This article analyzes how internal fragmentation has undermined the political agency and social cohesion of the Zeliangrong people of Northeast India. Tracing the shift from village-republican traditions to modern political movements, it shows how limited unity exposed the community to external pressure and internal rivalry. It examines the weakening of collective purpose in the legacies of Haipou Jadonang, Rani Gaidinliu, and the Zeliangrong People’s Convention, and evaluates the consequences of the post-2011 division of Zeliangrong identity into multiple recognized tribes. Situated within wider dynamics of nation building and territorial consolidation, the article argues that ideological disunity now constitutes the primary threat. It concludes that inclusive identity formation and collective resolve are vital to safeguarding land, culture, and political dignity.
Despite living in exile for nearly two millennia—from the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 CE to the establishment of the modern State of Israel in 1948—the Jewish people endured repeated waves of persecution while preserving their religious traditions, cultural practices, and collective nomenclature. This long historical survival demonstrates the sustaining power of shared ancestry, faith, tradition, and cultural memory in maintaining collective identity despite internal divisions and prolonged dispersion. Through unity, sustained struggle, and collective sacrifice, the Israelites were eventually able to reconstitute their political existence. Although historical contexts differ, this experience offers a compelling comparative insight for the Zeliangrong people, highlighting how internal cohesion, rather than fragmentation, remains a critical source of resilience and a prerequisite for safeguarding identity, territory, and political future in the face of enduring existential challenges.
Also Read: Rising Above the Challenge: Manipur’s Battle for Its Future
In a comparable manner, the descendants of Makuilongdi village in present-day Senapati district of Manipur once enjoyed a settled and prosperous existence before a major dispersal led them to inhabit the mountainous regions of Northeast India over several centuries. Throughout this long period of migration, exploration, and settlement, they encountered communities that were often numerically stronger or politically more dominant. Yet, they remained steadfast in safeguarding their indigenous customs, social institutions, and collective uniqueness. Although prolonged geographical separation resulted in certain linguistic variations and localized cultural adaptations, the foundational elements of identity—clan totems, blood kinship, and shared narratives of origin—remained intact.
This sustained preservation of social and cultural cohesion may reasonably be viewed as a manifestation of divine guidance. Without such continuity, it is unlikely that the community could have survived the cumulative pressures of external threats, displacement, and political marginalization. It is therefore imperative, in the present moment, to reflect critically on the deeper significance of this historical endurance and to discern the collective responsibility it entails.
A closer examination of social history reveals that, despite shared ancestry, cooperation among Zeliangrong villages remained limited for much of the pre-colonial period. Traditional society functioned largely through a village-republican system, in which each settlement operated as an autonomous democratic unit. While this structure fostered strong internal governance, it also constrained the development of inter-village alliances and broader political solidarity. Socio-political concerns seldom extended beyond village boundaries, leaving the community without a coordinated mechanism to protect shared territorial and strategic interests.
Also Read: Lesson From the Yew Tree
Instead, prolonged patterns of inter-village rivalry—locally referred to as Shangnah-Rih—persisted in the region. This internal commotion proved costly during the 1830s and 1840s, when large-scale incursions by Kuki immigrants resulted in violent attacks on Zeliangrong settlements. Resistance was mounted independently by individual villages, but these fragmented efforts were no match for the more coordinated strategies of the aggressors. The absence of collective defense structures and unified leadership rendered the community vulnerable, ultimately leading to displacement from territories that had been occupied, cultivated, and defended over generations.
Paradoxically, alongside this history of internal fragmentation, the Zeliangrong people have produced visionary leaders of exceptional moral and political stature. Figures such as Haipou Jadonang and Rani Gaidinliu articulated a compelling synthesis of spiritual renewal, social solidarity, and political resistance. Their emphasis on unity and patriotism sought to protect the community from colonial domination and existential threats. Yet, rather than receiving unwavering support, their movements were undermined by sections of the community driven by jealousy, rivalry, and narrow self-interest. Jadonang was betrayed and executed, while Gaidinliu was imprisoned, effectively suppressing their vision of collective self-rule. Similar patterns of internal betrayal marked the fate of several other leaders. These tendencies—rooted in personal ambition, factional rivalry, and short-term gain—have persisted across generations and continue to impede collective progress. Shared aspirations are frequently compromised, leaving the community fragmented and unable to pursue a coherent long-term political strategy.
