Rubbishing Young Kuki's misleading claims

Dirinamai Liangchi *

IT IS BOTH dreadful and unsurprising that Young Kuki has once again resorted to misquoting and distorting historical facts in a desperate attempt to mislead the public.

Instead of engaging with my arguments honestly and in their proper context, they have deliberately twisted my words to create confusion. Such tactics not only expose their lack of credibility but also reaffirm their relentless attempts to manipulate facts to serve their own agenda.

Here are Young Kuki’s distortions of facts, along with my clarifications :

1. The Absence of “Kuki” in Cheitharol Kumbaba

I had categorically stated that the word Kuki is nowhere mentioned in Cheitharol Kumbaba. Only Khongjai/Khongsai finds a place in its records. Yet, Kuki community has deceptively “transformed” themselves into indigenous Khongsai communities, assimilating them under the broader Kuki identity to fabricate historical legitimacy. If Young Kuki dares to challenge this, let them prove me wrong by producing a single instance where the word “Kuki” is explicitly mentioned in Cheitharol Kumbaba.

2. Contradictions in the Kuki Origin Narrative

Young Kuki claims that Kukis are mentioned in Taranatha’s History of Buddhism in India as incarnates of Buddha. But how does this align with their simultaneous assertion that Kukis are Bnei Menashe, the lost tribe of Israel ? Can one community have two entirely different origins—one tracing back to Buddha and another to the Israelites ?

This contradiction is not just absurd but a blatant act of historical and religious manipulation. By making such baseless claims, Young Kuki is not only fabricating history but also committing blasphemy against the blessed people of God.

3. The 1950 Constitution Order and the 1987 Kuki Demand for ST Recognition

If Kukis were officially recognized as indigenous to Manipur under the Scheduled Tribes Order of 1950, why did Holkhomang Baite (President, Kuki Tribes Recognition Demand Committee Manipur) and Yamthang Haokip (Secretary, Kuki Tribes Recognition Demand Committee Manipur) submit a memorandum to the then Prime Minister of India on April 28, 1987, pleading for the inclusion of Kuki tribes in the Scheduled Tribes list ?

This glaring contradiction exposes the lie that Kukis were originally recognized as indigenous. If they were already listed, why demand inclusion ? The truth is clear—Kukis were never part of Manipur’s indigenous fabric, and their own historical actions prove it.

4. Misrepresenting the Electoral Timeline

My discussion regarding Kuki overrepresentation in Manipur’s elections specifically focused on the 1962-1967 Territorial Election, yet Young Kuki, with deliberate intent, responded by referencing the 1967 election, which is a completely separate event.

This is a classic tactic of misinformation; shifting the goalpost and pretending to respond to an argument when, in reality, they are addressing something entirely different. If their intention was honest debate, they would have engaged with the specific points I raised about the 1962-1967 period rather than conveniently jumping to 1967 as if the two were interchangeable.

Similarly, when I referred to 1972-1973 election, they countered with references to the 1974 Assembly election. This again highlights their pattern of twisting facts to create an illusion of argument while avoiding the real issue.

It is evident that either they do not understand the historical timeline, or they are intentionally misleading people by presenting unrelated facts as a rebuttal. Either way, this approach only shambles their credibility.

5. The status of the Kuki people as refugees is an undeniable fact, supported by historical documentation and official correspondence. If the Kukis were not refugees, why would P Haokip, a respected Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha, 1973), have written to PC Pant of the Ministry of Home Affairs, urgently seeking financial assistance from the Home Department ? (Dated June 20, 1973).

In his appeal, he highlighted the dire circumstances faced by the Kuki refugees, describing their condition as “miserable”—a clear acknowledgment of their plight and the need for governmental intervention.

Further reinforcing this reality, Mr Henkhoshi Haokip, the Chairman of the Burma Kuki Refugee Association, took proactive steps to address the hardships faced by his people. He reached out to the Government of India, advocating for relief and rehabilitation measures for the Kuki refugees in Manipur (dated Feb 15, 1973). His efforts were not just administrative appeals but heartfelt attempts to secure dignity, survival, and hope for those displaced from their homeland.

It is essential for young Kukis to understand these historical truths—acknowledging the struggles and sacrifices of their forebears is vital for shaping their identity and resilience. The recognition of the Kuki refugee status is not merely a matter of record but a testament to the enduring spirit of a community that has faced adversity with courage and determination.

A Pattern of Distortion and Manipulation

This is not the first time Young Kuki and their associates have engaged in such deceptive tactics. They have consistently employed:

Selective misquoting to distort historical records Misinterpretation of facts to fit their fabricated narratives and Historical revisionism to erase inconvenient truths

Their objective is clear: to distort reality in a way that aligns with their own narrative while suppressing inconvenient truths. However, deception will not stand against truth. Their method of argument is neither intellectual nor honest.

It relies on half-truths and cherry-picked data to create an illusion of validity, hoping that the audience does not notice the inconsistencies. However, the public is not so easily deceived. Anyone who objectively examines the historical records will immediately recognize the glaring contradictions in Young Kuki’s claims.

The Importance of Historical Accuracy

History is not a something that can be rewritten or selectively edited to fit personal or political motives. The facts regarding 1962-1967 Territorial Election and the 1972-1973 election are well-documented. If Young Kuki were truly committed to historical accuracy, they would have addressed these events directly rather than misdirecting the discussion to different elections. Their deliberate evasion of facts only further exposes their dishonesty.

I urge all those following this debate to critically analyze and scrutinize the information being presented. Do not be swayed by half-truths and deceptive narratives. Truth must be upheld, and it is our collective responsibility to challenge misinformation wherever it appears.

To Young Kuki: A Final Warning

If you genuinely wish to debate history, do so with integrity. Address the actual arguments, reference the correct historical events, and stop resorting to deception. Anything less is an insult to intellectual discourse and an affront to truth itself.

Furthermore, let this serve as a stern warning to you, the so called Young Kuki and your keypad warriors: dragging the prestigious name of the Naga Government (NSCN-IM) to validate your illegal refugee status in Manipur is a reckless and suicidal move. Such desperate attempts will not only expose your fraudulent claims but will also have grave consequences.

The truth cannot be rewritten, and no amount of distortion will change historical reality. Kuknalim