When histories fight for hegemony: exploring the paradoxes of the history of a nation and its

enemies in Manipur.
DRAFT PAPER FOR THE
Seminar:
Ethnic Relation of Manipur, Past and Present.
On 13 and 14 September, 2014
At the Kangla Hall, Imphal, Manipur
Organised by the National Research Centre
State Council of Educational Research & Training (SCERT), Manipur
Dr Malem Ningthouja
13 September 2014
INTRODUCTION
Today, 13 September 2014, the first day of the two days seminar on the Ethnic Relations of Manipur,
coincides with the Kuki Black Day, scheduled to be observed by several Kuki organisations in Manipur
and beyond. It is being alleged that, on this day in 1993, several Kukis of the Zoupi Village in Senapati
district were killed by the National Socialist Council of Nagalim IM, to flush out the Kukis from the
projected Nagalim. The objective of the Kuki Black Day observation, over the years, have been to mourn
the commencement of what have been generally termed as the Kuki-Naga clash in 1990s. But the Kuki
Black Day is much more than a mourning for peace and harmony among communities. Rather, it has been
a political ritual to invoke collective sentiments among the Kukis, as an integral programme of the larger
strategy, to consolidate the Kukis towards the projected Zalen-gam.
Exactly two months ago from today, on 13 July 2014, the Government of Manipur had deployed hundreds
of additional troops at the Ukhrul District Headquarters, arrested eight cadres of the National Socialist
Council of Nagaland (NSCN-IM) and also imposed Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (S. 144).
The policy was a prompt response to the assassination of Mr. Ngalangzar Malue, an Autonomous District
Council member of Ukhrul District, allegedly by the NSCN-IM on the previous day. Militarisation and
imposition of CrPC 144 was strongly protested by the Ukhrul denizens in particular and the Nagas in
general. As the intensity of the protest have gained momentum; the situation became more tensed, when
the brutal suppression on 30 August had led to the killing of two youths Mr. Ramkashing Vashi and Mr. R.
Mayopam and the injury to several others. Several Naga organisations have interpreted the repression and
the killing as communal, primarily serving the interest of the Meeteis. They declared those who have been
killed as martyrs of the Naga cause and constructed a martyrs cenotaph on the graveyards. They carried
out more radical forms of protest, which culminated into the imposition of economic blockade from 4 to
11 September. Interestingly, throughout the course of the protest, the Naga organisers had deliberately
dwelt on propagating communal propaganda and had mixed up the issue with other controversial issues,
such as the territorial limit of the ceasefire between Government of India and the NSCN-IM and the
demand for an Alternative Administration Arrangement of the Nagas. As it turned out to be an exclusive
Naga assertion, there was lack of solidarity and support from other sections who were opposed to the
Nagalim project.
All these events mentioned above, have been overlapping with the campaigns and open movement for the
implementation of an Inner Line Permit System in Manipur. The ILPS movement have been directed
against the unrestricted inflow of outsiders in Manipur. However, the community composition and
geographical base of the movement have indicated that, till then, except few symbolic press statements in
some instances, there have been less initiatives from amongst the Naga and Kuki organisations. It seems

that those organisations, which have been primarily aimed at fulfilling the goals of either Nagalim or
Zalen-gam, have been reluctant to support the movements that have been primarily carried out by those
organisations who have been defending the territorial integrity of Manipur. Therefore, the ILPS
movement have been primarily effective in the Imphal Valley and predominantly among the Meeteis,
What is relevant for my paper is that, whether it be the Kuki Black Day, or the Naga Martyrs declaration
or the ILPS movement; the ideological underpinning of each have been centred on a particular version of
what have been respectively reproduced and articulated as a unique history. A particular version of
history have been upheld as unique, legitimate and sacrosanct. Political assertions have been carried out
either to defend the uniqueness1 or to harness nation building2 based on the presumed uniqueness of
history. In short, history have been subjected to the political objective and have been instrumentalised to
make it the source of political inspiration and the rationale of the political actions. 3 In other words, history
of a projected nation; its past, present and future have constituted a dominant form of history writing in
Manipur. Writings about tribe, ethnicity, community and politics have been largely subsumed in the
dominant objectives of manufacturing national histories. 4 A national history have been used as a
propaganda instrument to expand the political mass base to build a nation. A unique national history have
been disseminated through propaganda. It have become the source of inspiration or antagonism to
different sections of peoples. In this context, I believe, different national histories in Manipur are fighting
for the hegemony to outlive the other. What is missing among the historians have been the lack of an
inquiry to explore the paradoxes of these histories. My paper attempts to discuss it.
Counterpoising national histories
Different national histories are counterpoising to one another. To begin with, Manipur possesses volumes
of oral accounts handed down from the past and literary texts written in Meetei script, supposedly written
since the ancient past onwards, and which are considered as either history or sources of history. These
dealt primarily with cosmology, community origin and migration, customs and rituals, belief system,
chronicle of events, and etcetera. Sanskritisation of history, using Bengali script, which had traced the
Hindu origin of the territory and community, for the Meeteis in particular, have been considered
apparently written since around the late 18 th century. In the 19th century, British writers had introduced a
shift in history writing. They, from the administrative cum anthropological perspectives, had adopted
comprehensive analysis of oral accounts, population, geography, polity, economy, culture, and etcetera.
The use of English language and Roman script was also gradually introduced following the colonial rule
since 1891. Around 1930s the Meetei revivalists began to write histories, challenging the sanskritised
history of Manipur. After the independence, history writings that have been bent on the Hindu inclination
and Indian nation have been predominantly existing in juxtaposition to the different national histories
written by the Manipur, Naga and Kuki nationalists. These different histories can be discussed under the
following subheadings: (a) Indian nationalist history on Manipur; (b) integrationist history of Kangleipak
nation; and (c) exclusive histories of Nagalim and Zalenngam.
(a) Indian nationalist history on Manipur
Following the Independence on 15 August 1947 and the declaration of the Republic on 26 January 1950,
the Indian national leaders had speeded up the nation formation process. They adopted the totalising
concept such as nation to define India. They located Manipur in the Indian national history, i.e., in the
time and geography of an imagined Indian nationhood that is presumed to have existed much before the
1

because it is presumed to be connected to the identity and emotion of the imagined collective.
which includes promotion of identity and control of territory and resource.
3
i.e., a particular way of either interpretation or misrepresentation of casual events and situations.
4
Different political goals are being encapsulated in the construction of respectively different national histories and articulation in
various forms, e.g., books, articles, pamphlets, memorandum, press-statements and public speeches.
2

