Behind the veil : Kuki's controversial identity and the conflict that persists
- Part 1 -

Dirinamai Liangchi *

Who is a Kuki ?

The Kukis were refugees brought from Burma as porters by the British, and they settled in strategic locations surrounding the Manipur valley in the early 19th century, where they served as mercenaries. They were used as a buffer to protect the valley from regular raids by the Naga tribes. (British account on origin of Kuki in India by Sir Johnston).

The term “Kuki” was introduced by the British in Manipur in the 1820s. The Kuki community historically did not have a distinct identity of their own; however, strategically they integrated themselves into the fold of the indigenous Khonjai/Khongchai tribes of Manipur (the Khongsai are indigenous inhabitants of Manipur, and they are mentioned in the Chaitharol Kumbaba, the Royal Chronicle of Manipur).

Over time, they gradually transformed the identity of the indigenous Khongsai, effectively assimilating them into the broader Kuki category, leading to the virtual disappearance of the original Khongsai identity.

The historical narrative of the Kuki community in Manipur is one of deceitful manipulations, with strategic foresight, and adaptability. Shaped by colonial policies, socio-political dynamics, and strategic mobilization, their journey from marginalized “refugees” to influential political actors is a testament to their determination and manipulation. This complex history is intricately woven with identity struggles, territorial disputes, and political assertion, revealing the profound complexities of ethnic relations in Manipur.

This calculated assimilation did not stop there. The Kukis continued to forcefully assert their identity over smaller indigenous tribes of Manipur such as Thadou, Paite, Hmar, Vaiphei, Kom, etc., seeking to consolidate a unified Kuki identity.

These indigenous tribes continue to resist political and cultural alignment with the Kuki identity even today and this forceful imposition was met with resistance. These smaller tribes continue to preserve their distinct cultural identities and political autonomy, refusing to be subsumed under the broader Kuki umbrella.

Who do Kuki intellectuals say they are ?

Kuki intellectuals have long engaged in discourse about their identity, exploring the roots of who they are and where they truly belong. Delving deep into the question of who they are and where they truly belong, among their most profound claims is the belief that they are descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel. Specifically, they identify as the Bnei Menashe, meaning “Children of Manasseh,” linking their ancestry to Manasseh, one of the ten lost tribes of ancient Israel.

Intriguingly, one of the most symbolic representations of this identity quest is the so-called vision for a proposed ‘Kuki Nation’ and Kuki flag bears a star symbol that closely resembles the Star of David, a powerful emblem deeply rooted in Jewish tradition. A DNA test conducted on some Kuki subtribes in 2003 showed no genetic links to Jewish ancestry.

However, a subsequent DNA study in 2005 suggested a distant connection. Research at the Central Forensic Institute in Calcutta indicated that while the paternal lineage of these tribes showed no ties to Israel, the maternal lineage displayed genetic profiles similar to those of Middle Eastern populations.

The Kuki community’s narrative is one of complex and layered identities. In one context, they claimed as recognized indigenous tribe in Manipur/India, woven into the fabric of the India’s diverse cultural landscape.

Yet, in another strikingly different context, they are seen as a tribe in Israel, asserting ancestral ties that link them to the Lost Tribes of Israel. This duality of identity—a tribe in India, now a tribe in Israel—reflects the community’s journey of self-discovery and their ongoing pursuit of historical and cultural belonging.

This multifaceted identity not only shapes the Kuki community’s internal cohesion but also influences their political aspirations and social dynamics, illustrating how history, belief, and geography can converge to shape the destiny of a people.

According to the Manipur Gazette (December 1956), the Kuki tribe was conspicuously absent from the list of 29 Scheduled Tribes recognized in the State, highlighting the absence of official acknowledgment of their identity at the time.

To understand the Kuki community’s contemporary position in Manipur, it is essential to delve into their historical context and conniving development, exploring how they navigated colonial subordination and post-independence identity crises to emerge as significant political actors. During the colonial period, British authorities played a pivotal role in shaping the socio-political landscape of Manipur.

Through a series of standing orders issued by the President of the Manipur State Darbar, the colonial administration not only regulated the Kukis’ movement and settlement but also strategically manipulated ethnic identities to maintain control over inter-tribal dynamics.

Standing Orders of the President of Manipur State Darbar

1. Order No. 11 (August 18, 1931): Captain Harvey’s directive stated, “The Kukis shall not be issued firearms because of their savagery nature against the Nagas.” This restriction reflected colonial attempts to contain inter-tribal hostilities while emphasizing historical animosity between the Kuki and Naga communities. By controlling the Kukis’ access to weapons, the colonial administration maintained order and leveraged ethnic tensions for political gain.

2. Economic Integration and Governance (September 9, 1933) : A fiscal policy was imposed, mandating Kuki villages of 20 households to pay an annual house tax of Rs 6. This move reflected the colonial strategy of economic integration and governance over Kuki settlements, reinforcing their subordinate status and further institutionalizing colonial authority.

