Status of the Term Kuki

 STATUS OF THE TERM ‘KUKI’ IN THE PAST AND PRESENT: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Dr Jangkhongam Doungel, Reader, Deptt. of Political Science, Government Lawngtlai College Lawngtlai, Mizoram.

1. Introduction: The term ‘Kuki’ is claimed to have included all the conglomerate tribes of the Chin-Kuki-Mizo or Zo ethnic group of people who trace their common origin from a mythological cave. The so-called mythological cave was known in different names by different tribes of the Chin Kuki ethnic stock, namely, Khul, Khur, Khurpui, Khurtu-bijur, Khor, Puk, Shinlung and Chhinlung. As all the tribes trace their origin to a mythological cave, popularly known as Khul and Chhinlung, ‘Khul or Chhinlung origin people’ can also be literarily used for identifying the Chin-Kuki-Mizo ethnic group of people. Infact, the claim of common origin to Chhinlung or Khul by all the tribes validate the authenticity of the close affinity and inseparable blood relationship of the Chin-Kuki ethnic stock who settle in India, Myanmar and Bangladesh. So, all tribes of the Khul/Chhinlung origin people were collectively known as Kuki in the past, however, different terms have been coined as alternative to Kuki afterwards. Moreover, depending upon the diverse political upheavals and changing environmental circumstances, the status of the term ‘Kuki’ at present is different from its implication of the past. In the midst of this ongoing nomenclature tussle among the kindred tribes, exaggerated conception of Kuki has been intensified by certain section till now. Khulmi, Chin, Mizo, Chikim, Zomi and Zo are some of the terms which are coined and propagated as alternatives to Kuki. Yet, consensus nomenclature for the Chin-Kuki-Mizo ethnic stock is still an easier said than done. The reason being, different group of tribes advocated different nomenclature which consequently led to nomenclature crisis among the kindred tribes. Whatever be the case, the Chin-Kuki-Mizo tribes are classified among the Tibeto-Burman group and the term ‘Tibeto-Burman’ is coined and employed by linguists to represent a group of Central Asian tribes in their classification of mankind who were closely related by a family of language and a system of tradition.1 As kindred tribes of the Chin-Kuki-Mizo ethnic stock were identified as Kuki since pre-British period, the Britishers too used and popularised the term ‘Kuki’ for identifying them. Therefore, the term ‘Kuki’ was really significant but its significance was checked due to the arising nomenclature tussle among the tribes.

2. Inclusive characteristic of the term ‘Kuki’ in the past: It is paradoxical to state that the exact origin of the term ‘Kuki’ could not be accurately traced. Different views and versions have been expressed by different scholars with regard to origin of Kuki but consensus theory has not yet been arrived. The Pooyas, the original script of the Meitei people of Manipur recorded the involvement of two Kuki chiefs, Kuki Ahongba and Kuki Achouba in the enthronement of Leiren Pakhangba as king in 33 A.D.2 However, it is a hard assumption to digest because it totally contradicts the written record of the Kuki migration to Manipur. B. Lalthangliana states that Anals were the first to migrate to Manipur among the Chin-Kuki-Mizo ethnic group and, Anals were said to have established permanent settlement and waged war against tribes, adjacent to them in Manipur in 1500 A.D.3 Anals were followed by Chiru and Aimol in the migration to Manipur. J. Shakespeare maintained that Aimols first appeared in the soil of Manipur in 1772. He also stated that Thadou-Kuki migrated to Manipur only in the eighteenth century A.D. J. Shakespeare also traced the root why Thadou has been used as name of the tribe instead of the elder clans. To quote Shakespeare, “The Doungel are descended from Thadou’s elder brother, and therefore are considered as rather superior to the rest of the families. The reason why the clan has not been known by the name of Doungel is said to be that Thadou was a far greater warrior and killed more men”4 That was the observation of J. Shakespeare which seemed to be clarification of identifying the name of the tribe by the younger clan than the elder clan. There is now suggestion of adopting ‘Khochungte’ as an alternative to Thadou from scholarly point of view. It could be ascertained from the above statement of the Kuki tribes’ migration to Manipur that, the earliest migration was said to have taken place only in 1500 A.D. Therefore, the claims of certain historians about the Kuki settlement in prehistoric era as well as the record of the Pooyas with regard to the involvement of two Kuki chiefs in throne politics of Manipur in 33 A.D. seemed to baseless and unrealistic.

Dr Sangkima maintains that Kuki is said to be a Bengali word meaning “wild man” by which they used to designate all hill people who cultivated their land by jhumming. It is speculated that following the Bengalis, the Britishers picked up the word and applied it to all tribes inhabiting the Lushai Hills, Chin Hills, Hill areas of Manipur and their kindred tribes in Assam, Naga Hills, Tripura and Chittagong whose social, cultural and linguistic affinities were more or less the similar. Dr Sangkima states that Zo or Chin-Kuki-Mizo ethnic stock of people moved further south in their settlement in China during the reign of Shih Huang Ti (246 – 210 B.C.) due to his repressive policy in the construction of the Great Wall of China. The Chin-Kuki group proceeded with their south-ward migration and reached Burma (Myanmar) in the beginning of the ninth century A.D. Then, they came by the way of the Salween River into what is now known as Shan state.