Independence. Apparently two dominant trends of encapsulating Manipur in the Indian history could be
found. Firstly, there have been historians that have construed a primordial Hindu religio-cultural
connection between India and Manipur. They have traced the genesis of Manipur in the pristine state of
vedantic rituals and the Hindu epic Mahabharata, i.e., Hinduism. Such works have argued that Hindu god
Shiva had used the trishul and had drained out Manipur from an ocean. There is no doubt that many
Meeteis have been sanskritised since around the middle of the 18 th century. However, the above history
have suffered from the holistic determinism of identifying India and Manipur with Hinduism; i.e.,
ignoring the multi religio-cultural composition of both Manipur and India. It also have misrepresented the
cultural boundary of peoples with the geo-political boundary on the surface of the earth.
Secondly, there have been modernist twisters who have over-stressed on the cultural monotheism, i.e.,
unity in diversity. They have articulated the unity in diversity as some forms of monotheistic organic
reality, which have acted as the predetermined bond of unity towards an Indian nationhood. They have
traced the genesis of integration and nationhood in the British colonial rule. For them the British colonial
rule had outlived asiatic conditions. 5 Consolidating changes have been introduced under an overarching
colonial system. Integration had become inevitable and the only viable option of modernity, i.e.,
nationhood, citizenship, rights and duties, security, peace and progress. According to Nehru the future of
Manipur State obviously lies with the Union of India. ... (Manipurs) business of defence must be
shouldered by the Union. In other ways too ...: the Union would, no doubt, help Manipur State to develop
itself in many ways. 6
The Indian national history have acted as the propaganda mouth piece as well. The then architect of the
Indian integration Sardar Patel had articulated that the northeast with the Himalayas had been a frontier
throughout the history of India. 7 Subsequent Indian leaders have selectively referred to the Hindu
Upanishads, Mahabharata, Ramayana and several other literatures and have argued that the striving of
the Indian spirit was directed towards these Himalayan fastness. 8 The concept of Bharatavarsha, an
imagined landscape extending from the Himalayas to the seas, was personified as mother India. The
ancient past of Assam and Manipur was manufactured, so as to establish a primordial Hindu connexion
between these regions and other parts of India. 9 The Anglo Manipur war of 1891 have been interpreted as
an event influenced by the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857. Anti-colonial resistances in Manipur have been shown
as an integral event of the overall tribal resistances of India. The post 1949 resistances against the Indian
state have been condemned as anti-national.
There have been anthropomorphic depiction of India as well. Such depiction have interwoven and
personified mother India and the Indian state. As the sanctity and spirituality of the mother India had to be
defended at any cost, the Indian state have been embellished and elevated as the legitimate and de facto
programmer to anchor the fate of the nation: representative democracy, the neo-liberal economy, national
security laws and militarisation, and etcetera. Those ideologies and political dissent that have challenged
the authority of the Indian state cannot be tolerated. The national liberation movements and other forms of
popular democratic assertions, that had challenged the policies of the state, had to be suppressed in the
name of national peace and security. Accordingly, the Indian state have construed the terrorist caricature
of political dissent; depoliticised it and justified brutal suppression. The Indian nation and its history have
been promoted to become hegemonic. All those who opposed it have been treated as enemies.
5

i.e., subjective and objective isolation.

Jawaharlal Nehrus letter to the Maharaja of Manipur, dated 22 May 1947 (Henceforth Nehrus Letter to Maharaja of Manipur
1947); Selected works of Jawaharla Nehru, Volume II; Delhi, Nehru Memorial Musuem & Library. p. 257
7
Sardar Patels Letter to Jawaharlal Nehru, Dated 7 November, 1950 reproduced in Karunakar Gupta, Spotlight on SinoIndian Frontiers; Calcutta, Friendship Publications, 1983.
8
Neville Maxwell, Indias China War; Bombay, Jaico Publishing House, 1970, p. 127
9
Amalendu Guha, The Indian National Question: A Conceptual Frame, in Economic and Political Weekly; Vol. 17, No. 31, Jul.
31, 1982), pp. PE2-PE12
6

(b) Integrationist history of Kangleipak nation

The history of the Kangleipak (sic. Manipur) nation have constructed a colonial image for the Indian
state. They have refuted the sanskritised history, on the ground that Manipur had no long historical and
cultural ties with India.10 They have traced the origin of Manipur in the primordial past, 11 which have been
considered as comparable to both the British and the Indian national histories. 12 They have formulated
an annexation debate and have charged that Manipur had been forcibly annexed and military occupied by
India. This history can be discussed under the following themes; (a) anti-colonial discourse, challenging
the Indian national history, and (b) one nation theory vis--vis the divisive discourses of Nagalim and
Zalenngam histories. The focus for the present discussion is on the one nation theory.
Firstly, the one nation theory have depicted the peoples of Manipur as having a common racial and
genealogical origin, different from the Indians (Mayangs). They have been shown as aboriginal
(indigenous)13 and different from the outsiders. Secondly, there have been a constant effort to identify
citizenship with Manipuri language, i.e., anybody whose mother tongue is Manipuri language belongs
to the Manipuri people14 According to this perception, amidst the dialectal plurality, there have been a
common bond of language.15 The development of Meetei language into a lingua franca16 have been
interpreted as a corollary of inter-community interaction and interdependence. Thirdly, they have
articulated cultural similarities among the peoples. 17 They have argued that the pristine cultural ethos that
primeval instinct transmitted down to us through our traditions and social practices are common to both
the hill and Meetei people. 18 Fourthly, Manipur have been interpreted as a historically evolved stable
community based on a common territory.19 To substantiate the argument they have selectively referred to
the legends and traditions inscribed on the Meetei puyas and other oral accounts. 20 They have referred to
some traits of similarities that had been prevalent in the cultural artefacts such as the folklores, tales, ritual
and customary practices.21 Historical documents such as agreements, negotiation, procedures, maps,
survey reports, chronicles have also been selectively referred to in order to substantiate that the territorial
integrity of Manipur had been fully established for centuries. 22

10

Paonam Labanggo Mangang, Kangleipakta Revolution (revolution in Manipur), Imphal, 1997. p. 54.
A draft policy to protect and uphold the unique historical features, existing historical boundary and also for bringing
emotional integration of the people of Manipur to achieve faster economic development of the state; Imphal, United
Committee Manipur (UCM), 2002. p.2
12
Bhogendro Singh, Manipur the right of self-determination, a summary (n.d.).
13
Memorandum submitted to the secretary general United Nations and the chairman of the Decolonisation Committee
(committee of 24) for de-colonisation of Manipur from Indian colonialism and alien racist regime, enlisting Manipur in the
list of the non-self-governing-territories of the United Nations and, restoration of independence and sovereignty of Manipur,
Revolutionary People's Front (RPF), Manipur, 2nd ed., 1999. (Henceforth RPF Memorandum)
14
(Manipur the right of self-determination, a summary)
15
P. Lalitkumar Singh, The people of Manipur, 2001.
16
Manipur Fact File 2001; Imphal, All Manipur College Teachers Association, 2001, p. 41
17
People of Manipur rises to save unity and territorial integrity; Imphal, United Committee Manipur (UCM), 2002.
18
A. Kholi Mao, Communal Harmony, paper presented at a Seminar on Communal Harmony (n.d.)
19
Memorandum on the protection of the Territorial Integrity of Manipur submitted to the Prime Minister of India, by All Political
Party Delegation from Manipur. Dated 20 January 2003.
20
Such as the legends and cosmologies maintained by the Kabui, Mao, Maram, Meetei, Tangkhul and Thangal; Sairem Nilbir,
the relation between the hill and plain peoples since time immemorial, p. 22, 23
21
Ibid.
22
As one can easily verify from Henry Yules map of Manipur in 1500 A.D., down to James Johnstones Map in 19th century
and to Surveyor General of Indias map of Manipur, 1984 A.D. They have been corroborated and recognized by other countries in
their official maps and records, People of Manipur rises to save unity and territorial integrity.
11

