Rejoinder to the Misleading and Imaginary Historical Narrative by Gary Thangboi & Dr. TS Haokip

IT IS utterly disgraceful that an individual who prefixes his name with “Dr.” would painstakingly craft an article so devoid of factual integrity, brimming with baseless assertions, and ultimately amounting to nothing more than a rambling exercise in historical distortion. If their so-called “disclaimer” was meant to lend credibility to their fabrications, it has instead exposed the intellectual dishonesty with which they peddle their concocted version of history.

To put an end to the persistent fabrication surrounding the origins of the Kuki in Manipur and to ensure that truth prevails for those who seek it, I am compelled—by sheer conviction and a sense of historical duty—to lay bare irrefutable facts. The younger generations of Kukis communities must be made aware of the truth regarding the real identity of the Kukis, rather than being misled by grandiose but historically hollow claims.

Must read | Thadou Inpi Manipur States Its Position on Kuki-Zo ‘Referendum’

The truth behind the claim that “Kuki people have historically inhabited the hilly regions of Manipur, Nagaland, and Assam

The audacious claim made by Gary Thangboi and TS Haokip—that the Kukis have historically inhabited Manipur, Assam, and Nagaland is a blatant distortion of history. What they fail—or deliberately refuse—to acknowledge is that the Kukis are neither indigenous to Manipur nor Nagaland. Their presence in these regions is a relatively recent phenomenon, extensively documented by British administrators, ethnographers, and historians, who categorically recorded that the Kukis were late migrants, brought by the British around the 1830s as laborers, porters, and mercenaries to subdue indigenous uprisings.

The earliest historical records that mention the Kukis in Manipur are drawn from British colonial accounts, where they are consistently referred to as “aliens” and “refugees” with no legitimate claim to the land. The following authoritative sources provide incontrovertible evidence:

1. Sir James Johnstone (1876), in his book My Experiences in Manipur and the Naga Hills, explicitly states that the Kukis were newcomers, brought by the British to serve as porters and soldiers.

2. Major William McCulloch (1859) described the Kukis as a migratory tribe with no fixed settlements in Manipur prior to their arrival in the early 19th century.

Also read | ‘With NAGAs’ Documentary Film Released

3. E.W. Dun (1886), in Gazetteer of Manipur, noted that the Kukis were transient inhabitants who lacked any historical ties to the region before the British intervened.

4. The Manipur State Darbar Order No. 2 (July 23, 1941), issued by the then-President of the Manipur State Darbar, categorically stated that Kukis were not indigenous to Manipur. They were required to obtain explicit permission from Naga chiefs to settle and were mandated to pay house taxes for occupying lands that never belonged to them.

Despite their historical role as pawns of British imperialism, Kukis today engage in a systematic whitewashing of their past, rebranding themselves as indigenous warriors resisting oppression. However, the truth remains that they were not only beneficiaries of British patronage but also as informants, foot soldiers, and mercenaries to suppress indigenous resistance movements in the region.

In essence, the Kuki identity has been shaped through a history of opportunistic migration, colonial collaboration, and the strategic subsuming of smaller ethnic groups (Zo communities) under the broader Kuki nomenclature. This deceptive maneuver has allowed them to fabricate claims of territorial indigeneity, culminating in their present-day assertions over land, history, and political relevance—none of which withstand rigorous historical scrutiny.

The so-called “historical relationship between the Kuki and Naga communities” mentioned in their article is nothing more than a figment of their imagination—an outright delusion with no basis in historical reality. Nowhere in the annals of Naga history is there any record of a harmonious relationship between the two communities. On the contrary, the rich and dignified history of the Naga people has been tainted by the brutal and inhumane atrocities committed by the Kukis against the indigenous Naga of Manipur and Nagaland.

This dark chapter of history is not a matter of conjecture but is well-documented by British colonial writers, whose accounts bear testimony to the gruesome violence unleashed by Kuki mercenaries.

Must read | Ngahui (Awangkasom) Village massacre in 1918: Less than a dozen survived

Robert Reid provides chilling documentation of these atrocities. He records how Kuki raiders massacred 176 innocent souls in Goitang village, reducing 76 homes to ashes. The bloodshed continued with over 250 Kharam villagers brutally slain, their homes burned to the ground. In Makoi (Makui) village, seventy innocent lives were taken, their properties looted, and their homes reduced to rubble. In Dailong, another ten villagers were slaughtered, and more than 70 houses were torched. Mongjarong Khunou village faced complete annihilation, with 39 villagers mercilessly massacred.

B.C. Allen recounts yet another horrifying episode in December 1892, when Kuki marauders launched a ferocious attack on the Naga village of Swemi (Chingjaroi), resulting in the ruthless slaughter of over 600 villagers.

