THE STATE OF THE KUKI PEOPLE IN POST-INDEPENDENT INDIA AND BURMA

By PS Haokip

The Kuki people

The Kukis are an ethnic people comprising numerous clans. These clans share a common past, culture, customs and tradition. They speak in dialects that have a common root language belonging to the Tibeto-Burman group. Kuki country was subjugated by the British and divided between British India and British Burma administrations following the ‘Kuki Rising of 1917-1919’. Up until the fateful defeat in 1919, the Kukis were an independent people ruled by their chieftains. During WWII, seizing the opportunity to regain independence, Kukis fought along with the Imperial Japanese Army and the Indian National Army led by Subhas Chandra Bose. The success of the Allied forces over the Axis group dashed the aspiration of the Kuki people. Today, the Kukis are dispersed in Northeast India, Northwest Burma, and the Chittagong Hill tracts in Bangladesh. In India, the Kukis are in the states of Manipur, Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya and Tripura; in the state of Mizoram, formerly the Lushai Hills, they are known as ‘Mizo’. In Burma, they are mainly in the Sagaing Division, and in Bangladesh, along the Chittagong Hill Tracts.

With regard to Kuki identity, Prof JN Phukan 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. Prof Gangumei Kabui states, ‘some Kuki tribes migrated to Manipur hills in the pre-historic times along with or after the Meitei advent in the Manipur valley.’ This hypothesis will take us to the theory that the Kukis, for that 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.’ Stevenson’s reference to Kuki in relation to Ptolemy’s The Geography also bears critical significance to its existence in this period. The Rajmala or Annals of Tripura, refers to Shiva falling in love with a Kuki woman around AD 1512. The Encyclopaedia Britannica records, ‘Kuki, a name given to a group of tribes inhabiting both sides of the mountains dividing Assam and Bengal from Burma, south of the Namtaleik river.’ Concerning the origins of Kuki, in 1893, EB Elly, a British official, wrote, the terminology ‘Kuki’, meaning ‘hill people’ originated at Sylhet, in former East Bengal.

Historians such as Majumdar and Bhattasa1i refer to the Kukis as the earliest people known to have lived in prehistory India, preceding ‘the “Dravidians” who now live in South India.’ The Aryans, who drove the Dravidians towards the south, arrived in the Indian sub-continent around BC 1500. In the Pooyas, the traditional literature of the Meitei people of Manipur, ‘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.’ Cheitharol Kumaba (Royal Chronicles of the Meitei Kings) records that in the year 186 Sakabda (AD 264) Meidungu Taothingmang, a Kuki, became king.

The state of Kukis in post-independent India

In post-independent India, trusting safety and security of their land would be guaranteed the Kuki people abandoned the path of armed movement as against the British. The Kuki Chiefs’ Association, which was formed in the 1930s officially, became the Kuki National Assembly on 24 October 1946. The late Zavum Misao was its first President, and late Thangkhopao Kipgen, its Secretary, who was Special Officer during the time of FF Pearson, President of the Manipur State Durbar. In 1952 the Kuki National Assembly declared its position against the merger of Manipur State with Assam, opting for separate Kuki statehood. However, that hope was soon belied when the Government turned a blind eye to KNA’s petition. Rather than oblige Kukis who were opposed to the British and who fought along with the Indian National Army, the Government rewarded other communities in the region who were pro-colonialists. This lack of insight and wisdom in not responding to Kukis’ demand for statehood has left the people completely vulnerable. As a result, the Government of India failed to protect the rights and lands of the Kukis against the onslaught of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak & Muivah). This failure of the Government and apathy was reinforced by categorically sidelining the Kukis and instead engaging in political dialogue with NSCN (IM) to solve the problems of the ‘Nagas’, but not the Kukis’. This situation has been aggravated by the inability of the Government to oust Meitei militants, such as United National Liberation Front, from Kuki territory where they plant landmines and kill and rape Kukis at whim. In Churachandpur District, UNLF raped 25 Hmar Kuki women and also killed Pu Thangtuam, a senior Indian Police Service officer because he is Kuki. The intention of both NSCN (IM) and UNLF is to forcibly snatch Kuki lands to include within a) Nagalim and b) Kangleipak, the designs respectively of the two aggressors. Given the critical circumstances, the Kuki National Organisation has established its own course of action, which is articulated in Zale’n-gam, the Kuki nation and Manifesto; the objective is to secure our ancestral territory by way of statehood, one within the India Union and another in Burma.

Kuki people’s predicament in Burma

Kuki ancestral land in Burma begins from the river Chindwin, stretching to the west bordering India, in the north, up to the river Nantalit and its surrounding regions, and to the south, the region up to the northern border of Chin State. Following Burma’s independence from Britain in 1948, the Kukis were reconciled to being an integral part of the country. However, general neglect of the people by the Government prompted Kuki National Organisation’s armed cadre, Kuki National Army to carry out offensives against the Burmese army. These activities have now ceased completely in view of KNO’s decision to pursue through peaceful means a solution to the Kuki problem in Burma. In this connection, some of the grievances faced by the Kuki people are being highlighted for the appraisal of the distinguished personalities present on this occasion of remembering 1857 and gauging the benefits of independence from Britain:

• In 1967, under U Muang Maung’s “Khadwami Operation” the Government of Revolutionary Council headed by General Newin, displaced 20,000 Kukis in the Kabow valley under the excuse that they were holding bogus “National Registration and family registration cards”.

• From 1980s there have been deliberate attempts at displacing the Kukis and populating the Kabow valley with other ethnic Burmese tribes. The settlements of Ongchija, Tanan, Myothit, Sayashan, Bandulah, Nanaungow, Mantong and Ywatha, which were deliberately set up by the Military Government in the Kabow Valley are existing examples of discrimination against the Kukis. We do not have objection to live with them peacefully but only as long as there is an equitable approach at the Government policy levels. Till now the Military Government has given us a step-motherly treatment.

• Since 1990 the SLORC Government have been extracting forced-labor from the Kukis in the Kabow Valley. The Army has dispossessed many Kuki villages of their lands. A glaring example of this is at Watsu in 1992 under the direct supervision of the General Secretary II Gen Tin O.

• In the beginning of 1993 Nungkam, a Kuki village was burnt and bulldozed and in its place a new military settlement, Saya San Ywo, was set up. The ostensible reason for this was that the Kukis refuse to convert to Buddhism. The village Church was burnt down. There are many other instances, which are glaring examples of SLORC’s discrimination against the Kukis in Burma (Myanmar).

