The fragmentation of Kukiland's dreams into Zoland and beyond

Birendra Laishram *

The Kuki community was cooked with numerous ingredients of small tribes, each with its own cultural and traditional characteristics. At a certain point of time, these small tribes were amalgamated either by willingly or forcibly into a single Kuki community by their ancestors, but current generations are increasingly focused on preserving their distinct identities.

There is a strong desire for cultural revival and a reconnection with heritage among these tribes, although many feel marginalized and unable to pursue their aspirations for separation and autonomy. Over time, each tribe may assert its rights to maintain its unique identity. It is documented that they have been given shelter in Manipur and also paid relieves payable to the refugees.

With tome they now claim indigeneity to the land, complicating the social fabric and impacting discussions about identity and rights. As these dynamics evolve, smaller tribes are likely to assert their stand more strongly in advocating for their right to exist and thrive while preserving their identity.

Several groups within the Kuki community have coexisted with the indigenous people of Manipur, as supported by historical texts and records. The formation of a Kuki community often involved the forced integration of smaller tribes, driven by the need for demographic strength to claim separate territories.

The arrival of nomads in the late 18th century took advantage of indigenous hospitality, ignoring territorial boundaries and forest protections, prompting Kuki efforts to establish community territory. Their motivations extended beyond claims; they sought to understand the local populace, which they perceived as lacking vitality and knowledge.

The Kukis raised funds through forest exploitation and questionable foreign donations, imposed illegal taxes, and influenced politicians to share benefits meant for scheduled tribes. They also focused on educating children for civil and administrative roles, manipulating historical narratives in their favour. This led to distorted histories online and grassroots meetings aimed at increasing ethnic membership, suggesting preparations for conflict.

The violence that erupted on May 3, 2023, resulted in civilian evacuations from both communities, marking a significant and seemingly irreversible step toward physical separation. The Kuki administration appears politically supported, as evidenced by the sudden appointment of a senior Kuki IAS officer to the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

The ongoing conflict highlights widespread recognition of grievances among groups, particularly the demoralization of the Tangkhul-Naga and Meitei. In a strong democratic framework, these issues could lead to resolution; otherwise, peace in Manipur may remain elusive, jeopardizing the future of its leaders and citizens.

The political drama transcends territorial disputes, aiming to reshape identities through selective narratives and historical distortions. Kuki communities have adeptly navigated the socio-political landscape, crafting narratives that support their ambitions while marginalizing the native population. Indigenous voices and cultures face existential threats from newcomers altering demographic balances.

A profound sense of loss accompanies these changes—not just of land but also of belonging. The neglect of the Tangkhul-Naga and Meitei underscores the urgent need to reassess governance priorities. Conflicting visions of unity obscure the truth: genuine harmony requires acknowledgment and respect for historical rights. As tensions rise and violence escalates, evidence of arms accumulation suggests an imminent clash, threatening peaceful dialogue.

Historical struggles should guide reconciliation rather than revenge, as continued discord risks dire consequences for future generations. The indigenous populations stand at a pivotal moment in a divided landscape. Coexistence depends on transforming dialogues from blame to empathy and fostering unity over separation. Manipur requires a shift toward inclusive governance and collaboration among all stakeholders to establish a stable future.

A renewed narrative embracing diversity and collective identity is essential, grounded in healing conversations that prioritize justice. There is hope that the collective spirit of both indigenous and non-indigenous communities will foster an environment conducive to peace and success. The future relies on honoring the land's legacy while pursuing collaboration devoid of greed and favoritism.

As Manipur's socio-political landscape unfolds, recognizing the interplay of identities and histories is increasingly vital. The urgent need for dialogue has never been more pressing, as historical grievances rooted in deep-seated suspicions continue to fester. The diverse narratives that have emerged reflect struggles for recognition and power, as well as a yearning for belonging in an ever-changing environment.

Indigenous populations, particularly the Tangkhul-Naga and Meitei, have long been custodians of the land, their histories intertwined with Manipur's fabric. Yet their voices are often overshadowed by the ambitions of newer settlers who disrupt the delicate balance of the region under the guise of progress.

The encroachment on traditional lands and erosion of cultural practices signify a profound crisis of identity among those who have called Manipur home for generations. The State of Manipur is a region characterized by its rich diversity, much like the broader Union of India.

Within this vibrant landscape, various small tribes each possess their own unique identities, cultures, and traditions, collectively contributing to the intricate tapestry of the state. Each of these tribes has a vested interest in preserving their distinct identities and cultural heritage. However, the dynamics can become complicated, particularly when larger tribes within the region attempt to forcibly incorporate smaller tribes into their communities.

This aggressive inclusion often aims to increase the demographic strength of the larger tribes, which in turn plays a crucial role in their lobbying efforts for political advantages, including claims for a separate land allocation. Conversely, some of the smaller tribes have expressed a strong unwillingness to be assimilated into these larger communities, choosing instead to uphold their unique identities.

This tension has led to notable instances of dissent, such as the Zou community, which has been particularly vocal in advocating for its desire to separate from the Kuki community. They are asserting their right to establish their own distinct territory, which they are referring to as Zoland, as an alternative to being subsumed under the label of Kukiland.

Similarly, Thadou, Gangte, Hmar communities etc., may be in the wait list to break away from the Kuki nomenclature and demand for a separate administration or homeland for each. This call for differentiation is not just about land; it symbolizes a deeper yearning for recognition and autonomy within a complex socio-political landscape, illustrating the ongoing struggle among various tribal groups in Manipur.