By- Phanjoubam Chingkhei
Glorification of one’s history without acknowledging that of neighbouring brethren is not suggestive of peaceful co-existence.The organised campaign targeting Manipur Kukiswhich has been on rise promoted for reasons that can be speculated but could not be pin-point exactly at the moment can only lead to uncertainty while presenting one-sided story by vested interests and writers can only influence the innocent general public into believing it as truth unless both side of the story which is crucial for a responsible media/ journalist is provided.
The history of Manipur right from the very beginning when the Meitei confederacy was not formed has been that of violence and killings amongst brothers. The process has continued throughout the medieval, and modern times as well and it is in this regard that that the popular maxim of Geroge Santayana “those who cannot learn history are doomed to repeat it” needs to be remembered, and sooner the increasing organised campaign and reckless exercise of freedom of expression, if it seriously breaches the harmony of a society can be dealt with relevant Indian Penal Codes, needs to be reflected for a stitch in time saves nine. In a landlocked state, with almost no resources, and rapid changing world of globalization, a sense of mutual understanding with the objective for peace, progress and prosperity needs to be focussed, not just in words, speeches but in reality.
Extremely disturbing, and unexpected out of the blue rise, targeting Manipur Kukis by manipulating facts and hiding the true picture can bring nothing good and continuous digging of the ugly past can only lead to keeping alive of unfortunate incidents that had happened before Christianity changed the tribal characteristics.
Clothing the whole picture –Planned escape of Sana Koireng
Branding ManipurKukis as “opportunists”, a certain section propagating, clearly with an agenda, without providing the whole picture is pushing forward a one-sided story into the general public into believing ManipurKukis did not assisted “Tikendrajit and MaharajKulachandra to proceed to China as have been planned earlier.” It is very unfortunate to deliberately create a wrong perception of the incident without providing what actually happened. Based on the writing of the William Shaw, the writer, of a newly formed group continuously targeting Manipur Kukis,also maintained that “instead even they expressed they were seriously thinking of revenge to the two sons of ChandrakirtyMaharaj who killed NehlamKuki of Chashat.”
It is lamentable and questionable why a clear picture is concealed compounded by skipping off historically documented facts. The “Kukis” mentioned herein is the Chassad chief Tonglhu to whom Sana Koireng fled for “protection” after the murder offive British officials in 1891.
Tonghlu said he was seriously thinking of taking revenge for his father Nehlam’s murder but as the Sirkar were in search of the Raja he told him to go away as he could not grant such protection. (Shaw) The writer is making an allegation towards the Chassad Chief Tonghluwhose very own father NehlumKuki was murdered, in the most despicable and treacherous manner, by calling him to the royal court, and the entire incident was attributed to the whole Manipur community though it was more of a personal matter.
The murder of NehlamKuki is also one of the most unsuspected and treachery that was committed, by the “two sons of Chandrakrity.” The Chief of the Chassad group had gone to visit the Raja, as a courtesy call,and at first was “well received.” Later, Nehlam visited the then political Agent which enraged the Raja so much and sent for the Chief, unaware of what lay ahead. When Nehlam was produced, “he was murdered as the Manipuris” thinking “he would become a follower of the British and not do what the Manipuris wanted.”
The treachery against Manipur Kukis during the time was again followed by another incident of despicable manner, which again has been kept in the dark to the general public. Shaw refers to the Chief Soya Kuki of Songchal village as “a great warrior with a powerful following” who had established himself at Lailong Village in present-day Churachandpur.
When the Manipur Raja heard of him, he sent for Soya “who appeared presenting a gong to the Raja but he was also put to death because of his independence.” (Shaw).
The inhumane act so enraged Chief Tungkhopao of Laikot village that he grouped his followers with that of the deceased Soya and sought assistance of the Rajah of Awa, for a response, to which Manipur’s ancient foe remarked that “he could do so in three years’ time” but internal-clan feuds could not lead to the development.
From another perspective, mention may be made of the observation of the Deputy Commissioner Assam JH Hutton, an anthropologist himself, who in a publication on the esteemed Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal observed “the Thado ruled as they were by their own well-recognised chiefs, and treated as they had been in the past at any rate, by the Manipur state as allies almost as much as subjects, managed their own affairs in their own way and had recorses to the courts only in exceptional cases.”
As of the allegations and distortions of quotes concerning “Kukis know the Manipuris have no chance of winning the war, so need not help the Manipur” the writer who mentioned it, added words which William Shaw never ever said and the actual quote was “the Kukis did nothelp the Manipuris then, as they latter had no chance” still the British official acknowledged that “most of the Thadous fought on this occasion.”