• The student community Kuki Students Democratic Front, Burma (KSDF) has submitted a representation highlighting Human Rights violation by SLORC against ethnic Nationalities (1993-94) in Burma (Myanmar). Apart from mentioning forced labour and forceful occupation of village lands by the warriors they highlighted one incident at Phailen, a Kuki village in the Kabow Valley. It appears that one soldier from the 89 battalion of Burmese warriors deserted his camp based in Phailen village with a few rifles and ammunition. Subsequently, a Burmese platoon stormed into the village, killed four people and arrested twelve others (all are consisting of Kuki religious leaders of Phailen Baptist Church). A ransom of 200,000 Kyats was demanded for their release. U Mangpu (45), Chairman of village, Law and Order Restoration Council; Rev. Yangkholet (48), the Pastor of Phailen Baptist Church; U Thangkhai (28) and U Haopu (25) were brutally tortured to death, during the first week of August 1993. U Maungpu’s house was demolished and his cows and domestic pets were used as ration for the platoon. His wife has been imprisoned in Monywa jail since then. This news was broadcast by BBC Burmese section on11.08.93.
• Currently, the governments of India and Burma are involved in the building of the Tamanthi Dam. This dam is being constructed on Kuki ancestral lands without the consent of the people. Till date, over 35 Kuki villages have been evicted and no compensation has been paid for their land. Compensation may be paid, the government says, provided the village people shift to the east bank of the river Chindwin, which is not the land of the Kuki people.
• The SPDC had sold a stretch of Kuki land between Teijang village and Tungkyaw village to the Palaung people. However, when I personally enquired from the Palaung people whether the Kuki land was bought by them, they said it was not true. This is strange because when two Kuki men went and cut two timbers on their own land, the SPDC soldiers slapped a fine of 2,00000/- Kyats. The SPDC soldiers told the Kuki men that they were being fined for cutting wood growing on land already sold to the Palaung people. I cannot help but think that the SPDC might have sold the Kuki land to the United National Liberation Front, a Meitei insurgent group from Manipur in India, who are being sheltered by the SPDC. The UNLF have been planting landmines in Kuki areas in Cahndel District and Churachandpur District of Manipur. Till date 33 plus 25 innocent village have been killed by the landmines, respectively in the two Districts. The issue of the Tamanthi Dam and the controversies related to its illegal and forcible construction on Kuki ancestral lands has been highlighted on the Website of Kuki Students Democratic Front, Burma: www.ksdf.org

All these incidents of harassment, torture and discrimination by the Military Government have been a matter of deep concern for us. We are surprised and shocked, mainly because we have never raised the banner of rebellion against independent Burma like the other ethnic groups, such as the Chins, the Kachins, Karens, etc. Even then we Kukis have been continuously treated as anti-nationals. The only reason for this seems to be that we are not Buddhists but Christians in general. In this regard Myanmar has at no time declared itself as a theocratic Buddhist State. Buddhism, as we know it, is a non-violent all-encompassing religion and in this context, the actions of the military-regime are paradoxical. According to our understanding, Myanmar is supposed to be a democratic and peace-loving country where all ethnic groups may live in harmony, professing any religion of their choice.

KNO would like to draw your attention to the following issues concerning the Kuki people in Burma:

i) Safeguarding the territorial integrity of Kuki lands and preservation of their identity by the Government of Burma is imperative. To the Kuki people this issue is more important than the political status of Burma, i.e. military state or democracy.
ii) Kukis want to be fully integrated within the Union of Burma. To achieve this objective, KNO wants the Government to accord statehood to Kuki ancestral lands.
iii) The proposal for Kuki statehood includes their ancestral lands starting from the river Chindwin towards the west bordering India; in the north, up to the river Nantalit and its surrounding regions; and to the south, the region stretching to the northern border of Chin State.
iv) Statehood would allay the fear that the Government might plan to inhabit ethnic Burmese transplanted from other regions of Burma and settle them on Kuki lands with a view to rendering them a minority in their own territory. For example, in 2004 as well, a new Burmese village, Yan Nyang Aung was established between Lallim and Panda Kuki villages.
v) Prevent Meitei militants from Manipur in India to use Kuki lands in Burma to carry out activities against the Kuki people, as well as the Indian army across the international border. For example, in a recent Manipur People’s Army (conglomeration of Meitei militant groups) attack on the Assam Rifles out-post at a Kuki village, Chavangphai, Ward 7 Moreh, near the Indo-Burma border, four local civilians, including two women suffered severe injuries (20 July 2006, Imphal Free Press). A 60mm bomb, injuring two people also hit a house at S Moljol, an adjacent village. The BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/burmese/ also reported that on the Burmese side of the border, two Kuki villages, Valpabung and Namphalong were affected when Assam Rifles retaliated. The injured village folks were refused immediate medical attention at the hospital at Tamu, a town in Kabow valley because the Burmese police reported the casualties were not caused by the crossfire that occurred the previous night.

The Kuki National Organisation believes that it would not be presumptuous to state that fulfilment of their aspirations would contribute to peace and stability of the nation. KNO, therefore, urge the Government to institute Kuki statehood at the earliest possible date. This initiative would inspire confidence among the Kukis and dispel notions that Government intends to exploit Kuki lands and its people and press a policy of Burmanisation. It would also be a positive deterrent to Kukis resorting to alternative measures as in the past to achieve their objectives.

Kuki’s position vis-à-vis India’s 1857 war of independence

2007 marks the sesquicentennial year of India’s revolt against British rule in 1857. A pertinent question today is whether the people of India have benefited much after 60 years of independence from Britain. This question relates mainly to economics and development matters; political freedom (apart from misrule by our own national leaders) and territorial integrity are no longer issues. For the Kuki people, however, their issues remain primarily political freedom and territorial integrity, precisely what they fought for during British rule. Being citizens of India or Burma has had no impact to improve their lot. When the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak & Muivah) carried out the Kuki genocide from 1992-1997, over 900 souls perished, 350 villages were uprooted and more than 50, 000 were rendered refugees in their own lands. These facts reveal the stark reality of the Government of India and the army not being in a position to provide adequate protection to the Kukis. Following this demonstration of severe inability, to rub salt into Kuki wounds, GOI proceeded to sign a peace accord with NSCN (IM) and engage in political dialogue to solve the ‘Naga’ problem while refusing to engage in a similar dialogue with Kuki National Organisation, which is the only Kuki armed organisation with ten different armed groups in its fold. This shows that GOI considers NSCN (IM) more important despite declaring the organisation a ‘terrorist group’ and knowing fully well that it is Kuki territory, not Meitei people’s in the state of Manipur, which is at risk with the demand of ‘Nagalim’.

