Abstract
This article navigates my experience of returning copies of the “Gaidinliu notebooks” from the Pitt Rivers Museum (Oxford) to the Zeme Nagas of Assam, India. The notebooks were confiscated in 1932 by the British administrators and donated to the museum. They are from a religious movement, the Heraka, and their prophetess, Gaidinliu (1915–1993). Returning the notebooks highlighted a number of theoretical issues in approaching texts, particularly since these were written in a language that is “untranslatable.” I argue that their textuality requires one to examine the notebooks in relation to the unfolding of the kingdom (Zeme: heguangram ), using the notion of textuality (Uzendoski 2012) grounded in dreams, prophecy, songs, and visions. Second, to appreciate the value and purpose of the notebooks, one must pay attention to the sonority of sound that manifests the words of the notebooks in song. Finally, these issues point to significant ways in which we understand the relationships between history, language, and experience.
Highlights
Returning the notebooks highlighted a number of theoretical issues in approaching texts, since these were written in a language that is “untranslatable.” I argue that their textuality requires one to examine the notebooks in relation to the unfolding of the kingdom (Zeme: heguangram), using the notion of textuality (Uzendoski 2012) grounded in dreams, prophecy, songs, and visions
North Cachar Hills has recently been renamed as Dima Hasao District but Gaidinliu (1915–1993), affectionately known as Rani (Queen), who was the leader of an indigenous religious movement known as the Heraka
There was speculation that once the notebooks were made available, translated, and understood, it would usher in the heguangram, generally translated as “kingdom.” What is this kingdom? And how is one to recognize it? To examine these questions, I realized that the Gaidinliu notebooks required many layers of interpretation that included different modes of communication, and how experience plays a central role in understanding these dynamics
Summary
Recent studies have questioned the notion that orality is inferior to alphabetic literacy, or that orality gives way to the written form (Uzendoski 2012; Finnegan 2007; Ingold 2007; Gow 1990; Goody 1996). My initial conclusions were that, whatever the reasons for Gaidinliu keeping the notebooks or their efficacy in the minds of her followers, the importance of these writings is that they represent a form of “literary power” that was probably based on imitation influenced by the colonial state (Longkumer 2010: 98) The second focuses on how indigenous peoples in the highland areas of South/Southeast Asia—called Zomia (van Schendel 2002)—invoke writing as a kind of retrieval of “lost cultural property” (Scott 2009: 223) The examination of these claims provides a way to understand the larger role of writing and orality in the Zeme context and the tensions associated with what the notebooks represent. I find neither of these claims entirely convincing and appeal instead to notions of textuality in order to understand the significance and value of the untranslatable notebooks for the Zeme community
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