Fifthly, the peoples of Manipur have been shown, as historically evolved stable political community, who
had played important collective roles in the state formation. It have been argued that the Manipur state,
since the early Christian era, 23 had always encouraged and had relied upon the unity of the peoples.
Manipur have been shown as a federation evolved out of the autochthonous groups.24 According to this
theory, the peoples and community leaders had played important role in the making of a democratic
Manipur.25 Leaders across communities had played roles in several important political events; such as the
drafting of the Manipur constitution in 1947, the establishment of the responsible government of 1948,
and the post 1950 administrations. 26 On the other hand, the peoples of Manipur have been shown as
having collectively exposed to the colonial invasion and divisive forces. 27 They have called for the unity
of the peoples to fight for the right to national self-determination. 28
Anachronism
The one nation theory for Kangleipak have been challenged by the counterpoising histories of the
Nagalim and Zalen-gam. Methodologically, the one nation theory have been a polemical historiography
based on the selective reading of the sources in order to articulate a political agenda. The historians, in
addition to relying on the Meetei manuscripts, royalist stereotypes, oral sources 29, have also used the
methodology of selective reference to the visual and anthropological accounts. The primordial approach,
however, have suffered from anachronism as it have explained the present (contemporary Manipur) by
refereeing to the pristine ancient past.
Firstly, the spatial imagination about the contemporary Manipur have been construed, as an inviolable
territorial entity, without detaching it from the pre-existing official landscapes that were demarcated by
the colonial monarchy during the British colonial system from 1826 to 1947. To my understanding the pre
1947 treaties, documents and agreements on territorial arrangement were primarily the product of the
negotiation between the colonial rulers and the feudal monarchs. These documents cannot cover up the
histories of the governed, autonomous or unadministered communities, feudal oppression, arbitrary
demarcation of boundary, and rebellion and suppression. The reproduction of the royal mapping and the
colonial demarcation of the past, to justify the contemporary assertion for territorial unity have been
anachronistic, as there have been opposition and resistance.
Secondly, the projected nation have become a disputed concept, as a result of the forced locating of the
nation in the pre-1947 Asiatic context. Socio-economically, the Asiatic condition was a combination of
tribal economy in the hills and the feudal economy in the valley. The British had differently governed the
23

RPF Memorandum.
Criticism and constructive submission regarding the study on treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements
between states and indigenous populations, Report submitted by Centre for Organisation and Research Education, Manipur to
the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Commission on Human Rights, UN.
March 1999.
25
(1) One of the resolutions taken during a public meeting of various community backgrounds organised by the Manipur Praja
Sangha on 12th January 1947was to include representatives from the hills through election, Karam Manimohan Singh, Hijam
Irabot and Political Movement in Manipur, Delhi, B.R.Publishing, 1989, p.188
(2) The Krishak Sabha meeting on 29th September 1947 chaired by Irabot Singh discussed and demanded, formation of a
Council of Ministers responsible to the legislature, selection of Prime Minister from among the members of the council,
reservation of seats in the legislature for the Muslim Minority Community, and the introduction of universal adult franchise, N.
Lokendra Singh, The Unquiet Valley, Delhi, Mital Publications, 1998, p. 211, 212
26
Alimuddin (Meetei Panggal) (20-03-1972 to 28-03-1973, 04-03-1974 to 10-07-1974); Yangmaso Shaiza (Tangkhul) (10-071974 to 6-12-1974, 29-06-1977 to 14-11-1979); Rishang Keishing (Tangkhul) (27-22-1980 to 28-02-1981, 19-06-1981 to 04-011985, 04-01-1985 to 04-03-1988, 13-12-1994 to 24-02-1995, 24-02-1995 to 16-12-1997).
27
RPF Memorandum.
28
Why Manipuris Fight for Right to National Self-Determination, United National Liberation Front, Manipur, 3rd ed., 2001.
29
such as legends, narratives, folktales, cosmology and so on.
24

tribes, the Meeteis and the immigrant Indian subjects under different administrative arrangements.
Conceptually, an Asiatic condition and a modern nationhood are correspondingly meant to represent two
different stages of development. The previous condition obviously preceded the later condition. These
two conditions cannot combine to constitute a nation in the strict Marxist sense of the term. It, therefore,
remains questionable if a single legislation in the span of a wink of time 30 would magically transform the
Asiatic condition into the stage of a full-fledged modern nation in 1947. On the contrary, Manipur far
from being a nation have been a political community under an overarching neo-liberal system since the
beginning of the colonial rule.
Thirdly, the post 1949 promotion of symbols and visual representations for Manipur have arbitrarily
incorporated the cultural artefacts, which are connected to the royalist insignias and the numerically
dominant community. These have been anti-thesis to the idea of innovating collective symbols based on
the common consensus of the peoples. At the same time there have been self-defeating citations in an
attempt to augment the one nation theory. For instance, if one would argue that Manipur was a nation
because there were cultural exchanges and intermarriage among the peoples; applying the same rule of
relation as it have been existing amongst the Meetei and Mayang (or between Manipur and other Indians),
one can conclude that India was a nation under the same principle. If lingua franca have been an
important ingredient of nationhood; in the situation where the Manipuri language is the second language
of the others (scheduled tribes), how would one define the national affiliation of those who had adopted
Hindi or English as the second language? Such representations and arguments have rendered the one
nation theory into self-contradiction.
Finally, if Manipur had to be considered a nation because of the symbolic community representatives who
had taken part in the Manipur Constitution Making Committee and the Assembly elections; why cant
Manipur be located in the Indian nation since the Manipur representatives after 1949 had taken the oath
under the Indian Constitution. To justify national liberation war on the basis of the argument that the
peoples were sovereign in the past sounds sceptical and apolitical. Every community in Manipur have
inherited the accounts of a respectively construed sovereign past, real or imagined, supposedly freed from
the jurisdiction of an overarching Manipur administration. In that sense, shouldnt there be justification to
any community or clans or localities that would fight to re-establish its respective sovereignty in the past?
(c) Exclusive Histories of Nagalim & Zalenngam
The national histories of the Nagalim and Zalenngam have been positing against one another over
territorial assertion. On the other hand these histories have been collectively positing against the Indian
national history and the integrationist history of Kangleipak. The two histories have been interwoven in
constructing the divisive discourses between the tribes and the non-tribal. They have described the Nagas
and the Kuki-Chin-Mizos as tribes and have claimed for the exclusive territorial rights over the hills that
have comprised about 90% of the entire geographical area of Manipur. The others in general and the
Meeteis in particular have been identified with the valley. At the same time, there have been holistic
projection of community hatred against the Meeteis, as exploiters responsible for the deprivation and
marginalisation of the tribes. Like the integrationist history of Kangleipak, these two histories have also
formulated one nation theory for the respectively projected nationhood.
Nagalim
According to the protagonists of Nagalim (the land of the Nagas), the Nagas had always been a sovereign
nation occupying an area of 120,000 sq. km of the Patkai Range in between the longitude 93 E and 97 E
and the latitude 23.5 N and 28.3 N. The imagined Nagalim have been located at the tri-junction of
30

Such as Rules for the Management of Manipur State and the Manipur Constitution Act 1947.

