Rejoinder to R.K. Rajendro, President, International Meitei Forum

21st May 2015

Office of the Kuki Research Forum,
Estd. 2009

The Kuki Research Forum is forced to issue a rejoinder to R.K Rajendro, President, International Meitei Forum’s incendiary, baseless, communal and exclusivist statements made in the past andhis latest inflammatory speech on ISTV dated 16th May 2015. Considering the extreme sensitivity of the issues raised by R.K Rajendro and its potential for deepening the ethnic divide, the forum has taken upon them the onus of putting the issues in a proper perspective both in terms of the present day reality with the benefit of historical hindsight.

1. For one, the Kukis never entangled the ordinary Meitei populace even in the face of a dastardly crime committed by Meitei UG groups against the Kuki civilians. The infamous Parbung rape incident and the victims of landmines planted by the Meitei militants in Kuki territory are few examples intended to refresh public memory.On the other hand, the Kuki organizations condemned the unfortunate killing of two persons by the Kuki Revolutionary Front (KRF) at Thingsat and other like incidents if and when they occur.

While any bandh called given as a mark of protest against such killings are fully endorsed by Kuki Research Forum, it remains inexplicable as to why the bandh supporters of Patsoi targeted innocent Kuki civilians leading to the coldblooded murder of one while seriously injuring and maiming three others, that too, after 8 members of the KRF cadres have already been apprehended by the security forces. Further, it is difficult to comprehend how and why the President of the International Meitei Forum (IMF) forcibly connected two totally separate issues, viz., the killing of two persons by one UG group on the one hand, and issues of immigration, landownership and settlement on the other. This only shows that Mr. R.K.Rajendro is anti-tribal and hell-bent on stoking communal passions at a time when all right thinking persons and civil society organizations should make all-out efforts to restore peace and communal harmony in the state.

2. It is a repeated slogan and speeches of R.K Rajendro and the International Meitei Forum that ‘Kukis are foreigners’. If R.K. Rajendro is so ignorant about the history of the Kukis, he should hone up his historical references before speaking out his uninformed mind to the public. The Pooyas (the original script of the Meiteis) mentioned two Kuki chiefs who were allies to Nongba Lairen Pakhangba. Interestingly, Nongba Lairen Pakhangba’s mother was a Kuki woman. (William Shaw 1929:47-48).

CheitharolKumbaba (The Royal Chronicles of the Meitei Kings) recorded that Meidingu Taothingmang, a Kuki became king in the year 186 Sakabda (264 AD). According to Professor J.N. Phukan, the settlement of the Kukis must be sought in the hills of Manipur and the nearby areas rather than in Central China or the Yang-tze valley (International Seminar, Aizawl, Mizoram, 1992, p.10). Professor Gangumei Kamei also says that ‘some Kuki tribes migrated to Manipur hills in the pre-historic times along with or after the Meitei advent in the Manipur valley’ (History of Manipur, p 24). Majumdar and Bhattasali (History of India, Dacca, 1930, pp.6-7) refer to the Kukis as the earliest people known to have lived in prehistoric India, preceding ‘the Dravidians’. Hence, if the Kukis are considered foreigners and deserve to be thrown out of Manipur, the Meiteis too merit a similar treatment, if not worse.

3. R.K. Rajendro and his International Meitei Forum swear by the statement: ‘Kukis are nomadic’. The process of alignment and re-alignment of human settlement here or in other parts of the world has been a recurring occurrence. R.K. Rajendro must know that the Kuki people had the inherent right to choose and change their settlement within, what Sir George Abraham Grierson rightly delineated as, ‘Kuki Country’ (Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. 111, Part 111, (1904). The Kukis moved back and forth through the length and breadth of Kuki Country and there was no authority whatsoever to restrict or stop their free movement. The British never understood the freedom enjoyed by the Kuki people to live in any part of their territory, their unfettered freedom and lifestyle of shifting their settlement near their jhum fields. This was also their way of regenerating their forests and the environment. In addition, constant migration and dispersal was also a strategy to prevent other ethnic groupsfrom penetrating into their territory.

To the British, it was akin to a wandering and nomadic life and thus utterly failed to comprehend the strategic, economic and environmentaldimensions. R.K. Rajendro and his International Meitei Forum may hereafter seriously consider refraining from making a mockery of their ignorance with such crass remarks as ‘Kukis are nomadic’ but rather undertake an empirical research into why they too migrated into present Manipur like everybody else.

The Kuki Rising of 1917-1919 as recorded by Higgins was for the “preservation of their independence and for the protection of their land, culture and custom” (J.C Higgins’ letter No. 1920 dated November 7,1917 to the Chief secretary of Assam). If the Kukis were to be classified “foreigners” and “nomadic” and having no land as Mr. R.K.Rajendro would like the world to believe, the same classification applies to the Meiteis. Kukis have shed precious blood and make great sacrifices for the land which belong to them, and ignorant rancour cannot and should not be allowed to rewrite the history of peaceful and mutual co-existence that characterized the relationship between Kuki hills and Kangleipak in the valley.

4. Who sent soldiers to King Herachandra to fight the Ava incursions from Burma? Who brought back Meitei King Chandrakirti from his captivity and restored him to the throne of Manipur? Who opposed the Manipur Merger Agreement in 1949? Wouldn’t it be better for promoting stronger ethnic ties by focusing on positive issues? In these events, had it not been for the neighbourly protection by Kuki Chiefs and their soldiers, Kangleipak would have been humiliated and overrun by the enemies. Ironically, the Meiteis, especially those like Mr. R.K. Rajendro, have not acknowledged these decisive and important interventions of the Kuki people. History has enough evidence of Kuki-Meitei relationship, which can never be hidden and the Meiteis cannot feign ignorance of the past equation. Ignoring all these facts and terming the Kuki as ‘Nomad’ and ‘foreigners’ simply shows lack of self respect and short-sightedness.

5. Mr. R.K.Rajendro’s sinister propaganda has no place in a civilized society and this, together with biased Television Channel telecasting such inflammatory speeches without any element of responsibility deserves utter condemnation. The Press fraternity of Manipur in general and the ISTV and Sangai Express in particular should also uphold the ethics of journalism in future by reporting news without any biasness the facts as it is and not what they think it to be.

6. Lastly, the Kukis always stand for peaceful co-existence with neighbours by respecting each other’s territory, identity and culture. The forum also urges sane elements within Meitei society to prevent the continued misleading of the public by people like R.K.Rajendro who is inspired by greed, hatred and falsity. Mr. R.K.Rajendro’s repeated anti-tribal and anti-Kuki stance is highly condemnable and the Manipur Government would do well to restrain him from further sowing the seeds of communal disharmony so that every communities living in Manipur could realise their full potentials without any discrimination, hatred or disharmony.

On behalf of Kuki Research Forum:

Sd/

Prof. T.T Haokip (NEHU)
President

Dr. Jangkhongam Doungel (MZU)
Vice-President

Dr. Thongkholal Haokip (JNU)
Gen. Secretary

Dr. Thathang Vaiphei (MU)
Jt. Secretary