The severely one-sided writing failed to state that the said Kuki chief had told the fugitives “to go away” as the “Sirkar were in search of the Raja.” Sirkar refers to the British.
Misquoting of a documented report is not just unethical but misleads the public into believing it as a truth and undoubtedly raise ifa hidden agenda is associated for reasons that can be “speculated” for association with an advanced tribe.
British official’s report, ethnographers and Sir James Johnstone’s report
British officials, refined, trained in diplomatic affairs with Western education when they came in contact with the tribes of the region, simply had their senses numbed to encounter and witnessed they had never seen before and employed terminologies to describe what they felt was applicable.
With cultural differences, it was hard for British to accept certain ways of living which was in contrast to their Christian sentiments.
British after establishingconcrete relations with Manipur in early 19th century, documented eye-witness reports, almost all of them of without biasedness, which today tremendously assist students of the past. However, British themselves are “alien” and “foreigners” to the culture, customs and Manipur’s past history and relied mostly on assumption which unfortunately is considered unquestionably true.
Sir James Johnstone (1877-1896) account’s is more of a narrative and is based his experiences, during his stay in Manipur and Naga Hills though without questionis vital for historians for the political agent was well respected by all.
However, unlike predecessors R Brown and Col. McCulloch, Johnstone’s account hardly deals with ethnography and made presumptions of “Great KanglaShas – the pride of our today’s Manipur”being built by the Chinese and further claimed of a Chinese invasion in 13th century which has no basis. He also said the Kukis were first heard in Manipur in 1830’s but “Manipur’s treasure – the CheitharolKumbaba” mentions of Khongjaisin 1787.
Lt. Col Shakespeare, referred to it in his magnumopus, stating “there is mention of an expedition against the Khongjais”in 1787 and “though the chronicle cannot be accepted as infallible, I think we may conclude that the Thados entered the Manipur Hills about the middle of the 18th century.”
Entry on CheitharolKumbaba is based on events and incidents and in many cases does not provide detailed information. The period, mentioned herein was time when Manipur was seriously engaged in disturbances from the great Burmese Konbaung Empire. From an angle, one needs to reflect, if officials based in Manipur’s royal court, provided their entries in the Royal Chronicle, based on annual survey covering the hill areas let alone Manipur valley.
Henceforth, there is room for reason for Lt. Col Shakespeare’s assumption that the Khongjais without a doubt had established their villages in Manipur hills, much earlier until an incident occurred which led to its entry into the “prized” chronicle of Manipur.
Ethnography focuses on multiple aspects of a tribe unlike non-ethnographers who would never hesitate to employ terminologies that may be seem justified to their bringing marked by European education and Christian upbringings, which of course is true, but lamentablycould be employed to manipulate or demonize a particular group or body for an organised agenda.
During the daring rescue of British subjects and brief involvement of Manipur in the 3rd Anglo-Burmese war, James Johnstone who slipped to Burma, Col. Johnstone referred to the appellation “Burmese Manipuris” when he encountered them near the Chindwin River.
Of Sepoy Mutiny and need of guns to check Angami Naga incursions
Col McCulloch who was greatly admired by the Kukishad “thousands of fierce Kukis settled as peaceful subjects of Manipur.” This policy of having Kuki settlements on exposed frontiers were well received to serve as a barrier against another formidable foe AngamiNagas. The period was in the mid-19th century, and the Kukis on that side of the frontier had more friendly relations with the British officers for they had employed in enlisting them as soldiers and even raising a Levy.
Even when, the Kuki war of 1917-1919 broke out, the rumours that Angamis might attack their children and women if they leave their village was among the many factors they led to the refusal of the Manipur Kukis to disregard the British authority, their sub-orderly kingdom and flat denial of their demand to have able-bodied youths serve as Labour Corps.
When the Sepoy Mutiny broke out, in 1857, the troops based in Sylhet and Silchar mutinied and after killing their officers headed for Manipur and settling there since they heard that it was most fertile.
Meanwhile, the Thadou levies assured to join them and fight their enemies with them including the Englishmen, and allowed them to enter the fort in great numbers. However, led by one of their Chiefs, they turned against the mutineers and killed them, “capturing all their arms handed over to the Sirkar.” Chieftainship is an inseparable part of Kuki traditions and their decisions are often final in the past.
Meanwhile, in return for their action, more arms were supplied by the Sirkar to the Kukis and they were then used in greater numbers to keep off the raids of the AngamiNagas of the Naga Hills.
Yet again, the objective of the action has been either deliberately skipped or not noticed but nevertheless presented the historical fact in a one-sided manner.
