Rebuttal to Navin Upadhyay’s article based on KOHUR’s Memorandum

APROPOS THE article entitled “KOHUR Digs up History to Assert: “Kuki Hills” Existed Before Manipur” authored by Navin Upadhyay, published in the magazine “Operation Corridors” on 23^rd June 2025. The observations and assertions of the author, Navin Upadhyay, made on the basis of KOHUR’s memorandum to Shri A.K. Bhalla, Hon’ble Governor of Manipur are hereby rebutted for being devoid of truth being contrary to archival facts and ground realities.

A. KOHUR has asserted that “Major Micheal Symes in his “Account of an Embassy to the Kingdom of Ava in the year 1795” wrote that “In the spring of 1763 Swinton was placed in command of an expedition to Meckley which he describes as “a hilly country, bounded on the north, south and west by large tracts of Cookie Mountains and on the east by the Burampoota, beyond the hills to the north by Assam, to the west Cashai.”  So, Kuki Hills and the Kuki people of today’s Manipur had surrounded the Meitei areas as far back as 1763.” This assertion of KOHUR is entirely deceptive for the following reasons:

1. Nowhere in his book “An Account of Embassy to the Kingdom of Ava in the year 1795”, Major Michael Symes quoted a sentence which read as: “In the spring of 1763 Swinton was placed in command of an expedition to Meckley which he describes as “a hilly country, bounded on the north, south and west by large tracts of Cookie Mountains and on the east by the Burampoota, beyond the hills to the north by Assam, to the west Cashai.” Therefore, KOHUR’s claim is an academic dishonesty and hence, a bluff of highest order.
2. Meckley was the name given by the Europeans to the country of ‘Moitay’ whose capital city was Manipur (Buchanan, 1799). It was bounded on the north by Cachar, on the south by Arracan, and the rude tribes bordering on that country; on the west it has the Bengal districts of ‘Tiperah’ and ‘Silhet’; and on the east it was separated from Burma by the ‘Keenduem’ (called Ningthi by the Meitei) river (Buchanan, 1799; Symes, 1800; Hamilton, 1820; Wheeler,1878).  Meckley’s map is published in both Rennel’s Memoir of a Map of Hindoostan (Rennel, 1793) and Carey’s General Atlas (Carey, 1814). The 1763 Swinton’s boundaries of Meckley as allegedly quoted by KOHUR do not conform with the description and map of Meckley, provided in the great works of Buchanan, Symes, Hamilton, Rennel, Carey mentioned above and hence, the alleged KOHUR’s quotation is incorrect and hence, a big bluff.
3. The word ‘Kuki or Cookie’ was never used by the Britishers prior to 1777 in which year the presence of Kukis was first reported by the chief of Chittagong to Warren Hasting, the Governor General of Bengal (Lewin,1870). So, the alleged presence of Cookie Mountains in 1763 as allegedly claimed by KOHUR has no leg to stand.

B. KOHUR’s claim that the Manipur’s “sovereignty extended only over the valley of Imphal is an established fact in history” is an academic bluff of highest order being contrary to historical records of authority. The existence of the country, Meckley with Manipur as its capital city stands as clear testimony that the sovereignty of Manipur extended far and wide, beyond Manipur in the olden days. The territory of Manipur as described by A.F.M. Abdul Ali (Ali, 1923) reads as: “It is bounded on the North by the Naga country and the hills overlooking the Assam Valley, on the West by the district of Cachar, on the East by Upper Burma and on the South by the Lushai hills.” This description of Manipur clearly brings out the fact to the fore that no Kuki Mountains/Hills surrounded Manipur thereby confirming that the claim of KOHUR in this regard is a serious academic deceit. 

Also read | Manipur: Are certain ethnic groups waging digital war against the Nagas? Wikipedia Contributor (IP-121.46.87.68) on Proposed Map of Kuki State in Manipur; What did UNC say?

Notably, during of reign of Garibniwaz (1709-1748) Manipur attained a position of considerable power and dignity. He led several military expeditions against Burma – a fact acknowledged by Burmese historical records of authority.  It is only after the death of Pamheiba that dissensions among the members of the royal family invited a series of Burmese invasions into Manipur which led not only the disintegration of the territory of Meckley but also loss of independence of Manipur. However, by the Treaty of Yandabo signed on 24^th February 1826 between the British East India Company and the King of Ava, the independence of Manipur was restored. From 1826 to 1891 Manipur remained as a sovereign kingdom. Although Manipur lost the fight against the British in the Anglo-Manipur war, 1891, the British Government of India did not annex Manipur but made it a feudatory princely State of India.

