Kuki State Demand Committee was formed on 2 November 2010 to articulate and champion the political will of the Kuki people in present-day state of Manipur. Preceding the formation of KSDC was a landmark meeting held on 2 September 2010 in New Delhi under the aegis of Kuki Inpi and Kuki Nampi Palai: each and every Kuki revolutionary organisation was invited to discuss and deliberate the future of the Kuki people. The resolution passed at the meeting - following the assent of all the revolutionary groups - was to seek statehood for the Kukis comprising their ancestral land over which our forefathers, from time immemorial, had governed independently. KSDC’s objectives include security for the future of the Kukis in terms of identity, territory and economic development. By April 2011 district level KSDC offices were opened in Churachandpur, Chandel and Sadar Hills. On 12 May, all the Kuki Chiefs became members of KSDC and resolved to support the demand for Kuki statehood. On 17 June, KSDC made a solemn appeal to the entire Kuki public to wholeheartedly support the demand for a Kuki state.

KSDC’s demand for Kuki state is also prompted by the following issues that show gross discrimination of Kukis in the state of Manipur:

• Denial of Sadar Hills District
• Denial of Tribal Protection Under the Sixth Schedule
• The Eight Schedule
• Disparity in Development: Neglect of Tribal/Kuki Areas
• Rendering Hill Areas Committee Non-functional
• Denial of Proportionate Representation
• Land Alienation and Annexation of Tribal Land through state administrative mechanism (overlapping in the 2011 census), which is taken up by COPTAM (Committee on Protection of Tribal Areas, Manipur)
• State Government meddles with chieftains rights to deprive them of their land.

The present-day political map of Manipur is a British construct. Kangleipak, the Meitei people’s ancestral land, comprises the valley in today’s Manipur political map. Kuki hills and Kangleipak were administratively constituted into a single unit as Manipur by the British without the consent of the Kuki Chieftains. In India , the bulk of Kuki territory was included within the boundary of Manipur, as the British administered these lands through the Political Agent and later on under the Manipur Durbar. In the post- independence era, Kukis initially opposed the proposal for Manipur’s merger with the Indian Union because it would include Kuki territory as a part of Manipur. However, Manipur as created by the British merged with the Indian Union in 1949. In due course, Kukis reconciled to the merger in the hope that they would benefit equitably in the new dispensation. Thus, began the Kuki people’s tryst with destiny under the reassuring promises of Indian democracy, only soon to be thoroughly disillusioned by the ills of deep-rooted majoritarian bias in an ethnically diverse and communally divisive political environment. Consequently, in 1960 the Kuki National Assembly submitted a Memorandum to Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, seeking a separate Kuki state within the Indian Union. Following the Prime Minister’s apathy towards the Kuki people’s political aspirations and the stark discriminative action taken by the Government of India in favour of pro-British colonialists^[1] by according statehood to Nagaland in 1963, the ever anti-colonial Kukis joined hands with the Mizo National Front, but only to be betrayed in 1986, when the Mizo Accord was signed between Government of India and Mizo National Front that categorically excluded Kukis. MNF’s main proclaimed objective was territorial integration and a single administration for the Kuki-Mizo people.^[2] In Manipur, the 60-odd years of communally driven state Government policies and continued discriminative deliberations have proven beyond doubt that Kukis will never be allowed to develop economically or to progress in the existing state. Perpetuation of status quo would exacerbate the condition of the Kuki people, never alleviate. Besides, more important than political and economic deprivations, the Kuki people have not been and are not safe or secure in Manipur. They have suffered immense loss of lives and loss of parts of their territory at the hands of Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak & Muivah), primarily due to the state Government’s callous approach to their security. Coupled with this predicament, aggressive penetration into erstwhile peaceful hill areas by Meitei militants and the Meitei state Government’s myriad discriminatory policies has made the condition of the Kukis utterly woeful. Years of tolerance and patience has failed to bring justice or equitable treatment to the Kukis. Given their prevalent pitiable state and predicament, revival of self-determination – the Kuki people’s pre-British period status – albeit under the democratic framework of India , is essential for the Kukis to exist as a people with distinct cultural ethos and in a context that honourably befits their history, which is statehood. This is central to, and fully in harmony with, the spirit of unity in diversity, the bedrock of Indian nationhood.

