Archive for Kuki

THE KUKIS

By PS Haokip

Introduction

The Kukis are indigenous people of Zale’n-gam, ‘Land of Freedom’. Zale’n-gam refers to the contiguous ancestral lands situated in present-day Northeast India, Northwest Burma and the Chittagong Hill tracts in Bangladesh. The Kukis lived in this part of the Indian sub-continent without being separated by international boundaries up until the early part of the twentieth-century. They were an independent people comprising numerous clans, each governed by its chieftain according to Kuki law, customs and tradition. After 1937, under British colonialists’ administration the upper Chindwin and Kale Kabow valley in present-day Sagaing Division was incorporated into Burma, the Chittagong Hill Tracts to East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), and the adjoining Kuki Hills ranging from present-day Manipur to Nagaland, Karbi Anglong and North Cachar Hills in Assam, Tripura and the former Lushai Hills to India.

The dismemberment of Kuki territory and its incorporation within the three independent nations: India, Burma and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), has caused immense socio-economic and political hardships to the people. The effects continue to haunt the people to this day. Another major impact of this state of dispersal concerns the people’s identity. However, despite the absence of a known script, and consequently a lack of written contemporaneous history, the oral tradition, recognized as a key stone in the reconstruction of communities dispossessed of written documents (Vansina, 1985), has served to retain vital elements of the Kuki people’s past and their identity. Other aspects that connect the people with the earlier period is their shared history, the mutually intelligible dialects, a common culture, customs and traditions, which have remained intact. Folk-lore, genealogy and traditional forms of compositions and musical instruments have also remained unaltered. These characteristics of the people define them as a distinct entity, and combined with the oral traditions help to preserve the people’s past and ethnicity. Carey and Tuck (1978 (reprinted), p2) perceptibly observed that the people’s rich traditions, wealth of manners and customs all point to one origin.

Who Are The Kukis?

Various scholars and British colonialist officials broadly describe the Kukis as belonging to the Mongolian stock. Fro example, Yule (1885) and Col Phyre (1886) concluded that the Kukis belong to the Indo-Chinese family, and Capt Forbes and GA Grierson categorise them as belonging to the Tibeto-Burman group. Taw Sien Kho, a lecturer at Cambridge University classified the Kukis as a sub-family of the Turaneans, which include the Japanese, Chinese and Siamese. A pertinent query that arises is how the term ‘Kuki’ came to denote a particular ethnic group. According to Col Reid (1893), the term ‘Kuki’ is a Bengali word meaning ‘hill-men’ or ‘highlanders’. In his view, from the time of Warren Hastings, ‘Kuki’ had come to be regarded as a conglomeration of various tribes. Capt Lewin (1870, p.130), the then Deputy Commissioner of Chittagong Hill Tracts, observed that the Kukis are a powerful and independent people. Kukis have also been described as a nation of hunters and warriors, ruled by their principal hereditary Chiefs or Raja, but divided into clans, each under its own chief.

Regarding the categorisation of Kukis, William Shaw (1929, p.16), a British civil servant, stated that the Koms, Aimols, Khotlangs (Hmars), Thadous, Lushais, Pois (Marings) Paites, Gantes, Darlungs (Darlong), Khelma, Biete and several others are undoubtedly all connected. Lt Col Shakespear (1912, introduction) noted that the term ‘Kuki’ has come to have a fairly definite meaning, and we now understand by it certain closely allied clans, with well-marked characteristics, belonging to the Tibeto-Burman stock. In Shakespear’s view the term Kuki includes Aimol, Chothe, Chiru, Koireng, Kom, Purum, Anal, Lamgang, Moyon, Monsang, Maring, Gangte, Vaiphei, Simte, Paite, Thadou, Hmar and Zou. According to GA Grierson, in Linguistic Survey of India, the tribes connoted by Kuki includes Anals, Aimols, Chirus, Gangte, Hmars, Koms, Lushais, Paites, Purums, Raltes, Suktes, and Thadou, each able to understand the other’s dialect and having a common social and cultural life and place of origin. A classification of Kuki by Prof JK Bose (1934), a renowned anthropologist, includes Chiru, Chothe, Anal, Kom, Tarao, Aimol, Purum, Lamgang, Wainem, Thadou, Lushai and Paite.

In independent India, the above classification that highlight the fact of common ethnicity and identity has been represented under ‘Any Kuki Tribes’ in the Constitutional Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes lists of 1951 in the states of Assam, Manipur, Tripura, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and in Nagaland simply as ‘Kuki’. However, the Constitution Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Modification) Order, 1956, The Schedule, Part X – Manipur, recognizes the various clans as separate individual ‘tribes’. This tribe modification order has exacerbated the identity crisis caused by the international boundaries that divide Kuki country.

In ethnological terms a ‘tribe’ denotes a people with distinct culture, tradition and language. By these criteria, in the state of Nagaland the Constitutional Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes classify the Ao, Angami, Lotha, and Sema, which all have a distinctive culture, customs, traditions and language are recognized as different tribes. By the same criteria, the Kuki clans, which share a common culture, customs and traditions, and dialects with the same root language need to be collectively identified as a single ‘tribe’, not separate ‘tribes’. The error of the tribe modification order of 1956 was rectified in the year 2003 by ‘The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 2002, No. 10 of 2003, in Part X Manipur’, which reintroduced ‘Any Kuki Tribes’.

‘Any Kuki Tribes’ also helps to dispel the anomaly introduced by the Constitution Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Modification) Order, 1956, which recognised Thadou, a sub-clan, to represent the various related sub-clans who speak the same dialect. The anomaly essentially relates to varying accounts of genealogical origins.

Efforts to bridge the gap of identity that prevailed from 1956 onwards has led to a rather frantic quest for alternatives to Kuki as a common identity. Nomenclatures, such as ‘Khul’, ‘Mizo’, ‘Tribal League’, ‘Tuhbem Som’, ‘Chikim’, ‘Zomi’, ‘Zo’, and ‘Eimi’ were experimented with, but to no lasting avail. The re-introduction of ‘Any Kuki Tribes’ provides an avenue to generate the much-needed unity among the people, particularly in reference to the dire political condition prevalent in present-day Manipur state. In specific regard to the existing predicament faced by the people, the present may prove to be an opportune moment to reconsider the credence of Kuki as a historically bona fide identity. With regard to Kuki’s historicity, for example, published in The Telegraph (17 Jan 1994), the Pooyas, the traditional literature of the Meitei people of Manipur testify that ‘two Kuki Chiefs named Kuki Ahongba and Kuki Achouba were allies to Nongba Lairen Pakhangba, the first historically recorded king of the Meithis [Meiteis], in the latter’s mobilisation for the throne in 33 AD’. When Kuki chiefs existed in prominent state in 33 AD (referred to above), it is a self-evident fact that the Kukis and the identity Kuki existed preceding that period. The identity Kuki is also endorsed by eminent personalities associated with the people in the past, such as Grierson (1904), Shakespear (1912), Lewin (1856), and Mackenzie (1884). Their accounts provide a rich cultural heritage of the Kuki people and their identity. Their narratives are also singular because none other exists that can legitimate an alternative identity. In other words, owing to its antiquity, Kuki’s appropriateness as a terminology for the collective identity of the people is self-evident. The identity is particularly important with regard to the crisis of identity in Manipur.