China, India and Burma;31 bounded in the north by China, in the west by Assam, in the south by Manipur
valley and Mizoram and the Chin Hills (Burma), and in the east beyond the Chindwin River and along its
tributary Uyu River (Burma). 32 In order to claim aboriginal title and a reciprocal justification to
appropriate the rights over the territory, Nagalim have been romanticised as the only land that had been
first settled and continued to be settled by the Nagas alone. 33
The Nagalim history have articulated a territorial nationalism among the projected Nagas who have been
living in different territories. It have upheld the agenda to fight against the existing territorial boundaries
that had been considered to have divided the Nagas. The Nagalim history have identified the existing
different territorial boundaries with a state of colonial suppression and exploitation. For instance, to the
Nagas, the very creation and existence of the state of Manipur has been perceived as an instrument of
suppression of their rights and insult to their dignity. 34 Manipur have been identified with the Imphal
valley and the Meetei people and it have been argued that the Nagas have nowhere at any point of time
given their allegiance to the Meiteis or their Maharajas to decide their future, orally or through an
agreement.35
The Nagas and Meeteis have been shown as two different nations since the Naga people have their own
culture and history, which they all wish to appreciate and learn. 36 The Nagalim historians have
condemned the one nation theory for Manipur on the ground that it was nothing but lies. To them,
there is no reason for the Meiteis to be overlording the Nagas. 37 Therefore, they cant allow the Manipur
officials to visit the controversial Dzuko valley, on which Manipur had an official stake. 38 They cant
tolerate what they have termed, Kuki homeland (Zalen gam) to be carved out of the Naga areas of the
four hill districts of Manipur (Chandel, Senapati, Tamenglong and Ukhrul), parts of present Nagaland and
Assam where the Kukis inhabit.39
The euphoria of an imagined sovereign Naga people have been construed. It have been construed on the
basis of the presumed pristine self- government, independent of others since the time immemorial. The
assumption that at no stage of history they had been ever subjugated by any alien power, either by
conquest or consent,40 might be relevant in the case of what the British had categorically termed as the
unadministered areas. But this understanding cannot be universally applied to all the communities that are
today composing the Nagas. For instance, if the present Manipur was only an administrative unit of the
colonial power, which had nothing to do with the policies of the future of the Nagas as well as the
Meeteis,41 and therefore, the Nagas had resorted to rebel against Meetei colonialism; the rhetoric of the
unconquered Nagas have become a paradox. In other words, if there was a simultaneity of colonial rule
and sovereignty, then, it was the colonial rulers who had asserted the sovereignty. That the Nagas had not
been one, hence they had possessed no common political psychology have been self-illustrating from
31

Concise Background information on Nagaland (Nagalim).

http://www.angelfire.com/mo/Nagaland/, accessed in April 2002 (dead link now).
http://www.daga.org/daga/readingroom/justpeace/nagaland/nagalim.htm, accessed on 25 July 2009.
32
Achan Ramsan, The basis of territorial integrity and history: a quest for justice in retrospection
http://www.nscnonline.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=322 accessed in Jan 2009
33
Naga Peoples Convention, Senapati Declaration, 28 June, 2001.
34
(The basis of territorial integrity and history: a quest for justice in retrospection)
35
Naga Peoples Convention
36
Statement of Support by Gloria Kim, President & Mughali Achumi, General Secretary, Naga Peoples Friends Network Korea
on 18 August 2006.
37
Statement of Support by Gloria Kim
38
Naga tribe not to allow Manipuris to enter Dzuko; Imphal, Imphal Free Press, 17 February 2006.
39
Press statement of Naga Peoples Movement for Human Rights, 17 September 1993.
40
Who is the author of division among the Nagas and their territory?; NSCN-IM, September 2006.
41
Letter to Our Meetei Brothers and Sisters, NSCN (IM), 8 March 2001, http://nscn.livejournal.com.

their writings. It could be inferred from the integrationist propaganda which says that those political
powers which attempted to divide or divided the territorial integrity of Nagalim and destroyed the
harmonious and peaceful existence of the Nagas is viewed as a heinous crime against Naga nation on one
hand and total violation of the law of nations on the other. 42 How can divisive forces divide them, if they
are one? On the other hand, if the divisive forces have divided them; how are they one?
There have been also a contradictory point in their statement. This is related to what they have mentioned
as the law of nation. The law of nation, as mentioned in their statement, have been a mechanical fiction
of their own volition. The law of nation for the Marxists is bent on the historical materialism. For the
Marxists a nation is a stage of development from tribalism to a stage of stable political community that
had outlived the tribal social formation. But the Nagas in the contemporary period prefer to call
themselves as tribal. Naga integrationists, at several times, have admitted that tribalism had been an
impediment to the Naga integrity. A quit notice was issued against the Tangkhuls living in Nagaland, by
the NSCN-K that had the mass base among the Aos and Konyak peoples. The NSCN-K had argued that
the Tangkhuls were foreigners and external threat to the unity of the Nagas. The incident exemplifies
certain impediments to the Naga integration.
If tribalism have been continued in the present, one might then argue that the law of nation of the Naga
integrationists, whose ideology is bent on the Naga socialism, 43 have suggested for the Naga nationalism
as a subjective articulation pre-existing the objective conditions of being developed into a nation. Their
nationhood have been traced in the time immemorial. However, they have been in the actual process of
spreading nationalism to form a nation. They have to invest a lot to win over those who have been
demanding a separate Eastern Nagaland. The failure to form a nation have been one of the reasons that
Manipur have not been disintegrated. However, the Nagalim project have projected the others as threat to
their nation. This projection have been primarily aimed at covering up the internal contradictions by
invoking a sense of unity among the presumed insiders vis--vis the external enemy. It exemplifies that
the Naga have been in the process of making into a stable political community.
Zalenngam
According to the protagonists of the Zalen-gam, Zalen-gam (land of freedom or Kukiland) is the
ancestral land of the Kuki people44 where they had originated, on which they were raised, developed,
excelled and fought valiant battles for its preservation and protection. 45 The imagined Zalen-gam
comprises contiguous regions in northeast India, northwest Burma, and Chittagong Hill tracts in
Bangladesh.46 In Manipur, the Zalen-gam comprises half of the geographical area of Manipur, i.e.,
Chandel and Churachandpur districts, Sadar Hills (in Senapati District) and vast tracts in Ukhrul,
Tamenglong and Senapati districts.47
The Zalen-gam writers have articulated Kuki-Chin-Mizo achievement, which have been traced in the
pre-British colonial time. According to it, prior to the advent of British colonialists, there was complete
self-rule and independence in Zalen-gam. 48 It have been argued that their forefathers had lived
gloriously by themselves in Zale-gam and that their own custom, culture and tradition had been fully
42

