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

The entire Young Kuki group and their intellectual associates appear to have undertaken extensive research into their origins, and attempted to navigate ways to legitimize their identity as indigenous inhabitants of Manipur. Yet, despite their efforts, they have failed to present any substantial evidence to validate their legal status. Moreover, they have been unable to refute my articles, which are firmly grounded in official historical records.

Instead, they have once again emerged with distorted narratives, carefully crafted to suit their blatant propaganda—an attempt to legitimize their claims as the indigenous inhabitants of Manipur. However, no matter how much one twists or manipulates the truth, it remains steadfast and unyielding, for in the end, truth will always triumph over falsehood.

I intend to lay bare the truth once and for all, so that the Young Kuki community may forever remember it and pass it down through future generations. It is essential that the younger Kukis learn and understand this truth, ensuring that no misguided individual/individuals ever rises again to manipulate or deceive innocent minds into believing the falsehood that they are the indigenous inhabitants of Manipur. Let this truth stand as a beacon of clarity, dispelling any attempts to distort history or mislead future generations.

Must read | Critical Message from the Editorial team

1. Electoral Representation

In the 1957 Territorial Council election, the Nagas secured 7 MLA seats, Kuki and Paite community won one seat each. This historical fact is well-documented and irrefutable. Therefore, any attempt to forcibly subsuming the Paite identity under the broader Kuki nomenclature to advance deceptive Kuki propaganda is not only abominable but also a distortion of recorded history.

2. Who is Distorting Cheitharol Kumbaba, the Royal Chronicle of Manipur

Young Kuki have consistently failed to disprove my assertion that the word “Kuki” is never mentioned in the Cheitharol Kumbaba, the royal chronicle of Manipur. Yet, in a desperate attempt to mislead the public, they have introduce irrelevant arguments. This diversionary tactic is not only intellectually dishonest but also a clear attempt to cloud the truth with baseless distractions. Moreover, the young Kuki’s attempt to equate Khongsai or Khongchai with Kuki refugees raises a crucial question: Who, then, is truly distorting the legacy of the Cheitharol Kumbaba?

Related | Behind the Veil: Kuki’s Controversial Identity and the Conflict That Persist (P-I)

3. Regarding Kuki claims of dual ancestry as both the lost tribe of Israel and the reincarnation of Buddha

The Young Kuki’s assertion that “their multiple origin narratives are legitimate” does not hold water under basic logic. By that reasoning, it would be akin to suggesting that a donkey could share a common lineage with a lion and an elephant – an argument so absurd that it crumbles under the weight of its own foolishness. This flawed logic not only weakens your argument but exposes the complete lack of coherence and credibility within your narrative.

Related | Rebuttal to the Deliberate Lies and Propaganda Against the Kuki People

4. Kuki Refugee Argument

To begin with, the Young Kuki failed to address the core issues concerning the Kuki Tribe Recognition Demand Committee Manipur’s petition to Govt of India on February 13, 1973, seeking recognition of the Kukis as an indigenous tribe of Manipur.

Additionally, the Young Kuki was rendered completely speechless by the conspicuous absence of the Kuki tribe from the official list of 29 Scheduled Tribes recognized in Manipur, as documented in the Manipur Gazette of 1956. This omission raises serious questions about the historical and political standing of the Kuki community and highlights a lack of preparedness to respond to such a significant exclusion.

Moreover, the Young Kuki miserably failed to conduct proper research or present any substantial argument against the officially recorded standing order of the President of Manipur State, Darbur Order No. 2, dated July 23, 1941. This order clearly states that the Kuki must obtain permission from the Naga Chief for settlement and are required to pay house taxes to the Naga Chief.

Instead of offering a clear and direct response, you attempt to divert attention by claiming that “some Kukis, along with other Indian citizens, were expelled from Burma by General Ne Win.”

This raises a fundamental question: If the Kukis were indeed expelled alongside Indian citizens, how does that justify their claim to indigenous status in Manipur? And what does this “some Kukis along with Indian citizens expulsion by Myanmar got to do with Kuki refuges status in Manipur.

Are the Young Kuki deliberately attempting to mislead the public, or are you yourselves still unclear about how the Kukis came to be regarded as refugees in Manipur? Such contradictory claims only undermine your position and expose the glaring inconsistencies within your narrative.

Related | Rebuttal to Young Kuki’s Misleading Claims

5. On Question of Kuki-Zeliang Relation:

The unfortunate reality for most Young Kuki intellectuals and the broader Kuki community lies in their tendency to unquestioningly embrace the unfounded narratives propagated by certain Kuki leaders, rather than relying on official, legally documented government records. This blind allegiance has led to widespread misinformation, misleading much of the community into accepting historical distortions as truth.

