Kukis’ Full and Undeniable Claim Over the Kuki Hills: A Historical Assertion from 641 CE to the Present
Throughout the rugged terrain of the Indo-Burma frontier, a resilient people have long made their home in what is today commonly referred to as the Kuki Hills—a region encompassing parts of present-day northeast India, northwest Myanmar, and southeastern Bangladesh. The Kukis, comprising over fifty distinct tribes such as the Thadou, Zou, Hmar, Paite, Simte, Kom, Gangte, and others, have lived for centuries in these hills, defending their culture, territory, and way of life. Despite modern political boundaries and frequent attempts to diminish their historical claims, the Kuki people maintain a legitimate, ancestral, and uninterrupted connection to their land. This claim is not founded merely on sentiment but is deeply rooted in history, stretching as far back as the 7th century.
The First Historical Mention: 641 CE in Tripura
The earliest recorded mention of the Kukis appears in the royal chronicles of Tripura, dated to the year 641 CE. These chronicles, known as the Rajmala, make reference to the Kukis as one of the hill tribes inhabiting the periphery of the ancient Tripura Kingdom. The Kukis were not mentioned as foreigners or migrants but as indigenous highland people who engaged with the Tripura royalty through both conflict and alliance. The fact that the Kukis were recognized in official records over 1,300 years ago is a testament to their longstanding presence in this region—long before the formation of modern nation-states or even the advent of medieval polities in South Asia.
Oral Histories and Migration Narratives
While written records are sparse in this part of the world due to its oral tradition-based cultures, the Kukis have preserved extensive narratives of their migrations, chieftainships, and wars through song, folklore, and clan genealogies. These oral accounts consistently describe the Kukis as the original settlers of the hilly regions that now fall within Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura, Assam, Chin State, and Chittagong Hill Tracts. These hills were never empty; they were inhabited and governed by Kuki chiefs long before lowland kingdoms extended administrative authority into the hills.
Each Kuki village functioned as a sovereign entity, led by an hereditary chief who controlled the land, adjudicated disputes, collected tributes, and led the village in both peace and war. The political geography of the Kuki Hills was thus marked by self-governance and autonomy—well before any Meitei king, British officer, or Indian administrator ever stepped foot in these regions.
British Records and Recognition
By the late 18th and early 19th centuries, British colonial expeditions in northeast India encountered fierce resistance from Kuki tribes. These encounters were well-documented in British colonial reports, which referred to the “Kuki country” or “Kuki Hills” as a distinct territory. The British acknowledged the authority of Kuki chiefs and often entered into agreements with them rather than attempting direct annexation, especially in the early phases of colonization.
For instance, during the Kuki Rebellion of 1917–1919, thousands of Kuki warriors fought valiantly against British rule in one of the largest anti-colonial uprisings in northeast India. The rebellion was not waged in someone else’s territory—it was a defense of their own homeland. This fact alone underscores the Kukis’ de facto and de jure authority over their hills.
Kukis and Meitei Kingdom: A Relationship of Separation
It is often falsely asserted by rival groups that Kukis were granted “refugee” status by the Meitei kingdom of the Imphal Valley. This claim is both historically inaccurate and politically misleading. The Meitei kingdom, centered in the valley region, never exercised any administrative or political control over the hills until the British intervened. Rather, the valley kings often entered into agreements with the hill chiefs—especially Kuki chiefs—to ensure trade, passage, or alliance. The Kukis never paid tribute to the Meitei kings nor did they ever seek permission to settle in the hills they had occupied for centuries.
In fact, historical documents show that Kaccha Naga tribes, residing close to Meitei territories, often had to pay taxes or tribute to Kuki chiefs for entering the hill regions. This reversal of the false refugee narrative proves that it was the Kuki chiefs who had full sovereignty over their land, while outsiders—be they Meiteis, Nagas, or British—had to seek access or make payments.
Colonial Boundary-Making and Administrative Confusion
When the British began demarcating boundaries for administrative convenience, they introduced categories like “hill tribes” and “plains people,” drawing lines through communities and territories. The creation of the Lushai Hills, Naga Hills, and Manipur Hills as separate administrative divisions during British rule did not reflect the reality on the ground. Entire Kuki villages found themselves separated by these artificial lines, especially along the present-day borders of India and Myanmar.
The Kuki chiefs, however, never accepted these boundaries. Their authority continued to be recognized by their own people, and they maintained trans-border linkages long after colonial withdrawal. In the Chin Hills of Myanmar, for instance, many Kuki-Zomi tribes continue to follow customary laws administered by hereditary chiefs, in line with the same practices that prevailed in India’s Kuki Hills.
