SINCE THE OUTBREAK of the Kuki–Meitei conflict in May 2023, competing narratives have flooded public space. Journalists, researchers, activists, and political commentators have all attempted to explain how such an unprecedented and violent situation erupted in Manipur. The search for causes has produced not only legitimate academic debate but also a troubling wave of questionable claims presented as established fact.
I, too, undertook a systematic effort to understand the roots of the crisis. My research extended both online and offline. I consulted archival records, available literature, historical accounts, and engaged with social scientists, security professionals, and conflict-research experts. The objective was simple: to examine verifiable evidence and understand how the present situation developed.
However, during this process, I encountered deeply disturbing findings. Certain Kuki-Zo Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and intellectual forums, most prominently the so-called “World Kuki-Zo Intellectual Council” (WKZIC), were deliberately using a fictional book to make their claims about the indigeneity and historical origins of the Kuki community in Manipur appear genuine, even though these claims were totally inconsistent with established and official historical records.
Also Read | When Liberation Forgets Its Soul: A Reckoning the Naga People Can No Longer Postpone
What was ridiculous was not simply that they had a different point of view. (Having different opinions is normal and healthy in academic discussions). But the problem is in the method: repeatedly using false references or deceptive citations, doubtful references, and selective interpretations, presented as if they were proven and academically accurate. These claims were spread widely through articles, press statements, and online platforms. Because they were repeated so often and shared in many places, they created the impression that there was strong academic agreement behind them, even though no independent verification or clear scholarly support could be found. In times of conflict, repeating a claim again and again can take the place of real proof.
When references are quoted confidently and often, people may start to believe they are true, even without checking them carefully. Over time, this repetition gives the claims a false sense of credibility. This was not a careless mistake but a deliberate attempt by the WKZIC. By repeatedly using false references, they were able to create an appearance of legitimacy that was not supported by solid evidence. Such a method can mislead readers into believing that the claims are well-researched and academically accepted, even when they are not. It was in this context that I encountered a clear and verifiable example that exposed this pattern.
In 2025, I was shocked to discover that Professor John Parratt was being repeatedly quoted by the WKZIC as the author of a book titled “The Pleasures of the Past: A Social History of the Manipur Kingdom from 1764 to 1949,”(vol. 1 pp 151-153), and published by Vikas Publishing House around 1997.
Also Read | A Letter to My Naga People
The citation was presented with great confidence and was used to support their claims about historical interpretation and indigeneity. They even mentioned specific details such as “Vol. 1, pp. 151–153,” which made the reference appear precise and reliable. By giving exact volume and page numbers, it looked almost impossible to question.
To an ordinary reader, it seemed like strong and well-documented evidence, making the claim appear almost foolproof. Believing the reference to be genuine, I confidently began countering the WKZIC by using officially recorded historical documents from the British India administration. I relied on government records, archival materials, and documented history to challenge their claims. In fact, I went further and criticised Professor John, accusing him of being biased and lacking a scientific approach in his research. I questioned his credibility publicly, assuming that his work supported the narrative I was challenging. I had no idea that Professor John himself was closely following the article and reading what I had written.
Not very long after I received an email from Professor J. Parratt stating clearly that he had never written any such book. He firmly requested that I issue an immediate clarification in the Ukhrul Times to correct the error. At first, I did not fully grasp the seriousness of the situation and chose to ignore the message. But his second email was stronger in tone and unmistakably urgent. When I read it, I was both shocked and deeply alarmed. He wrote the following email: (verbatim)
“I do not seem to have received a reply to my email concerning your article in the Ukhrul Times on June 23. I repeat: I am not the author of the book you attribute to me, ‘The Pleasures of the Past’, nor have I even seen it. This elementary mistake does not commend your lack of scholarship. Please issue a correction and apology in the Ukhrul Times without delay. I do not want to bring a case for defamation against you, so please act quickly and send me a copy.”
Also Read | Preserving Memory: Manipur’s Past Through John Parratt’s Photographs
I subsequently wrote a detailed apology email to Professor Parratt explaining how the misattribution had arisen due to repeated and confident references used by Dr. T. Haokip, self-styled president of the so-called World Kuki-Zo Intellectual Council.
Professor Parratt responded with clarification. His email reads:
“Dear Dirinamai,
Thank you for your email explaining how the error came about. I understand this now and am indeed grateful to you for letting me know that the source was the so-called World Kuki-Zo Intellectual Council. Obviously ‘intellectual’ here doesn’t include being accurate in referencing!
And thank you for your second email giving the exact quotations. I shall follow this up with them directly, though I gather they have been banned by the Manipur Government.
There has, unfortunately, been a spate of misinformation recently (including by the UK Government, EU, and UN) following the recent Meetei–Kuki clashes.
Also Read | Only Kuki Chiefs of Manipur Cling to Unconstitutional Privileges
I discover that there is a book called The Pleasures of the Past, by the Oxford-educated historian and FRHS David Cannadine, but it has nothing to do with Manipur. So the Kuki-Zo intellectuals must have confused that book with another one, perhaps by my late friend, the much respected historian Gangumei Kamei, as well as wrongly attributing it to me. If so, they have not even got the title right”.
This exchange shows that the issue was not just a small referencing mistake. It revealed a deeper pattern. The name of a respected scholar was used to give strength and legitimacy to a historical claim. When the name of a well-known historian is attached to an argument, many people naturally assume it must be true.
By repeatedly citing a book that did not exist and by confidently mentioning volume and page numbers, this so-called WKZIC, a Kuki civil society organisations created the impression that their claims about indigeneity were strongly supported by academic research. Because these references were circulated through articles, statements, and online platforms, they slowly gained acceptance. Journalists, researchers, policymakers, and even international observers could easily be misled into believing that there was solid scholarly backing behind those claims.
In the ongoing conflict, the Kuki communities employed all kinds of dirty games, propaganda, and deception to portray themselves as victims rather than aggressors. They sought to present themselves as indigenous not by origin, but by manufacturing such claims. This conflict is not just an ordinary clash; for Kuki refugees, it is a struggle to establish and secure indigeneity, while for the indigenous people, it is a serious threat to their very existence.
(The views expressed are personal. The author can be reached at liangmai367@gmail.com)