(Who is the author of division among the Nagas and their territory?)
i.e., a blending of pseudo egalitarianism, Christianity and Marxism.
44
P.S. Haokip, Ideological Aspects of Zalen-gam.
http://kukination.net/ideological.php; accessed on 10 June 2009.
45
Manifesto of the Kuki National Organisation.
46
Ibid.
47
P.S. Haokip Greetings from Zalen-gam, the Kuki nation! 10 April 2006
http://www.zalengam.org/GreetingsfromZalengamtheKukination.html
48
(Ideological Aspects of Zalen-gam)
43

developed.49 Such polemics have been formulated to assert for the Kuki-Chin-Mizo territorial rights
against the Nagalim territorial claims over the Chandel, Tamenglong, Senapati and Ukhrul districts. The
polemics have also asserted for the exclusive territorial claims against the potential migration of Meeteis
and others in the projected Zalenngam.
Such assertion have totally bypassed the British colonial reports that informs about the migratory
character of the Kukis and their constant immigration in Manipur.50 They have been silent on the British
policy of creating Kuki settlements in several strategic areas adjoining the Manipur valley 51 and the use of
the Kuki irregular levies in the British colonial expeditions. 52 While omitting such historical sources, but
asserting Kuki-Chin-Mizo nationhood, the Zalen-gam writers have formulated a multi-national theory
for Manipur. According to it, Manipur had been composed of different nations that have nothing in
common.53 The difference have been presumed to be territorially expressed and they have claimed that
the Zalen-gam do not lay claim to any Naga or Meitei territory; they only seek the integrity of their
ancestral lands.54
The Zalenngam writers have identified Manipur with the present Imphal valley or the Meetei people.
According to them, Manipur or Kangleipak since the time immemorial had been concentrated in the
Imphal valley. They have interpreted that the Kangleipak and Zalenngam have been parallel
sovereignties that existed side by side and were complementary to each other. 55 In juxtaposition to the
Nagalim, the concept of Zalen-gam have asserted that the Kuki-Chin-Mizos have been the rulers of the
Manipur hills as they had received tax and tributes from the Tangkhuls and Kabui Nagas. 56
However, they believed, the Zalen-gam, in the course of the history, had fallen as a result of what they
have termed as the British invasion. The colonial divide and rule policy had disintegrated and had forced
located the Zalen-gam into different segments under different administrative jurisdiction. They have
asserted, much against the interest for preservation, consolidation and promotion of our ethnic identity,
the British colonial rulers after subjugating us our ancestral homeland was divided, so were distributed
like cattle sold and separated. 57 They have compared themselves with the Jews and the Kurds in Europe
that had been presumed to be forced scattered and killed in genocides. They have created lamentations
about an enfeebled Zalen-gam that had been seeking for the rejuvenation of Zalen-gam, by reclaiming
the territorial integration of the Kuki-Chin-Mizo nation.
In the post 1949 Manipur, the immediate threats to the Zalen-gam had been what they had termed as the
Naga design of territorial expansionism. 58 They have been against what they had termed as the Meetei
chauvinists who have been using the Zalen-gam as the launch-pad to carry out activities against the Kuki
people and the Indian army.59 In addition to the occupation of the Zalen-gam by the enemies, they have
49

Brief History of Kuki,

http://www.ksdf.org/about_kukis.asp; accessed on 24 December 2006
50
Manipur Administration Report, 1908-1909.
51
Sir James Johnstone, Manipur and The Naga Hills: Delhi, Manas Publications, reprint-1990. p. 26
52
Letter from Mr. JE Webster, Chief Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Assam to the To the Secretary to the Government of
India, Foreign and Political Department, Shillong, 27-June-1919.
53
Memorandum submitted to His Majestys Government, Government of India and Its Constituent Assembly through the
Advisory Sub-Committee by the Mizo Union, 1947.
54
KNOs Memorandum to the Prime Minister of India 2006; Ref. ZG/ GEN 02-671/06, 9 August 2006
55
P.S. Haokip, The Zalen-gam and Kangleipak Equation in Zalen-gam: The Kuki Nation, 1998.
56
Manifesto of the Kuki National Organisation.
57 st
1 World Zomi Convention, Aizawl, Mizoram, 19-21 May 1988.
http://www.zogam.org/documents.asp?article=documents_213, accessed on 10 July 2009.
58
KNOs Memorandum to the Prime Minister of India 2006.
59
KNOs letter to Gen Than Shwe, Chairman, State Peace and Development Council, Burma 2006.

been apprehensive about the disunities within the projected nation and the loss of the members.
According to them, the Anal, Moyon and Monshang, Chiru, Chothe, Lamkang, and Maring people, who
belong to the Old Kuki categorisation were manipulated to adopt Naga as a political identity by the
Nationalists Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak & Muivah) operating in Manipur. 60 These presumed
threats have encouraged them to demand for an urgent attempt towards the consolidation of and the
securing of Zalen-gam by the way of creating a separate statehood. 61 In this attempt, they have
considered that they had found a solution by the way of seeking for an alliance with the Government of
India and at the same time by bidding a farewell party to the Meiteis (Manipur) in the same way the
Manipur Nagas are doing.62
Rethinking the approach
The divisive discourse of the Nagalim and Zalen-gam is deliberately political. It overlooks the
community composition of the hills and valleys. It does not explore the community composition of those
who constitute the state (government), the political economy, and the yardstick of measuring bad or good
governance at the various layers of the state superstructure. It does not explain the forms and characters of
the deprivations and marginalization across regions and communities. It overlooks several settlement
areas where there are mixtures in the community composition. It negates the dynamics of integration
among those who have had shared political outlook, livelihood and interest. The divisive discourse is
primarily bent on the communal stereotyping to spill mistrusts and hatred and to organize people against
communal enemies.
On the other hand, the homogenizing approach, inherent in the one nation theory for either Nagalim or
Zalen-gam, could not cover up mistrust, assertions, and lack of oneness among the communities within
each of the projected nationhood. The Imagined Nagalim and Zalen-gam on the surface of the earth are
inhabited by diverse linguistic, if not dialectic, and cultural communities. Any attempted community
cleansing pogroms, to sterilize away the others from the imagined territory, had led to the communal
conflict. Such genocidal attempts, however, cannot undo internal contradictions such as the linguistic, 63
cultural and psychological divisions. Polarised assertion of internal tribalism or sectarianism,
chauvinism and disunity within have been prevailed.
Prima facie the Nagas and Kukis are in the continuous process of making into stable political
communities. Historically, their respective community compositions have been instable. For instance, the
Rongmei or Kabui, Liangmei Zemei, Tangkhul, Mao, Maram, Maring and Tarao and Thangal
communities in Manipur have been considered as the predominant members of the Nagas in Manipur. The
Anal, Moyon, Monshang, Lamkang, Tarao, Chothe, Chiru, Koireng and Kharam communities have been
considered to have a linguistic affinity with the Kuki-Chin and a cultural identification with the Naga. But
they have been inclined towards the Naga political identity. 64 According to Lalit Pukhrambam, the Anal,
Kom and Thangal had identified themselves as Nagas as a result of recent socio-economic and geopolitical factors.65
60