Kuki Indigenity with Specific Historical References

Historians such as Majumdar and Bhattasali (1930, 6-7) refer to the Kukis as the earliest people known to have lived in pre-history India, preceding ‘the “Dravidians” who now live in South India.’ Comparatively, the Aryans, who drove the Dravidians towards the south, arrived in the Indian sub-continent around BC 1500 (Thapar, 1966, 29). Apart from the refernce to the Pooyas dating back to 33 AD, Cheitharol Kumaba (Royal Chronicles of the Meitei Kings) records that in the year 186 Sakabda (AD 264) Meidungu Taothingmang, a Kuki, became king. This is supported by the statement of Prof JN Phukan (1992, 10) who writes:

If we were to accept Ptolemy’s ‘Tiladae’ as the ‘Kuki’ people, as identified by Gerini, the settlement of the Kuki in North-East India would go back to a very long time in the past. As Professor Gangumei Kabui thinks, ‘some Kuki tribes migrated to Manipur hills in the pre-historic times along with or after the Meitei advent in the Manipur valley” (History of Manipur, p24). This hypothesis will take us to the theory that the Kukis, for the matter, the Mizos, at least some of their tribes, had been living in North-East India since the prehistoric time, and therefore, their early home must be sought in the hills of Manipur and the nearby areas rather than in Central China or the Yang-tze valley.

In the second century (AD 90 – 168), Claudius Ptolemy, the geographer, identified the Kukis with Tiladai who are associated with Tilabharas, and places them ‘to the north of Maiandros, that is about the Garo Hills and Silhet’ (Gereni, 1909, 53). Stevenson’s (1932) reference to Kuki in relation to Ptolemy’s The Geography also bears critical significance to its period of existence. In the Rajmala or Annals of Tripura, Shiva is quoted to have fallen in love with a Kuki woman around AD 1512 (Dalton, 1872, 10).

The Wingspan of Ancestral Kuki Territory

According to Capt Pemberton (1853), the Kuki territory stretch from the southern borders of Manipur valley to the Northern limit of the province of Arracan. Meerwarth (1835) observed that the Kukis occupied the hill ranges south of the Naga Hill, to the east the tribes of upper Chindwin and the Chin Hills, on the south those living on the hill tracts of Chittagong, while on the west they are bounded by the plains of Sylhet and the hills of North Cachar. William Shaw (1929) stated that the Kukis live in a large area of hilly country bounded by the Angami Nagas of the Naga Hills District in the North, the Province of Burma in the East, Lushai Hills in the South and the districts of Cachar in the West. Dalton (1872) had noted that the Kukis are the neighbors of the Nagas in Assam and in contiguity with the Mugs of Arracan. The Hill country occupied by them extends from the valley of the Kolodyne, where they touch on the Khumis to the Northern Cachar and Manipur. Similarly, DN Majumdar (1944) also observed:

The Kuki Chiefs rule over the country between the Karnapuli river and its main tributary, the Tuilampai, on the west, and the Tyao and Koladyne boundary is roughly a line drawn east and west through the junction of the Mat and Kolodyne rivers and their northernly villages are founded on the borders of the Silchar district.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1962, Vol 13, 511) records, ‘Kuki, a name given to a group of tribes inhabiting both sides of the mountains dividing Assam and Bengal from Burma, covering regions of the Nantaleik River.’

The wingspan of the Kuki territory as noted by Grierson (1904) is reproduced as follows:

The territory inhabited by the Kuki tribes extends from the Naga Hills in the north down into the Sandoway District of Burma in the south; from Myittha River in the east, almost to the Bay of Bengal in the west. It is almost entirely filled up by hills and mountain ridges, separated by deep valleys.
A great chain of mountains suddenly rises from the plains of Eastern Bengal, about 220 miles north of Calcutta, and stretches eastward in a broadening mass of spurs and ridges, called successively the Garo, Khasia, and Naga Hills. The elevation of the highest point increases towards the east, from about 3,000 feet in the Garo Hills to 8,000 and 9,000 in the region of Manipur.
This chain merges, in the east, into the spurs, which the Himalayas shoot out from the north of Assam towards the south. From here a great mass of mountain ridges starts southwards, enclosing the alluvial valley of Manipur, and thence spreads out westwards to the south of Sylhet. It then runs almost due north and south, with cross-ridges of smaller elevation, through the districts known as the Chin Hills, the Lushai Hills, Hill Tipperah, and the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Farther south the mountainous region continues, through the Arakan Hill tracts, and the Arakan Yoma, until it finally sinks into the sea at Cape Negrais, the total length of the range being some seven hundred miles.
The greatest elevation is found to the north of Manipur. Thence it gradually diminishes towards the south. Where the ridge enters the north of Arakan it again rises, with summit upwards of 8,000 feet high, and here a mass of spurs is thrown off in all directions. Towards the south the western off-shoots diminish in length, leaving a track of alluvial land between them and the sea, while in the north the eastern off-shoots of the Arakan Yoma run down to the banks of the Irawaddy.
This vast mountainous region, from the Jaintia and Naga Hills in the north, is the home of the Kuki tribes. We find them, besides, in the valley of Manipur, and, in small settlements, in the Cachar Plains and Sylhet.

Kuki chieftains reigned supreme in Zale’n-gam, the undivided ancestral lands, and their people lived in peace traversing its entire expanse like a grand eagle in flight.

Reference:

