SINCE THE OUTBREAK of the Kuki-Meitei conflict in Manipur, debates over history, identity, and indigenous rights have taken center stage in public discourse. At the heart of these debates lies a critical question: Who are the Kukis, and what is the true origin of their presence in Manipur? And more importantly, Why is that Kuki community often finds itself at the center of turmoil in this region?
Surprisingly, the Kuki community’s entire claim to indigeneity in Manipur rests heavily on a single secondary reference: the Khongjai Hills Expedition of 1786, as mentioned by John Parratt in his book The Pleasures of the Past: A Social History of the Manipur Kingdom from 1764–1949 (Vol. 1, pp. 151–153, Vikas Publishing House). This solitary citation has been amplified by Kuki intellectuals and civil society organizations, including the so-called “World Kuki Intellectual Council (WKIC)” and other associated civil society organisations (CSOs), as irrefutable proof of their ancient roots in Manipur.
This, however, raises troubling concerns about historical rigor and authenticity. What the Kuki scholars and intellectuals conveniently fail to mention is that John Parratt is not a professional historian nor a colonial-era observer, but a theologian whose expertise lies in religious studies rather than in critical historical methodology. Yet, because the title of his chapter included “The Pleasures of the Past: A Social History of the Manipur Kingdom from 1764–1949,” and because its content loosely referenced Khongjai Hills (a region associated with the Kukis), Parratt’s passing remark has been exalted as the gospel truth, a “second Bible” for Kuki propagandists attempting to reframe the historical narrative.
It is important to underscore that Parratt’s work was published only in 1997, a modern retelling partially modified from Manipuri royal chronicles (Cheitharol Kumbaba). His reference is neither a first-hand account nor a colonial administrative record but a theological interpretation distanced from the socio-political realities of 18th and 19th century Manipur. The depth, neutrality, and objectivity expected of serious historical scholarship are sadly absent in this singular citation.
Adding to the irony, Kuki scholars and Kuki World Intellectuals stand by Parratt and his book, while conveniently ignoring the rich and authoritative accounts of British political agents and administrators, whose official reports, contemporaneous to the events, paint a different picture of Kuki origins in Manipur.
This raises a million dollar question: Was John Parratt convinced by Kuki community’s narrative, enticing him to weave the fabric of history in colours that suited their cause. Or was Parratt paid by the Kuki Diaspora in the United States to craft a narrative that conveniently supports their claim of indigeneity in Manipur?
What Do the British Records Actually Say?
Unlike Parratt’s modern theological work, the following primary sources from British officers, political agents, and administrators provide first-hand observations that consistently identify Kukis as migrants or refugees from Chin Hills (present-day Myanmar):
1. Sir James Johnstone (Political Agent of Manipur (1877–1886))
Work: My Experiences in Manipur and the Naga Hills (1896)
“The Kuki immigrants were of a wild and turbulent character and were gradually encroaching upon the lands of older tribes.”
2. Captain R.B. McCabe (Political Agent, Manipur (1890s))
Described Kukis as “new arrivals from the direction of the Chin Hills”, highlighting their status as migrants and not ancient settlers.
3. A.G. McCall (Deputy Commissioner, Lushai Hills (1940s))
Work: The Lushai Hills District Cover (1949)
“The Kuki groups have largely migrated from the Chin Hills region, settling in various parts of the Lushai and adjoining hills in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.”
4. Major General Alexander Mackenzie (Chief Commissioner of Assam)
Work: The North-East Frontier of India (1884)
“The Kookies were driven by internal disturbances and pressure from the Burmese side to settle in the British hills.”
5. C.A. Soppitt (Extra Assistant Commissioner, Khasi & Jaintia Hills)
Work: A Short Account of the Kuki-Lushai Tribes (1887)
Categorized Kukis as late arrivals, distinct from the older indigenous tribes of the region.
6. G.A. Grierson (Linguistic Survey Officer)
Work: Linguistic Survey of India (1904)
Linguistically classified the Kukis as part of the Kuki-Chin group originating from the Chin Hills of Burma, not ancient Manipur.
A Glaring Gap in the Kuki Narrative
If the ‘spear dance’ and ‘stone pillar’ event described in Parratt’s book (allegedly marking the conquest of Khongjai) were not merely a figment of imagination, then why does such a significant historical episode find no mention in the detailed reports of British administrators, whose duty it was to meticulously record the political and tribal affairs of the region?
Instead, the overwhelming weight of British evidence, drawn from first-hand observation and direct administrative experience, contradicts the Kuki narrative entirely. These records uniformly present the Kukis as latecomers, informants, migrants, refugees, or buffer settlers strategically placed by the British colonial administration to serve imperial interests and quell indigenous resistance.
Historical Truth Cannot Be Selective
The selective reliance on John Parratt’s theological reinterpretation, while willfully ignoring the wealth of primary colonial evidence, highlights the weakness of the Kuki claim to indigeneity. Genuine history cannot be constructed on isolated, convenient fragments while rejecting comprehensive, authoritative sources.
For historical truth to prevail, all records must be weighed with equal seriousness, not merely those that serve a preferred political narrative. The British political agents and colonial administrators, who recorded events as they unfolded, remain the most credible witnesses to the demographic and ethnic history of Manipur. Their testimony stands in direct contradiction to the myth of Kuki indigeneity that modern Kuki intellectual circles so eagerly promote.
The author is a freelance writer, and can be reached at liangmai367@gmail.com.
(The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ukhrul Times. Ukhrul Times values and encourages diverse perspectives.)