An introductory statement concerning the Kukis on the occasion of the United Old Kuki Army joining the Kuki National
Organisation; Ref No. ZG/IS 02-06/07, 4.December 2007.
61
KNOs Memorandum to the Prime Minister of India 2006.
62
Luntinsat, Kuki-Meiteis: Not Border Fencing but Farewell will.
http://www.ksdf.org/read.asp?title=Kuki-Meiteis: Not Border Fencing but Farewell will&CatId=Article&id=9, 25 June 2007.
63
(1) Kunal Ghosh & Vikas Kumar, Partition of Manipur, Greater Nagaland and Contrived Tangkhul-Naga Identity: Role of
Script and Lingua Franca in Mainstream; Vol. XLIII No. 20; Delhi, 7 May 2005
(2) Kunal Ghosh & Vikas Kumar, The Naga Question in Manipur, outsiders reply to Vashums paper in Mainstream; Delhi,
September 16-22, 2005.
64
Gangumei Kamei, Origin of the Nagas in Nagas at Work; Delhi, Naga Students Union Delhi, 1996. pp. 14, 15
65
http://themanipurpage.tripod.com/culture/peopleofmanipur.html, as accessed on 15 march 2009

This dynamics would suggest for a developing phase. This have been revealed in the case of the Kukis
who had been original signatories to the 1929 Naga memorandum. 66 The Kukis, however, have no longer
been visible in the Naga-Akbar Hydari Accord of 1947 and afterwards. The withdrawal of the Kuki have
not contributed to the end of tribalism or communal conflict within the Nagas. In the words of Jamir in
2000, we were actually a group of heterogeneous, primitive and diverse (communities) living in farflung villages that had very little in common and negligible contact with each other. 67 Localism and
(communalism) are among the chief problems that have dogged Naga efforts at nation building or the
concept of Naganess or Nagahood."68 There have been a widespread rumour that the Nagas in the
Nagaland state have some reservations in accepting all the Naga peoples from Manipur as the pure Naga.
This might be an exaggeration. However, in this developing phase a shift away from the colonial
anthropological meaning to the post-colonial political meaning cannot be refuted.
For strategic and political reasons, some of the minority peoples in Manipur have appeared to be changing
the nomenclatural affiliation. Some have been compelled to identify with one or attempts have been made
to expel some from a particular nomenclature. For instance, as mentioned above, the NSCN-K had issued
quit notice to the Tangkhuls on the ground that the Tangkhuls, the so-called the elder brother of Meeteis
who are trying to adopt a new identity as a Naga is only a paradox of phobia. The Nagas never knew the
Tangkhuls before 1990 and were only foreigners to Nagas who never knew Nagas but only spoke
Manipuri and were to Nagas as Manipuris. 69 On the other hand the Kuki Recognition Committee have
continued to uphold that the Chiru, Chothe, and Kom had belonged to the Kuki nomenclature. 70 The
Kuki-Paite clash from June 1997 to October 1998 over the alleged dispute in ideology and acceptance of
a common nomenclature71 on the one hand and on the other hand the growth of the clan based militant
organizations needs deeper study, to unfold the dynamics of integrity project, dissention and negation.
Such demand and internal strives that have been prevalent among the communities within the Kuki-ChinMizo groups would also suggest that the proposed Zalen-gam (and Zogam) have been in the process of
making into a stable political community.
REINTERPRETATION OF THE CONTEXT
Contemporary Manipur is composed of the communities who have considered themselves as indigenous.
They are; Aimol, Anal, Angami, Any Kuki tribe, Any Mizo (Lushai) tribe, Chiru, Chothe, Gangte, Hmar,
Kabui, Kacha naga, Kharam, Koirao, Koireng, Kom, Lamgang, Liangmei, Mao, Maram, Maring, Meetei /
Meitei, Meetei Panggal, Monsang, Moyon, Paite, Poumai, Purum, Ralte, Rongmei, Sema, Simte, Suhte,
Tangkhul, Tarao, Thadou, Thangal, Vaiphei, Zemei and Zou. The annals of the past, folk tales of
migration, rituals, exogamous practice, conversions have suggested that many are related to one another.
At the same there is also the account of tribal feuds, feudal invasions, subjugation, oppression and
exploitation. Leaving aside the past, a modern political community in the strict Marxist sense of the term
was established in 1947. It was achieved within the framework of a constitution that had adopted a
federation model on the principle of voluntary unionism. The federation was meant to be implemented on
a trial basis for a period of five years. However, before the lapse of the trial period, the Indian state had
annexed Manipur in 1949. The voluntary unionism or federal model was superseded by a neo-liberal
66

It was submitted to the Simon Commission.

S.C. Jamir, Bedrock of Naga Society, Nagaland Pradesh Congress Committee (I), 2000
68
B. G. Verghese, Indias Northeast Resurgent: Ethnicity, Insurgency, Governance, Development; Delhi, Konark Publishers,
1996., p. 95.
69
On Naga Hohos Naga Integration, Naga Socialist Council of Nagaland, (Khaplang Faction), 2002., p. 8
70
Memorandum Submitted to Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by the Manipur Kuki Tribes recognition Demand Committee on
April 28, 1987.
71
Root Cause of Kuki-Zomi Conflict; A pamphlet published by the Zomi National Volunteers, 1997.
67

system, which was superimposed with the support of a group of rentier bourgeoisie that had constituted a
puppet regime under the command of the Indian neo-liberal rulers. 72 Any form of protest against the
annexation and subsequent political dissention have been suppressed.
The annexation of Manipur in 1949 had speeded up the process of the integration of the economically
backward tribal and non-tribal agricultural economies into the Indian capitalist path. It had subsequently
created a situation when the majority of the peoples have to lively constantly in a state of social fear and
alienation. This state of social fear and alienation exemplifies the objective conditions of subjection in
various forms. Some of the social fears may be categorically discussed as economic, social, cultural and
physical insecurities.
Economic insecurity: The economy have remained subjected to serve the interest of the Indian rulers as
Manipur have remained the primary supplier of labour, raw material, market and military stockpile. There
have been lack of the incentive towards surplus economic growth. The people have remained largely
dependent on the import for survival. The balance of payment for trade exchanges have been
unfavourable to them. They have been impoverished in the global economic order. Economic
underdevelopment have been leading to the steady raise in the number of poor. At the same time,
destructive projects have been added to the problem of displacement and ecological imbalance. As a
result, economic insecurity and fear have been widespread.
Social insecurity: The people have expected a good governance that might promote the well-being for
the population at large and the potentially vulnerable segments such as the children, elderly, sick, women,
unemployed and underprivileged, disabled sections, and numerically minority communities. However, the
expectations have not been fulfilled. On the contrary, social problems such as unemployment,
underpayment and pathetic working conditions of the contract labour, malnourishment and school dropout
of children, drug addiction and disillusionment among the youths, domestic violence, crimes,
prostitutions, corruptions and bribery, unrestraint demographic invasion by outsiders, lack of the
promotion of the cultural identities of the communities, communal conflict, constraints of privatisation
and several other social ills and pains have been on the rise. As a result, social insecurity and fear have
been widespread.
Cultural insecurity: The people have expected a governance that will not only protect but also promote
the cultural uniqueness of the communities. However, the overall economic underdevelopment and the
lack of social security measures, which have made many into vulnerability, have failed to provide with the
adequate material back up for the communities to invest in cultural promotion. As a result there is a
widespread perception of cultural insecurity. However, this insecurity went side by side with the growing
consciousness for cultural identity under the leadership of the middle class intelligentsia. This have been
boosted by the reformist researches, government reservation policies or quota systems, and other
international instruments and funding agencies. 73 It also had the catalytic impact on growth of the
sectarian and communal forces, who have added further to the cultural insecurity.
Physical insecurity: There have been systematic militarisation, imposition of repressive laws and the
increasing terror activity of the repressive forces. The examples of the repressive laws are the Armed
72

Subordinate ruling class composed of landlords cum contractors, commission agents, bureaucrats, traders, etc. that are
dependent on the Indian big bourgeoisie for political and economic power
73
The structural incorporation of caste / tribal reservation systems, and other material incentives, funding of cultural assertion,
researches, and publications had promoted middle class intelligentsia writings on tribes and ethnics. The trend have received a
major thrust by the post 1990 global instruments such as the United Nations declarations of the Decade of the Worlds Indigenous
People (from December 10, 1994), establishment of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2000), and etcetera. All
these had provided opportunities and encouraged the NGO sectors to streamline middle class sections towards ethnic or tribal or
indigenous issues.