Lian H. Sakhong states that Zomi tribes who live close to Assam and Bengal were known as Kuki and the term ‘Kuki’ is a Bengali word which means “hill people or highlanders”. He further classifies by quoting from Shakespeare that, the term ‘Kuki’ is inclusively applied to homogeneous tribes of the Tibeto-Burman stock.6 What ever be the case, the term “Kuki” is loosely applied to all tribes of the Chin-Kuki-Mizo ethnic stock who are now scattering in India, Myanmar and Bangladesh. The Chin-Kuki ethnic group occupied the whole Chin Hills in Myanmar and Mizoram in India, and their other settlements are in Sagaing Division, Kabo valley and Arakan in Myanmar, Chittagong Hill Tract in Bangladesh; where as, their other settlements in India are found in hill areas of Manipur, Karbi-Anglong District and N.C. Hills District of Assam, Tripura and, Kohima District, Peren District and Phek District of Nagaland. In such away, all tribes of the Khul/Chhinlung origin people who inhabited the above mentioned territories were inclusively recorded as Kuki during British period. Despite obscurity in origin of the term and its allegation of being a foreign word, imposed upon, it was the undoubted nomenclature of the Khul/Chhinlung origin of people. As a matter of fact, all kindred tribes of the Chin-Kuki-Mizo or Zo ethnic group of people were collectively identified as Kuki.

Col. A.S. Raid stated that the first record of Kuki raid in the British territory took place in 1777 when the chief of Chittagong was attacked by the Kuki marauders.7 Captain T.H. Lewin, known as Thangliana to the Luseis, classified the tribes of Chittagong Hill Tract (C.H.T.) into two as Khyoungtha or children of the river and Toungtha or children of the hill. The Khyoungtha lived near the river and were experts in water craft where as the Toungtha settled in dense jungle area of the hills.8 Captain T.H. Lewin further divided the Toungtha in to three sects as follow:

(a) Tribes who were tributaries of the British and were subjected to British administration, namely, Tipperah or Mrungs, Kumi or Kweymi, the Mrus and the Khyengs.

(b) Tribes who did not pay revenue but were subjected to the influence of the British administration, namely, Bunjogis (Bawms) and the Pankhos (Pangs).

(c) Independent tribes who were beyond the administered territory of the British administration at that time, namely, Lushais or Kookies and Shendus or the Lakhers.

The Bawms (Bunjogis), Pangs (Pankhos), Luseis, Lai (Pawi), Tlanglau and Mara (Lakher) are kindred tribes of the Khul/Chhinlung origin of people who were identified as Kuki in Chittagong at that time. The Lai (Pawi) and Mara (Lakher) were collectively known as Shendus by the Arakanese and the said term was also popularly used by the British administration in identifying the two tribes in C.H.T. Any raid or plunder upon the British territory by the above mentioned tribes were recorded as Kuki raids. It should also be noted that no Thadou-Kuki settled in Chittagong and any raid in Chittagong or Tripura were also undertaken by the above mentioned tribes who were identified as Kookies (Kukis) at that time.

Bawms, Pangs, Tlanglaus, Mirias and Mughs followed the great Lai chief, Vanhnuaitlira Hlawncheu who led the first migratory group of the Lais (Pawis) from Chin Hills to Lushai Hills and East Bengal (present Bangladesh) from 1745-1820 A.D. After establishing the Hlawncheu chieftainship at Sangau and Pangkhua in Lushai Hills in 1773, Vanhnuaitlira Hlawncheu moved as far as Chittagong and established the Hlawncheu chiefdom with headquarters at Rengtlang in Chittagong and the above mentioned tribes, namely, Bawms, Pangs, Tlanglaus, Mirias and Mughs followed him as far as Chittagong and they became his faithful tributaries. Vanhnuaitlira Hlawncheu died in 1820 and he was succeeded by his son, Liankunga Hlawncheu. Liankunga Hlawncheu was said to have collected taxes and tributes as far as Cox Bazaar and his suzerainty over the Chittagong Hill Tract (C.H.T.) was also recognised even by the British Administration at that time. Other Lai chiefs, namely, Hausata Chinzah and Dokulha Chinzah also frequently raided the British protectorate territory of Chittagong. Over and above that, Howlong chiefs, Mara Chiefs and Sailo chiefs also frequently raided and plundered Chittagong and Tripura. Further, the Sailo chiefs also frequently raided tea garden in Assam plain from time to time. Thus, all raids and plunders, mentioned above have been recorded as Kuki raids and the frequent raids of the so-called Kukies, namely, Lai, Mara and Lusei had automatically resulted in reduction of the British Administration’s revenue collection in Chittagong from 89,109 to 83,222.11 The Lais and Maras were collectively known as Shendus in Bangladesh but they were identified as Chin in the Chin Hills at Myanmar. The Lais are also popularly known as Pawi and the Maras are popularly known as Lakher in Lushai Hills and Manipur. It is evident that, different tribes of the Khul/Chhinlung origin people in Lushai Hills, Chin Hills, Arakan, Chittagong, Tripura, Manipur, Assam and Naga Hills were inclusively known as Kuki in pre-British period and they were also recorded and known as Kuki in the British period. Thus, Kuki was used as an inclusive term, representing all tribes of the Chin-Kuki-Mizo or Zo ethnic stock of people in the past.