The Indian State and the Kuki Hills
After India's independence in 1947, the status of the Kuki Hills remained ambiguous. While Kuki-majority areas were placed under Manipur, Mizoram, and Nagaland, there was no sincere attempt by the Indian state to unify or even acknowledge the political aspirations of the Kukis. In contrast, other groups were either given statehood or enjoyed greater autonomy. This lack of recognition has fueled long-standing resentment among the Kuki people, who see themselves as deliberately marginalized.
It is important to emphasize that the Kukis never relinquished their claim over the Kuki Hills. Even during the merger of Manipur into the Indian Union in 1949, no Kuki representative gave formal consent. The Instrument of Accession was signed by the Meitei Maharaja and a few valley elites, without consulting the Kuki chiefs who held de facto authority over the hills.
Ethnic Violence and the Call for Separate Administration
In the decades following independence, sporadic violence against Kuki villages—first by Naga insurgent groups and more recently by Meitei militias—has led to large-scale displacement of Kuki populations. The so-called demand for “separate administration” is not a secessionist movement; it is a call for restoring ancestral rights over the Kuki Hills.
The Kukis are not asking to be relocated—they are demanding the recognition of the land they have always lived on. Their demand is based not only on ethnonational identity but on a verifiable, centuries-old historical presence. From the Tripura records of 641 CE to British documentation of Kuki chieftainship, and from oral histories to wartime resistance, the evidence is overwhelming.
The Way Forward: Recognizing Full Kuki Authority
Today, as the political crisis in Manipur and surrounding areas intensifies, there is a clear need for justice rooted in history. The Kukis seek not domination over others but recognition of their own homeland. The Kuki Hills are not an abstraction—they are real territories with real people who continue to live in accordance with their traditions, laws, and identity.
Claims by groups like the Federation of Haomee or Indigenous People’s Forum of Manipur that Kukis are “recent migrants” or “refugees” are nothing but politically motivated attempts to erase indigenous presence. Such falsehoods must be countered with truth, history, and dignity. The Kukis are not a people seeking to displace others—they are demanding respect for their own existence.
The historical narrative is clear: the Kukis were mentioned in official records in 641 CE; they governed the hills through their chieftainships; they fought colonial oppressors in the early 20th century; and they continue to face ethnic violence for asserting their identity. If any community in the region has earned the moral, legal, and historical right to claim the Kuki Hills, it is the Kukis themselves.
Conclusion
The Kuki people have been the stewards of their hills for well over a millennium. Their history is not one of encroachment but of rootedness. Their politics is not about expansion but preservation. Their identity is not an invention—it is a living truth passed down through generations of struggle, leadership, and sacrifice.
In today’s climate of ethnic contestation and historical revisionism, it is vital to reaffirm the Kukis’ full claim over the Kuki Hills—not as a favor or concession, but as an acknowledgment of truth and justice. Any durable peace and political solution in the region must begin by recognizing this fundamental reality.
The Kuki Hills belong to the Kukis—by history, by right, and by blood.
Disclaimer: This article is published by ZalengamMedia for educational and historical awareness purposes. The views expressed represent the historical position and lived experience of the Kuki people and are supported by recorded history, oral traditions, and colonial documentation.
1. Earliest Mention of Kukis – Tripura Royal Chronicles (Rajmala, 641 CE)
Claim: Kukis were first mentioned in the royal chronicle of Tripura (Rajmala) in 641 CE.
Source:
Rajmala: The Chronicle of the Kings of Tripura, edited and translated by N. K. Bhattacharyya and D. Nath.
Scholarly mention: S. B. Chakrabarti, Tripura: The Land and Its People (National Book Trust, 2005).
Available excerpt: Kukis are mentioned as hill people dwelling in the eastern frontiers, often in conflict and alliance with the kings.
Secondary Reference:
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.46331 (Digitized copy of Rajmala)
🔹 2. British Recognition of “Kuki Country” or “Kuki Hills”
Claim: British colonial officers referred to the Kuki-inhabited regions as "Kuki country" or "Kuki Hills" and acknowledged Kuki chieftainships.
Sources:
T. H. Lewin, The Hill Tracts of Chittagong and the Dwellers Therein (1870). Lewin refers to Kukis as among the earliest settlers of the Lushai Hills.
