Good Intent, Bad Contents: A Rejoinder to L.B. Singh tittering article.

By Gary Thangboi Haokip, 
(Zalengam Media)
         
In his article “Naga, Kuki, Meitei and Pangal youths should overcome disturbing history and shun ethnic politics” which appeared in The Sangai Express (26 & 27 August 2020) L.B. Singh opened with a sentence “Disturbing history and narrow ethnic politics led to hatred, violence and movement for disintegration, separate state, secession etc”. However, as one scroll down his piece it turned out to be a masterstroke to spread communal hatred and divide the people of Manipur just like his vicious British colonial master. Like his British master, he pitted one group against the others. Hence, he pitted Sanamahism against Hinduism, Meiteis against the hill tribes, the Nagas of Manipur against the Nagas of Nagaland, “old Kukis” against “new Kukis”, Nagas against Kukis, and so on. 
While pitting one against the others, he called upon what he called the “dark spot in the history”. It is up to the Nagas to answer whether they were not a part of Naga movement from the start and being treated stepmotherly by their kinsmen of Nagaland or the Meiteis to answer whether there was conflict between followers of Hinduism and Sanamahism. I would concentrate here how he has pitted the discredited colonial category of “old” and “new” Kukis and then the Nagas and Meiteis against the Kukis.
Singh begins his tirade against the “New Kukis” by declaring that “the Meiteis consider the Nagas of Manipur and the Old Kuki tribes as their brothers due to the conversion of Meitei to Naga/Kuki or vice versa” and urged “the Naga youths to overcome the disturbing history and carefully examine the wisdom of our ancestors who shared so much value and affinities among them”. In his earnestness to appease the Nagas, he took over the communalist narratives of his grandmaster and it’s puppet the Federation of Haomee (FoH) against the Kukis by declaring that “the Meiteis, the Nagas and the Old Kuki tribes were the original native settlers and the indigenous people of Manipur” whereas the “New Kuki tribes migrated from Burma (Myanmar) to Manipur after 1830”. He went on saying that “out of the 16 Old Kuki tribes, 11 have been identified as Nagas by themselves or by the Federation of Haomee (FoH)”, a discrete and communal organisation whose sole object is to bring conflict and disintegration among the people of Manipur. His anti-Kuki tirade is most explicit when he declares, “70% of the Kuki tribes are migrants”. Nowhere, he provided any historical fact to make all these hurry statements. So, his anti-Kuki design is loud and clear.
Mr. Singh should, instead of being the trumpeter of, and being so mean to people who is fighting to disintegrate Manipur, should have spoken the truth boldly if he is really intending to bring peace and harmony in the state. Pitting one against the others and taking the view of one group as a biblical truth without doing his homework in history, and merely to appease that group, is going to shed more tears than heal the injury. He should be reminded that his history is a communal history and based on a yellow journalism. For instance, which history book says that Old Kukis are original settlers and New Kukis are refugees from Burma? Which official records say that 70% of Kukis are migrants? Which official record says that 11 “old Kuki” tribes had identified themselves as Nagas? All these are “fake news”, driven as anti-Kuki propaganda by some communal and mischievous organizations who wanted to break up Manipur. Only in the history book of FoH may he find such “fake news”. British brought fissure among the Kukis by dividing them into “old” and “new” just as they did between Kukis and Nagas or between Meiteis and the hill tribes. L.B. Singh just wanted to repeat such history of “divide and rule”. It will not hold any water in the end. 