3. Transformative nature of the concept: The coverage and extend of Kuki as a nomenclature of the Khul/Chhinlung origin people experienced a downslide movement due to emergence of many new terminologies as contesting nomenclature. Chin, Mizo, Chikim, Zomi and Zo sprang up as alternative to Kuki in different areas of the Chin-Kuki-Mizo inhabited Tract in India, Myanmar and Bangladesh. Earlier, Khulmi was ushered as alternative to Kuki by different tribes of the Khul origin people in Manipur in early fifties and Khulmi National Union was formed as a political platform. After that, the term ‘Chikim’ which is said to be combination of the three contesting nomenclatures, namely, Chin, Kuki and Mizo evolved since the eighties and it is still adhered to as a suitable alternative by certain section. On the other hand, the most non-controversial term ‘Eimi’ has been popularly advocated by like-minded intellectuals and this term has often been now used as a convenient platform for unifying people of the Khul/Chhinlung origin people at different places. Conglomerate tribes of the Chin-Kuki-Mizo or Zo ethnic group are related historically, socially, linguistically, genealogically and culturally and they share common origin with out doubt. They also have the desire for unification as they are quite conscious of their common ethnic identity; however, the crux of the problem lies in the nomenclature issue. Further, nomenclature issue happened to be the Pandora box for unification of the Khul/Chhinlung origin people.

The term ‘Chin’ first appeared around 1100 A.D. in a stone inscription, erected by Pagan king, Kyanzittha in Chindwin valley. However, Chin began to be used in a written form by Major W.G. Hughes in his military report and by A.G.E. Newland in his book “The Images of war” in 1891. Then, it began to be legalised officially with the enforcement of the Chin Hills Regulation of 1896.12 Consequently, all tribes of the Khul/Chhinlung origin people who settled in the erstwhile Burma or the present Myanmar were collectively identified as Chin and the compact area, dominated by them also came to be known as Chin Hills which is now Chin state. Therefore, the term ‘Chin’ is preferred and widely accepted than Kuki in Chin Hills and other part of Myanmar.

Sangkima, B. Lalthangliana and Vanchhunga stated that, the term ‘Mizo’ had been in use since the forefathers’ time. Vanchhunga who had an intensive investigation on the Mizos in Burma claims that even the forefathers used to say “Keini Mizote chuan” meaning “We the Mizos.”13 On the basis of this statement, advocates of the Mizo nomenclature claim that Mizo had been in used as their calling name from the past many centuries. However, the official use of Mizo began only with the formation of Mizo Union at Muallungthu on 9th April, 1946. As a positive gesture for acceptance of the term, the erstwhile Lushai Hills Autonomous District Council was also changed into Mizo District Council through an amendment of the Sixth Schedule provision of the constitution of India by the Indian Parliament in 1954 so as to integrate different tribes of the Khul/Chhinlung origin people of Lushai Hills in the Mizo fold. Then, as an appeasement step for solving the intensified armed struggle of the Mizo National Front (M.N.F.), Lushai Hills was declared as Union Territory of Mizoram in 1972 and it was subsequently upgraded to the status of statehood in 1987 with the signing of Mizoram Accord by the Government of India and the M.N.F. in 1986.14 Consequently, Mizo seems to be the common nomenclature of all tribes of the Khul/Chhinlung origin people in the state of Mizoram. Yet, certain section among the Lais and Maras in the southern part of the state are adamant to be in the Mizo-fold so as to preserve their ethnic identity as they are facilitated with the Autonomous District Council status under the provision of the Sixth Schedule to the constitution of India. However, acceptance of the Mizo nomenclature does not seems to pose any threat to their privileges in the Sixth Schedule provision to the constitution of India. Infact, it is only a misconception of fear and assimilation which compelled them to provoke the Mizo nomenclature which they can not resist in the true sense of the term. Thus, Mizo is commonly accepted by all tribes of the Khul/Chhinlung origin people in Mizoram and they are ambitious in bringing all their kindred tribes outside Mizoram under the Mizo –fold. If people of Mizoram are serious in bringing their kindred tribes outside Mizoram under the Mizo-fold, they should be persuasive, accommodative, tactful and mature in their dealing with their brethren of outside Mizoram. Yet, many tribes outside Mizoram are still not convinced at all by the Mizo nomenclature.