1. Annexation of Manipur 1949, Published by People’s Democratic Movement (1995)
2. Burma and Assam Frontier, ‘Kuki rising, 1917-1919’, L/PS/10/724, Oriental and India Office Collections (OIOC), British Library, London
3. Burma and Assam Frontier, Resolution on the Late Kuki Rising, Extract from the Proceedings of the Chief Commissioner of Assam in the Political Department, NO. 8856 P. dated the 27 September 1920
4. Burma and Assam Frontier, CONFIDENTIAL, File No. 4895 Field Operations, Simla, Despatch On the Operations Against the Kuki Tribes of Assam and Burma, November 1917 to March 1919, From Lieutenant General Sir H. D.U. Kerry, General Officer Commanding, Burma Division, To The Chief of the General Staff, Army Headquarters, India, Simla. (Diary No. 69190) No. 1762-KPM, Maymyo, June 1919
5. Carey, BS & Tuck, HN (1976, first published in 1932)), The Chin Hills, Vol. 1, Firma KLM Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta
6. Chakravorty, BC (1964), British Relations with the Hill Tribes Bordering on Assam since 1858, Calcutta
7. Elly, EB (1978, (first published in 1893)), Military Report on the Chin-Lushai Country, Firma KLM (P) Ltd., Calcutta
8. ETD Lambert Report, 25.10.1944, ‘A Note on the Kuki situation in Manipur State as a result of the Japanese Invasion’, File No. XLI, Cabin No.29 ‘Japanese War’, Secretariat Library, Imphal, Manipur
9. Freedom Fighters of Manipur, published in 1985, Congress Centenary Year, by Freedom Fighters Cell, MPCC (1)
10. Haokip, PS (1998), Zale’n-gam: The Kuki Nation, KNO publication
11. Lewin, Capt TH, Wild Races of South – Eastern India, 1870, London, W H, Allen and Co., 13, Waterloo Place, Reprinted by Firma KLM Private Ltd., Tribal Research Institute, Aizawl, Mizoram.
12. Mackenzie, A, The North-East Frontier of Bengal, (2005 (first published 1884, History of the Relations of the Government with the Hill Tribes of the North-East Frontier of Bengal)), Mittal Publications, New Delhi
13. Shakespeare, LW Col (1977) (first published in 1929)), History of the Assam Rifles, Firma KLM Pvt. Calcutta
14. Guardians of the Northeast, The Assam Rifles: 1835-2002 (2003, 19-20), Directorate General Assam Rifles, Laitumkhrah, Shillong 11
15. Thompson, J (2002), The War in Burma 1942-45, Sidgwick & Jackson, Pan Macmillan, London
16. Haokip, J Manipur a Gospel le Kuki te thusim, published by the author
17. NP Rakung, Reader, in The Telegraph, 17 January 1994, Letter to the Editor, Imphal, Manipur
18. Nishi Kikan – Organisation of Japanese Intelligence Unit in Burma, Confidential, 7 July 1944, No. 110/D1692/50/M10
19. Palit, DK (1984), Sentinels of the North-East: The Assam Rifles, Palit & Palit, New Delhi
20. Phukan, JN, The Late Home of Migration of the Mizos, International Seminar, Aizawl, Mizoram, studies on the Minority Nationalities of Northeast India – The Mizos, 1992
21. Reid, AS Lt Col, Chin – Lushai Land ( A description of the various expeditions into the Chin – Lushai Hills and the final annexation of the country), First edition 1893,Reprinted: 1976, Firma KLM Private Ltd., Tribal Research Institute, Aizawl, Mizoram.
22. Shakespear, J Lt Col (1912), The Lushei Kuki Clans, Macmillan & Co, Ltd, London.
23. Shaw, W (1929), The Thadou Kukis, Published on behalf of the Government of Assam
24. Vansina, J (1985), Oral Tradition, Wisconsin, USA

About the author: The writer PS Haokip is the president of Kuki National Organization.
——————————————————————————–
Title: THE KUKIS
Author: PS Haokip
Date: 12/6/2007

http://www.ksdf.org/read.asp?title=THE%20KUKIS&CatId=Article&id=12

Leave a Comment

Kuki insurgency movement on the rocks

By Donn Morgan Kipgen

Revolutionary movement started from the audacious mind of one person, whose honour, mental courage, integrity and responsibility are unquestionable and socio-politically sound. Armed revolutionaries and liberators seldom changed their specific objectives nor compromised their extreme imposition of their patriotic ideologies. A real revolutionary either wins or lose but never lost their way in the mid-stream for the want of courage and principles. And a true revolutionary or liberator never sold himself out.

At present, that’s exactly what both the State and Central armed forces have been doing by doling out blank papers and pens tied with heavy bank notes. The Union armed forces have already netted just about all hill-based tribal UG outfits, with carrot and stick policy magnificently enforced. Well, any course of action to bring peace with money power and Tomahawk Diplomacy is most welcomed. Even a temporary peace is better than a few weeks of violence.

However, ceasefire agreement and the vexed Suspension of Operation (SOP) have cost more lives, limbs and money amongst hostile groups due to factional clashes. Things have gone worse and worser still it will go if the mandatory ground rules are strictly enforced. It is worth knowing that the assassinations of Pu Mangboi Kipgen, KNF’s Defence Minister, Pu Vipin Haokip, KNA’s supremo and Pu Letkholun Khongsai, KLA’s founding leader, and other leaders of the Naga UG outfits, etc took place during the SOP/ceasefire period, along with large number of UG cadres. Most of the UG militants were killed in factional clashes and lots of others by the armed forces personnel in most controversial circumstances. When there is no common enemy, all highly hard-core armed extremists, with systematic infusion of appeasement money and selective patronism in psycho-warfare, an internal, factional, ethnic and inter-ethnic clashes for domination, taxation, successions, the UG outfits ready to sign another SOP with State Govt for a tricky boat-ride in an uncharted and hostile deep sea, one could only prepare for or expect another volatile war of area domination even in urban areas. Sadly, the real victims would only be the general public in an apparent dirty political interferences.

The politico-military concept of the intriguing SOP is rather hard to comprehend, like the Duckwood-Lewis’s rules of one-day cricket match. However the D-L has specific practical ground-rules and is applicable impartially in all situations under any existing condition of a truncated match. Unfortunately, there are no positive conditions, specific ideological ground conditions nor any official promises to discuss the demand for independent autonomous homeland for the CHIKIMS UG outfits that of the NSCN(IM)’s ‘Greater Nagalim’, in ongoing SOP with the Central Govt. Only large sums of money are remunerated on regular time period basis to the CHIKIMS UG outfits but without ceasefire status when it comes to an encounter in full uniforms, armed activities, possession firearms in any unauthorised movements, the Army/AR personnel swiftly pressed their hair-triggers without any hesitation. The killing of a church priest in CCpur, the elimination of the friendly PRO of the KLA for possession of a pistol in a parley meet, the gunning down of four unwary KNF cadres at Gelnel village, the relentless operations against the KRA etc by the ‘AR Raiders’ clearly show that the SOP’s ceasefire ground rules are not honoured both sides. May be, the conditionless SOP is quite flexible since the so-called SOO does not contain the most important pre-fix ‘Military’ which is conspicuous by its absence. To maintain diplomatical relationship without needless eliminations of ‘friendly foes’, it has to be practically called ‘Suspension of Military Operations’ so as to enforce respectable ceasefire. Looking back the bloody SOP which has not been honoured by all units of the Union paramilitary forces and of course, by the State Govt, the CHIKIMS UG outfits have long since been trapped ‘LBW’ with a stinging reverse swings and ‘Doosra’ and the wrong-ones, all unceremoniously been sent back to the huts even before they settle down in a deceptive pitch.

At present, such kind of situation is very much visible, another wily double-gamesmanship is in the offing with the State Govt trying to pen down the hard done CHIKIM UG outfits, already soften up by Central armed forces in a psycho-warfare truce, all of them looking everywhere but going nowhere. Once a conditionless call for truce is made official by Manipur’s State Govt, the Kuki insurgency movement would most probably go back to square one and more bloody troubles lurking around the corner. It also means that the CHIKIMS populations have to defend themselves against any external aggression, should there be any. They will still pay taxes but without protection in a condition which the CHIKIM UG outfits themselves created for their own interests – there is no need to emphasise what this means. The ordinary Kukis, specially innocent villagers, who bore the brunt of the NSCN(IM) expansionist onslaughts in the first devastating 5 years of the 1990s and the subsequent uncompromising CIOPs since then have nothing to gain and just about everything to lose. Who comes for the welfare and safety of the CHIKIMS? No, sirs, none at all. It’s only just the ethnic group’s name the UG outfits wanted to legitimise their divisive existence. The lofty ideological aims and objectives have already been put inside a cold-storage by the Central authorities and now an indefinite storage in deep freeze refrigerator is planned by the State Govt and the divided CHIKIMS UG militants which could and surely would totally undermine or permanently froze the bloody Kuki insurgency movement for good or for worse. What sense of outrage would be in the minds of the cheated Kuki rebel chiefs and the uncorrupted warriors of the Great Kuki Rebellion of the 1917-1919 who successfully withstood the military juggernauts of the mighty British Empire and the priceless pride of which magnificent victories still proudly sung by the Kuki Nation till this day?