More recently, the United National Liberation Front, a Meitei armed organisation in Manipur have been planting landmines in Kuki territory causing the death of 33 people in Chandel District and 25 more in Churachandpur District of Manipur. Again, the army has proven ineffective to oust the UNLF cadres from the Kuki hills. Besides these landmines casualty, UNLF have also killed innocent Kukis at Moreh and other parts of Chandel District. The plan of UNLF is to grab Kuki territory in the name of Manipur’s or Kangleipak’s struggle for independence from India.

Well, this is the pathetic condition of the Kuki people in India despite their historic opposition to British colonialism and history of association with the Indian National Army. Instead of integrating Kukis fully with the country, it is NSCN (IM) perpetrators of genocide that GOI seeks to please. And, rather than prevail upon the state government of Manipur not to hinder GOI and KNO talks, it permits them to lay down unacceptable conditions for talks to take place within Manipur! This, however, further vindicates that the condition of the Kukis in Manipur, where the dominant Meitei population use muscle tactics (underground forces as well as the state government), is extremely precarious. The question now is what have the Kukis gained in the independent nation-states of India and Burma?

Kuki defence against British colonialism

Kuki opposition to the British and interference in their territory began in 1777, during the time of Warren Hastings, Governor General of India, culminated in 1919. For the sake of reference, ‘The year 1860 saw the great Kuki invasion of Tipperah [Tripura], and the following year a large body of police marched to the hills to punish and avenge.’ ‘In 1845, 1847-1848, 1849-1850, and 1850-1851 there were raids culminating in what is called the Great Kuki Invasion of 1860s.’ ‘Early in 1860, reports were received, at Chittagong, of the assembling of a body of 400 or 500 Kookies at the head of the River Fenny, and soon the tale of burning villages and slaughtered men gave token of the work they had on hand. On the 31st January, before any intimation of their purpose could reach us, the Kookies, after sweeping down the course of the Fenny, burst into the plains of Tipperah at Chagulneyah, burnt or plundered 15 villages, butchered 185 British subjects, and carried off about 100 captives.’

Assam was brought under British rule after the Anglo-Burmese War in 1826. Thereafter, the British set out to extend their rule throughout the Northeast. Some of the major expeditions carried out in this region by the Assam Rifles and the Assam Military Police ‘include the ‘Kuki operations of 1880-1882 and 1917-1919’. The events of 1917-1919, recorded as ‘Kuki rising’ during WW I was momentous. This event is also referred to as ‘Anglo-Kuki War, 1917-1919’. Shakespeare, Palit and the recently released book The Assam Rifles term it as ‘Kuki Rebellion, 1917-1919’. Sir Robert Reid, Governor of Assam, noted it as the most serious event in the history of Manipur. It is worth noting that in recorded history, Kukis alone stood against the imperial power for nearly three years; no other peoples, particularly in the Northeast, have the reputation of such sustained opposition to the British.

Kukis also featured in WWII. This time round, Kukis fought alongside the Imperial Japanese Army and the Indian National Army. The victory of the Allied forces over the Axis group shattered the Kuki people’s dream of regaining independence that was earlier lost to the British. In post-independent India, Kuki opposition to Manipur’s merger with the Indian Union came to naught because of extreme pressure from Meitei people upon their Maharajah. As a result in 1949, the Meitei Maharajah signed the merger agreement with India, and both Meitei lands in the valley and Kuki hills, which were both under British administration, became a part of the Indian Union. Please note, the term Manipur applied to include Kuki lands did not come to being until the arrival of the British. It is misrepresentative to refer to present-day Manipur as an ancient entity. The land of the Kuki people comprising predominantly the hills of Manipur, extending to vast ranges of hills in present-day Western Burma in Sagaing Division, was always ruled by Kuki chieftains with no external interference until the arrival of the British in the eighteenth-century. “‘Manipur’ is not used at all until the British period.’ Meitei people’s land, which consists of the valley only from time immemorial, is ‘Kangleipak and Meeteileipak (pak/bak for land). Even in the mid-nineteenth century the inhabitants did not use Manipur to designate the country. A letter written in the Meetei script to the Viceroy of India in May 1868 by Maharajah Chandra Kirti of Manipur is dated “1790 (Sakabda) Mahe 11 Kalen”. “Mahe” is here the name of the country. Pemberton writing in 1835 noted the country was variously called Kathe, Moglei, Meklee or Cassay.’

In reference to the identity Kuki and their territorial domain, Grierson delineates Kuki country 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 Nationalism

A spirit of sovereignty marks the history of the Kuki people. ‘Zale’n-gam’ is an ideological concept propounded by PS Haokip, President of the Kuki National Organisation. ‘Zale’n-gam’ means ‘freedom of the people in their land’; it encapsulates and expounds the essence of Kuki’s recent history and nationalism. Smith defines ‘nationalism’ as, ‘an ideological movement for the attainment and maintenance of autonomy, unity and identity of a human population. He considers the ‘nation’, ‘a named human population sharing an historic territory, common myths and memories, a mass public culture, a single economy and common rights and duties for all members.’ All of these attributes are integral to the Kuki nation. Kuki polity based on its traditional institution of Chieftainship provided the foundation for identity and nationalism to thrive.

The traditional form of Kuki governance, represented by Haosas (chiefs), was made up of a two-tiered system: a) Upa Innpi or Bulpite Vaipohna (Upper House), and b) Haosa Innpi or Kho Haosa Vaipohna (Lower House). The Upper House comprised of chiefs, who were also the eldest of a sub-clan. The chiefs from different villages represented the Lower House. The institution of Chieftainship also embodied Kuki culture, customs and traditions. Semang and Pachong (council of ministers and auxiliary members) aided the chief in the day-to-day administration. Cha’ngloi (Assistant), Lhangsam (Town crier), Thiempu (High Priest and Judge), Lawm Upa (Minister of Youth & Cultural Affairs), Thihpu (Village Smith) comprised the essential elements of Kuki community. A proper form of governance, an intact identity, and a fervent spirit of nationalism formed the backbone to resist colonialism. All of these characteristics, and particularly the spirit of Kuki nationalism, were echoed in the tenacious opposition to the British imperialists throughout the nineteenth-century, and particularly in 1917-1919.

