Oja Tiken further stresses that the study of folk music must be cultivated independently, free from political or social constraints, to safeguard its integrity and vitality. Only when such growth reaches a stage of maturity and is embraced by most practitioners can folk music become a guiding force in shaping cultural policies and influencing governance.
By Marjing Mayanglambam
I met Oja Nameirakpam Tiken to broaden my understanding of Manipuri folk music, and he did not disappoint. A veteran musician, composer, and musicologist, Oja Tiken examines music from every angle, challenging common misconceptions about folk. What struck me most was his ability to draw on both Western theories and our own indigenous philosophies, creating a rare balance between scholarship and tradition. I could not agree more with Oja’s observation that folk music carries our identity and history, passed down through rich oral traditions rather than written records. Our conversation centred on the Pena, which Oja Tiken described as the mother and foundation of Meitei folk music. Without the Pena, he emphasised, there would be less and less well-structured folk music of the Meiteis. He was content that the tradition of Pena music continues through many dedicated enthusiasts, but he worried that the art of Khongjom Parva may not be as fortunate.
Oja Tiken notes that the various authentic folk music forms of the Meiteis have become more limited, while cultivated folk music practitioners are the ones who safeguard and preserve our folk music. The immense rise of folksy popular music has both its benefits and drawbacks. In terms of popularity, whether it has sustained fame or not, folksy pop music is top-notch, while cultivated folk music is facing a slow and steady decline. We both agreed that the thin layer between cultivated folk music and folksy pop music sometimes questions the definition of ‘Folk Music’. Another important thing is to understand the difference between traditional and folk music. Oja mentioned that these two terms are used interchangeably many times, and their meaning has been misinterpreted. Traditional songs can become folk songs, but not all folk songs are traditional songs. This echoes Bruno Nettl’s reminder that the temporal depth of a song is not the sole criterion of its folkness; rather, its circulation, communal acceptance, and performative function define its folk character. Songs which are composed very recently and have various elements of folk songs sometimes confuse the listener and make them think those newly made songs are traditional songs.
He highlights that terming an art form as ‘folk’ does not mean that it is very simple and not well-structured. If we look closely, the Lai Haraoba festival and its related dances by the Amaibis (Shaman priestesses) in the Kanglei area have very strict and fixed sets of rules & norms, which makes it almost a classical art form. However, this view can be a big deal and might cause unwanted heresy among the highly orthodox classical art practitioners of Manipur, and the room for discourse is limited and ignored. The separation of art forms as folk and classical brings different treatments and views, leading to considering folk as lowly and classical as highly. This is not an exaggeration, and being a folk artist myself, I know.
Bruno Nettl notes in ethnomusicology that the “great tradition” versus “little tradition” binary, borrowed from Redfield, often imposes a false epistemological hierarchy: classical music is assumed to embody refinement and permanence, whereas folk is relegated to spontaneity and impermanence. Such binaries overlook the philosophical insight that “folk” is not the absence of system but rather a different kind of system, what Claude Lévi-Strauss called “*the science of the concrete*”, where meaning and structure are embedded in ritual, collective memory, and performance. Thus, to label Lai Haraoba as merely folk is to misunderstand its cosmological depth and codified discipline, which in many ways parallel, if not exceed, the so-called classical forms.
This article presents the perspectives of Oja Nameirakpam Tiken on the present state of Manipuri folk music. His reflections highlight both the cultural richness of the Meitei musical heritage and the urgent challenges it faces in the contemporary period. He observes that while folk traditions have historically been resilient, the continuity of authentic practices is now under considerable strain. To address this decline, he emphasises the necessity of establishing a well-structured institutional framework dedicated to the study, transmission, and performance of folk music. Such an institution, he suggests, should function as an open forum where diverse discourses are encouraged and prejudices are set aside.
Oja Tiken further stresses that the study of folk music must be cultivated independently, free from political or social constraints, to safeguard its integrity and vitality. Only when such growth reaches a stage of maturity and is embraced by most practitioners can folk music become a guiding force in shaping cultural policies and influencing governance. In this vision, folk music is not merely a repository of the past but a dynamic force capable of shaping the cultural future of Manipur. Whether this vision becomes reality depends on whether we, as a society, are willing to listen. The real question is not whether folk music will survive, but whether we will allow it to matter.
(Marjing Mayanglambam is currently pursuing M.A. Folklore & Culture Studies. He is also a Pena Artiste & Researcher, Laihui Ensemble)