MR. O Nabakishore Singh (retired IAS) former Chief Secretary of Manipur, under Mr. O Ibobi Singh, former Chief Minister of Manipur, your write ups: Perspective of the Hill tribals in Manipur and your rejoinder to the rebuttals by Mr. Ngaranmi Shimray were commendable but lack the sense of justice and honesty. Therefore, I wish to put a few questions for your expert answers on:
1) The faithful implementations/devolutions of Article 371C and impacts in detail. MGNREGS full of impacts-lots of stories to tell since 2006 till 2017 but thereafter the impact was haltingly scanty. Article 371C-scanty and sketchy-frustrating at best.
2) You wrote about regular election of Autonomous District Council and vibrant functioning? When was that? Was it during your tenure as Chief Secretary under Mr. O Ibobi Singh’s ministry as Chief Minister?
3) Are you ready to face the scrutiny of the Supreme Court regarding transparency /legal/ truthful implementations/devolutions of Article 371C since the day it was introduced in Manipur? Functionally theconstitutional provisions of Article 371C could be almost like the mirror image of British administration of tribals in the hill. The President of Manipur State Durbar looks after the tribal affairs. The tribal affairs and appeals were all made to PMSD and never to the court of Maharaja and his authority was confined to Kangleipak.
Also read | Tracing history of Hau/Naga migration Tangkhul legends and Tenimiyas (Angami, Chakhesang and Mao)
Before the British came, sporadic raids and lootings by the sepoys/mercenaries of Maharaja was the way. A folk song, “oh beautiful girl don’t ever display your beautiful face, budding bosoms, fair legs and arms- when the sun shines, let only be free when the moon light shines on you- Meitei Raja and his men may abduct you.” That was the way of ruling the tribals. Many more folklores. Space and time will not permit and I will be out of tune. In nineteen centuries Kukis were working as mercenaries of Ava King-s/Burmese Kings sometimes and as when it suits, they were mercenaries of Manipur Raja. When the British came the scene changed. Separate administration of hills in Manipur under the constitutional protection of Article 371C and the 6th Schedule would have made a lot of difference. It would have been almost alike the separate administration under PMSD of the British. However majority Meiteis stonewalled the extension of the 6th Schedule whereas the same schedule was extended to the tribals of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura. That was sore wound for the tribals of Manipur. In what way we are different from the tribals of those states? Only Meiteis made the difference.
Mr. O Nabakishore Singh – of all the persons you seem to be fanning the flame of Meitei ST status demand! Meiteis demanded OBC-granted; SC Status-granted and now ST status. You are harping on security of Meiteis! Please pause for a minute and look at Luxembourg 2400 sq. km. The people live peacefully, prosperous and the per capita income is more than that of USA. If I were in your shoes, I would pursue for Kangleipak as a State or a nation. Luxembourg is landlocked as the valley of Manipur is- but secure and peaceful. If you love your neighbour as yourself, security and peace will be your portion. With the present situation you will never get security and peace. It can never be attained with the barrel of a gun. It will be only by loving your neighbour as yourself. In spite of confused divisions within Kuki-Zo, peace can never be attained by brutal force. The conflict between mighty Russia and puny Ukraine reveals a lot of what sheer force and abundance of resources cannot achieve easily.
Tracing history of Hau/Naga migration Tangkhul legends and Tenimiyas (Angami, Chakhesang and Mao)Must read:
A few rebuttals to the historical remarks of Mr. O Nabakishore Singh:
A. Please specify the Naga village/s under Kuki chief/if from history kindly mention the author. I am surprised at your ignorance of history. Bureaucrats in general are well informed of the place they work and serve. For your kind information let me quote the order of G.P. Stewart, President, Manipur State Durbar (PMSD) for a civil suit No. 364 of 1934-1935:
Plaintiff
Mr. Inchisung-Headman Grihang village (Tangkhul)
VS
Defendant
Mr. Ngamhao, Chief of Grihang Kuki village
Order (verbatim)
There was a troublesome case about lousa/lampan 2yrs ago. The Kukis are only allowed here on condition they do not give trouble vide PMSD’S order in hill civil appeal No. 3 of 1922-23. This case and PA’s note must be shown to SDO when he returns to Ukhrul. It, may be necessary to remove the Kukis if they continue to give trouble.
Sd/- G.P. Stewart
PMSD dated 26-6-1935
B. Continuing on the track of the same principle/truth that Nagas were aboriginal and the Kukis were nomadic migrants- I quote the standing order of T.A. Sharp- PMSD-No. 2 of 23-7-1941. “The Kukis shall obtain prior permission from the chief of the Naga village for settlement and pay house tax to the chief ” (Verbatim).
C. Another historical record is that of T.C Hudson who wrote in his book -The Naga Tribes of Manipur,1908, the 1st page-a line drawn in the map of Manipur – on the east touching Aimol village; in the middle Bishnupur and in the west Chiri-ghat-clearly divide Kukis to the south and Nagas to the north- with a few exceptions of some six Kabui villages to the south of Nongba. Now if that was part of the history how shall you reconcile the present Sadar hills subdivision turning into Kangpokpi district-Kuki homeland/Zelengam? Serving as a Chief Secretary under Mr. O Ibobi Singh- both the kindred must have slogged to bring out such dramatic creation and you did not have the courtesy to even consult the Naga communities who were the original owners. Kangpokpi is your corrupted Meitei’s name. For the Nagas it was Kangui. To conclude, I wish to have Mr. O Nabakishore Singh’s comments on how Kangleipak which was merged with Indian Union on 15-10-1949 under the Merger agreement signed by the Maharaja Bodhachandra on 21-09-1949 and Kangleipak covered only an area of 700Sq.miles/1813 Sq. Km. Presently, Meiteis occupied area supposed to be somewhere around 2400-2500 Sq. Km. Was this expansion by conquest? Obviously since the expansion or acquisition is post- Independence of India it must be by legislative acquisition. I am ignorant of this and request the kindness of Mr. O Nabakishore Singh to clarify this issue.
(Seemingly insignificant but very important-Mr. T.C Tiankham is not from Paite tribe. He belongs to Hmar tribe.)
D. Naga village chief was never by election. Headmen ship is hereditary and the village is administered with the support/ help /counsels of the pippas/clan chiefs -vibrantly democratic. Headman can be unseated/disowned/expelled from the village only on the condition of cold-blooded murder and committal of incest. Many big Tangkhul villages had satellite villages in Khaoruiram/Sadar hills where those who committed repeated crimes/murders/incest relationships were exiled. I know my village Talui had one Lungka village where exiles lived. With the advent of Christianity, this was abolished and many returned to parent villages, but most remained where they were.
Regarding Kuki village chief, the common practice appeared to be hereditary but as far as my knowledge goes Kuki villages splintered/fragmented easily. There is record of PMSD’s order that no less than 20 houses could be allowed to form a village within Naga inhabited areas.
(The author may be reached at vashumnelson@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 or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of Ukhrul Times.
About The Author