The term “Zomi” originated in Chin Hills in the early fifties. Many church leaders advocated the unification of different Baptist Churches of the Chin-Kuki ethnic group of Myanmar under a common umbrella with acceptable nomenclature. As a result, Zomi was accepted by church leaders at Saikah on 5-7 March 1953 and Zomi Baptist Convention (Z.B.C.) was subsequently established.15 At present, there are 25 Baptist Church associations under the umbrella of the Z.B.C. The acceptance of Zomi nomenclature at present confines mostly to religious aspects but Chin is still used in the political aspect. The Chin National Front (C.N.F.) and Chin Forum are still actively spearheading political movement in the name of Chin.16 On the other hand, Zomi was advocated in Manipur with the establishment of Zomi National Congress (Z.N.C.) by T. Gougin in 197217 and Z.N.C. intensified its movement for Union Territory status of the Zomis in the eighties. After that, revolutionary movement was spearheaded in the name of Zomi with the formation of Zomi Revolutionary Organisation (Z.R.O.) by Kaizasong Guite which has its armed wing Zomi Revolutionary Army (Z.R.A.) in the mid-nineties. It is evident that there is tussle for nomenclature between Chin and Zomi in Chin Hills as well as Kuki and Zomi in Manipur at present.

The term ‘Zo’ is also obscure as its exact period of origin could not be accurately traced. Zo signifies the conglomerate tribes of the Khul/Chhinlung origin people who settle in India, Myanmar and Bangladesh. It is also sometime written as Dzho and Asho by different writers. F.K. Lehman and, Carey and Tuck also mentioned about Zo in their books but the exact origin of the term was no where mentioned accurately. The term ‘Zo’ has been propagated in written form by Vumson in “Zo History” and by Sing Khaw Khai in “Zo people and their culture”. Whatever be the case, many intellectuals and scholars of the Chin-Kuki-Mizo ethnic group regarded Zo as the uncontroversial and acceptable nomenclature which is free from any tribe bias. It is alleged that by like-minded scholars that all the contesting nomenclature other than Zo are inflicted with parochial tribe centric ideology. The reason being, Kuki is identified with the Thadou-Kuki, Mizo with the Luseis, Chin with Lais of Chin Hills and Zomi is identified with Tidims and Paites. Therefore, the term ‘Zo’ with out any prefix “Mizo” or suffix “Zomi” happened to be better alternative as acceptable nomenclature in the opinion of many like-minded scholars. Despite the many recent development and the ongoing tussle for nomenclature, Kuki as a nomenclature of the Chin-Kuki-Mizo ethnic group is still relevant outside Chin state and Mizoram. And till a common nomenclature, integrating all the Khul/Chhinlung origin tribes is consensually adopted, the relevance of Kuki as an integrating force is to be maintained.

4. Status of the term “Kuki” at present and its inherent contradiction: The term “Kuki” which was an inclusive terminology for identifying the Chin-Kuki-Mizo or Zo ethnic group in the past faced certain ups and downs in the political upheavals’ and it is now down-sized in its coverage and acceptance. Kuki is now replaced by Mizo as identifying name in Mizoram and by Chin in Chin state. Over and above that, certain kindred tribes of the Khul/Chhinlung origin people in Arakan, Chittagong, Manipur and Assam do no longer prefer to be identified as Kuki. In the light of this on-going nomenclature conflict and problematic political issues, only the Thadou-Kukis and few other tribes are identified as Kuki at present. It is therefore automatically transformed into an exclusive concept from inclusive terminology of the past. However, as people of Khul origin are officially recognised as Kuki in the states of Assam of Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, Tripura and Meghalaya,18 the status of Kuki is still preserved and political movements have also been initiated under Kuki platform.

The controversy which erupted over the deletion of any Kuki tribes in the tribe modification order of 1956 and subsequent formation of tribal organisation by different Kuki tribes ignited the fragmented movement of the Kukies. The re-introduction of ‘Any Kuki Tribe’ in Manipur in 200319 is expected to redress certain ills of the tribe recognition controversy but miracle could not be performed overnight in this regard. Yet, redressal exercise may be expected through evolutionary process. The armed conflict between the Paites and Thadou-Kukies in 1997 had added ignited issues to the already burning problem but the conflict was amicably settled with open-heart by the two conflicting parties. Thus, conflicts and disturbances inflicted the Chin-Kuki-Mizo unification struggle since the early fifties; and there are many inherent contradictions which jeopardise their unification move. Some of the inherent contradictions shall be analysed as given below.

4.1. Insurgency movement: The North East India has been infested with insurgency problem since the initial stage of India’s independence. The insurgencies here had a reflection of its social, cultural, ethnic and politico-economic milieu with a resultant impact in political environment. The Naga National Council (N.N.C.) led by A.Z. Phizo started insurgency movement with violent means in 1956. Then, the dissatisfied faction led by Isak Chisi Swu and Thuinguileng Muiva formed the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (N.S.C.N.) in 1980 due to their displeasure with the Shillong Accord which was signed in 1975.20 The Nagas intruded upon the Kuki tribes of Chandel District of Manipur who are known as Old Kukies with two effective instruments, namely, church and gun ; and they forcibly brought them to the Naga-fold though they (Old Kukies) have nothing in common with the Nagas so far as custom, culture, language and social set-up are concerned. As such, the seed of disunity was shown between the old Kukies and new Kukies which added the inherent contradictions of the Chin-Kuki tribes of Manipur.