I would like to ask Mr. Singh: Can there be any “new” and “old” Nagas or Meiteis just like his division of “old” and “new” Kukis? If “the Meiteis consider the Nagas of Manipur and the Old Kuki tribes as their brothers” how can the “New Kukis” not be their brothers too? His argument was that this is because “there was conversion of Meiteis to Naga/Kuki and vice versa”. If legend is to be believed, there was no “conversion”, Kukis, Nagas and Meiteis belongs to one family. Only location and politics divided them. There was a “general tradition” shared by the forefathers of Kukis, Nagas and Meiteis that “the Nagas, Kukis, and Manipuris descended from a common ancestor, who had three sons who became the progenitors of those tribes. This tradition, which is widely spread, agrees in its many versions in assigning the primacy of descent to the Kukis, the next place being given to the Nagas, while the Manipuris are said to be the children of the youngest of these three brothers”. (see TC Hodson, The Naga Tribes of Manipur, p. 9). Is Mr. Singh trying to say that such common “ancestor” of the Kukis, Nagas and Meiteis had never existed? Or, is he trying to say that the legendary Kuki ancestor was the ancestor of his “Old Kukis” and not the “New Kukis”? This could happen only in somebody’s mind, but not in reality.
Let me narrate the legend of Kuki origin story. All the Kukis traced their origin at a legendry place differently called “Khul”, “Khur”, “Khulpui”, “Sinlung/Chhinlung”, etc., often described as “subterranean world” or “underworld”. As many legends, it is difficult to pinpoint where this is now. Yet, Gun (Imphal river) plays “a most important part in all Thadou songs and legends of the old days”. At the time of the great flood, “the Thadous say they collected at Kholkipkholjang where every living thing took refuge. This has been located as above Kaithenmangpi [Kaithelmanbi] in Manipur on the right bank of the Imphal river”. “This place, I am told”, noted William Shaw, “is also known to the Manipuris who speak of it as Khongjai Khunman which means the ‘Old site of the Kukis’”. (see, W. Shaw, Notes on the Thadou Kukis, p. 28).
When the flood subsided, the Thadous (Kukis) found the plain unsafe and hence took to the hills on the east of Imphal river and migrated to the Tuihat river (Chindwin), from where they traced back their footprint to Manipur. (Shaw, pp. 29-30). On the origin of the Meiteis, there were also some legends that resemble the origin tradition of the Kukis. The story of “Poireiton Khunthok” is one that relates to Kuki “Khul” referred to above, defining Meitei affinity with the Kukis. 
Whether all these old traditions and legends have no value at all to L.B. Singh in reinventing the society of Manipur which had been hugely disintegrated by ethnic politics of recent origin? I think not and at least some British official ethnographers think not. Col. W. McCulloch said that “there were extant legends” in the valley of Manipur, he called it “the most credible traditions”, that “the valley appears originally to have been occupied by several tribes, the principal of which were named Koomul, Looang, Moirang and Meithei, all of whom came from different directions”. Against Pemberton’s theory that Meiteis are from “the Tartar Colony from China”, McCulloch contended that “I can see no reason, and think there is far more ground to conclude them to be descendants of the surrounding hill tribes”. He said that, “Tradition brings the Moirang tribe from the South, the directions of the Kookies, the Koomul from the East, the direction of the Murrings, and the Meithei and Looang from the North-west, the direction of the Koupooees”. He went on saying that “All these tribes have also traditions among themselves that the Munniporees are offshoots from them”. (see, W. McCulloch, Account of the Valley of Manipur and of the Hill Tribes, p. 4 and Hudson, The Meitheis, pp. 5-6). Coming to a scientific classification of languages, the Meitei (Meithei) is described by G.A. Grierson’s Linguistic Survey of India (Vol. 3, Part 3) as part of the “Kuki-Chin Group”. 
To L.B. Singh, the above facts are all lies; the Meiteis must seek their history in the north rather than in the south. In other words, his argument is that all that south belongs to the Kukis which Meiteis had no connection. Meitei connection is only with the Nagas. Let him be reminded that only Meitheis and Luwang did not constitute the Meitei nation; the Moirangs and the Koomul are also very much a part of it. If he wants to know the relationship between Meiteis and Kukis, he is advised to read the history of Moirangs and Koomuls. A “Meithei-centric” history of relationship with the hill tribes will not give him a complete history of Manipur.