Historical development that justifies KSDC’s demand for Kuki statehood [link]

Kuki State Demand Committee pledges to pursue its political goal through means that are peaceable and noble, but which do not compromise the territorial integrity of the Kukis as well as the commitment demonstrated by our ancestors. KSDC, on behalf of the Kukis of the present and future generations, also pledge to restore the ancestral Kuki territory to its rightful status of self-determination. Self-determination, sought within the Constitution of India, is in the form of statehood. In principal, the stand of KSDC is also in line with the resolution of the Kuki chiefs, who fought against the British colonialists in the ‘Kuki Rising, 1917-1919’:^[3]

At all cost, we should fight against the British for the preservation of our independence, and for the protection of our land, culture and tradition.^[4]

The colonialists’ aggressions on Kuki territory, which began in 1777 culminated in the Kuki Rising of 1917-1919. The intensity of Kuki defiance is cited by Maj Gen DK Palit: rather than attend a Durbar the Political Agent of Manipur organised to discuss the issues that incensed the Kukis, Chief Ngulbul of Mombi (Lawnpi) and Chief Ngulkhup of Longya sent a message that they have ‘closed the country to the British.’^[5] In present-day context, Chief Ngulbul and Chief Ngulkhup’s dominion is in Chandel district of Manipur.

To elicit due support and understanding in the pursuit of Kuki statehood, noteworthy to mention is the age-old relationship between the Kuki Chief and the Meitei Ningthou (Raja or Chief), which underpinned by mutual respect. The two neighbours stuck together through thick and thin, helping each other in times of external aggression. An eloquent ancient Meitei aphorism bears testimony to this bond:

Chingna koina pansaba, Haona koina panngakpa, Manipur sana leimayol....

(Rough translation)

Encircled by the range of hills, secured all around by the people who dwell therein; Oh Manipur, thou golden land.

The above aphorism clearly demarcated Kuki and Meitei territories. The ‘people’ or ‘Haona’ refer to the Kukis, masters of the hills; ‘Manipur sana leimayol, the golden land’, refers to the ancestral Meitei territory comprising the valley, which lay cosseted surrounded by Kuki hills and their brave warriors.

Contrary to some notable academics’ view, the Kuki Chiefs were not 'vassals' of the Meitei Ningthou, neither were they ever treated as such. The Kuki Chiefs were independent and benevolent autocrats, who kept their territory secure and intact. In the words of JH Hutton, ‘the Kukis were ruled by their own organized chiefs and treated as they had been in the past at any rate, by the Manipur State as allies.’^[6] The Kukis protested the transfer of hill administration to the Manipur State Durbar and made clear their stand by stating: The hills were never a part of India prior to the annexation of these frontier hills (Statement of Kuki National Assembly, 1947). This political stance was reiterated by KNA:

The unchallenging fact is that, if the British government left the country, then naturally the Kukis should be free. (In a Memorandum submitted to the Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India, 1960)

By the Act of 1935, Government of India, Burma was separated from India in 1937. This rather deft, but sly imperialist masterstroke, split ancestral Kuki territory between British India and British Burma, without Kuki consent. In the words of William Shaw, ‘The unprepared Kukis could not, however, openly challenge the Britishers but had to wait for an opportune time when they could re-assert their freedom.’^[7] This opportunity presented itself in World War II. In the Great War, the Kukis and the Indian National Army fought on the side of Imperial Japanese and entered into a political agreement with both parties regarding the future of the Kukis after the war.

Pu Jamthang gives an account of the agreement between the Kukis and the Japanese held in present-day Burma at Koija (north of Homalin) and Zale’n (south of Homalin) camps, on 5 Oct and 12 Oct 1943, respectively. The number of Kuki Chiefs and elders present on the occasion was a total of 310; Imperial Japan was represented by 3 Japanese officers, namely Ezemia, Nokamisan and Nakamisang. A translation of the text regarding the treaty at Koija and Zalen camps is as follows:

The Kukis and the Japanese killed a mithun or bison to formalise the treaty. They ate the animal’s liver and heart (symbolising deepest commitment to the treaty) and declared that a tiger devour either party that reneged!^[8]

The salient points of the Kuki-Japanese agreement are as follows:

• In war time, Kukis would help the Japanese in combats against the British, provide local guides, intelligence, provisions and other necessary materials.
• In the course of the war, the Imperial Japanese army would respect the dignity and honour of the Kuki people.
• Following victory of the Axis powers, the Kukis would regain independence, as was prior to the advent of the British, and Japan would facilitate in the process of Kukis rebuilding their nation.