Insurgency took its birth among the Chin-Kuki tribes of Manipur in the late eighties. Kuki National Front (K.N.F.) and Kuki National Organisation (K.N.O.) are established in the late eighties and other insurgent groups are established in nineties after the Kuki-Naga clash of the early nineties. Insurgent groups of the Chin-Kuki ethnic stock are now broadly divided into two groups, namely, Kuki National Organisation (K.N.O.) and the United People Forum (U.P.F.). The armed insurgent groups under K.N.O. umbrella are Kuki National Army (K.N.A.), Kuki National Front (Military Council) K.N.F. (M.C.), Kuki National Front (Zougam) or K.N.F. (Zougam), Zomi Revolutionary Front (Z.R.F.), Hmar National Army (H.N.A.), United Socialist Revolutionary Army (U.S.R.A.), United Komrem Revolutionary Army (U.K.R.A.), United Minorities Liberation Front (U.M.L.F.), Zou Defence Volunteer (Z.D.V.), Kuki Liberation Army (K.L.A.) and Pakan Reunification Army (P.R.A.). On the other hand, U.P.F. formed in 2006, is another umbrella organisation of insurgent groups of the Chin-Kuki ethnic tribes. The insurgent groups under U.P.F. umbrella are Zomi Revolutionary Army (Z.R.A.), Kuki National Front (Samuel) or K.N.F. (Samuel), Kuki National Front (K.N.F.) led by Thangboi Kipgen, United Kuki Liberation Front (U.K.L.F.), Kuki Revolutionary Army (K.R.A.), Kuki Liberation Army (K.L.A.) led by Timothy Khongsai and Hmar People’s Convention (Democrats) or H.P.C. (D).21 Both the K.N.O. and U.P.F. have now signed Suspension of Operation (SoO) with the Government of India and they are now in the process of negotiation with the government. Division of insurgents of the Chin-Kuki ethnic group into two camps have created tension among the people which is also an addition of another inherent contradiction. Thus, taking integration and unity of the Chin-Kuki ethnic group into account, the two groups should amicably solve their differences and constructively negotiate with the government for benefits of their people.

4.2. Clannish ambition of the kindred tribes: S.H.M. Rizvi and Shibani Roy stated that the whole group of Chin-Kuki ethnic stock can be linguistically divided into two as ‘R group’ and ‘Non R group’ of sounds. The ‘non R group’ has neither ‘r’ sound nor some consonant clusters like TI HM etc in their language. Thadou-Kuki, Paite, Tiddim, Zou, Vaiphei, Gangte, Simte, Ralte etc fall within the ‘non R group’ where as, Lusei, Hmar, Lai (Pawi), Mara (Lakher), Kom, Aimol, Chiru, Anal etc are categorised as ‘R’ group since the sound of r is dominantly present in their language.22 The abolition of any Kuki tribe in 1956 and recognition of the Chin-Kuki ethnic tribes on linguistic basis intensified tribalism and clannish feeling which automatically resulted in fragmented Kuki nationalism. As a result, Aimol, Anal, Lusei, Chiru, Chothe, Gangte, Hmar, Koireng, Kom, Lamkang, Maring, Monsang, Moyon, Paite, Purum, Ralte, Sukte, Simte, Thadou, Vaiphei and Zou are recognised as tribes from the Chin-Kuki group23 and they all asserted to maintain their ethnic tribal identity with out a common umbrella organisation. The Balkanisation process due to the tribe recognition result of 1956 and the uncompromising attitude of the Thadous on the issue of Kuki-siki (quarter Kuki) and Kuki-makhai (half Kuki) had alienated many tribes from the Kuki fold. In the early fifties, the Khulmi National Union had already been established by the dissatisfied tribes as an alternative to the Kuki National Assembly (K.N.A.). Over and above that, many tribal organisations were formed which were independent from one another with out any apex body to over-see them. Some of the tribal organisations are Hmar National Union (H.N.U.), Paite National Council (P.N.C.) which is now Paite Tribe Council (P.T.C.), Gangte Tribal Union (G.T.U.), United Zou Organisation (U.Z.O.), Simte National Council (S.N.C.) and Vaiphei National Organisation (V.N.O.) etc. Infact, parochial and communal ambition of the different kindred tribes of the Chin-Kuki ethnic stock is also an addition to the long list of inherent contradictions.