The Kuki rising of 1917-1919 epitomises Kuki nationalism. It is a reminder of the spirit of nationalism exercised by our forefathers. This fact is recounted in Zale’n-gam: The Kuki Nation. In present-day context, Kuki country covered by the event ranges broadly from the upper Chindwin, Burma, in the West; the hills in Manipur; and Aisan, Nagaland, in the East. The leaders were Chengjapao Doungel, King of Kuki; Pache Haokip, Chief of Chassad and all Haokips; Tintong Haokip, Commander-in-Chief of Kuki Army; Enjakhup Kholhou, Dy Chief-in-Command of Kuki Army, Khotinthang Sitlhou alias Kilkhong, Cief of Jampi and Nohjang Kipgen Chief of Saisem.

The magnitude of the national movement of 1917-1919 is evident in the words of Lt Col RS Chhetri: to handle the ‘Kuki Rebellion’. ‘An Assam Rifles Brigade under Col LW Shakespear, the newly appointed Deputy Inspector General, set out with a strength of 2,600 men assisted by a contingent of Burma Military Police numbering 400.’ A Minute Paper refers to ‘23 principals involved, 13 in Manipur under Assam, 10 in the Somra Tract under Burma.’ Military columns, commandeered by British officers Coote, Hebbert, Higgins and Clocte, ‘criss-crossed the area and fought a number of actions to successfully suppress the Kuki rebellion. In the process, they won 1 CIE, 1 OBE, 14 IDSMs, 1 King’s Police Medal, innumerable Mentions-in-Despatches and Jangi Inams.’ With regard to Kuki, the British Advisory Committee passed recommendations to subject the prominent leaders (those mentioned above and others) to a ‘period of restraint’, each for fifteen years, with the exception of the Commander-in-Chief Tintong Haokip of Laijang, who received a penalty of twenty years.

The national character of the events of 1917-1919 is clearly indicated in Webster’s report:

Soon after the actual recruiting began, however, some of the Kuki chiefs in the outlying hills adopted an obstructive attitude. It was reported that the chief of Aishan, Chengjapao, who is “Piba” [Pipa] or head of all the Thado Kukis, had sent orders to all the leading Thado chiefs to resist recruiting with force if necessary. Other influential chiefs were reported to have taken similar steps.

Extensive preparations had undergone prior to launching offensives against the British. Knowledge of manufacturing flintlocks enabled Kuki to stock them in thousands, for use in any eventuality. From 1907-1917, the British collected from the Kukis 1,195 guns. Palit observes: ‘Mention has been made earlier that the Kukis had been encouraged by emissaries from Bengali nationalists in Assam, but any thought that the Germans had also had a hand in it had not occurred to any one.’ This matter came to light at Tamu in May 1918, whereupon a ‘Medical Officer on his round of inspection came upon some Sikhs of the Burma M.P. in a hut tearing up some papers they said they did not want. The M.O. picked up some of the papers and found among them photos of two Germans, one in uniform. On the back of one of them was written in Hindustani: “If you fall into rebel hands show these and they will not harm you.”’

In the first week of March 1917, Chengjapao Chief of Aisan, held a gathering of various chiefs to chalk out details concerning the impending war. According to Kuki custom, a buffalo was slaughtered on the occasion, and Shajam lha was performed. Shajam lha is an auspicious part of the war tradition: the flesh of the animal is distributed among the chiefs as a mark of solidarity; the heart and liver is shared, symbolising commitment to the cause. The same tradition was observed at the Chassad conclave, as well as at Jampi, Henglep, Mombi (Lonpi), Joujang, Phailengjang (present-day upper Chindwin), Halflong (present-day Assam) and Mechangbung (present-day Nagaland). As a declaration of war, thingkho le malchapom (king-sized red chillies strapped onto smouldering firewood) was passed, for example, from Aisan to the adjoining villages. This tradition was observed in different parts of Zale’n-gam, thereby linking all of Kuki country to rise against the invaders. These solemn proceedings indicate the nature of the ‘Kuki rising of 1917-1919’: it was a concerted national movement against aggressing colonialists.

Official British perspectives suggest otherwise. On 27 June 1919, Webster wrote to the Secretary, Government of India, ‘the province of Assam was asked to furnish a quota of “labourers” for employment with the Army in France’. The implication here is that the Labour Corps drive was the cause of the Kuki rising. Various scholars, including some journalists, have propagated this view to downplay the actual significance of the event. From Kuki point of view, the event was a culmination of the ongoing act of self-determination, triggered by the Labour Corps drive. It is a preposterous notion that the cause of such a movement against the imperialists, sustained for nearly three years, could be merely because the Kuki people wanted to resist working as labourers. The enormity of the event is self-evident in the official letter of the Chief Commissioner of Assam:

The ‘Kuki rising, 1917-1919’, which is the most formidable with which Assam has been faced for at least a generation … the rebel villages held nearly 40,000 men, women and children interspersed … over some 6,000 square miles of rugged hills surrounding the Manipur valley and extending to the Somra Tract and the Thaungdut State in Burma.

A confidential despatch of Sir HDU Kerry, General Officer Commanding, Burma Division shows how the British reacted to the Chief of Aisan’s call: ‘I therefore decided to put an end to the Kuki revolt by force of arms, break the Kuki spirit, disarm the Kukis, exact reparation and pave the way for an effective administration of their country.’

A retrospective view shows that ‘Kuki rising, 1917-1919’ is a paradoxical event. On the one hand, its subjugation, in a manner resonant of Sir Kerry’s avowal, was a turning point in Kuki history: it broke the spirit of the people and set in decline Kuki as a nation, the effects of which still linger. The main Kuki chiefs were arrested and put in different jails in Assam, Burma and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands in the Bay of Bengal (see Appendix for the lists of Chiefs arrested). On the other hand, it is a historical landmark of Zale’n-gam: it demonstrates Kuki’s relationship to their land, and is a veritable reminder of their legitimate status as a nation. The Government also adopted administrative measures to keep the Kuki people suppressed. Kuki areas were brought under civil authority. The first Sub-Divisional Offices were opened at Tamenglong, Ukhrul and Churachandpur, which are now hill districts in Manipur. In Gangte’s words these new administrative posts successfully achieved two planned objectives: a) ‘containment’ of Kuki activities to prevent another rising and b) ensure Naga domination especially in Ukhrul and Tamenglong sub-divisions.

Given this backdrop of Kuki history and its present predicament, it would be in the interest of not only the Kuki people, but also the Indian nation, to establish a stable political state for the Kukis where neither the NSCN (IM)-led Nagas of Manipur nor the UNLF-led Meiteis of Manipur may be able to interfere. It is therefore important that through GOI and KNO dialogue Kuki political aspirations are fructified at the earliest possible date. In this regard, all conscientious individuals, especially those eminent personalities present on this august occasion of marking the sesquicentennial year of India’s first war of independence, are urged to take up the issues concerning the Kuki people and their political aspirations.