Besides, his definition of indigeneity or “indigenous people” of Manipur is based on the discrete organization called FoH who served the interest of a grandmaster who is struggling hard to disintegrate the integrity of Manipur. Why would a man like L.B. Singh who seems to project himself as a fighter for the integrity of Manipur depended on such a discrete and communal group for his historical source or took it as his political think-tank? Or, is he giving himself to the idea of disintegration Manipur and bring chaos and violence in the state? I completely fail to understand his position. Just by throwing somebody’s venom on his enemy’s does not solve the problem; it only heighten it. So, before taking his historical facts together, he jumped over to the concocted idea that the “New Kuki tribes migrated from Burma (Myanmar) to Manipur after 1830”. 
I want to ask Mr. Singh where the boundary of Burma ends and where Manipur boundary started by 1830? Is his “original native settlers” and “indigenous people” defined by political boundary or culture? If he thinks that Manipur boundary extends as far as the Chindwin river by this time, as many historians do, then were the Kukis coming from the east of Chindwin river or within? If he thinks in terms of present Manipur boundary, then it does not exist by that time. The present eastern and western boundary of Manipur was settled (in fact dictated by British) in 1833 and 1834 whereas its northern boundary was settled in 1840s and its southern boundary settled in 1890s. (see, A. Mackenzie, North East India, pp. 107, 122, 150-53, 181-85; Chin Hills-Manipur Boundary Commission, 1893). 
If he thinks that his “indigenous people” are defined by culture, then he again miserably fail. Thus, there cannot be some Kuki (old Kuki) being “indigenous” and others (new Kuki) not just as there cannot be Meiteis without Kukis or Nagas and vice versa. For Kuki is Kuki by culture and tradition regardless of where they stay just as Meitei is Meitei and Naga is Naga; all of them shared similar cultural collective and belongs to “Tibeto-Burman Family”; Kukis and Meiteis being more closer by being part of one group (“Kuki-Chin Group” within “Tibeto-Burman Family”). 
International Labour Organisation Convention No. 169 provided two criteria (subjective and objective) in order to indentify who “indigenous peoples” are. The subjective criteria is based on “self-identification as belonging to an indigenous people”. The objective criteria is based on “descent from populations, who inhabited the country or geographical region at the time of conquest, colonization or establishment of present state boundaries’ and ‘they retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions, irrespective of their legal status”. (see, ILO Convention No. 169, Article 1). Now, Mr. Singh must check whether his definition of “indigenous people of Manipur” is correct. He should be reminded that (subjectively) the Kukis had defined themselves as the “indigenous people of Manipur” and does not need anyone to define their status. Objectively, they have occupied their present territory long before conquest, colonization or establishment of present state boundaries and had always been consciously retained their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions, irrespective of their legal status as “Scheduled Tribes” of Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Assam, Tripura, Meghalaya, and so on.
Besides, Mr. Singh must be wary about attacking history in the interest of appeasing certain group of people in the present. It is dangerous to point-finger the Maharaja of Manipur for all our problems today, most of them being our own creation due to our narrow ethnic politics. Let me tell you the truth about the kings of Manipur. They were open and large-hearted individuals, strong in conviction and determination just as farsighted. In the history of Manipur kingdom, the rulers had little interest in the southern hills; its attention was always in the east (with Pong and Ava), west (Kachar and Tripura) or sometimes north (Assam). This continued even after the conquest of Moirang kingdom which shared a long history with the Kukis. The southern hills (including present Churachandpur, Pherzawl, Tengnoupal and Chandel districts) had always been inhabited by the Kuki tribe of different dialect groups (both your “old” and “new” Kukis) and with the drawing of the southern boundary of Manipur to the present position in 1890s they all subsequently become the legal “subjects” of Manipur State. Yet, until after the Anglo-Kuki War 1917-1919 no direct administration was introduced in the hills.