4.3. Identity of the old Kukies: The Chin-Kuki ethnic tribes who are classified as old Kukies, namely, Aimol, Anal, Chiru, Chothe, Koireng, Kom, Lamgang (Lamkang), Maring, Moyon, Monsang, Purum 24 and Khoibu are all sub-tribes of the Lai (Pawi). The above mentioned tribes are included in the sub-tribes and clans of the Lai in a circular issued by the Pawi (Lai) Union with General Headquarters at Aizawl in 1996. It is evident that the above mentioned old Kuki tribes are related historically, socially, culturally and linguistically with the Lais (Pawis) of Mizoram, Chin state and Chittagong. Lai is one of the largest among the Chin-Kuki ethnic tribes with over-all population of roughly 22 lakhs and occupied an area of 82,342 sq. km in their inhabited territories of India, Myanmar and Bangladesh. Maring and some other old Kuki tribes of Chandel District tie their hair in the knot of their forehead exactly like what the Lais had done in the past. Thus, it is an undeniable fact to admit that old Kuki tribes of Manipur are sub-tribes of the Lai from Chin-Kuki ethnic stock. It should be noted that Maring and some other tribes of Chandel District tie their hair in the knot of their forehead exactly like what the Lais had done in the past. Thus, the true identity of the old Kukies of Manipur within the Chin-Kuki ethnic stock is that, they (Old Kukies) are sub-tribes of the Lai (Pawi). The Old Kukies are predominantly inhabiting the Chandel District and, they are also found in Churachandpur District and Sadar Hills Autonomous District region of the Senapati District of Manipur.25 J. Shakespeare stated that some of the old Kukies practised republican system of chiefship, as such, they (old Kukies) had elected chiefship26 unlike the hereditary as well as autocratic chieftainship which had been practised by their kindred tribes of the Chin-Kuki ethnic stock. It is evident that hereditary and autocratic chieftainship is still retained by their kindred tribes in general and the Thadou-Kuki in particular in Manipur. The naganisation process of the old Kuki tribes with the shrewd utilisation of church and gun as effective instruments compelled the old Kukies to be in Naga-fold politically but they (old Kukies) were cent percent sure about their Chin-Kuki identity. The Nagas and old Kukies do not share common entity in any form from historical, social, cultural, linguistic, genealogical and anthropological point of views. The only common entity between the Nagas and old Kukies could be assumed upon the practice of republican chieftainship. Prof. Gangmumei and Prof. Horam were the two scholars who advocated the inclusion of the old Kukies among the Nagas in the past. However, identifying the old Kukies among the Naga population in the census seemed to be the replica of counting some cows among the buffalo population.27 As blood is thicker than politic, the evolutionary process for identifying the old Kukies with their kiths and kins has already begun. Likewise, the true ethnic identity of the old Kukies as sub-tribes of Lai (Pawi) should be acknowledged and their kindred tribes should be persuasive and accommodative in integrating them within the Chin-Kuki ethnic fold.

4.4. Exaggerated misconception of the term ‘Kuki’: As stated earlier, Kuki is solely identified with the Thadou-Kukies by other tribes of the Chin-Kuki ethnic stock. As a matter of fact, new terms, namely, Chin, Mizo, Zo, Khulmi, Zomi, Chikim, Eimi and Unao have been coined as alternative replacement to Kuki.However; consensus idea has not yet been arrived in this regard. Statehoods have already been attained with the Mizo and Chin nomenclature respectively at Mizoram in India and Chin state in Myanmar. So, it is unlikely that Kuki will be an acceptable nomenclature in those two states. What ever be the case, Kuki is still a relevant term for integrating the Chin-Kuki ethnic stock of people in Manipur, Assam, Nagaland and Tripura. However, no tangible result will be achieved by the soliloquy efforts of the Thadou-Kukies with out participation of other tribes. In the light of this on-going problematic issue, the Thadou-Kukies are required to be persuasive, accommodative and mature in their dealing with their kindred tribes of the same ethnic stock. It is an undeniable fact that, the Thadou-Kukies do not settle in Chittagong, Arakan and Tripura. As such, the mention of Kukies in such provinces did not and do not denote the Thadou-Kukies but they are Bawms, Pangs, Tlanglaus, Lai, Mara, Lusei and kindred Kuki tribes of Tripura. On the other hand, the Thadou-Kukies also did not have direct genealogical link or political link with the king of Tripura in the past. Infact, they are together under the same ethnic stock as Chin-Kuki, however, the description of link between the Thadou-Kuki and the King of Tripura seemed to be historical distortion of facts. Therefore, exaggerated misconception and subjective presentation of the term ‘Kuki’ should be avoided as far as practicable from different angles and directions so as not to minimise Kuki concept with clannish feeling and parochial attitude. Over and above that, sensitive and ethnic issue should not be judged on clan consideration but it should tactfully be assessed objectively from research point of view with the mature decision of scholars of the field. Lastly but not the least, public leaders and some church leaders should also be required to be careful in interpreting and tackling ethnic issues which required scholarly views and objective observations.

5. Objective observation: The inclusive Kuki of the past is now automatically transformed into exclusive term due to certain political developments and historical events. L. Keivom states that the population of Chin-Kuki ethnic stock in India, Myanmar and Bangladesh is estimated to be about 2.5 – 3 million. The greatest harm the British authority did to us was trifurcation of our inhabited areas in to three sovereign countries, namely, India, Myanmar and East Pakistan (Bangladesh). Thus, unpardonable damage had already been done since 1935 with the passage of bill by the British Parliament for administrative division of India and Burma as per the Government of India Act of 1935.28 It is a plain fact to admit that the inclusive Kuki of the past may not be reintroduced at all in the present situation due to presence of certain inherent contradictions and situational changes in the political environment. Infact, people of Mizoram and Chin state may not prefer Kuki than Mizo and Chin. As such, objective approach is required to be adopted with respect to use of Kuki as a nomenclature, movement and integrating force. Instead of being an integrating force, the use of the term ‘Kuki’ can be a divisive force depending upon the environment and the nature pf interpretation. Therefore, taking integration measure in to account, it should be objectively assessed so as to redress certain grievances which are now rocking the political horizon.