Thank you,

PS Haokip
President, Kuki National Organisation
Zale’n-gam
MANMASI

APPENDIX 1:

Warrants dated 8 December 1919, Delhi, signed by RE Holland, Secretary of the Government of India in the Foreign and Political Department, were issued to arrest Kuki Chiefs. They were to be restrained at Sadiya Jail in Assam.

1. Chengjapao [Doungel], Chief of Aishan
2. Khotinthang (or Khilkung) [Sitlhou], Chief of Jampi,
3. Pachei alias Hlukhomang [Lhukhomang Haokip], Chief of Chassad
4. Pakang [Haokip], Chief of Hinglep [Henglep]
5. Tintong [Haokip], Chief of Laiyong [Laijang]
6. Ngulkhup [Haokip], Chief of Mombi [Lonpi]
7. Leothang [Haokip], Chief of Goboh
8. Heljashon [Haokip], Chief of Loibol
9. Mangkhoon [Manglun Haokip], Chief of Tingkai
10. Semchung [Haokip], Chief of Ukha*
11. Ngulkhokai Haokip of Chassad**
12. Enjakhup [Kholhou] of Thenjol***

PROPOSALS FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF THE TEN KUKI CHIEFS IN THE SOMRATRACT & KALE KABOW VALLEY [BURMA] WHO WERE CONCERNED IN THE REBELLION

1. Kamjadem [Kamjahen Haokip, Chief of Phailenjang I]
2. Tongkwalun [Tongkholun Haokip, Chief of Phailenjang II]
3. Letkwatang [Letkhothang, Chief of Khotuh]
4. Semkwalun [Semkholun Haokip, Chief of Phaisat]
5. Zahlun [Jalhun Haokip, Chief of Molvom]
6. Shuku [Tukih Lupheng, Chief of Tonglhang]
7. Vumnul [Vumngul Kipgen, Chief of Tujang]
8. Haokwapao [Holkhopao Kipgen, Chief of Molvailup]
9. Notzang [Nohjang Kipgen Chief of Saisem]
10. Ngulkolun [Ngulkholun]

APPENDIX 2:

Manifesto of the Kuki National Organisation (KNO)

MANIFESTO
THE KUKI NATIONAL ORGANISATION

The Kuki National Organisation is a revolutionary movement based in Zale’n-gam: land of freedom, the ancestral territory of the Kuki people…
The Kuki National Organisation is a revolutionary movement based in Zale’n-gam: land of freedom, the ancestral territory of the Kuki people. The ancestral Zale’n-gam comprises the contiguous region in Northeast India, Northwest Burma, and the Chittagong Hill tracts in Bangladesh. Zale”n-gam is the land where the Kukis originated, on which they were raised, developed, excelled and fought valiant battles for its preservation and protection. Following the ‘Kuki Rising, 1917-1919’ (OIOC), which was a culmination of resistance to British colonialists’ aggression that began in 1777, Zale’n-gam was divided between India and Burma by the colonialists. Despite the historical injustice resulting in the division of Kuki territory without their consent, and the consequent separation of their people, successive generations of Kuki have not forgotten that they are one nation. They have neither abandoned nor faltered in the pursuit of their right to regain freedom.
The Kuki National Organisation, on behalf of the Kukis, of the present and future generations, pledges to restore the ancestral Kuki territory to its rightful status. The Manifesto and ideology of KNO is based on the resolution of the Kuki chiefs, who fought against the British in the ‘Kuki Rising, 1917-1919’. The resolution reads:
At all cost, we should fight against the British for the preservation of our independence, and for the protection of our land, culture and tradition (in JC Higgins’ letter No 1243, 7 November 1917, to the Chief Secretary of Assam).
The zeal and sacrifice of our forefathers made nearly one hundred years ago remain fresh in our hearts and minds. Not daunted by the might of the world’s most powerful imperialists of the time, they fought them to preserve the territorial integrity of Zale’n-gam. Their fortitude and tenacity continues to inspire KNO in its obligation to restore Zale’n-gam to its status, which is the birthright of the Kuki people. KNO pledges to pursue its goal through means that are noble and which do not compromise the integrity and commitment demonstrated by our ancestors.

The Kukis were a sovereign nation before the advent of the British…
Prior to the advent of the British, the Kukis were in their own right a sovereign nation. Kuki polity, based on chieftainship, functioned with a full complement of governing bodies, such as Semang (Home Minister), Pachong (Defence & External Affairs), Lhangsam (Minister, Public Relations & Broadcasting) Lawm Upa (Minister of Youth, Economic & Cultural Affairs), Thiempu (Priest), Tollai Pao (Law and Order Enforcement Minister). At the national level, this governance is known as the Kuki Inpi. The pattern is replicated at the Lhang (district) and Gamkai (state) level. Integral to Kuki polity is the Inpi, the apex body, in which each Kuki Chief is a member.
The Inpi met to execute policies and programmes, and as matters of importance, such as which affect the security and safety of the entire Kuki nation arose. One such instance took place in 1917: the Kuki Chiefs from the entire length and breadth of Zale”n-gam held a series of conclaves at Chassad, Jampi, Longya, and Khongjang. At these conclaves they resolved to rise against the British to protect the sovereignty of Zale’n-gam. To mark their resolve for a concerted effort, the Kuki Chiefs performed Sajamlhah and ate the heart and liver of the mithun or bison killed for the occasion, symbolising commitment from the depth of one’’s heart or core. As is customary, portions of the meat are sent to every Kuki village Chief not present on the occasion. The tradition of Thingkho le Malchapom (hot king-sized chilly tied on to smouldering firewood) was launched, signifying a declaration of war against the British. Thingkho le Malchapom was sent to every Kuki village to convey that an offensive against the British has begun. This practice, which also indicated the Kukis were fully prepared, enabled the united Kuki Rising of 1917-1919.
The traditional Kuki Inpi, which remained latent since India gained independence from Britain, was revived following the fresh lot of crises faced by the Kuki people from 1980s and 1990s.
The relationship between the Kuki Chief and the Meitei Ningthou (Raja or Chief) was one of mutual respect and understanding. They stuck together through thick and thin, helping each other in times of external aggression. An eloquent ancient Meitei aphorism bears testimony to this relationship: Chingna koina pansaba, Haona koina panngakpa, Manipur sana leimayol…. (Rough translation) Encircled by the range of hills, secured all around by the people who dwell therein; Oh Manipur, thou golden land. The aphorism clearly demarcated Kuki and Meitei territories. The ‘people’ or ‘Haona’ refer to the Kukis, who were masters of the hills, where they received tax and tributes from the Tangkhuls and Kabui Nagas; Manipur sana leimayol, the golden land, refers to the ancestral Meitei territory consisting the valley, which lay safely surrounded by Kuki hills and their braves.
Contrary to some academics’ view, the Kuki Chiefs were not ”vassals” of the Meitei Ningthou, neither were they ever treated as such. The Kuki Chiefs were independent and benevolent autocrats, who kept their territory secure and intact. In the words of JH Hutton, The Kukis were ruled by their own organized chiefs and treated as they had been in the past at any rate, by the Manipur State as allies (Introduction to William Shaw’s book, Notes on Thadou Kukis (1929), written by JH Hutton, July 1928, p 3). The Kukis protested the transfer of hill administration to the Manipur State Durbar and made clear their stand by stating: The hills were never a part of India prior to the annexation of these frontier hills (Statement of KNA, 1947). This position was reiterated by KNA: The unchallenging fact is that, if the British government left the country, then naturally the Kukis should be free (Memorandum to the Prime Minister, 1960).