A prime example of this deception can be seen in the widely circulated claims of P.S. Haokip, who baselessly asserts that the Kukis are indigenous to Manipur and Nagaland and even goes as far as to claim that the Zeliang Nagas were historically protected by the Kukis from the Angami Nagas. However, official records and factual history paint a very different picture. The Kuki Inpi Nagaland itself has officially acknowledged that all Kuki villages within the Peren district reside on Zeliangrong ancestral land.

It is essential for the world to recognize the truth: the Kukis settled on Naga ancestral lands not as indigenous inhabitants but as tenants, paying taxes to the rightful landowners. Unlike the arguments presented by some Young Kuki scholars, which are often based on the writings of individuals like P.S. Haokip—(whose claims lack scholarly rigor)—there exists clear, legally recognized documentation to validate this fact.

Related | Behind the Veil: Kuki’s Controversial Identity and the Conflict That Persist (P-II)

A significant example comes from an official memorandum forwarded by the Extra Assistant Commissioner of Peren District, Nagaland (dated 12/02/23). This document acknowledges the receipt of taxes paid by Kuki tenant villages—namely, Phanjang Kuki village, Lilen Kuki village, New Chalkot Kuki village, and Siajang Kuki village—to the traditional landowners, specifically the Chairmen of Peren village and Jalukie village. This is just one examples. There are tens of other such examples in Manipur.

This government-backed acknowledgment serves as undeniable evidence of the tenant status of Kuki settlements on Naga ancestral land, dispelling any fabricated claims of indigenous status. The historical and legal truth remains clear—no amount of unfounded narratives can overshadow officially recorded facts.

These officially recorded government documents should be diligently taught to Young Kuki individuals and future generations, ensuring that the truth of their history is preserved and understood. It is essential that no deceitful person arises within the Kuki tribe to mislead innocent members of the community in the future. Only by embracing and understanding these historical realities can the Kuki people move forward with clarity, integrity, and respect for their true heritage.

Also read | Kuki Chiefs’ Association, Manipur Calls for Resistance Against Documentation of Kuki-Zo Villages by GoM

Repeated Mention of the Naga Government

Despite being advised with sound reasoning to refrain from unnecessarily invoking NSCN-IM, the Young Kuki persistently drag the entire Naga community into their disputes, seemingly in an attempt to play the victim card and garner sympathy. However, since you appear determined to ignore wise counsel and insist on hearing nothing but the unvarnished truth, let the facts speak for themselves and allow the public to be the ultimate judge.

Young Kuki’s propaganda and the truth behind Kuki-Naga conflict 1993-1998.

The Kuki-Naga conflict began in May 1992 with the Kuki Student Organisation’s (KSO) “Quit Notice,” forcing thousands of Nagas in Moreh town to flee. In September 1992, the Kuki War Declaration Committee, led by C. Doungel and Holkhomang Haokip, declared war on the Nagas. This was followed by Kuki National Front (KNF) attacks on Naga villages in Chandel and Ukhrul in April 1993, with the violence reaching Kangpokpi and Tamenglong district by June 1993.

Must read | Who gave birth to the Kuki National Front/Kuki National Army?

FALLOUT OF VIOLENCE AND THE KUKI’S DECEPTIVE VICTIM NARRATIVE

Before many Nagas could fully comprehend the looming threat of the Kuki-Naga conflict, the Kuki National Front (KNF) had already orchestrated a premeditated campaign aimed at the complete annihilation of the Liangmai Naga from the Kangpokpi Sub-division. The Naga tribes, particularly the Liangmai, were caught off guard by this sudden and brutal aggression, which erupted in September 1993. However, by May 1993, the KNF had already mobilized thousands of Kuki militants from the Kangpokpi area, setting the stage for a wave of unimaginable violence against the Naga communities.

The first act of hostility struck in May 1993 when the KNF ruthlessly burned down Thanamba Naga village, just 3–4 kilometers from Sapormeina Police Station. This devastating assault was swiftly followed by another wave of destruction as thousands of Kuki militants, under KNF leadership, reduced entire villages to ashes, leaving behind smoldering ruins and displaced families.

Chronology of Devastation

June 1993: Thanamba Naga village was completely destroyed.

September 8, 1993: Tokpa Naga village was burned to ashes.

September 9, 1993: Half of Tapon Naga village was destroyed.

September 10, 1993: Makui Saramjao village was reduced to ashes.