It is a good development to assert that all insurgent organisations of the Chin-Kuki ethnic tribes are classified under the umbrella organisations of the K.N.O. and U.P.F. Despite the differences and struggle for supremacy, it is a good gesture to admit that armed groups from different tribes admitted their oneness in ethnicity. Thus, amicable settlement of disputes with out emphasising on nomenclature issue is now the need of the hour for unification and integration. Further the controversy over construction of Mini- Secretariat and declaration of Paite as host language in the All India Radio station at Churachandpur should also be persuasively and maturely tackled. The declaration and use of Paite as host language should also be applauded and accepted by all other tribes because it is also the language of the Chin-Kuki ethnic tribe. The suggestion of Mizo as host language by certain section at the radio station in Churachandpur is not relevant in the local context. So, parochial and communal attitude should be avoided as far as practicable in this regard.

Professionalism should be emphasised and all issues are required to be tackled on professional consideration and specialised knowledge. Infact, utilisation of professional skill and specialised knowledge seems to be the panacea for solving many wide ranging ethnic issues among the Chin-Kuki tribes in general and the Thadou-Kukies in particular. The case in point is the suggestion of ‘Khochungte’ instead of ‘Thadou’ or ‘Thadou-Kuki’ by scholar of the professional field as a non-controversial solution of the chronic tribe recognition issue. More over, one should not cross his limit of knowledge and professional background in interpreting certain issues concerning Kuki ethnicity. Distortions of historical facts and misconceptions have often been committed by jack of all trades persons who involved beyond their professional boundary. As a matter of fact, one who should undertake the Human Rights Movement should be a law degree holder or atleast a degree holder in Human Right course. More over, it is not advisable for politicians, bureaucrats and social workers to interfere too much in the church administration. Likewise, the extreme involvement of church leaders or pastors in socio-political issue such as Kuki Inpi and Human Rights movement is also against ethical principle. It is also evident that, some church leaders with out sound secular educational background are extremely involved in ethnic issues. Therefore, scholars and researchers who are armed with objective views should be recognised so as to redress the many ills which inflicted our society due to the work of clannish leaning personalities and jack of all trades persons. Therefore, the on-going Kuki problem may not be satisfactorily redressed with out employing professional skill and specialised knowledge of the field.

Despite the rejection of Kuki and alleging it as a foreign word, imposed upon, Kuki as a nomenclature representing tribes of the Chin-Kuki ethnic group in Manipur, Assam, Nagaland and Tripura is still a force to reckon with. Whether it lacks the inclusive characteristic of the past or its transformation as an exclusive terminology which is no longer relevant in certain territories, social organisations and political movements have been initiated from Kuki platform till now. Therefore, it should be objectively intensified to integrate the Chin-Kuki ethnic tribes of the relevant territories with out imposing upon the brethren who have already settled their political problem in Mizoram and Chin state. On the other hand, protagonists of the Kuki nomenclature should also be objective and integrative in their approach with out any clannish feeling. So, they should shun communal and parochial outlook so as to integrate their kindred tribes under the Kuki-fold. Further, the Kuki protagonists should also be not allergic to other contesting nomenclatures, namely, Mizo, Chin, Zomi, Eimi and Zo and, they should also not hesitate to identify with such term depending upon the political environment so as to sow the seed of co-operation for the general interest of all the tribes. At present, use of the term ‘Zo’ with out its prefix and suffix has been regarded as better alternative by certain scholars and intellectuals of Chin state and Mizoram. What ever be the implication of the nomenclature issue, Kuki as a nomenclature, representing certain tribes of the Chin-Kuki ethnic group is still relevant, however, it should be tactfully initiated with integrative and persuasive approach.

6. Conclusion: Kuki was an inclusive nomenclature of the Chin-Kuki-Mizo or Zo ethnic tribes in pre-British period. As such, the Britishers too identified them as Kuki; in such away, Kuki was popularly used for identifying Khul/Chhinlung origin people of Chin Hills, Arakan, Chittagong, Lushai Hills, Tripura, Assam, Naga Hills and Manipur. Moreover, the exact origin of the term could not be traced and it was regarded as of Bengali origin. People of the same ethnic stock in Chin Hills and Lushai Hills came to be known as Chin and Lusei respectively. Lushai is the corrupted form of Lusei which was popularly used by the Britishers in the past. Chin began to be used many years before the advent of the British Administration and Mizo began to be officially used with the formation of the Mizo Union party in 9th April 1946. Khulmi, Chikim, Zomi, Zo, Eimi and Unao are other terms which are coined as alternative to Kuki. So, there was evolutionary transformation in the nomenclature issue of the Chin-Kuki-Mizo ethnic stock. As a matter of fact, the status of Kuki in the past was different from the status of Kuki at present. Certain factors, such as tribe recognition, uncompromising nature of the Thadou-Kukies, divide and rule policy of the Nagas through the tactful use of church and gun, parochial attitude of the Chin-Kuki-Mizo ethnic tribes and exaggerated misconception of interpreting the Kuki term were responsible the different status of the Kuki in the past and present. On the other hand, the division of the insurgent associations of the Chin-Kuki ethnic group in to two groupings under the umbrella of K.N.O. and U.P.F. can be regarded as a positive development for cooperation.