On Their So-Called “Historical Context: The Myth of the Naga-Kuki Clash—A Misnomer”

This headline itself is a testament to the Kuki community’s persistent propaganda tactics, wherein they deceptively portray themselves as victims while distorting historical truths. The undeniable fact is that the conflict was neither a spontaneous clash nor an inevitable ethnic rivalry—it was an outright war declared by the Kukis against the Nagas, without provocation.

The gravity of this aggression cannot be overstated. A staggering 90% of Nagas were caught entirely off guard by the Kuki onslaught between 1993 and 1998. The ethnic conflict, which erupted in mid-1992, had its sinister origins in the town of Moreh, located in Chandel district, Manipur.

Also read | Ultimate Guide to ‘Young Kuki’ on their True Roots of the Kuki

The first incendiary act of hostility came in May 1992, when the Kuki Students’ Organization (KSO) issued a “Quit Notice” demanding that all Nagas vacate the town within 24 hours. This ruthless ultimatum forced thousands of innocent and defenseless Naga families to abandon their homes, livelihoods, and ancestral lands overnight, leaving behind everything they had ever known.

By September 1992, the hostility escalated into open warfare when the Kuki War Declaration Committee, led by C. Doungel and Holkhomang Haokip, officially proclaimed war against the Nagas—without any justifiable cause or provocation.

The ensuing months witnessed an unchecked rampage. In April 1993, the Kuki National Front (KNF) unleashed unprovoked assaults on Naga villages across Chandel and Ukhrul districts, sowing terror and destruction. Meanwhile, the Naga communities in Tamenglong and Senapati districts remained largely unaffected—until September 1993, when the full force of Kuki aggression spread its wrath even further, turning the land into a battlefield drenched in innocent blood.

The Nagas will forever remember the 1993–1998 Kuki-Naga conflict as a period of unprovoked Kuki aggression against the Naga people. Throughout this turbulent time, the Nagas remained on the defensive, never initiating hostilities—until September 1993, when Kuki militants, backed by barbaric Kuki volunteers, launched a deliberate and premeditated campaign to completely annihilate the Nagas in Kangpokpi Subdivision (most of the attacks were on Sunday).

Faced with relentless assaults, the Naga Lim Guard was left with no choice but to retaliate. The turning point came when Kuki forces, in rapid succession, burned down all Naga villages in Kangpokpi, forcing the Nagas to rise in defense of their people and homeland. In their effort to justify their actions and frame themselves as victims, the Kuki sought to blame the Naga Army or NSCN-IM for their troubles. Contrary to the accusations levied by the Kuki, it was neither the NSCN-IM nor the Naga Army that was responsible for the tragic deaths of Kuki villagers in Tamenglong district. This tactic was a deliberate component of a broader propaganda campaign aimed at consolidating Kuki power and rallying support. By casting themselves as the aggrieved party, the Kuki hoped to garner sympathy and legitimacy, while obscuring the true nature of their aggression and the complexities of the conflict.

On Territorial Struggles and Political Ambitions and Cooperation in Myanmar’s Border Regions: 

This so-called “cooperation” is nothing but a calculated ploy—a deceitful maneuver reminiscent of the way the Kukis once misled our forefathers. Our forefathers were deceived by false promises of “cooperation,” cloaked in sweet words that masked the sinister treachery beneath the surface. The burden of sheltering Kuki refugees, once regarded as an act of goodwill, has now become a heavy cross for all indigenous peoples to bear.

At the outset, few could have foreseen that extending compassion and hospitality to these displaced souls would evolve into a formidable challenge. What began as a noble gesture—a sanctuary offered in the spirit of kindness—has gradually transformed into an existential crisis that threatens the very fabric of indigenous communities. The unforeseen consequences of such goodwill now loom ominously, casting a dark shadow over the harmony and stability that once prevailed.

But let it be known—the Nagas of today are not so easily deceived by sweet words laced with venomous intent. We may forgive, but history remains indelibly stained with the treachery inflicted upon us. The betrayal of our generosity—the savagery with which our kindness was repaid—will never be erased from the annals of Naga history.

Must read | Book titled “Northeast Region in the Context of Indian Nationhood” Released

This truth stands as a testament before the world: the Kukis have shown time and again that they cannot coexist with any righteous people. The Zo people once placed their trust in the Kuki, and now they turn against them (Zo). The Meitei once considered their needs, and now they have revealed thier true nature. The pattern is clear—wherever they (Kuki) go, discord follows.

Wherever the Kukis have settled, they have introduced strife, discord, and territorial disputes, making themselves obnoxious to the very indigenous communities that graciously allowed their settlement in the first place. Their imaginary claims—ranging from Kuki land to Kuki Hills and separate administration—are nothing but the desperate fabrications of a community striving to establish legitimacy where history offers them none.

It is imperative that historical truths, backed by documented evidence, prevail over politically motivated distortions. To the younger generations of Kukis community let this serve as a wake-up call: History is not an invention of convenience but a testament to truth.

The author is a freelance writer, and can be reached at [email protected]. (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.)