Contd. from yesterday
According to the Census of India, 2001 as un-officially projected by the All Manipur College Teachers Association for the purpose of academic exercise, the total population of Manipur is 23,88,638 as appeared in the local dailies on the 16th July, 2001. The total population is divided into categories as detailed below :
1. Meitei Hindus – 1361521
2. Meitei Pangal – 167204
3. 29 Scheduled tribes – 713813
4. Unspecified Tribes * – 75768
5. Other Communities **-146016
Table – 3
Detailed tribe-wise populations are as given below (Census, 2001):
Sl.No. Name of tribe No. of population Sl.No. Name of tribe No. of population
1. Aimol 2643 16. Mizo (any Lushai) 10520
2. Anal 13853 17. Monsang 1635
3. Angami 650 18. Mayon 1710
4. Chiru 5487 19. Paite 44861
5. Chothe 2675 20. Purum 503
6. Gangte 15100 21. Ralte 110
7. Hman 42690 22. Sema 25
8. Kabui 62216 23. Simte 7150
9. Kacha Naga 20328 24. Suhte 311
10. Koirao 1200 25. Tangkhul 112988
11. Koireng 1056 26. Thadou 115045
12. Kom 15467 27. Vaiphei 27791
13. Lamkang 4524 28. Zo 19112
14. Mao 80568 29. Maring 17361
15. Maram 10510
Notes :-
* There are a good number of tribes who are not scheduled listed, particularly among the Thadou-Kuki speaking ethnic groups. They are therefore, categorized as unspecified tribes, such as, Lunkim, Changsan, Lamhao, Lenthang, Misao, Lupheng, Lupho, Baite, Touthang, Mate, Doungel, some Gangtes claiming direct-Mizo who are not Lushai either, Chongloi, Hangshing and Thangeo.
** Certain communities who are not either Meitei Hindus or Meitei Pangal, or ethnic tribes. They are, Punjabi, Bihari, Tamilian, Nepali, Marwari, etc. They are categorized as Other Communities.
It is also to be noted that except Kacha-Naga and KUKI could be found in the above list of tribes. These are the two conventional terminologies used as ‘generic terms’ to denote certain tribal groups, clubbed together in consideration of their close affinity among themselves in respect of culture, tradition, customs, beliefs and rites, manners and term of Government, etc. for many generations together.
Despite the fact that there is no Naga tribe or Kuki tribe in the list shown above, these two terminologies are conventionally used for certain ethnic groups to distinguish one from the other. Accordingly, we may divide them into Naga and Kuki on the basis of scientific studies made by experts and anthropologists. Lieutenant Colonel J. Shakespear (1912, pp.133-186 : The Lushai Kuki Clans Part I, II) called the following ethnic groups as Kukis :- 1. Aimol.2. Anal.3. Chiru.4. Chothe.5. Gangte, 6. Hmar.7. Koirao 8.Koireng, 9. Kom, 10. Lamkang, 11. Mizo (Lushai),12. Monsang,13. Mayon, 14. Paite. 15. Purum,16. Ralte, 17. Sukte,18. Thadou,19.Vaiphei, 20. Maring and many more other s numbering thirty-four in all.
But in Mizoram, the people preferred to call themselves as Mizo since the Lushai Expeditions, 1871-72 and accordingly, the Mizo Union in their Memorandum submitted to the Crown of England in 1947 urged the British India Government to recognize the term MIZO in place of KUKI, the people signified by the term Kuki remaining the same. Likewise, some ethnic groups who were hitherto been called KUKI preferred to be called Chin and Khul(r) for reasons best known to themselves. While such was the ground situation, when Prof. J.K.Pose (1980) along with a team of researchers made detailed study of the said people concerned reiterated that those ethnic groups who were termed as Kukis by earlier Anthropologists shall remain to be called so as could be seen from his book ‘Glimpses of Tribal Life in North-East India’, in regard to their study on the practices of Liverate and Cross-Cousin marriages (pp.53-61 and 75-83). In this connection it may be recalled that Prof. Kabui, Gangmumei (1985 : p.50 : The Anals : A Transborder Tribe of Manipur) contended that –
“No tribe in Manipur has faced the problem of identity as the Anals. The situation in which they are now put into may have been caused by the natural desire of a minority to have an identification in community status, political aspiration with one major group or the other. The Anals and smaller groups, like Mayon, Monsang, Lamkang and Tarao … naturally produce constraint on their group identity … in relation to the bigger neighbours, Nagas or the Kuki-Chins”. (To be contd………)