The freedom loving Kukis were politically subjugated by the British, but morally they remained independent and this manifested itself from time to time…
The aggressions of the British on Kuki territory, which began in 1777 culminated in the Kuki Rising of 1917-1919. The British Government let loose a reign of terror on the Kukis both during and after the Kuki Rising. To this day bitters tears are shed when experiences are related of the torture, oppression, and extent of losses in terms of property and lives suffered at the hands of the British. The intensity of Kuki defiance is cited by Maj Gen DK Palit (1984, 62) in Sentinels of the North-East: rather than attend a Durbar the Political Agent of Manipur organised to discuss the issues that incensed the Kukis, Chief Ngulbul of Mombi (Lawnpi) and Chief Ngulkhup of Longya sent a message that they have ‘closed the country to the British.’ In today context, Chief Ngulbul and Chief Ngulkhup’s dominion is the Chandel district of Manipur.

In spite of the cruel suppression meted out by the British, our forefathers’ courage, hope and love for freedom did not falter, and this manifested periodically through WWII. Shakespear (1929, 224, History of the Assam Rifles), wrote the events of the Kuki Rising of 1917-1919 covered the ‘entire hills of Manipur’; in Eastern Zale’n-gam, of present-day Burma, up to the river Chindwin covering regions towards the west bordering India; in the North, the river Nantalit; and to the South, the region stretching to the Chin State. This concerted offensive led by the Chiefs is a tribute to the traditional Kuki polity, which is embodied in the Inpi. The Kuki Rising is also significant as it highlighted the historicity of Kuki Polity and Kuki unity across the present-day international boundaries of India, Burma and Bangladesh. The British government, cognizant of this fact, and dreading the strength of a united Kuki people, had a system of border meetings between officers of Manipur and those of Somra Tract in Upper Burma, Chin Hills, Naga Hills and Lushai Hills. After obtaining detailed accounts of the Kukis and fully assessing their strength, the British Indian Government began reorganizing administrative regions to divide and control Kuki territory.

By the Act of 1935, Government of India, Burma was separated from India in 1937. This deft imperialist masterstroke split Zale’n-gam between British India and British Burma, without Kuki consent. In the words of William Shaw (1929, 50), ‘The unprepared Kukis could not, however, openly challenge the Britishers but had to wait for an opportune time when they could re-assert their freedom.’ The opportunity to regain their freedom came in World War II. In this Great War the Kukis and the Indian National Army fought on the side of Japanese. The Kukis entered into a political agreement with the INA and the Japanese army regarding the future of the Kukis after the war ended.

In a booklet (written in the vernacular) Manipur a Kuki te leh Christianity (1984), Pu Jamthang gives an account of the agreement between the Kukis and the Japanese held in present-day Burma at Koija (north of Homalin) and Zalen (south of Homalin) camps, on 5 Oct and 12 Oct 1943, respectively. The number of Kuki Chiefs and elders present on the occasion was 310; Imperial Japan was represented by 3 Japanese officers, namely Ezemia, Nokamisan and Nakamisang. A translation of the text regarding the treaty at Koija and Zalen camps is as follows: The Kukis and the Japanese killed a mithun or bison to formalise the treaty. They ate the animal’s liver and heart (symbolising deepest commitment to the treaty) and declared that a tiger devour either party that reneged!

The points of the Kuki-Japanese agreement are as follows:
a) In war time, Kukis would help the Japanese in combats against the British, provide local guides, intelligence, provisions and other materials
b) In the course of the war, the Imperial Japanese army would respect the dignity and honour of the Kuki people
c) Following victory of the Axis powers, the Kukis would regain independence, as was prior to the advent of the British, and Japan would facilitate in the process of Kukis rebuilding their nation
The victory of the Allied forces and subsequent independence of Burma, India and Pakistan resulted in Kuki territory being incorporated within the three state-nations. The British not only divided our ancestral lands, but also divided us into ‘Old Kuki’ and ‘New Kuki’ with the sole intention to subdue and prevent us from becoming a strong and united nation.