September 11, 1993 (Sunday): As Makui Naga village (Makui Khullen) prepared for worship, the so called Christian KNF-led Kuki volunteers launched a ruthless attack, aiming for the total annihilation of the village. However, their plans were thwarted by the remarkable bravery and resilience of the villagers, who defended their homeland against overwhelming odds.

The conflict darkened further on September 13, 1993, when the Naga Lim Guard advanced to defend and rehabilitate Naga villages destroyed by Kuki aggression. Believing that five Naga villages had been entirely wiped out, and driven by rage and grief, the Naga Lim Guard retaliated in Joupi, tragically claiming the lives of 79 Kuki villagers. This event was later branded by the Kuki as their “Black Day.” Yet, it raises pressing questions—Who were the true aggressors? Who initiated the conflict? And who, ultimately, played the victim card?

Must read | ‘Kuki Black Day’ as Propaganda: The Truth Behind the Conflict

Humiliated by their defeat at the hands of a small yet courageous Makui Naga village, the KNF and Kuki militants were forced to withdraw from the Kangpokpi area. However, their aggression soon shifted toward other vulnerable Naga regions.

On October 18, 1993 (Sunday), while Christians prepared for worship, thousands of so-called Kuki Christian militants turned their wrath toward Konsakhul village. Yet, in a twist of fate, neighboring Vaiphei villages tip-off the Konsakhul Naga villagers of the impending attack. This timely intervention saved countless lives.

The violence persisted into the following year. On October 19, 1994, Kuki militants ambushed a passenger bus traveling from Imphal to Noney along National Highway 53. In an act of chilling brutality, they forced all non-Naga passengers to disembark before pushing the bus over a 400-foot gorge near Kotlen, around 55 kilometers from Imphal. The massacre claimed 37 lives, including 3 infants and 17 women, leaving only 12 survivors.

These are just a few of the tragic events I can recall from around my village—among countless instances of unprovoked aggression against the indigenous Naga people, stretching back to the time of our forefathers.

Yet, despite enduring relentless violence and aggression from what many consider illegal refugees, the Naga people have remained steadfast in their spirit of generosity and, true to their Christian faith, have chosen forgiveness over vengeance.

This recurring pattern of aggression invites a profound question: Why does the Kuki community so often find itself at the epicenter of conflict—initiating hostilities while simultaneously portraying itself as the aggrieved party?

Also read | Shadows of Deception: Unveiling Atrocities by Kukis on Indigenous Communities

This duality of the Kuki Narrative, as both instigator and victim, exposes a troubling reality that demands deeper scrutiny. To truly understand the complexity of this history, one must move beyond surface-level perceptions and confront the layers of deceit and violence that have shaped the Kuki’s historical and social dynamics.

The ever-shifting narrative of the Kuki community reveals a pattern akin to that of a chameleon—constantly changing colors to suit different circumstances while simultaneously playing the victim card. This is evident in their contradictory assertions: on one hand, they proclaim themselves as indigenous inhabitants of Manipur and portray themselves as marginalized tribal victims within India. On the other hand, they make an entirely different claim, presenting themselves as the so-called “lost tribe of Israel” and even going as far as submitting memorandums to the Prime Minister of Israel, seeking justice for alleged atrocities. Such contradictory posturing is not only perplexing but also deeply disingenuous.

Yet, the irony lies in the fact that the Kuki community fails to recognize how their fickle-mindedness and double standards have alienated them from other communities. This inconsistent narrative, marked by opportunistic shifts, has only intensified tensions with neighboring groups, fueling ongoing strife and fostering widespread distrust.

Editorial | How to Un-Govern the Borderland: India’s Troubled Northeast Borders Needs a New Regime of Movement (P-II)

Intriguingly, their attempts to garner global sympathy extend even further. The Kukis have reached out to numerous international Christian organizations, presenting themselves as victims of religious persecution in a bid to attract global attention and support. Such moves, however, expose a clear pattern of strategic victimhood designed to manipulate global sentiment rather than reflect genuine grievances.

At this rate, it wouldn’t be surprising if, in the future, Kuki even attempted to lay claim to the identity of the indigenous Meitei—a move that would be consistent with their pattern of opportunistic narrative shifts.

This constant reinvention, driven by self-serving motives, not only undermines their credibility but also invites scrutiny from those who seek the truth. Ultimately, this strategy of playing multiple roles depending on convenience reflects a deeper struggle for legitimacy—one that cannot be won through manipulation, but only through truth, consistency, and respect for historical facts.

Also read | Facts about Article 371-C: Attempts to tinker with it could trigger a tribal vs non-tribal conflict

The author is a freelance writer, and can be reached at liangmai367@gmail.com. (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.)