Forces Special Powers Act, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, National Security Act and Prevention of
Seditious Meetings Act. The examples of the repressive forces are the Indian army, paramilitary forces,
regular and irregular police forces and other armed coverts and reactionary forces. The repressive forces
have been deployed in the name of security. However, it have created a terror situation known as state
terrorism. Unrestraint fake encounters, massacres, tortures, harassments, illegal detentions, forced
disappearances, rapes, molestations, sodomies, forced labour and obstruction to free mobility have
created physical insecurity and fear among many.
The social fear have interplayed with various forms of alienations, which may be discussed as economic,
political and social alienations:
Economic Alienation: Social growth is expected to be built on the land through the productive use of the
natural resources and social labour. A sovereign democratic society can be established when there is
social ownership over the land, resources, means of production and labour, and an equal share in the
social products. In such society people themselves takes the decisions related to the economy, so that
there is material welfare of all the individual segments that have constituted the composite whole.
However, under the existing system, the ownership of the land and the natural resources have been
enjoyed by the neo-liberal rulers. In this process the local rentier bourgeoisie and their agents in the state
owned service sectors, indulged in facilitating the super profit interest of the Indian neo-liberal rulers.
They assisted in the implementation of exploitative construction projects in the name of development,
under the backing of the repressive forces. On the other hand, as the means of production have been
privatised; majority have been reduced into labour of the exploiting class, who subsequently accumulate
surplus value and control the price of the commodities under the market economy, which is
predominantly controlled by the outsiders. In the overall situation, the people in general have lost control
over the land or territory, resources, social labour and the market.
Political Alienation: Many are being deceived to believe that the people have been enjoying a democratic
system of governance, of the people formed by the people and for the people. This is far from being
achieved. In practice, there is superimposition of bourgeoisie totalitarianism. The people are living in a
class stratified society; where wealth exercises power and the government have been designed and
functioned in the interest of the exploiters, the dominant class who rule upon the rest. Although the people
enjoy voting rights to elect representatives; the voting consents of the individuals or the chiefs (in those
areas where the chiefs decide community vote) are being largely influenced by the networks of
corruption, bribery, muscle power, misinformation and misguidance by the local rentier bourgeoisie, who
strives for power. In practice the political power is enjoyed at the foremost by the Indian rulers, who
devolved certain power to the local rentier bourgeoisie. The rentier bourgeoisie in their turn established
local regime and defended the overarching neo-liberal interest of their overlords. The real political power
have been have alienated from the common peoples. The local regime of the rentier bourgeoisie have
been imposing legal ban on anyone against asserting any ideological and political dissention against the
bourgeoisie democracy. This overall situation keeps the society under siege and alienates many from free
access to progressive ideology and democratic activities.
Social Alienation: Under the existing neo-liberal system, the predominant form of social relations is
based on the commodities for exchange. Peoples have become selfish and greedy in striving for vested
material opportunities. The bourgeoisie social value systems, which is based on the market relation and
profit objectives, have superseded all other forms of morality. It have promoted individual opportunism.
Many have been killed, tortured, exploited, suppressed and discriminated for money and profit. Vicious
cycle of mistrust, suspicion, hatred, frustrations and disillusionment have alienated many from one
another. In other words, the bourgeoisie value system have created a serious repercussion on the intercommunity relation. As the neo-liberal regime have been founded on the principle of inequality, the local
rentier bourgeoisie have contradictions within itself at various levels. To moderate the contradictions they

have used communal campaigns and sectarian assertions. The objectives of creating communal tension
are two folds. Firstly, they must create their respective mass base to use communal assertion as an
effective means, to bargain for political and economic power. Secondly, communal conflicts and
sectarianism are the effective means to divert away the attention of the public from their exploitative
nature. All these have created social tensions and have the tendency towards alienation of the oppressed
peoples along communal and sectarian blocks.
To sum up, the neo-liberal relation of production have failed to overcome the inherent structural crisis.
The desperation for democratic rights such as sovereignty, social emancipation, development, security
and peace have been on the rise. However, this desperation could not be automatically converted into a
progressive programme. This is due to the fact that the social fear and alienation are interplaying with
ideological deception. I shall no go into the detail of the character and means of the ideological deception.
For the present discussion it is sufficed to sum up in saying that, against the backdrop of the inherent
structural crisis, different sections of leaderships and assertive intelligentsias have been playing different
roles. Some have sought for reforms within the existing system. Some had sought for more autonomy
along regional or communal lines. Some sections have sought for political freedom from India. In this
situation the different histories or projections of Kangleipak, Nagalim, Zalen-gam were also respectively
gaining mass appeal to different sections.
CONCLUSION
Writing national history constitutes the dominant trend of historiography in contemporary Manipur. A
nation is being shown as an organic body comprising population, territory, natural resources and cultural
identity. There is selected reproduction of the historical sources to claim for the primordial origin of the
projected nationhood, which origins are traced in the pristine past. The national histories written in this
context are histories about the respective nation and its enemies. There is homogeneous depiction of the
nation and its composition. The enemies are always shown as outsiders who are expansionist and a threat.
A historian is being left only with the option to either become a national protagonist or remain an enemy
of the nation.
The Indian national writers had not given a standard definition of nationhood. They, at the same time, for
political reasons, do not subscribe to the multi-national theory for India. However, in the name of Indian
nation, its security and peace; they have used deceptive jargons to cover up the military expansionist
course, the occupational strategy and the violent suppression of the national democratic revolutionary
movement in Kashmir and the Northeast. In their national hangover, they had failed to scientifically study
the socially deep rooted notions of sovereignty, nationalism, territorial ownership, democratic ideals,
development and outsiders that have been operating at the levels of village communities, which have
contributed to the political dissent and democratic resistances. On the other hand various suppressive acts
such as the National Security Act and the Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act and the policy of
classifying archival and official sources concerning the Northeast have discouraged independent
researches and constructive critique.
The histories of Kangleipak, Nagalim and Zalenngam have suffered from the holistic approach of trying
to depict a homogenous picture of their respective nationhood. Each of the one nation theories have
adopted communal writing and have been posited against the enemy. These writings have invoked the
communal nostalgia of pristine freedom and the hatred of the enemy. The divisive discourses have
reflected escapism that is primarily aimed at covering up dialectics of ideological deceptions, chauvinism,
sectarianism and loss of revolutionary nationalism within; while passing the blame on the external
enemies as responsible for all forms of disunity within the projected nationhood. These histories have
hardly explained the character of the state, material interest and community composition of the rentier
bourgeoisie, and the ideology and policy of the leadership who are waging the liberation war. These

