TAMENGLONG, Dec 5 NNN : The Zeliangrong Baudi, Manipur (ZB-M) has claimed today that historically, the Nagas were the first settlers in the hills of Manipur and the kings living in the four “Naga districts” had paid yearly cultivation tax to Naga villages. “It is illogical to pay it if the Kukis were the reverse,” the ZB-M reasons.
It said when the Zeliangrong people came to their present habitat there were no other tribes including the Kukis whom the Zeliangrong forefathers could meet and enter into conflict with them in the early days.
“Our forefathers experienced inter-tribal (Kukis) conflict only in the 19th and the 20 centuries. For the Kukis started spreading in the hill areas during those centuries. Kuki exodus began after the adoption of planting Kukis in British frontier in the Naga hills and the Naga areas of Nagaland and Manipur in 1850s by Col. M.C. Cullock. This fact is well accounted by R.K Rajendro in his article, “Myanmar Amasung Manipur da leiba Kuki sing,” in Poknapham daily newspaper dated 19th March, 2012. In the press box item it states, ‘Yumhong toiba Kuki Chingmising asina Kanagumba leibak amada akaknaba Burma amasung Manipur da yum hongduna khundaruba khudunggi sajinnaba itihas semduna leibak tuda leijaramliba miyamdugi mathak thongnaba hekta hotnei. Makhoibu changpham piriba leibak tuda autonomous state nattraga ningtamba homeland piyu hekta hai’…,” pointed out the Zeliangrong body.
The claims of the Kuki National Organisation (KNO) that the Zeliangrongs were the vassals of Tintong and Khotinthang of Laijang and Jampi, the two chiefs and their men well armed and used brute force against the Zeliangrongs, alleged the ZB-M. So, some villages, in order to avoid ugly consequences remained silent or extended some nominal help to them during Kuki Rebellion (1917-19). It was a fleeting experience not regular one. And the situation did not lead them to vassalage. History denies it, it added.
The ZB-M then alleged that historically, the so called Kuki Rebellion was a state sponsored conflict, for the Kukis used the 600 muzzle-loading guns against the Nagas. Those guns were issued by Churachand Maharaja. And practically it was not rebellion, for the Kukis, instead of fighting against the established authority directly, they turned the guns against the Nagas of Manipur. It was, therefore, inappropriate to call it rebellion nor was war of independence. Practically, it was mere inter-tribal feud, the ZB-M further stated.
Regarding the pattas which are said to be possessed by Kuki chiefs, the Zeliangrongs had never felt the compulsion, the ZB-M claimed. “For our Zeliangrong forefathers applied absolute mode of land acquisition for their respective villages, meaning each village land was one of ownerless when they came to this present Zeliangrong land. So, the Zeliangrong land is always invariably there under any circumstance,” the ZB-M also stated
It then said, “Another claim of the KNO and the question of Kuki Achouba and Kuki Ahongba, it is a well known fact that the term Kuki was of recent appearance/origin. How could it appear in 3e AD? The two names are fictitious from any account. Moreover, anything appears in Pooyas is not historical and scientific. KNO’s assertion is unhistorical and confutable. In this regard, the Meiteis should rake up the issue. For it is something to do with coronation of Pakhangba”. “Is Chothe Thangvai Pakhangba a historical man?,” the ZB-M questions.
“As to frequent appearance of the Joupi incident by various Kuki organisations which we have put it in oblivion for being Christians, we are constrained to cite historical antecident.
Read more / Original news source: http://manipur-mail.com/zb-statement-on-history-of-hill-areas/