India and Burma have interpreted the peaceful movement of the Kukis since 1940s as a sign of weakness, and as a result, failed to address their issues…
Unyielding to the forced division of Zale’n-gam, the Kuki National Assembly was formed in 1946 to demand independence from India. Within Burma, as a mark of protest, the Kuki people did not participate in the widely acclaimed Panglong Agreement of 1947, held at Panglong in the Shan state. The Panglong Agreement was a conference, which was attended by certain Members of the Executive Council of the Governor of Burma, and representative of the Shan States, the Kachin Hills and the Chin Hills – but not the Kukis. Despite the enforced circumstances of the Kukis, their mode of expressing grievance and seeking redressal in India and Burma has been non-violent. However, this gesture has not been appreciated by the respective governments of both countries; they appear to interpret the peaceful movement of the Kukis since 1940s as a sign of weakness, and have ignored the Kuki question. The governments of India and Burma have failed to protect the lives, liberty and property of the Kuki people. In other words, the basic human rights of the Kuki people have been denied in their own lands. These, and other grievances, have been patiently borne to a point where forbearance ceases to be a virtue. Our anticipation for the concerned governments to take proactive initiatives has so far proven futile. We are therefore obligated to consider, deliberate and articulate our political goals, which is our inherent right and sacred duty to posterity.
In the Indian Union, the states are organized on ethno-linguistic lines in recognition of the existing mosaic of ethnic identities, languages and cultures. The right to govern their own affairs within their traditional territory has been denied to the Kukis, whilst it has long been extended to other ethnic entities in the Northeast. As a result, the Kuki inhabited areas of Manipur Hills, Karbi-Anglong and North-Cachar Hills of Assam and Tripura remain grossly underdeveloped and the people live in abject poverty. Fair developmental programs have consistently been denied to Kuki inhabited regions by the state machinery dominated by the majority communities. The long years of neglect and sufferings of the Kuki people under these state governments, dictated by the interests of the majority communities, have rendered the Kukis economically, socially and politically backward and deeply vulnerable. Please note: ‘Unity in Diversity’, the basis of Indian Polity, can work only when the diverse communities are on the same pedestal and can relate to each other with mutual respect.
The Kukis have been subjected to political adversity and their neighbouring communities have taken advantage of their consequent vulnerability. This fact was highlighted by the Kuki National Assembly in 1960: ‘Unless strong measures are immediately taken up for self-preservation, namely establishment of a separate state of their own within the Indian Union, they will surely succumb sooner or later to a process of extinction and extermination, which has been threatening them very seriously.’ The Indian government has not addressed the Kuki issue and thus continues the saga of the Kuki people’s never-ending sufferings and struggles. From 1950-1990, the Tangkhul people of Ukhrul District in Manipur carried out selective and systematic elimination of Kuki chiefs and elders, totalling 42. This was done to implant a fear psychosis among Kukis so that they may leave their hearths and ancestral lands. In the process, 64 Kuki villages were uprooted, which are now occupied by the Tangkhuls. In an ever-worsening scenario, on 22 October 1992 ‘Quit Notice Served by United Naga Council (UNC) to Kukis’ was issued, signed by RK Thekho, president of UNC, Imphal. Copies of the notice were distributed to all Naga villages, Sub Divisional Offices/District Commissioner Offices of the Manipur state government, and to the Editors of Manipur Mail and Manipur News for publication. As a result, from 1992-1997, the NSCN (IM) led by Thuingaleng Muivah, a Tangkhul, launched the infamous Kuki genocide. The casualties totalled over 900 Kuki people dead (a significant number of them women and children), 350 uprooted villages, and more than 50,000 people displaced.
The degree of human rights violations committed by the NSCN-IM is reflected in the statement of Yambem Laba, a noted journalist from Manipur:
The Naga cry against human rights abuse perpetrated by the Indian army for over fifty years was, completely overshadowed by one incident of Zoupi village on 13 September 1993.
The above remark refers to one of the many incidents in which NSCN (IM) cadres at gunpoint tied up and massacred 107 Kuki men (87 died at the spot; 20 later succumbed to injuries), butchering them with matchetes and spears. In fact the Nagas served notice to the Kukis to quit Zoupi village by 15 September. In spite of the people leaving the village on the 13th, two days ahead of the deadline served, they were butchered. This reveals the treacherous mentality of the NSCN-IM.
In addition, Dr Isak, Medical Officer of Chandel, who conducted the post-mortem of one of the three women raped and killed by the NSCN (IM) guerrillas at Moltuh village in 1992, reported:
Face blindfolded. Gang raped before being killed. Throat split up with knife. Left portions of the skull completely battered up. Left breast badly bruised. A piece of stick measuring about seven inches was found inserted in her vagina.
Pu Tobu Kevichusa, Secretary of Naga National Council statement at the funeral service of Pu Mangkholen Hangsing, IAS, Commissioner of Taxation and Excise is noteworthy:
Isak and Muivah, the leaders of NSCN (IM), have proclaimed among the international community that the Government of India have killed innocent Nagas and abused their human rights. On the contrary, here is a stark example of their role of engaging in fratricidal activity by killing blameless people like Mangkholen to benefit their sectarian policy.

