National Seminar in New Delhi Highlights Forgotten Role of Kuki Tribes in India's Freedom Struggle

On the 29th of October 2024, at the India International Centre, a brave episode in the anti-colonial struggle in India was commemorated – the Anglo-Kuki War of 1917-19. The commemoration was organized by the Kuki Research Forum – Delhi Chapter.

The saga of the Anglo-Kuki War is rarely discussed in the mainstream. It has effectively been forgotten by the mainstream consciousness of the mainland. Hence, the title of this national seminar was “Kuki Tribes' Forgotten Role in India's Freedom Struggle: The Anglo-Kuki War (1917-1919),” said a press note issued by the Forum today.

Prof Pauthang Haokip delivered the welcome address. The address answered the crucial question of the day: Why did the Kukis resist the British Empire? The answer was simple.

The empire threatened the destruction of the Kuki culture. How any community perceives territoriality is based on their socio-cultural and religious worldviews. For the Kukis, the destruction of their forests would amount to the destruction of their culture. That they were also forcibly recruited to the labour corps without any safety assurances pushed them to their limits.

Once the welcome address expounded a framework for the rest of the event, the first session reflected upon the current status quo in Manipur and alternative sources for historical reconstruction and contemporary cognition of Manipur.

Dr David Vumlallian Zou addressed the topic “Reflections on What is Happening in Manipur  and Alternative Sources.” Drawing on Gautam Bahaduria’s article on the Anglo-Kuki War, published in 1975, he explored the war's ramifications on the Kukis' political organisations.

As per Dr Zou, a major reason for the war was the Kukis' refusal to send labour corps. Drawing on this historical background, he critiqued the history of violence in Manipur, considering it to be the failure of liberal democracy in protecting the citizens of the state.

Attributing it to the tendency to value certain rights over more fundamental human rights, he criticised Civil Society Organisations for holding the government accountable. Dr Zou linked this trend with a global rise in nativist movements – such as Brexit in the United Kingdom, & Make America Great Again ( MAGA ) in the United States of America – which aimed to revive a ‘better’ past. Manipur’s violence, as per Dr Zou, was a local manifestation of such a global trend. Dr Zou dismantled the notion of a mythical golden age by drawing the Periclean ideals of democracy, the anti-democratic ideals of Hesoid, and Karl Popper’s juxtaposition between an open and a closed society.

Dr Zou elucidated the dichotomous model of ownership in Manipur, with private ownership on one hand, and state ownership on the other. Land and forest resources were held in a common pool, especially in the Manipur Hills where customary practices of ownership prevail. The Kukis have a system of hereditary chieftainship while the Naga clans are an eldership in nature. The Hill Area Committee has failed to formally recognise the customary practices of the hill tribes. He drew upon the works of the American Political Scientist Elinor Ostrom to discuss the challenges inherent in common pool ownership.

Also Read | 107th Anniversary of Anglo-Kuki War Observed with National Seminar in Churachandpur, Moreh

Dr Lalsanglen Haokip further contextualised the ambiguities in the history of the state’s forest department and legislation by speaking on the “History of Forests in Manipur”. He argued that the idea of “Scientific Forestry” was a German one in Colonial India, that sought to generate revenue by clearing forests, while the idea of “Wilderness” is an American idea, that sought to generate revenue by keeping forests untouched and open to visitors. In contrast to both these extremes, the Meiteis wished to preserve forests for building fishing boats and brining. They called forests “Umang” and worshipped local forest deities called “Umang Lai”. The hill tribes – Khuttu/Ujok/Gam-maang – had a reserved forest within the village boundaries to accommodate new settlers and prevent forest fires.

After tracing the history of forest laws, Dr Haokip pointed out that the laws are largely colonial in origin and nature. He concluded with the question: Why should indigenous tribes have to bear the brunt of colonial laws? Isn’t it the responsibility of the government to change such colonial-era laws?

The second session was on the topic “Media and Manipur Violence”. Prof Aparajita De explored the relationship between digital media and identity formation & conflicts. She argued that social media was a double-edged sword. While social media has democratized access to the public domain, creating a new effective public, the internet has strengthened nationalism. The conflict of emotions online impacts offline movements. Yet, online activism has limits since it involves echo chambers with no space for dialogue. She observed that there are 2 perspectives on the Anglo-Kuki War. While there was resistance to the forceful recruitment of the labour corps, labour corps were sent to the war. Depending on our point of focus, our assessment of the War may differ.

Saptarshi Basak incisively analysed the problematic representation of the truth by national media. Misreporting and apathy went hand in hand to cloud the national perception of Manipur’s violence. In some cases, the lack of sensitivity led to reporters forcing victims to meet them and respond to their questions to get ‘sensational’ news. He accused the national media houses of failing in their duties to make people aware of the ‘protracted civil war’ in Manipur. Despite the power of media to make people care about incidents and issues, over 18 months of Manipur’s violence were barely covered by the national media. It was only when the two Kuki Women were paraded and when Biren Singh was on the verge of resigning as chief minister that the Media paid any heed to Manipur. The speaker candidly concluded that the “Media is not on your side”.

The proceedings of the session were concluded with an address delivered by Pu LS Kipgen, Kuki Inpi Delhi. Referring to the illustrious anti-colonial legacy of the Kukis, from the Anglo-Kuki War to their role in the Indian National Army, he encouraged young Kuki scholars to continue raising their lives, reminding them of their illustrious legacy, and their current responsibilities, asking them to ponder over whether the Kukis are truly free today — a truly profound question with a lot of food for thought.