Now, Meitei body comes out against proposed Kuki map
Source: The Sangai Express

Imphal, December 08 2012: Coming out strongly against the proposed Kuki map issued by the Kuki State Demand Committee, the International Meeteis Forum has categorically asserted that before the British came to Manipur, there was no such term as Kuki in Manipur.

Addressing the media at Manipur Press Club, the founding members of the Forum, RK Rajendra, RK Gopalsana, W Bhumeshwor, S Samananda and Th Gogon-bihari said that the demand for a Kuki State is preposterous as historically they never owned any land in Manipur.

The Kukis, as they are now known here, migrated to Manipur from Myanmar, then Burma, they asserted and added that the Kukis started streaming into Manipur in 1855 from Burma and by 1881 their population stood at a mere 8180 .

Now how has the Kuki population increased to about 8 lakhs that they should now deem it fit to raise a homeland demand, questioned the Forum members.

The original settlers of the land are the Meitei, Tangkhul, Kabui Zeliangrong, Maram, Paomei, Koireng and Meitei Pangal, they said and added that all the original settlers should push back the latter entrant.

Differences amongst the original settlers can be settled mutually, they said.

Map of Manipur showing the boundary in 1814 ; The present boundary and the homeland demarked by Kuki

Tracing the history of Manipur, the Forum members claimed that Manipur was at one point of time the capital of a much bigger territory known as Mackley.

This was during the time of Maharaj Garibniwaj and this can be verified from the gold coins inscribed with the name Makleswar Maharaj Garibniwaj and Rani Gomti, the then queen.

Claiming that the then Mackley territory extended up to the South Sea bordering Yunan in China, the Forum members added that it also stretched up to Brahmaputra.

Assam was a small kingdom at that time, they claimed and added that there were no places called Nagaland or Mizoram then.

Not too long back, Kohima was under the territory of Manipur and it was known as Thibomei, claimed the Forum members.

Asserting that the term Sadar Hills has been cooked up with an ulterior design, the Forum said that Sadar is a term coined by the British for their administrative and security convenience.

Sadar stands for Selected Area Development Administrative Region (SADAR), they said and added that from Sadar village it was turned into Sadar Hills.

Even in Imphal there was a Sadar bazar, which is now Paona keithel, they claimed.

Quoting figures from a local newspaper, the Forum said that from 1961 to 2011, the number of villages in Kuki area has increased to 818.Even in the valley area, Kuki settlers have increased in 67 localities.

On the other hand there has been no increase in the case of Meitei settlement.

Suggesting that 1951 be set as the cut off year, the Forum members said that latter migrants should be deported to Myanmar.

On the assertion and which was published in the December 1 issue of The Sangai Express, that two Kuki chiefs, Chothe Ahongba and Kuki Achouba helped Chothe Thangwai Pakhangba to ascend the throne of Manipur in 33 AD, the Forum said this is misleading.

There were no Kukis in Manipur in 33 AD, they said and added that Chothe Thangwai Pakhangba was not a King nor a person.

According to the Puya, this term is a designation.

Stating that the Forum firmly endorses the stand taken up by organisations like AMUCO, UCM and others to protect the territorial integrity of Manipur, the Forum said that the time has come for AMSU, DESAM and other Meitei organisations to determine a cut off year for the Kukis.