These Kuki warriors and their leaders were treacherously imprisoned by the British Empire through a false offer of amnesty after one regular army division and two brigades of the British military police, and the AR about 7000 well-armed troops against 2000 lightly armed Kuki militiamen, failed to put the costliest military campaign in the British Indian history since the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny which lasted about 2 years of relentless fightings.

What is happening to the confused Kuki militants and the more confused patriotic Kukis is a dishonour and insulting to the highly resilient and audacious Kuki commander-in-Chiefs and bravehearts who outrageously took the big horns of all-conquering Brittainas’ 2 Divisions and a brigade of Burma military armed police who were called in to reinforce a trapped brigade consisting of the Gorkha, AR and Madras Regts reeling with regular set backs in deadly guerrilla warfares.

Whereas the undefeated and intelligent Kuki militiamen stood their non-negotiable principles and objectives frearlessly against the might of Brittiania so honourably in WWI’s part of British military campaigns nearly 90 years ago, the present day Kuki warriors failed to negotiate an onslaught of ceaseless bundles of banknotes, false promises and the diktats of both Union and State armed forces psycho-political war fares in just a year or so time period. When one is known to be fighting for the cause of his nation, the cost of peace in kind or in cash on the altar of freedom should never ever be negotiated until and unless the main objective is on offer at the same altar of victory.

Source: The Sangai Express

Leave a Comment

KUKI NAMPI EKHEHSUHNAO. .!!

Sopite,

Enamsung uva elhahsam nahoule emachal thei lou nao chule ahiding bang tah a minung ephah jou lou nao hohi ajih tampi umjongle keiman kalung gel a kahet hole kamu doh ho them khat kahin share nom e. Ajih chu keigel dan in itobang in epi kisei henlang kibol jong le eki to theilou nao, Lung khat le tha khat a kal eson khom thei lou nao chule kithi san suo naho le kimu da naho elah uva aum jing thei hi anoi a point phabep ho jieh hinte/ahi tin kagel e.

1). CORRUPTION AT ALL LEVEL( Dishonesty)

Enam sung uva hin kamu dan in alen aneo milham titah lou Hou Lamkai hihenlang e Politician hou chule Officer enei hou hihenlang koi koi hijong le kitah na hinkho mang elhasam uvin kamu e. Katina chu sum neh guh chah guh mei mei hilouvin epi lampang hi jong le ebol etoh hou eima phatchom nading bou kigel hi etam lheh uvin kamu in hijih hin Ijat mi esopi epi ti hinam tia khotona le kitho khom tiho hi elhasam uvin kagel e. Hijih a hi e Nampi ou hi ichan gei ham a khesuh cheh cheh a ding doh but lou ahitai.

Gah sei ding in echen nao mun lah dung a Office ho jouse a la signature khat lah na mei2 ding a jong sum ngai ta, Ethingnoi mi hou jong sum jih a aboijing thu u kija jing, Chule Politician enei sun houla Nampi agenthei avaicha niseh a neh ding kihol a genthei tah a khosa adim a um a ama hon nom tah a anop nop naova ache thei u phot uva atui tui aneh jing phot ule ema gel pha talou, Chule kah lah a Mipi phatchom na ding Scheme aumle abol thei khat le nin kisuh chat vei jitao.
Hijih hin Hitobang a alam lou a egam sung ule enam sung uva sum mu na thei le kihinsuo nathei aum tah jih hin athase a natong nomlou hon kivah na a neitao. Hitobang a eki chep uva sum tam pi2 emu vang uva la nopsah nale haosat na a jong kinei deh lou chule a victims ho chula eiho ma2 kihi kitji.

Hou Lamkai khat le ni kison pi tah le kitah tah ding a egel khat jong athusei doh hole ana toh chule aki man chah dan vetton thei hibeh seh jilou. Hitobang ho jieh hin ahung sei len ding khangdong ho ding hin jong enam sung u hi a bright mo lheh e. Ajih chu Tu dinmun a ema lam jouse a kitah lou na hinkho eman hou khangdong Kho hepha lou ho chung a jong matpha a hitia hi a etih a jong a phalou hohi enamsung uva abei ding tahsan aum beh seh tapoi. Khat in ama phatchom na ding ahi phot le asopi jeng jong lhem/that ngapcha a mi adim ajang a kium ta. Alen pen a pat aneo pen gei in jong sum neh guh dan ahilou le alam lou a mi lhep chat vei dan them gam ta. Sum ne gu thei lou khat/Mikitah khat chu angol tobang a kigel ta. Hitobang a atoh lampang sang a aseitho/kamnal etam tah jieh uvin kitahsan lel nan enamsung u vai ahom jing in akitah khat jong eima phatlou jih ham man in tahsan na aum thei ji tapon hijih hin ebol etoh u machal thei lou ahitai. Insung a kihil na lhahsam jih ham ahilou le enampi sung u chondan mong2 ahidem het jou ahah sa lheh tai. Hijih a hi elah uva kitah san lel na le kigin mo na dim a hichun apha lou lama eipui lut jiu ahitai. Hiche ho jih hin Upa Tehse hole Lamkai respect je dan alhasam jitan ahi. Hijih a hi Aneo in asang a len jaa talou chule alen in aneo lungset theitalou a elah uva kimu dana le kithet na chule kigaosap na um a khat le khat kitho khom le dinkhom kiti hi umthei talou ahitai.

2). LACK OF HONEST POLITICIAN/ LEADER

MLA/MP chule adang dang a elected member enei hou jong ahi ding dol tah le atoh ding dol u chule Nampi ding a election akai jou teng ule gel pha ji talou va ama ho nop sah nading mei2 etam val tah jih uvin Mipi ding in kinepna le secure life man hi ahah sa tai. Jatdang namdang khut ahiloule thil dang dang jieh a nampi genthei naho la kihet mo sah gam jitao. Chule hitia Nampi a ding mong2 a kipe doh ahilou jieh uchun Kitah na alhasam un chule amipi ho chung a jong tahsan na anei thei ji pouvin hijih hin Mipi ding in MLA/MP enei man u jong apan na um lou tobang bep ahi ji tai.

Tulah Times of India in ‘Lead India’ kiti Indian khangthah ho lah a khonung a Inida hin po thei ding Leadership Quality nei alhen naova chun ” Leadership khat ding a epi quality nei hi apoimo pen ham” ti survey abol nao va chun respondents atam jon ‘Honesty’ atiuvin chule hiche hi adih lheh e. Hiche Times of India ten abol bang uva eiho Nampi in jong eilamkai thei diu mi kitah le thudih kihol doh a lhen phat ahitai. Hijih hin Politician/Nam lamkai ho jong Kitah na hinkho mang hole Pathen ging hobou elhen diuvin dei aume. Alet jih, ahoujih chule abol thei jih a vet louvin, ana toh le akiman chah dan chule Nampi a ding a kipe jou mi dei aume.

