Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 24, 1913.djvu/437

Rh overlying a mass of apparently original Malay notions." But substituting Mahommedan for Hindu and Buddhist, the Malays seem to be in much the same position as the Manipuris and the Burmans, for Mr. Skeat remarks a little lower down:—"It is necessary to state that Malays of the Peninsular are Sunni Muhammadans of the school of Shafi'i, and that nothing, theoretically speaking, could be more orthodox (from the point of view of Islām) than the belief which they profess. But the beliefs which they actually hold are another matter altogether, and it must be admitted that the Muhammadan veneer which covers their ancient superstitions is often of the thinnest description."

In one particular the Umanglais of Manipur are better off than the Nats of Burma, for they are officially recognized and some of them receive tax-free lands for their maintenance, and are every bit as much honoured as the Hindu gods. Each set of divinities has its own ministers. Krishna and the other Hindu gods are served by Brahmans, while the local gods have their own priests and priestesses, known as maibas and maibis. The Raja is the recognized head of both religions. As a Hindu the Manipuri calls in the Brahman on occasions of births, marriages, and deaths, and observes the Hindu festivals, but in sickness he consults the maiba and he worships the gods of hills and rivers of his country as his forefathers did before him. I may here point out that Hinduism is far less antagonistic to the ancient faith of Manipur than Buddhism was to that of Burma or Mahommedanism to that of the Malays. To a Hindu, whose Pantheon contains an unlimited number of beings more or less divine, the inclusion of the godlings of any tribe with which he comes in contact is a matter of no great difficulty. Dr. Barnett has justly remarked,—"Hinduism is not one homogeneous growth of religious thought; it is neither a single tree nor a forest of trees sprung from