Until about the rise of Kamhow-Sukte and Sailo Lushei chiefs in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century in the present Chin Hills and Mizoram, the Kukis were leaving peacefully in the southern hills of present Manipur hills, having close relationship with the people of southern Manipur valley. The pressure from the south eventually led many of the Kukis toward the north, some along the western hills to the direction of present Tamenglong and up to the Naga Hills, some along the eastern hills till Naga Hills and Somra Tract. Some of them also seek the protection of Manipur Maharajas by coming down to the valley whereas others moved to Cachar plain to the British government. The large-hearted Maharajas of Manipur and the Political Agent had received them courteously and settled them along the fringe of the southern valley, providing them firearms to defend themselves and the valley from Suktes and Lusheis raids, and named those villages as “sepoy village”. Those who took shelter under British in Cachar were similar used by the British as a buffer against the Lushei raids in southern valley of Cachar and many of them were also later taken to the Langting range of North Cachar Hills and Naga Hills to protect the Cacharis and Zalengrong Nagas from the Angami raids. 
Mr. Singh’s argument that the Maharajas had settled other Kukis among the Nagas is a misplaced fact. His accusation of the Maharaja for the brutal incidents of 1881-82, Kuki Rebellion (1917-19), Heraka Movement (1930-32), and the Kuki-Naga conflict of 1990s, is highly condemnable and does not hold a drop of water. Instead of relying on the history manufactured in the devil factory of FoH, Mr. Singh should read history book and records. He should be reminded that there was no attempt by the Maharajas to settle the Kukis among the Nagas. It was due mainly to a mutual understanding and friendship between the two that such Kuki settlements took root in the northern hills; a Naga village offering land to Kukis in exchange of protection from their rivals. Few incidents of violence there were in the interest of one Naga village against the other Naga village and for tranquility, which every sensible ruler would do. Thus, till about the census of 1951 and 1961 one would still find two villages of the same name with different suffix “Kuki” and “Tangkhul” in Ukhrul District or “Kuki” and “Kacha Naga” in Tamenglong District. 
All these suffixed “Kuki” villages disappeared in 1970s and 1980s due to the Naga homeland movement. Many of the Kukis who were displaced from their home took refuge to Kuki inhabited area in the Sadar Hills (today, Kangpokpi), Chandel and Churachandpur districts of Manipur. Some of them also took refuge in Kabaw valley of Burma from where the Burmese authority had pushed them back into India in the well-known Khadomi Operation (1960). These homecoming Kukis were recorded as “refugees” from Burma in the usual bureaucratic notes and letters, which the communalist group like FoH and its master found it useful to legitimize their anti-Kuki project. The ethnic cleansing programme had started since the inception of Naga homeland movement which blew up into open confrontation in the 1990s; it is going on. Mr. Singh must have the guts to blame the Naga homeland movements for all the maladies of present Manipur than accusing the large-hearted Maharajas for our present troubles. 
I would like to place few tips for Mr. Singh for his future course of action: 
1. Is it human and civil to take advantage of somebody’s agony/hardship to justify and achieve one’s own narrow politics of the day? Mr. Singh must ask himself and to the group he had promoted and appeased instead of blaming the large-hearted and humane Maharajas for all the troubles of Manipur today. The Maharajas helped the Kukis who had been suffering from their internal wars so the Kukis had paid him back generously in all his wars. That was how relationship built in the past. People like L.B. Singh should have scant respect for history and the Maharajas who knew better than we do about what is peace, harmony and integrity of Manipur. All peace-loving citizens of Manipur should be wary about the hate campaign against the Kukis and should not fall into the trap of such communal ideas being now promoted by Mr. Singh and others.
2. He should stop speaking like those communalists from FoH if he is really serious about peace and harmony in the state. Instead, he should stop those people from spreading hatreds and disharmony among different groups of people. In other words, he should stop trumpeting the message of hate by calling someone refugees and foreigners. Kukis, Nagas and Meiteis are all indigenous people of Manipur and it is to the good of all that we must co-exist together happily and respectfully. As long as one calls the other refugees with the sole objective of evicting them from their home, there will not be any peace.
3. He must not pretend to write history, which he does not know anything about it. When he writes, he should consult his hard historical facts rather than relying on some yellow journalism. 
4. He should stop writing if he does not understand the impact of print media. He would be a better human if he enjoys his post-retirement life in serving the poor and needy than writing and spreading such a sensational and communal pieces.