The victory of the Allied forces and subsequent independence of Burma, India and Pakistan resulted in Kuki territory being incorporated within the three state-nations. The British not only divided our ancestral lands, but also divided us into ‘Old Kuki’ and ‘New Kuki’ with the sole intention to subdue and prevent us from becoming a strong and united nation. In the Indian Union, the states are organized on ethno-linguistic lines in recognition of the existing mosaic of ethnic identities, languages and cultures. The right to govern their own affairs within their traditional territory has been denied to the Kukis, whilst it has long been extended to other ethnic entities in the Northeast. As a result, the Kuki inhabited areas of Manipur Hills, Karbi-Anglong and North-Cachar Hills of Assam and Tripura remain grossly underdeveloped and the people live in abject poverty. National schemes and developmental programs have consistently been denied to Kuki inhabited regions by the state machinery dominated by the majority communities. The long years of neglect and sufferings of the Kuki people under these state governments, dictated by the interests of the majority communities, have rendered the Kukis economically, socially and politically backward and deeply vulnerable. ‘Unity in Diversity’, the basis of Indian Polity, can work only when the diverse communities are on the same pedestal, which engenders mutual respect for one another. The Kukis have been subjected to political adversity and their neighbouring communities have taken advantage of their consequent vulnerability. This fact was highlighted by the Kuki National Assembly in 1960: Unless strong measures are immediately taken up for self-preservation, namely establishment of a separate state of their own within the Indian Union, they will surely succumb sooner or later to a process of extinction and extermination, which has been threatening them very seriously. However, the Government of India has not addressed the Kuki issue and the saga of the Kuki people’s never-ending sufferings and struggles continues. From 1950-1990, the Tangkhul people of Ukhrul District in Manipur carried out selective and systematic elimination of Kuki chiefs and elders, totalling 42. This was done to implant a fear psychosis among Kukis so that they may leave their hearths and ancestral lands. In the process, 64 Kuki villages were uprooted, which are now occupied by the Tangkhuls. In an ever-worsening scenario, on 22 October 1992 ‘Quit Notice Served by United Naga Council (UNC) to Kukis’ was issued, signed by RK Thekho, president of UNC, Imphal. Copies of the notice were distributed to all Naga villages, Sub Divisional Offices/District Commissioner Offices of the Manipur state government, and to the Editors of Manipur Mail and Manipur News for publication. Consequently, from 1992–1997, the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak & Muivah) launched the infamous Kuki genocide. The casualties totalled over 900 Kuki people dead (a significant number of them women and children), 350 uprooted villages, and more than 50,000 people displaced. The degree of human rights violations committed by the NSCN (IM) is reflected in the statement of Yambem Laba, a noted journalist from Manipur:

The Naga cry against human rights abuse perpetrated by the Indian Army for over fifty years was, completely overshadowed by one incident of Zoupi [Kuki] village on 13 September 1993.

The above remark refers to one of the many incidents in which NSCN (IM) cadres at gunpoint tied up and massacred 107 Kuki men (87 died at the spot; 20 later succumbed to injuries), butchering them with machetes and spears. In fact the Nagas served notice to the Kukis to quit Zoupi village by 15 September. In spite of the people leaving the village on the 13th, two days ahead of the deadline served, they were butchered. This reveals the treacherous mentality of the NSCN-IM.

Pu Tobu Kevichusa, Secretary of Naga National Council statement at the funeral service of Pu Mangkholen Hangsing, IAS, Commissioner of Taxation and Excise, another victim of NSCN (IM), is significant:

Isak and Muivah, the leaders of NSCN (IM), has proclaimed among the international community that the Government of India have killed innocent Nagas and abused their human rights. On the contrary, here is a stark example of their role of engaging in fratricidal activity by killing blameless people like Mangkholen to benefit their sectarian policy.

From 1950s and 1960s, the Kuki people have submitted numerous memorandums demanding a separate state and also appealed for protection and restoration of their uprooted villages. Unfortunately, the Governments of India and Burma have so far chosen to ignore the Kuki people’s non-violent and positive overtures. The indifference of the Government of India has resulted in escalation of atrocities against Kukis that beggar description. The government, instead of addressing the Kuki question, has kept up its negotiations with NSCN-IM, the perpetrators of Kuki genocide, while completely evading talks, for example, with the Kuki National Organisation. In August 2005, KNO signed the Suspension of Operations with the Indian Army, which represented the Central Government, in order to facilitate political dialogue with Government of India. To date, talks between Government of India and KNO have not begun. This speaks volumes about the indifference and extreme callousness of GoI towards the Kuki people and their problems.