Hinla eiho lah a election kibol dan hi kidah umtah le thet umtah khat asoh doh tai. Thingnoi mi hon mipi dei joh ve talou a ama hon ajo tho thei u le ama ho phat chom nading bou a natong thei bou tosot a vote jouse capture bol jitao, Ahiloule Candidate khat chun kaidoh tei ding deina jih a khangdong kho hepha lou or bolding helou angol phabep atil doh a campaign/capture bol jita. Hiche teng chule a opponent ho chun ama ho jong kaidoh ding gel najih chun khangdong ejat ham khat chu ahin til doh kit jiuvin hiti chun khohe phalou ho chung a chun ama ho personal gain na mei2 ding jieh chun kimudana, Kihet khel na, Kithisan sona, ki bung khenna chule phung a kikhen tel na ahin suo doh jitao vin hichun a etih a kimudana le kithet na khangdong or mipi ho thisan a abeh den jitan hijih hin lungkhat thakhat a dinkhom theilou vin kihet khel na le kithu nun lou nan enam pi sung uva vai ahom jing in ahi. Hijih hin sopite kituo ding eti esei uva egel jing vang uvin ahithei deh ji tapoi. Mipi Khat le nin jong MLA/MP khat chu akitah na le mipi deisah ahi ahilou ve talou va aman phatchom na a anei thei khat/ asopi ahijih man a tosot or panpi jeng tiho hi ebol lou diu vin dei aume. Abraham Lincoln in ” Mipi deilhen khatchu vet ding in phamo jongle akitah/adih na aum tei tei je” ati bang in Mipi dei le phatsah vang hithei jing le pha lheh ding in kagel e. Ajih chu tulai MLA le Minister enei hou jong mipi deilhen a kai atam tah lou jieh uvin mipi ding akhoh sah tapouvin chule mipi in jong boina hahsat na ho in aki mang cha thei tapouve. Hjih a hi Develoment le Movement enei hou jong machal thei lou a mi nung edel jing nah lai u ahi. Abraham Lincoln in President akai doh chun thu doh adon but na a ” My priority is to work for my people. I’m elected as a president for my people and i should work with them in order to build a strong and unified Nation.” anatin ahi. Hiche tobang Lamkai lunggel neithei vang chu aman tam lheh e.

“Leader’s doesn’t create followers but create more leaders”

PUBLIC’S MINDSET

Lamkai mipi dei a kaidoh khat jong kah lah a athangse khat in Loi tum kisem a dem or suhlhah tiho jong mipi lah a aum jing in ahi. Candidate khat chun ama akai lou man a jong loitum sem a organisation thah thah phut doh tiho jong um jing thei ahijih hin e Nampi u hi evet le khat le ni abol thei deu hon kichep na a aman chah thei Nam khat ehi khah tah jih uvin e lhasam cheh cheh taove.

Chule Thingnoi gamvah ho titah lou Milham jeng in jong Civil org. or Mipi tel doh Lamkai khat jaa na nei lou a athu lah pieh lou akium tah jieh hin ema kho uhi Lamkai phale ching eki lhen doh diu ahah sa lheh e. Lamkai jaa lou kiti hi asempa Pathen jaa lou tina ahin hijieh hin ejat in kisei jong le amin a religious mei2 ehiuvin Pathen ahina bang tah a hou elhahsam jih uva jong gotna echan u hiding in kagelle. Eum na tin cheng uva la Nampi suminse thei beple joh doh thei bep kitam ta. Hijih a hi koman jong eija thei lou u chule eiho jong eki tuo thei lou u ahi. Chule Lamkai ahiloule ejatmi khat in thil neo khat elunggel lou lampang aseikhah or abol khah le threat/punishment peh jeng tiho hi elah uva aki thang lheh jeng tahjieh in koima thudih a thusei or natong ngam aum tapon hijih hin enampi uhi virus nat na bang a suhdam mo hiel a um ahitai. Chule Mipi in jong Election ham teng le aphung kibah pi bou vote ding ti tobang lung thim enei ta jih uvin acham lou a kibung khen na pot doh a eki to thei lou u ahi. Hijih hin mitin tobang chung a Nation sang a Clan feeling hi tam jo a hitia hi abung abung a eki vai poh u or eki khen khah u ahi. Nampi min a thu esei/ na etoh u jong huop lenjou tah2 thei talou ahijih a hi KUKI kiti hi amin mei2 a um a phung le chang joh hi eha khoh sah u ahitai.

4) EDUCATION

Themjil na lampang hi enam piu vin alhah sam pipen khat ahi. Tulai Lekha them tam na Jat or Nam chu emalam jouse a akhang tou ahi tan hijih hin eihon jong alen aneo in Education lampang hi ekhoh sah diu vin deisah aume. Politician / any org. Leader hon jong them jil na lampang hi ekhoh sah uva hoilai thinglhang ning koi hijong le etam na thei chan uva lekhasim eum doh thei nadiu vin pan laleo pha lheh ding ahi.

Sapten ” Knowledge is power” atiu bang in Hetna hi thahat na ahitai. Tulai thagum a natoh ache tapon hijieh hin chihna le thep na enampiu akhan tou na ding a edel jing diu dei aume. Khangdong chapang ho jong phatah a Nampi khan tou na ding a them jil na hi edel jing diu vin dei aume. Nam khangtou eti hou khu Education lampang a akhan tou jih u ahi ti sumil poute. Chuti hen lang hile ethanei nao le Nampi sung a aphalou ho chule epan mun hou eki ha hetdoh cheh diu chuteng machal nan eipui thei taovinte.

Chule Enam sung uvah dropout student hi etam lheh taovin chule themkhat thinglhang lah dung a jao Themjlna hi alhasam lheh in hijih hin pan athah beh a lah a Them jil na hi machal sah leo hen phading in kagel e. Tulai emalam jouse a kitet na khang ahitan hijih hin eihon jong hiche kitet na a jaokha Nam ehi tah jih uvin gel khoh cheh ute.

5)CONCLUSION

Achainan achung a point kahin pieh hohi koima dem tum le ngoh chom aum pon hinla Nampi khantou thei lou na khat a kagel jih a kalung gel ho mei2 ahin hijih hin kasei khel jong um intin kingai dam ute. Chule Hiche aphalou a ehet hou chu eti pan lah a suhmang thei ham tiho gel u hitin chule apha lou a ehet hou jong share khom jiu hitin maban a pan lah ding dan kingai to khom jile pha ding ahi. Khat bouseh lung gel chu acham kim pon hijih hin Nampi a ding in ehet nao le echih nao mang cha khom in strategy di dan eki moh demtho/seiset/ kigih tho sang a lunggel sei khom ji thei leu hen pha jo ding ahi. Adih lou ehet nao jong apoint pe chet u hitin chule feedback ho jong pe thei leuhen pha ding ahi. Kaki pah e.