The atrocities committed on the Kukis and on those who stand for justice clearly violate not only basic human rights, but also contradict NSCN-IM’s slogan, ‘Nagaland for Christ’. Rather surprisingly, many people – both within India and in the international community – are more concerned with Nagas’ self-determination and violations of their human rights by the Indian security forces without ever a thought regarding the NSCN (IM)-led Naga violation of human rights against the Kukis! The KNO possesses and will produce at the appropriate time, concrete evidence of NSCN (IM)’s brutal murders and other atrocities. These include photographs of those killed and mass graves of slain Kuki villagers (where it was impossible to have individual burials), dates and places of killings and a list of Kuki villages uprooted.
Ever since the 1950s and 1960s, the Kuki people have submitted numerous memorandums demanding a separate state and also appealed for protection and restoration of their uprooted villages. Unfortunately, the government of India and Burma have so far chosen to ignore the Kuki people’s positive overtures. The indifference of the Government of India has resulted in escalation of atrocities against Kukis that beggar description. The government, instead of addressing the Kuki question, has kept up its negotiations with NSCN-IM, the perpetrators of Kuki genocide, while completely evading talks with KNO. In August 2005, KNO signed the Suspension of Operations with representatives of the Government of India to facilitate political dialogue with Indian Government. To date, talks between Government of India and KNO have not begun. This speaks volumes about the indifference and extreme callousness of the GOI towards the Kuki people and their problems.
In the meantime, capitalising on the vulnerability of the Kukis, the Meitei insurgent outfits have infiltrated Kuki areas in large numbers, where they have set up bases and wantonly indulged in inhuman harassment and torture of Kuki villagers. They also launch attacks on Indian Security Forces, mindless of the reprisals on civilian Kukis, and engage in laying anti-personnel Landmines to the detriment of the village folks. Many Kukis are therefore either killed or incapacitated by landmine explosions. The Meitei insurgents who have understanding with the military junta are also operating from Burmese territory. The Government of India remains a mute spectator to these sufferings of its Kuki citizens and has failed utterly to protect them.
In Burma, the Kuki people have been subjected to persecution and torture by the state machinery dominated by the majority Burmans, ever since the 1962 military coup under General Newin. The Government of Revolutionary Council headed by General Newin had since 1967 forcibly evicted more than 20,000 Kuki villagers in Kabaw Valley during the iniquitous ‘Khadawmi Operation’ led by U Muang Maung into neighbouring India. The pretext for the eviction was either non-possession of National Registration Cards or possessing bogus ones. The rightist military introduced the system of National Registration for citizens soon after it assumed power in 1962. This was intended primarily to deprive citizenship to ethnic minorities, including millions of ethnic Tamil Indian Businessman in and around Rangoon. Besides, the Registration Cards, meant to be issued free of cost were illegally sold at a high price. From the early 1980s there have been renewed attempts at displacing the Kukis and transplanting ethnic Burmese population in the Kabaw valley. Some existing examples of such transplanted settlements are Ongchija, Tanan, Myothit, Nanaungow, Mantong and Ywatha, which were deliberately set up by the military junta. Besides such acts of discrimination, the junta has been extracting forced-labour from Kuki villagers in the Kabaw Valley and dispossessed the Kukis of many of their villages. Construction of new churches has also been categorically stopped.
The military junta in Burma has also persistently pursued a policy of Burmanization of periphery minority ethnic communities. This has been carried out through a process of assimilation, acculturation, suppression and forcible imposition of the Burmese language and the Buddhist religion. In the course of action, Churches of many Kuki villages in Myanmar has been burnt down. The pastors and community leaders have been tortured, and villages forced to move in order to set up Burmese (pro-military Junta) settlements or Army bases. The State Law and Order Restoration Council, which grabbed power in the post 1988 democratic uprising, intensified the persecution and eviction of Kuki citizens. The State Peace and Development Council, the new face of the Junta, despite promises to restore democracy, has displayed no change whatsoever in their approach towards the ethnic nationalities. Neither has the military’s disdain and mockery of democracy and national reconciliation diminished.
The Kuki National Organisation’s objectives and policy: Re-Unification of our ancestral lands divided between India, Burma and Bangladesh…
The Kuki National Organisation is committed to self-determination for the Kuki people in their ancestral lands. The KNO’s present definition of self-determination is the right of the Kukis to govern their own affairs within a defined territorial entity (Statehood), one in India (Western Zale”n-gam) and another in Burma (Eastern Zale”n-gam) as a first step towards re-unification of the Kukis. Our forefathers, the patriots of the Kuki Rising of 1917-1919, fought the British colonialists to preserve Kuki polity and the people. In like manner, KNO stands for statehood to secure the ancestral lands of the Kuki people, their identity, culture, customs and traditions. These fundamentals are essential to promote an all round development of our people. KNO will steadfastly strive to achieve these noble objectives. The objectives are based on the historicity of Kuki ancestral polity and territory. The KNO calls upon the entire Kuki populace around the world to come together as a nation whose people share a common origin, culture, customs and traditions. We also appeal to every capable Kuki to contribute his or her strength in the struggle we have embarked upon to redeem our national pride and heritage and to establish freedom, liberty, security and welfare, which is our people’s right in Zale’n-gam.
The present political objectives of KNO – statehood for Kuki ancestral lands, each within the Union of India and Union of Burma – provide clear evidence of our conciliatory stance towards the respective governments. We urge the governments of India and Burma to pay heed to the numerous pleas and memoranda that have been placed before them to date and expedite the process of granting statehood to the Kuki people. KNO has opted for a conciliatory stand and anticipates the governments of India and Burma will reciprocate meaningfully.
The KNO also call upon the United Kingdom to facilitate this process and thereby help remedy the present predicament of the Kukis and the state of their ancestral territory for which they are historically responsible. We appeal to Germany and Japan, the partners of the Kuki people during World War I and World War II, to extend due moral and political support for the realization of KNO’s objectives.
With statehood and its vital elements of self-governance, its inherent infrastructure and other provisions, our socio-economic and political condition that was destabilized by the British and neglected by the successor states would appropriately be restored. A new era of peace and development that shall dawn upon the Kuki people once our objectives are realized will create conditions that engender peaceful co-existence with our neighbouring communities, which is essential to develop a symbiotic relationship and join the global march towards progress.
The KNO adheres to a reconciliatory approach towards our neighbours, particularly the Nagas and Meiteis. With regard to the Meitei people, the Kukis, aware that the ancestral lands of both peoples, the Hills and Plains, were being clubbed together as a single entity by the powers that be, and vigilant of the possibility therefore of both peoples losing their ancestral territories, national freedom and sovereign inheritance to the emergent Indian state-nation if the Manipur Ningthou were to sign the merger proposal, vehemently opposed it. The Meiteis failed to appreciate such statesmanly opposition of Kuki Chiefs to Manipur being annexed in 1949 into the Indian Union, and instead continue to make every effort to trivialize this significant effort made by the Kukis to preserve both peoples’ political and territorial inheritance. Furthermore, when the NSCN (IM) launched the ethnic cleansing of the Kukis in the hills of Manipur in the 1990s, both the revolutionary and civil society groups of the Meiteis did not intervene to prevent the Kuki genocide. We therefore urge our one-time Meitei brothers to withdraw their armed cadres from Kuki territory. They are also urged to immediately abandon setting up landmines in Kuki territory. The KNO are signatory to the Deed of Commitment to ban landmines, an initiative of Geneva Call, Geneva.
The NSCM (IM)’s aggression on the Kukis from 1990s that went beyond traditional warfare has left an indelible mark on the minds of the Kuki people. The KNO would like to remind them of a statement made by the Kuki National Assembly:
While our heartfelt sympathy and good wishes go to the Nagas for the achievement of their demand, they may at the same time be cautioned not to come in the way of the same demand of the Kukis (Vide- A Kuki State: A Memorandum of the KNA to the Prime Minister of India, 1960).

The KNO, therefore urge both the Nagas and Meiteis that as partners in observing and claiming human rights, let aggression and intimidation be shunned, and civilized and charitable conduct be our crowning glory. The KNO, in order to create peaceful co-existence among the Kukis, Nagas and Meiteis within their respective territories, is open to a tripartite dialogue. For this to succeed the later two communities must relinquish their territorial acquisitiveness and hegemonic policies.

The KNO presently adheres to a policy of pursuing our objectives in an amicable manner. The dove with two olive branches on our Website’s Homepage symbolizes our goodwill towards all. The symbol also makes clear our intent to achieve a harmonious resolution of differences with the governments of India and Burma. Given the Kuki people’s history of opposition to British colonialism to preserve the integrity of our ancestral lands, KNO’s appeal for Kuki lands to be accorded statehood, one in India and another in Burma, is rational and legitimate. Fulfillment of the rights of the Kuki people for self-determination in this respect within a reasonable time frame will ensure our goodwill to endure. The KNO shall be duty-bound to consider alternatives to our present approach if the governments’ apathy and negligence persist concerning Kuki aspirations.

God Bless Zale’n-gam, the Kuki nation!

APPENDIX 3:

Kuki Students’ Democratic Front (KSDF) Memorandum to Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India