In the meantime, taking advantage of the unfortunate Kuki condition of vulnerability, the Meitei insurgent outfits have infiltrated Kuki areas in large numbers and set up bases to wantonly indulge in inhuman harassment and torture of innocent and unarmed Kuki village folks. They also launch attacks on Indian Security Forces, mindless of the reprisals on civilian Kukis, and engage in laying Indiscriminate Explosive Devices. As a result, many Kukis are either killed or incapacitated by landmine explosions. The Meitei insurgents, who have an understanding with the military junta, are also operating from Burmese territory. The Government of India remains a mute spectator to these sufferings of its Kuki citizens and has failed utterly to protect them.

As mentioned above, the blatant disregard of Kuki interest by GOI prompted them to join the Mizo National Front’s secessionist movement in 1965. However, Kuki confidence in their ethnic Mizo brethren also witnessed betrayal when the Mizo Accord was signed in 1986 with GOI. Contrary to formal agreement signed in 1965 at Kawnpui in Churachandpur,^[9] only the former Lushai Hills formed a part of Mizoram. The accord disgracefully excluded Kuki territory, which had earlier been incorporated by the British within the existing state of Manipur. The political boundary of the present state of Manipur is a creation of the British. Manipur or Kangleipak, from time immemorial comprise of the valley, which is less than 10% of the total area of the state. ‘In fact, the entire valley was not always the domain of the Meiteis: in the English translation by Saroj Parratt of the Cheitharon Kumpapa: The Court Chronicle of the Kings of Manipur (2005, 23) from the original text written in Meitei Mayek (script), during the reign of Taotingmang, the third Meitei king (Sakabda 186 (264 CE)), his territory extended “only up to Lilong, seventeen miles from Kangla”.’^[10]

The Kukis suffered at the hands of the British. In independent India , in spite of the dire deprivations experienced by the Kukis owing to GOI’s deliberations and latterly by MNF’s betrayal, KSDC still seeks a political solution for the Kuki people within the Constitution of India.

Kukis own more than 50% of the entire territory in the state. As in the past, Kuki chieftains continue to own the lands for which they possess legal Pattas (land deeds). For the record, prior to the interference of the British, Kuki chiefs ruled over the entire hills of present-day Manipur and vast contiguous ranges, which is now in Nagaland. Meitei militants or Valley-based insurgent groups, have ravaged the Kukis and their lands in Chandel and Churachandpur districts in Manipur. They lay landmines (purportedly for Indian Security Forces), rape Hmar Kuki women at Parbung; physically displace Kuki population at Khengjoi in Chandel) and engage and torture village folks, including the chiefs, in forced labour.

The official population census of Manipur is very revealing regarding the Kukis. The figures are available in Delhi under District Census Report. Please compare 1981, 1991 with 2001. The figures will show that in 2001 those existing in the previous two censuses are missing. 2001 census was taken after the NSCN-IM’s aggression on Kukis.

In conclusion, the fact of the political subjugation leading to deprivation of the Kukis of their life, liberty and free expression and the denial of the benefits of the Constitutional provisions establishes that they are a deprived and discriminated section of society in the State and their political aspirations of being a part of democratic India cannot be fulfilled if the prevailing system and circumstances continues. In fact, all the factors which have contributed to creation of separate states of Nagaland, Meghalaya, Goa etc. and recently Jharkhand, Uttaranchal and Chhattisgarh are present in the case of demand of separate state for the Kukis within the parameters of The Constitution of India and to protect the culture and the distinctiveness of the Kukis. The demand of separate statehood is justified which will guarantee them the recognition and protection granted under the Constitution of India of right to life and to live with dignity.

Therefore, a Bill intended for the purpose of creation of separate state of Kukis can be introduced in accordance with Articles 2 or 3 of the Constitution of India containing appropriate provisions amending Schedule I of the Constitution with the name of State specifying its boundaries and Schedule IV allocating number of seats to such newly formed State in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and also stating the number of seats constituting the legislative assembly. The said bill should also contain appropriate consequential provisions for the state so formed.

See also [link]

• Kuki people
• The Kukis of Northeast India: Politics and Culture

References [link]