Keima Nasopiu

Mangboi Haokip
New Delhi

Source: KukiForum

Leave a Comment

Institution of indigenous people and the Kukis

By Satkhokai Chongloi

October 17, 2007: An indigenous people, once ruler of the “Independence Hill Country,” now became refugees, who fought against the supremacy of the British till 1919, who join hands with the Indian National Army of Netaji S. Chandra Bose to protect their land and people from the invaders, whose country has been divided into three, India, the then Burma and the present Bangladesh, whose grievances have never been heard as they were surrounded by the high political walls of newly emerging neighbors who have better connection with the outsiders.

No matter what, the truth about their existence as indigenous people and their hard paid blood of yesteryears heroes remained unchanged is the history of the Kuki People today.

No historians till date can challenge another indigenous people lives in the land of Kukis before the Kukis occupied these areas. In the Pooyas and Royal Chronicles of the Meitei Kings affirmed the existence of the Kukis in the early first centuries, having kings and rulers such as Kuki Ahongba, Kuki Achouba and Meidungu Taothimang. The relationships of Kukis with the Tipperah Kings in those days have been recorded in many books. Dr. Horatio Bickerstaffe Rowney in his book called “The Wild Tribes of India” mentions that “Tipperahs are Kookies who own allegiance to Rajah of Tipperah, paying him an annual nuzzur, and abwabs on marriage and other occasions.”

It was the King of Tipperah who married a daughter of Kuki Chief and they maintained a much cordial relationship respecting and helping each others governance. Alexander Mackenzie has much more in his book, “The North East Frontier of India” about the relationship of Kukis with the Tipperahs. Since the Kukis were known and feared for their military prowess, the neighboring tribes hired them or asked their assistance when they were in great trouble. The Kukis extended help to the Chakma Chief Ramoo Khan who rebelled against the East India Company in 1777 called into his assistance large bodies of Kookie (Kuki) men who lived far in the interior part of the hills (Carey and Tuck, 12).

History records the Kukis defending of their lands against the British colonizers in early eighteen century and the last and the greatest of all was fought in 1917-1919 which historians called in different names such as “The Kuki Rising,” “The Kukis Rebellions 1917-1919,” or “The Kukis War of Independence.” The British had a difficult time penetrating the Hill areas of Kuki-land. Even when they occupied the plains and valleys, the hill areas were still not under their direct rule.

Conflict increased particularly when the British began to take away the power of tax collection from the Kuki Government in Cachar Hills and Karbi Anglong areas. The first encounter between the Kuki Inpi (Government) and the British Inpi (Government) took place when the British East India Company occupied Chittagong and part of the Kuki land in 1777. The other encounter took place in 1824 when the ‘Poitoo Kukies’ went to the hills along the river of Dhalleswari to collect bamboo and timber for trade, they killed the Britishers because they refused to pay tribute according to the Kuki custom of levying taxes upon those who passed through Kuki territory. From the year 1824 onwards, there were more raids recorded.

The year of 1860 was known as “The Great Kuki Invasion” in which “15 villages were burnt and plundered, 185 British subjects killed, and about 100 captives carried off”(Carey and Tuck cited in Lian S. Sakhong, 165). Foreseeing the Kuki people as a thorn in the flesh and the difficulties involved in their invasion into the Kuki-Gam, the Bristish Indian government sent an expedition in 1871-1872. These expeditions did not bring about an amicable peace. Rather there, were more raids reported. In 1871, within a period of thirty days, from January 23 to February 23, the Kuki conducted nine raids on the Cachar plain and attacked the British tea planters, who had intruded into their territorial hunting ground.

The British adopted a new policy in 1889, which resulted in the occupation and annexation that eventually divided the Kuki-land into three districts: The North Lushai Hills in May 1890, the South Lushai Hills in April 1891, and the Chin Hills in 1892-1893. These three districts were distributed among three provinces Assam, Bengal and the then Burma. This was the first and foremost division of the Kuki people. Eventually, the great war broke in 1917 and lasted till 1919. The Kuki Chiefs were requested to surrender in the hands of British Government. But they refused and choose to be in prison where many Kuki Chiefs died in prison and some were released after more than 15 years of their imprisonment.

The Kukis have been neighbors to the Meiteis in Manipur. The Maharajah ruled powerfully in the valley but the Kukis ruled in the hills. They helped one another in times of war. Some incidences can be mentioned such as in the (1) Ava lan, (war) the Chahsad Kuki Ningthou (Chief) helped the Meitei Ningthou, who fought against the Burmese King. The Chahsad Ningthou killed the Burmese King and brought the head and presented it as a trophy to the Meitei Ningthou. As a token of appreciation, the present Haokip Veng near the Kings’ Palace has been given to the Haokip Kuki Chiefs. (2) In the war against the Assamese Abhor King, the Kukis again helped the Meitei King. (3) Even when the Chin King abducted Chandrakirty Singh, 1200 Kuki warriors went to his rescue and brought the Meitei King back to his throne. Following the Treaty of Yandaboo of 24 February 1826 between the British and Burmese, Manipur valley was brought under the British rule. (4) Even in post independence India, Kukis opposed the Meitei King to sign merger agreement.

The Kuki Chiefs led by the Chahsad Chief, supported by Aihang Chief, Chief of Nabil, Chief of Lonpi and many other Kuki abled persons tried their level best to stop the Maharajah Bodha Chandra for signing merger agreement. It was said that the Meiteis who wanted the Maharajah to sign merger agreement on the other side of the Gate of the King and the Kukis who did not want on the other side almost pull apart the gate of the King. The Meiteis overpowered the Kukis and as a result, the King went to Shillong and signed Merger Agreement on September 21, 1949. Eventually, Manipur valley was merged fully with Indian Union on October 15, 1949, but the Hills remained under the rule of the Kuki Chiefs.

To protect the Rights of The Independent Hill Country, its people and properties, movable and immovable, the Kuki Inpi (Kukis Traditional Government) which fought against the British Empire from early 1761 to 1919 has been revived on 29 June, 1993 with its Traditional Policy that the Kuki Inpi is: (1) Non-communal, (2) Peaceful co-existence and (3) Justice for all. The Kuki Movement for Human Rights is and will continue to do the same and will be against any force that violates and jeopardize the rights including the religious rights of the indigenous Kukis.

The political solution for trouble-torn NEI can not be dealt in isolation of a particular indigenous people or in a piece-meal basis. It has to be done collectively. It is rooted in the lives and cultures of people groups living together from time immemorial. It was the Kukis who defended this country not for their own people alone, but for all the people living in the region and must be done likewise today if any indigenous people claimed fighting to protect these regions.

The lasting political solution lies not from outside, not even from New Delhi, but in the hands of people living together here from time immemorial. Unless our movement is for the people, by the people and of the people of the whole communities living in the regions, our chronic problem will still remain untouched and success will remain only in our dream. The Kukis have been closely monitoring all movements but if the hard paid blood of yesteryear heroes of the Kukis would come to naught, the Kukis have to review their stands.

————————————

The writer, Vice Chairman of Kuki Movement for Human Rights, presented this paper at a regional training workshop on “UN Human Rights Procedures and National Institutions on Indigenous Peoples” held from October 12-14, 2007 at Lytton Hotel Kolkata, India.