C. On the basis of the two English translation works viz., (i) ‘The Cheitharo Kumbaba, The Royal Chronicle of Manipur’ by Nepram Bihari and (ii) ‘The Court Chronicle of the Kings of Manipur, The Cheithron Kumpapa’ by Saroj Nalini Arambam Parrat, KOHUR has alleged that that “Cheitharol Kumbaba” has flaws. This allegation is untenable on the following grounds:

1. KOHUR’s allegation is based on the personal comments given by the translators and not on the basis of KOHUR’s own careful study of the original ‘Cheithrol Kumpapa’ which is written in ‘Meetei Mayek’, the archaic Meetei script or the transliterated ‘Cheitharol Kumbaba’ in Bengali script of imminent Meitei scholars such as “Cheithrol Kumbaba” by L. Ibungohal Singh and N. Khelchandra Singh (published by Manipuri Sahitya Parisad, Imphal),  “Chietharol Kumpapa, Royal Chronicle of Manipur, 33 A.D. – 1984 A.D.” by B. Kulachandra Sharma (published by Manipuri Sahitya Parisad, Assam). Notably, the recording of the original Cheitharol Kumpapa was done by ‘maichous or scholars’ of the Manipur Palace, who were the official scribes in the Loisang or Institute of Scribes.  
2. The methods used for dating in the ‘Cheitharol Kumbaba’ are well described by Pandit B. Kulachandra Sharma in his voluminous book “Cheitharol Kumbabagi Kumbarolsing Amasung (Athengba Matamgi) Numit Thaban”. Officially, there is no controversy in the dating made by the scribes in the ‘Cheitharol Kumbaba’. Remarkably, the Government of India felicitated the Ningthouja dynasty of Manipur conveying the following message in the cultural brochure of the G20 Summit: “The Ningthouja dynasty, also known as Mangang dynasty, comprises the descendants of the kings of Manipur. Ninthouja literally means progeny of King. It was founded by King Nongda Lairen Pakhangba in 33 CE.”
3. Taking the example of Hunza tribe of Gilgit, Baltistan whose average healthy longevity is 120 years (Wrench, 2006) as found by Dr. Robert McCarrison, Director of Nutrition and Research, Northern Ireland  during his field study undertaken during 1928 to 1935, there is nothing to be surprised  at the very long reigning periods of some Ningthouja kings namely Pakhangba – 120 years, Taothingmang – 100 years, Naophangba – 90 years, Urakonthouba – 90 years, Naothingkhong – 100 years, Ayangba – 89 years, Irengba – 90 years. Longevity depends on life-style, food habits, activities, environment etc. Notably, both Manipur valley of the olden days and Hunza valley of 1900’s could have identical hilly topography and landscapes. However, today’s Manipur has been experiencing environmental degradation primarily due to deforestation, which is exacerbated by shifting cultivation, poppy plantation, illegal logging and climate change.

Also read | Tribal Approach in Manipur

Prof. K. Yugindro Singh, Former Acting Vice Chancellor, Manipur University. He may be reached at yugindro361@gmail.com

(This is not a Ukhrul Times publication. UT is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse its content. Any reports or views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Ukhrul Times.)

REFERENCES:

1. Ali, A.F.M. Abdul. “Notes on the Early History of Manipur.” Bengal Past & Present, Vol. XXVI, Parts I and II, Serial Nos. 51-52 (July-December, 1923): pp. 133-141.
2. Buchanan, Francis. “A Comparative Vocabulary of Some of the Languages Spoken in the Burma Empire.” Asiatic Researchers 5 (1799): pp. 219-240.
3. Carey, M. Carey’s General Atlas, Improved and Enlarged: Being a a Collection of Maps of the World and Quarters, Their Principal Empires, Kingdoms, &c. Publisher: M. Carey (1814): pp. 142-143.
4. Desai, W.S. India and Burma. Publisher: Orient Longmans Limited, Bombay-Calcutta-Madras (1954).
5. Hall, D.G.E. Burma. Publisher: Hutchinson’s University Library, London (1950).
6. Hamilton, Sir Walter. “The Report on Manipur, 1820.” Historical Documents of Assam and Neighbouring States, Original Records in English. Publisher: Omsons Publications, New Delhi (1983): pp.172-177.
7. Harvey, G.E. Harvey. History of Burma. Publisher: Longmans, Green & Co., London (1925).
8. Lewin, Capt. T.H. Wild Races of South-Eastern India. Publisher: WM: H. Allen & Co., London (1870): pp. 82.
9. Phyre, Liet. General Sir Arthur P., History of Burma. Publisher: Trubner & Co. (1883).
10. Rennel, James. Memoir of a Map of Hidoostan; Or the Mogul Empire. Publisher: W. Bulmer and Co., London (1793): pp. 297-298.
11. Symes, Major Michael. “An Account of an Embassy to the Kingdom of Ava, sent by the Governor-General of India, in the year 1795.” Publisher: W. Bulmer and Co., London (1800).
12. Wheeler, J. Talboys. Early Records of British India: A History of the English Settlements in India (1878): pp.291-292.
13. Wrench, G.T. The Wheel of Health: The Source of Long Life and Health among the Hunzas. Publisher: Dover Publications INC, New York (2006): pp. 144.