In the midst of this on-going tussle for nomenclature, it is unlikely that Kuki will be acceptable in Chin Hills and Mizoram. However, the Kuki platform should be enlarged and emphasised in the territories where the term is still relevant. In this regard, protagonists of the Kuki nationality should be accommodative so that they will be able to convince all tribes in the Kuki-fold in the relevant area. Over and above that, Kuki protagonist in general and the Thadou-Kuki in particular should also be adjustable to other tribes and they should first keep their house in proper order. Therefore, certain inherent contradictions which now rock the society, namely, clannism, parochial clannish feeling, involvement of church leaders in politics, mushrooming of many associations with out purpose and some other social ills should be eradicated. The unnecessary problems which the Kuki Inpi faced earlier were also said to be due to the involvement of non-professional persons. Therefore, professional Skill and specialised knowledge with objective views should be utilise for solving vexed problems which rock the society so as to avoid historical distortions and misrepresentation of issues. Kuki as a nation will not prosper and problematic issues will not be redressed till old ideology is eradiated on the basis of professionalism and specialisation.

REFERENCES

1. Sing Khaw Khai, Zo people and their culture, Khampu Hatzaw, Churachandpur, Manipur, India, 1995, p. 47.

2. The Telegraph, 17th January, 1994, Kolkata.

3. Lalthangliana, B., India, Myanmar leh Bangladesh a Mizo Chanchin, R.T.M. Press, Aizawl, 2001, p. 166.

4. Shakespeare, Lt. Col. J., The Lushai-Kuki Clans, Tribal Research Institute (T.R.I.), Aizawl, Mizoram, 1988, pp. 147 & 187-188.

5. Sangkima, Essays on the History of the Mizos, Spectrum Publications, Guwahati, 2004, p. 15 & 36-37.

6. Sakhong, Lian H., In Search of Chin Identity, Nordic Institute of Asian Studies, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2003, p. 4.

7. Reid, Surg-Lieut. Col. A.S., Chin-Lushai Land, T.R.I., Aizawl, 1976, p. 7.

8. H Lewin, Lt Col. Thomas, A Fly on the Wheel or How I helped to govern India, T.R.I., Aizawl, Reprint, 2005, p. 226.

9. Mackenzie, Alexander, The North East Frontier of India, Mittal Publications, New Delhi Reproduced, 2004, p. 330.

10. Doungel, Jangkhongam, An Analysis on chieftainship as traditional dominant Political institution of the Lais of Mizoram, Minor Research Project of the University Grants Commission, 2010, Unpublished, pp. 41-42.

11. Reid, Sir Robert, The Lushai Hills, T.R.I., Aizawl, Reprint, 1978, p. 2.

12. Robin, K (Ed.), Chin – History, Culture & Identity, Dominant Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, 2009, pp. 3 & 12.

13. Sangkima, Op.cit, p. 16.

14. Doungel, Jangkhongam, The Role and Working of the Lai Autonomous District Council, Mizoram, Ph.D thesis, Manipur University, 2003, Unpublished, pp. 1 & 26-27

15. Sing Khaw Khai, Op.cit, pp. 69-71.

16. Robin, K (Ed.), Op.cit, pp. 313-314 & 352-353.

17. Gougin, T., Emancipation of Zo ethnic group nationhood, 4th July, 1998, Lamka, Churachandpur.

18. Goggle Web Search.

19. Government of India, The Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part II, Section I, Published by Authority, New Delhi, Wednesday, January 8, 2004.

20. A brief analysis of insurgency in North East India, paper, presented by D.K. Thangboi Haokip in U.G.C. sponsored Refresher Course, Department of Political Science, Manipur University, Canchipur, 20 February, 2007.

21. Ibid.

22. Rizvi, S.H.M. & Roy, Shibani, Kuki-Chin Tribes of Mizoram and Manipur, B.R. Publishing Corporation, Delhi, 2006, p. 11.

23. Gangte, T.S., The Kukis of Manipur – A Historical Analysis, Gyan Publishing House, New Delhi, 2003, pp. 30-32.

24. Web Search Goggle.

25. Doungel, Jangkhongam, The Role and Working of the Lai Autonomous District Council, Mizoram, Op.cit, pp. 19-20.

26. Shakespeare, Lt. Col. J., Op.cit, pp. 1 & 147.

27. Lhangpi Hinkho leh Kivaipohna a Haosa ho mopohna (Role of the Chiefs in Socio- Political Aspects of the society), paper, presented by Dr. Jangkhongam Doungel, Haosa Nupa Bible Camp, Jacob Prayer Mountain, Gelmol, Churachandpur, Manipur, 4-5 August, 2007.

28. Ethnic Nation Building Chin-Kuki-Zo Trail, paper, presented by L. Keivom in a Seminar, organised by Kuki Research Forum (K.R.F.) and Shinlung Indigenous People’s Human Rights Organisation (S.I.P.H.R.O.), J.N.U. Campus, Delhi, Delhi, April 5, 2010.