Source: Kuki Forum

Leave a Comment

Some ills of the Kuki National movement

By Tintong Thadou Chongthu

Today, the very many parties/groups/organizations in the one great Kuki nation, with diverse ideological backgrounds, have produced undesirable bloodshed within the Kuki nation. Sometimes, I used to wonder if these groups have torn the one great nation into parts and pieces. Could they be playing gutter level politics? The Kukis are a great nation, and their politics should have been great too. Guns are just a piece of metal; it destroys without winning, and finally, fades away. It’s just an illusion of the mind. But it is the 2Ws (‘words’ and ‘wisdom’) that prevails in reality. And if power flows from the barrel of a gun, Hitler and Napoleon would have done better. Least to say, though, Th. Muivah plays a dirty politics against the Kuki nation, he has the required 2W. This 2Ws made the Government of India spent crores of rupees on the hallowed NSCN (IM), and, also became a tight-lipped Government. He has a broad vision- a vision of tomorrow. Now, therefore, the question that arises is ‘where are the Kuki Nationalist leaders today?’ Why don’t we, at least, pursue the footsteps of Muivah (no, not his suppressive politics, but his intelligence), if not Subhash Chandra Bose

A pen is mightier than the sword.

Coming to the domestic issue, needless to say, we the Kukis have enough crisis. The organizations which represent the Kuki nation should’ve cried out for the whole nation. For instances, in the Parbung mass rape case, the landmines issue, the mass abduction issue, and the recent Moreh mayhem (not to be communalized), I don’t understand why only the KNO/KNA had to speak for the nation. The big UPF remained only a mute spectator. Moreover, the KNF warned the student leaders of Delhi of dire consequences, accusing them of behaving at the behest of the KNO/KNA. It seems to me that some organiza-tion(s) are still ignorant of the ills of the nation.

Has the KNO/KNA become the only organization that truly represents the one great Kuki nation? However, I would really appreciate the stance taken by the KNF and other organizations in the recent Hundung incident.

The recent elimination of the 10 KLA cadres by the hallowed IM group at Hundung village has taken everyone by surprised. But, oh no, not me!!! My predictions of the impending disaster were perfectly true. What does one know about the foxy IM­group? How can they become a friend of the one who was once slaughtered by them by the hundreds? (But the recent incident should not be communalized). Haven’t we remember what they did to our Hmar (HPC) brethren? In fact, the HPC had warned the KRA and UKLF of the cunning nature of the IM group. The KRA and the UKLF showed the seed of befriending an enemy so that they could eliminate their own brothers, with no political motives. Is this a national movement? Think again… There is always a way out to solve a crises within the community/nation itself? Today’s misunderstanding is tomorrow’s lost…

I also agree that the recent Hundung incident was not pre-planed by the KRA. Why would they betray their friends to the enemy? It was an independent plan of the IM group. But the blame goes on to the KRA. They invited the IM group in large number to assist the same KLA. They were also seen together at Saichang area. They also conducted a joint operation against their own armed brothers. What could be expected from such a Kuki nationalist leaders who enjoys a special privileges at paradise Hebron (in the devil’s den). Finally, the bloodthirsty devil has quenched their thirst, which they could not achieve once. The recent Hundung incident could have been avoided graciously, had the mother organizations-KNO and KNF, would have intervened since the KLA coups and counter-coups. Some organizations have consciously betrayed the nation to the godfather Muivah.

There could’ve been a few ideological differences between the mother organizations, but if they are a true nations’ army, they could’ve solved peacefully, instead of fire-fights. On the other hand, the KRA is a well-equipped army, but with little political front. Therefore, the group must adopt a more blessed ways. The UKLF is no exception

Whatever happens has happened. Let this be an eye opener and a turning point to the history of the Kuki nation. The Kuki nation had been defeated time and again. Some ills have crippled the national movement of the nation. Willing-to-win leaders must not give themselves to wine and women; sho-uld not greed for power and money. The cadres should respect elders and women should ab-andon the practice of eliminating able leaders; should be pure and be God-fearing people because battles and victories belong to the Lord. I would request the leaders not to report such dirty, funny and loathsome articles in the newspaper, for instance, portfolio distribution, public warnings, portfolio reshuffles, dirty accusations, etc. The Nagas and Meiteis reported of their achievements in the newspaper, which are highly enviable. Recently, James Bond accused the KNO/KNA of a clan-based organization. This is a dirty propaganda. Sometimes, they accused each other of being financed by an MLA, ex -MLA, to win a propaganda war. They are betraying the nation and also demoting it. It’s true that every willing-to-win MLA’s are selected (not elected) by a particular group. It’s also true that some MLA’s went to paradise Hebron, like a humbled donkey, for a red-inked signature. Have our leaders become a puppet to the IM group? Therefore, the amendment of certain wrongs is highly needed. Any armed Kuki is considered the Kuki Nation’s Army. But things are such that they are like fishes fed in a tiny-dirty pond. Anytime they could be caught and roasted alive. They should be very careful with the ‘Suspension of Operation’, for it could mean free bloodshed. It’s extremely hurting that a few illiterate leaders have used the Nation’s army to eliminate a great number of able leaders, the leftover/remains of the NSCN(IM) victims, due to ideological differences, or just to achieve some personal goal. Therefore, today, only a few life-risking leaders have survived. The tactics of defections, factionalism, bloody factional fights, coups and counter coups, etc of any armed Kuki outfits have become a deadly disease to the nation. These, and the national movement, have produced, within the Kuki society, a wide range of widows, prostitutes, orphans, drug addicts, thieves and robbers, etc, thereby, reducing the Kuki population, which is good news to many others. While some mourn over deaths, some rejoice over it, and clasp with the enemy. Such is the nature of the Kukis today. This way the IM group takes so much interest in the Kuki politics. Now the question is, “how on earth would the cunning fox allow the Kukis to unite, proper and live in harmony, when he is hell bent on suppressing our people in every aspect? And, how on earth could he become a friend to some Kuki outfits?

The only solution, therefore available is to severe ties with the foxy friend; forgive and forget the past differences and misunderstandings; come to a round table conference and find an amicable solution within the Kuki nation itself. ‘United we stand divided we fall’

The Sangai Express

Leave a Comment

Structural-Administrative Problems Amongst the Tribals in North East India

A Special Case of the Zo (Chin-Kuki-Mizo-Zomi) Family-Nation –
Manglal of Lamka
——————————————

One of the causes of the problem in today’s North East India is the super-imposition of British administrative system amongst the tribals and in the tribal lands.

- some NGOs, journalists and social/society workers in North East India

That was the historical and scientific findings of some of the NGOs, journalists and social thinkers in North East India as they attempt to understand and address the turmoil that North East India is in.

Tribals, particularly the Zo people, already faced enough cultural, economical, political, military, psychological, educational, administrative and administrators invasions into their own heartland. We do not need anymore of any invasion in whatever form, shape or size!

Our tribal administrative systems were almost completely wiped out with the introduction (in fact, imposition; italicized, emphasis throughout) of different modes of administration. With that imposition, so also goes our authority over our own self, people and land – to affair ourselves in accordance with tribal polity and traditional administration.