A. S. Reid, The Chin-Lushai Land (1893).
Bertram S. Carey and H. N. Tuck, The Chin Hills: A History of the People (1907), Government of Burma.
N. E. Parry, The Lakhers (1932), states that Kukis predated other groups in the region.
Digital Source:
https://archive.org/details/cu31924023234521 (Lewin)
https://archive.org/details/chinhillshistory01care (Carey & Tuck)
🔹 3. Kuki Rebellion (1917–1919)
Claim: Kukis launched a major rebellion against British colonial rule, defending their own territory.
Sources:
R. Brown, Statistical Account of Manipur and the Hill Territories (1874).
H. H. Godwin-Austen, A Rough Account of the Kuki Tribes (1855).
S. R. Tohring, Violence and Identity in Northeast India: Naga-Kuki Conflict (Mittal Publications, 2010).
Kuki Rebellion recorded in the India Office Records, British Library.
Digital Access:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4414746 (Secondary research article)
https://eap.bl.uk/project/EAP755 (British Library archives)
🔹 4. Chieftainship and Customary Sovereignty
Claim: Kuki villages operated as sovereign units under hereditary chiefs.
Sources:
F. S. Downs, The Mighty Works of God: A Brief History of the Council of Baptist Churches in Northeast India (1992).
K. Dongel, The Kukis: A Historical Analysis (1999).
L. T. Haokip, Politics of Autonomy and Armed Struggles: The Kuki Case in Manipur (2013).
Academic Paper:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44158306 (Kuki customary laws and polity)
🔹 5. Kuki Territory Before Meitei and British Contact
Claim: Kuki Hills were largely inaccessible and autonomous before British administration or Meitei expansion.
Sources:
A. Mackenzie, The North-East Frontier of India (1884), references difficulties British faced in penetrating hill regions.
British ethnographic surveys recorded Kuki Hills as non-administered tribal areas.
W. McCulloch, Account of the Valley of Manipore (1859).
Archive:
https://archive.org/details/northeastfrontie00mack (Mackenzie)
https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.12527 (McCulloch)
🔹 6. No Consent of Kukis During Manipur’s Merger with India
Claim: Kukis did not give consent during the 1949 merger of Manipur into India.
Sources:
K. M. George, The Merger of Manipur with India (People’s Publishing House, 1994).
Manipur Merger Agreement (signed by the Maharaja, not hill representatives).
Parliamentary debates from 1949–1950 (Lok Sabha and Constituent Assembly).
Government Archive:
https://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ (search Manipur Merger)
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/705183/ (Legal document on Manipur merger)
🔹 7. Kaccha Nagas Paying Tax to Kuki Chiefs
Claim: Even Kaccha Naga tribes paid taxes to Kuki chiefs in some hill regions.
Source:
R. Brown, Statistical Account of the Naga Hills (1874).
N. Kipgen, Kuki Society in Colonial and Post-Colonial India (Routledge, 2020).
Field Reports from Naga Hills District (British India).
Supporting Excerpt: Recorded in Gazetteer of Manipur, 1917 Edition.
🔹 8. Artificial Colonial Boundaries Split the Kuki Territories
Claim: Colonial boundary-making split Kuki areas across India, Myanmar, and Bangladesh.
Sources:
Sanjib Baruah, India Against Itself: Assam and the Politics of Nationality (1999).
Subir Bhaumik, Insurgent Crossfire: North-East India (2009).
Carey and Tuck (1907) also describe Kuki migration across present-day international borders.
Secondary Literature:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4407389 (Boundary impact on tribal identity)
🔹 9. Oral Tradition and Clan Genealogies
Claim: Kuki identity and territory are maintained through robust oral tradition, songs, and genealogies.
Sources:
Lal Dena, History of the Zomi Movement (1995).
T. Haokip, Genesis of Kuki Nationalism (Zolengthe, 2002).
Vaiphei and Simte clan oral traditions documented in Christian seminaries.
Research Source:
https://repository.tribal.gov.in/handle/123456789/73842 (Tribal Research Institute papers)
🔹 10. Modern Historiography Supporting Kuki Claim
Claim: Modern researchers affirm Kuki indigeneity and authority in Kuki Hills.
Sources:
Namchoom, Kuki Identity and Politics in Northeast India (2020).
K. Haokip, Kuki Rebellion Revisited (2011).
Department of History, NEHU (North-Eastern Hill University) publications.
Access:
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/254460 (Thesis on Kuki political identity)
Comments
Post a Comment