vendors-near-all-women-ima-keithel-market-5136482/.
Accessed 10 July 2020.
Massey,
Doreen. Introduction. “Space, Place and Gender.” Space, Place, and Gender.
3rd ed., U of Minnesota P, 2001, pp. 177-184.
---.
“Politics and Space/Time.” Space, Place, and Gender. 3rd ed.,
U of Minnesota P, 2001, pp. 249-272.
Why Women’s Spaces are Critical to Feminist
Autonomy.” Isis International, www.isiswomen.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=630:why-womens-spaces-are-critical-to-feminist-autonomy&catid=127&Itemid=452.
Accessed 10 January 2020.
Nahakpam,
Aruna. “The Journey of Women’s Writing in Manipuri Literature.” Crafting the
Word, edited by Thingnam Anjulika Samom, Zubaan, 2019, pp. 18-44.
Roadside Vendors
Associations. “Ima Markets Should Accommodate Evicted
Vendors.” The
Sangai Express, 25 May 2011. Manipur Online, www.manipuronline.com/edop/opinions-commentary/%E2%80%98ima-markets-should-accommodate-evicted-vendors%E2%80%99/2011/05/25.
Soyam, Lokendrajit.
“Manipurda Feminism?” Feminism in Manipuri Society. Leimarol Khorjeikol,
pp. 43-56.