The Case Against British Government

We know it is not a myth that we governed ourselves and administered our country before the British arrivals. Then they invaded our people and land. We raided their camps to show our opposition and displeasure to this invasion of our independent country. Instead they conducted an ‘expedition’ against the indigenous populace – justifying that we attacked them, while they are the actual ones who attacked us first by committing a historical injustice – entering our land without our administrators’ permission and conducting military, administrative and political business without our authorization. Here it is worthwhile to note that however primitive and remote our tribal polity and administrative system may be at that time – it is still a law and a government – legal and sovereign – in today’s context! However fearful-look and ill equipped our standing army (warriors) may be at that time compared to the British soldiers who were heavily fortified, ours was legal national soldiers, and there’s was illegal intruders. However ignorance and untrained our rulers maybe in the eyes of the imperialism compared to the British trained administrators and political observers, ours was a time tested and experience trained rulers who masters our land and people.

British Imposed Expedition and Administrative System

Sometimes I wonder whether it’s a joke the British India coining the term ‘Lushai-Chin-Kuki Expedition’. One feels like asking them whether they understand English. A kinsman from Aizawl cannot accept the term ‘expedition’ inserted by the British in their military invasion against our people, in our land. He said that in military parlance, expedition is supposedly to be carried out only against the guilty party. But now, here is these white men invading us and our land. And when we opposed them, they carried out an ‘expedition’ against us. In historical, territorial, military, political and administrative justice and fairness, the Zo people are the one who should conduct expedition against the illegal occupational-invaders – the British.

It seems that is not enough, the British super-imposed their way of administration and polity upon our Zo traditional administration, governance and polity. Here lies the genesis of our administrative and political problems. It put our cultural, economical, political and territorial future into the hands of outsiders. The tension begins. The struggle just began.

The Case Against Indian Government

Just after Independence India, instead of working out the welfare of the Zo people in relation to their territory, their land was cut by three international boundaries. Not only that, in India we were absorbed into Greater Assam. And we saw in the subsequent years our land was transferred and divided to states, union territories and districts. We played very little part in it. Pathetic indigenous people, we have no much say in the affairs and destiny of our own land – founded and protected by our great and loving forefathers and foremothers.

And as if that is not enough, administrative system and administrators – one after another – strange and foreign to us were imposed and sent by the Indian government. The imposition is handed down. The tensions heightened. The struggle continues.

The Case Against Manipur Government

Even after Manipur attained statehood, instead of gaining wisdom and having compassion towards the Zo people because of their shared experienced and long-hard struggles, Manipur government bulldozed the Zo interests. Upon the Tuitha river, a dam called ‘Khuga’ Dam was constructed. The name imposed and alien to the indigenous inhabitants. A town called by the indigenous populace as Lamka was officially called ‘Churachandpur’. A strange foreign word and name imposed upon a different but indigenous people. A district, historically over ripen, Sadar Hills District, is today not yet a district – overided by a less deserving ones.

And if that is not enough, a strange game is being played by some actors to administratively invade and crippled our remaining tribal administration and polity. The imposition is still on. The tension is alive. The struggle is real.

Which Way Forward Now?

I was told that three of the surest ways of destroying the indigenous peoples in the world are – territorial invasion, imposition of administrators and administrative system and political invasion. That is exactly what the above three governments were and are doing. Therefore, we are a threatened indigenous people! Our land is a threatened indigenous land!

There is an urgent need to keep a watch on what is going on in these three sectors of our indigenous-national security and welfare. Our tribal polity, administrative and justice system must be expanded and reformed in the light of Judeo-Christian epistemology and world view, informed and guided by contemporary way of governance and experiences. Our indigenous governance must be reformed in the light of our Christian faith and with the challenges thrown to us by the rapidly changing globalize world. Many slow but fast changes and reformed must continue in every aspects of our family-national interests. With holding onto our Biblical faith, empowered by the Constitution of India and safeguarded by United Nations growing concerns on the affairs and future on indigenous peoples and lands, we can protect our Zo (Chin-Kuki-Mizo-Zomi) polity, administrative system and administrators and territory. For only in preserving these will we preserve ourselves as a family-nation. As an indigenous people and a tribal community, failing to protect our land and territory is failing to protect ourselves, our welfare and our identity.

However we may fail or failed each other in the past, it is not yet late. Today and now is the right time to begin that work in togetherness and in full swing – for the sake of our earthly welfare so that in the spirit also we may continue to do well.

[The article is taken from Manipur Express’ 26th September, 2007 issue. The writer can be contacted at artsastruth@yahoo.com. He is a spiritual-society worker].

http://vaipheiblog.blogspot.com/

Leave a Comment

Kukis renew justice plea

The Kuki community in Manipur today urged the Centre to ensure justice for its people who were killed by Naga militants in the early Nineties. The Kukis reminded Delhi about its “failure” to ensure “justice” for over 900 Kukis, who were allegedly killed by the NSCN (I-M).

The Kukis also alleged that over 350 villages were razed by the NSCN (I-M) during the Naga-Kuki clashes.

The Kuki community observed today as “black day” in memory of the Kukis killed during the ethnic clashes between 1992 and 1995.

Armed Naga militants slaughtered 105 unarmed Kuki women, children and elderly men at Joupi in Tamenglong district and Gelnel in Senapati district on this day in 1993. The Kukis have been observing this day as Black Day every year.

Highlights of today’s programme included group prayers in churches and hoisting of black flags atop houses belonging to Kukis.

Members of the Kuki community suspended the day’s routine activities. “Prayers were held in every church located in the Kuki-inhabited areas today. We did not work today. We also put up black flags atop every house,” said Apao Haokip, adviser of the Kuki Students Organisation.

A prayer meeting was also held at Imphal’s Kuki Inn. Important Kuki leaders, including student leaders and community leaders, took part in the programme.

Haokip said the prayers were held for attaining peace in society and in memory of those killed. “We only pray for peace. We do not have any yearning for revenge in our minds when we observe this ‘black day’,” another Kuki leader said.

In a statement, T. Lunkim, adviser to the Kuki Inpi, Manipur, pointed out that the last rites of those killed during the clashes were yet to be performed.

The Kuki Inpi, Manipur, undertook a peace initiative with the United Naga Council (UNC) in 1994. But the UNC spurned the peace initiative, he claimed.

Asserting that the Kukis in Manipur were seeking justice for the Kukis killed and Kuki villages devastated by the NSCN (I-M), he complained that the Centre has not done anything to deliver justice.

“The NSCN (I-M) killed the Kukis as part of its struggle for freedom. But if the Centre is not going to protect the Kukis, who will protect us?” the adviser of the apex organisation of the Kukis asked.

On September 3, 10 Kuki Liberation Army (KLA) activists were killed by the NSCN (I-M) at Tangkhul Hundung in Ukhrul district.

The incident sparked considerable tension between the communities. However, the tension subsided after the Kuki Inpi, Manipur, and the UNC intervened.

However, the KLA has not withdrawn its demand seeking that the weapons snatched by the NSCN (I-M) from the slain activists be returned. The outfit also wants the dispute settled in accordance with customary tribal laws.

The Kuki community also rejected charges levelled by the NSCN (I-M) that the KLA comprised anti-revolutionary and criminal elements, which had hijacked vehicles and abducted people for ransom.

The Telgraph

Leave a Comment

« Newer Posts · Older Posts »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.