The post-independence movement for unification under a single administrative unit gained momentum in the 1960s and reached its climax with the formation of the Zeliangrong People’s Convention (ZPC) in 1980. Acting as the principal representative body, the ZPC articulated the demand for a separate statehood within the Indian Union. Although the Government of India acknowledged the legitimacy of these aspirations and initiated consultations—including proposals such as institutional development authorities—the movement gradually lost momentum due to internal divisions, external interference, and the opposition of certain leaders who prioritized personal or factional interests. Consequently, the long-cherished vision of unified political habitation remained unrealized.
Parallel to the statehood demand was the movement for Scheduled Tribe recognition under a unified nomenclature—“Any Zeliangrong Tribe”—to replace the colonial-era misnomer terms of Kacha Naga and Kabui. Internal disagreements and external pressures delayed resolution, and in 2011 Parliament enacted legislation recognizing six separate tribes: Zeme, Liangmai, Rongmei, Inpui, Kabui, and Kacha Naga. While this outcome satisfied certain sections, it proved deeply disillusioning for those committed to a cohesive Zeliangrong identity. Since then, the proliferation of separate tribal apex bodies, frequent public confrontations through social media platforms have intensified internal discord. What was once envisioned as a movement for unity has increasingly devolved into mutual suspicion and ideological conflict.
The present situation remains deeply troubling; without corrective introspection, the prospects for meaningful development, political advancement, or security appear bleak.
The social antagonism now evident among civilian organizations—constituted along newly fragmented tribal lines—together with armed factionalism in Zeliangrong United Front (ZUF), represents a contemporary and more perilous manifestation of Shangnah-rih. These internal ideological and physical confrontations threaten to erode the shared legacy inherited since Makuilongdi and risk undermining collective identity, political destiny, and territorial security.
Claims of satisfaction arising from linguistically based separate tribal recognition remain largely illusory. The immediate and sobering consequences have included the administrative fragmentation of a single linguistic community into Kabui and Rongmei, still retention of misnomer labels such as Kacha Naga and Kabui, and the distortion of a shared historical narrative. These developments were followed by the de-recognition of the Rongmei tribe from the list of Naga indigenous tribes by the Government of Nagaland. As a result, the splintered kindred groups remain politically marginalized, structurally disadvantaged, and increasingly vulnerable wherever they reside. These conditions have been further aggravated by the prevailing insecurity generated by the current state of Meetei–Kuki ethnic clashes. By contrast, unity enhances collective dignity, safeguards shared interests, and strengthens communal resilience in adverse political environments.
It is important to note that tribal nomenclature is not a fixed or immutable category but a fluid socio-political construct shaped—knowingly or unknowingly—by historical circumstances, administrative processes, and collective choices, rather than by linguistic criteria alone. For example, in Manipur, Kabui and Rongmei speak the same language, yet are officially recognized as distinct tribes, whereas Zeme and Liangmai—recognized as separate tribes in Manipur—are jointly classified as the Zeliang tribe in
Nagaland. Such inconsistencies demonstrate that arguments for tribal classification based solely on linguistic grounds are analytically weak and politically unconvincing, often reflecting the narrow interests of a few rather than the broader historical and social realities of the community.
More formidable challenges lie ahead as neighboring communities pursue agendas of nation-building and territorial consolidation that increasingly threaten Zeliangrong political and territorial security. In this context, strategies grounded in segregation and internal ideological confrontation must be avoided, as they create openings for external actors to exploit internal divisions.
Territorial integrity and demographic strength remain decisive factors in political negotiation; sustained fragmentation inevitably weakens bargaining capacity and amplifies vulnerability. Ultimately, the future of the Zeliangrong people hinges on their ability to consolidate a shared political and cultural vision under an inclusive nomenclature that affirms historical continuity and collective belonging.
Addressing internal ideological divisions and rejecting divisive narratives driven by vested interests are essential prerequisites for meaningful political advancement. The shared history, kinship ties, and collective legacy of the Makuilongdi people cannot be reinterpreted to serve narrow or individualistic ends. Winning the battle within is therefore indispensable for restoring unity, securing political recognition, and ensuring long-term stability amid persistent external challenges.
(The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ukhrul Times. Ukhrul Times values and encourages diverse perspectives. The author is a social worker and can be reached at semikam@gmail.com)