3. Legal Categorization as Aliens (Order by T.A. Sharpe) : A significant order declared, “Kukis in the Naga areas in Manipur are aliens and refugees,” formally categorizing them as outsiders. This proclamation intensified socio-political dynamics by establishing them as migrants in Naga-dominated regions, contributing to complex inter-ethnic relations.

4. Institutionalized Subordination (Standing Order No. 2, July 23, 1941) : This directive mandated, “The Kukis shall obtain prior permission from the Chief of the Naga Village for settlement and pay House Tax to the Naga Chief.” By enforcing this dependence on Naga authority, the colonial administration institutionalized social hierarchies and deepened inter-ethnic tensions.

These strategic directives reveal the colonial agenda of manipulating ethnic identities to consolidate British power, fostering divisions that would have long-lasting socio-political implications in Manipur.

Post-Independence Identity Crisis: Recognition as Kuki Refugees

With India’s independence, the Kuki community faced a significant identity crisis. The Government of India recognized the Kukis as refugees following an appeal by R Suisa, a respected Naga leader. This led to the disbursement of relief funds under Memo P3/9/66 from the Finance Ministry through Ministry of Home Affairs, with payments facilitated by the Manipur State Government (on record). This acknowledgment of their refugee status created a complex narrative of belonging and exclusion, further complicating their socio-political identity.

In a sly manoeuvres to formalize their identity, the Kuki Tribes Recognition Demand Committee, Manipur, led by its President Haokhothang Baite and Secretary Yamthang Haokip, submitted a memorandum on April 28, 1987, to then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, requesting the inclusion of the Kuki tribes in the Indian Constitution’s list of Scheduled Tribes (on record).

This marked a pivotal moment in the political mobilization of the Kukis, signalling their pursuit of Constitutional recognition and socio-political rights.

Some of the Initial Official Record of Kuki and their subsequent Resettlement

The first official mention of the Kuki community in Manipur’s administrative records occurred on June 6, 1968, when SC Vaish, the then Deputy Commissioner of Manipur, wrote to RK Birendra Singh (SDO, Ukhrul Manipur) and S Sarat Singh (SDO, Tengnoupal, Manipur).

The correspondence urged them to “expedite the report regarding the resettlement of Kuki refugees from Burma.” This letter officially recognized the Kukis as refugees from Burma, laying the groundwork for their resettlement and integration in Manipur (on record).

In 1973, Henkhoshi Haokip (Chairman, Burma Kuki Refugee Association (BKRA), Manipur) and Shochung Haokip (Secretary, BKRA, Manipur) further solidified these efforts by submitting a representation to the Union Minister of Home Affairs, seeking financial assistance. This organized political advocacy marked the beginning of the Kukis’ pursuit of State support and socio-political integration (on record).

Through these multifaceted deceptive moves, the Kukis navigated a complex socio-political landscape to assert their identity, territorial claims, and political influence.

Forceful Imposition of Kuki Culture on Smaller Kindred Tribes and the Conflict That Followed

The Kuki community’s aggressive expansionist policies and attempts to forcefully impose their identity on smaller indigenous tribes sparked fierce resistance. The Paite, an indigenous Zo tribe of Manipur, perceived this as a threat to their cultural autonomy, leading to one of Manipur’s most violent intra-ethnic conflicts between the Kukis and the Paites in 1997. The conflict resulted in the destruction of over 50 villages, the displacement of 13,000 people, and 352 casualties, revealing deep-rooted ethnic tensions.

Later, a peace treaty was eventually signed between the Kuki and the Paite communities, emphasizing mutual respect for identities. One of the key provisions stated that “the nomenclatures Kuki and Zomi shall be mutually respected by all Zomis and Kukis.

Every individual or group shall have the freedom to identify themselves by any name they choose, and the terms Kuki and Zomi shall not be imposed on any person or group against their will at any time”.

History often reveals a complex web of conflicts involving the Kuki people, spanning clashes with various communities:

Tripura : Kuki vs Hrangkhol, Kuki vs Chakma, Kuki vs Kokborok
Assam: Kuki vs Karbi, Kuki vs Dimasa
Bangladesh: Kuki vs Bru, Kuki vs Bengali, Kuki vs Noakhali
Myanmar: Kuki vs Indigenous communities
Manipur: Kuki vs Indigenous Naga, Kuki vs Indigenous Meitei

This recurring pattern invites a million dollar question: why does the Kuki community often find itself at the epicentre of these disputes, seemingly initiating conflicts while simultaneously presenting itself as the aggrieved party ?

This dual perception of the Kuki as both instigator and victim reflects a complex reality that requires thoughtful and nuanced analysis. Unlike the narratives of many other communities, the Kuki narrative appears to be marked by a pattern of exploiting historical grievances and manipulating cultural practices for strategic advantage.

This complex dynamic demands careful scrutiny to fully understand the underlying historical and social forces at play.


Views are personal.

(Part-II to continue)