histories have failed to expose the dynamics of collaboration and conflict among the rentier bourgeoisie.
Nor have they dealt with the political economy of the local reactions and sectarian forces within a
community or amongst the communities. These histories have been caught up in the labyrinth of national
euphoria while in actually they have been refraining from adopting more scientific researches to expose
the structural constraints of the neo-liberal relations of production. These histories have not convincingly
addressed the crucial questions such as to what form of colonialism exists, if there is neo-colonial
oppression at all.
The critique of the current historiography in Manipur is still incomprehensive and requires more research.
The present critique is restricted to some of the sensitive issues that had easily ignited tensions and
unrests from time to time. I have left out many other issues. For instance the implication of gender
iconography and the subjective role of women, as reflected in the nationalist historiography, had not been
discussed. I have not discussed the legal determinism and reductionism, as manifested in the critique of
the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. Till date, most of the writings on AFSPA had not contextualized
the Act in militarization, which have been a corollary of an exploitative neo-liberal political economy. At
the same time, I would like to admit that for Manipur there is the need for more progressive research on
history of the peoples. As of now, I would like to conclude with the remark that the different national
histories, that I have discussed, have been fighting for hegemony. Rewriting history is essential to do
away with lots of misinformation and counter-productions. That will be a leap forward, towards building
a world order free from subjugation, oppression, exploitation and all forms of counter-revolutionary and
reactionary onslaughts.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Memorandum
A draft policy to protect and uphold the unique historical features, existing historical boundary and also
for bringing emotional integration of the people of Manipur to achieve faster economic
development of the state; Imphal, United Committee Manipur (UCM), 2002.
Criticism and constructive submission regarding the study on treaties, agreements and other constructive
arrangements between states and indigenous populations, Report submitted by Centre for
Organisation and Research Education, Manipur to the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Commission on Human Rights, UN. March 1999.
Memorandum on the protection of the Territorial Integrity of Manipur submitted to the Prime Minister of
India, by All Political Party Delegation from Manipur. Dated 20 January 2003.
Memorandum submitted to His Majestys Government, Government of India and Its Constituent
Assembly through the Advisory Sub-Committee by the Mizo Union, 1947.
Memorandum Submitted to Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by the Manipur Kuki Tribes recognition
Demand Committee on April 28, 1987.
Memorandum submitted to the secretary general United Nations and the chairman of the Decolonisation
Committee (committee of 24) for de-colonisation of Manipur from Indian colonialism and alien
racist regime, enlisting Manipur in the list of the non-self-governing-territories of the United
Nations and, restoration of independence and sovereignty of Manipur, Revolutionary People's
Front (RPF), Manipur, 2nd ed., 1999.
Press Statements
Who is the author of division among the Nagas and their territory?; NSCN-IM, September 2006.
An introductory statement concerning the Kukis on the occasion of the United Old Kuki Army joining the
Kuki National Organisation; Ref No. ZG/IS 02-06/07, 4.December 2007.

Naga tribe not to allow Manipuris to enter Dzuko; Imphal, Imphal Free Press, 17 February 2006.
Press statement of Naga Peoples Movement for Human Rights, 17 September 1993.
Statement of Support by Gloria Kim, President & Mughali Achumi, General Secretary, Naga Peoples
Friends Network Korea on 18 August 2006.
Documents
1st World Zomi Convention, Aizawl, Mizoram, 19-21 May 1988.
http://www.zogam.org/documents.asp?article=documents_213, accessed on 10 July 2009.
KNOs letter to Gen Than Shwe, Chairman, State Peace and Development Council, Burma 2006.
KNOs Memorandum to the Prime Minister of India 2006; Ref. ZG/ GEN 02-671/06, 9 August 2006
Letter to Our Meetei Brothers and Sisters; NSCN (IM), 8 March 2001, http://nscn.livejournal.com.
Letter from Mr. JE Webster, Chief Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Assam to the To the Secretary
to the Government of India, Foreign and Political Department, Shillong, 27-June-1919.
Manifesto of the Kuki National Organisation.
Manipur Administrative Report, 1908-1909.
Naga Peoples Convention, Senapati Declaration, 28 June, 2001.
Root Cause of Kuki-Zomi Conflict; A pamphlet published by the Zomi National Volunteers, 1997.
Articles
Brief History of Kuki, http://www.ksdf.org/about_kukis.asp; accessed on 24 December 2006
Concise Background information on Nagaland (Nagalim).
http://www.angelfire.com/mo/Nagaland/, accessed in April 2002 (dead link now).
http://www.daga.org/daga/readingroom/justpeace/nagaland/nagalim.htm, accessed on 25 July 2009.
Gangumei Kamei, Origin of the Nagas in Nagas at Work; Delhi, Naga Students Union Delhi, 1996.
Guha, Amalendu., The Indian National Question: A Conceptual Frame, in Economic and Political
Weekly; Vol. 17, No. 31, Jul. 31, 1982).
Haokip, P.S., Greetings from Zalen-gam, the Kuki nation! 10 April 2006
http://www.zalengam.org/GreetingsfromZalengamtheKukination.html
Haokip, P.S., Ideological Aspects of Zalen-gam http://kukination.net/ideological.php; accessed on 10
June 2009.
Haokip, P.S., The Zalen-gam and Kangleipak Equation in Zalen-gam: The Kuki Nation, 1998.
Luntinsat, Kuki-Meiteis: Not Border Fencing but Farewell will.
http://www.ksdf.org/read.asp?title=Kuki-Meiteis:
Not
Border
Fencing
but
Farewell
will&CatId=Article&id=9, 25 June 2007.
Mao, A. Kholi., Communal Harmony, paper presented at a Seminar on Communal Harmony (n.d.)
Nilbir, Sairem., The relation between the hill and plain peoples since time immemorial in Meeyamgi
Khollao; Imphal, Khurai Pana Apunba Singlup, 2002.
Ramsan, Achan., The basis of territorial integrity and history: a quest for justice in retrospection
http://www.nscnonline.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=322 accessed in Jan 2009
Ramsan, Achan., The basis of territorial integrity and history: a quest for justice in retrospection.
Singh, Bhogendro., Manipur the right of self-determination, a summary (n.d.).
Singh, P. Lalitkumar., The people of Manipur, 2001.
Books
Gupta, Karunakar., Spotlight on Sino- Indian Frontiers; Calcutta, Friendship Publications, 1983.
Gupta, Karunakar., Spotlight on Sino- Indian Frontiers; Calcutta, Friendship Publications, 1983.
http://themanipurpage.tripod.com/culture/peopleofmanipur.html, as accessed on 15 march 2009
Jamir, S.C., Bedrock of Naga Society, Nagaland Pradesh Congress Committee (I), 2000
Johnstone, Sir James ., Manipur and The Naga Hills: Delhi, Manas Publications, reprint-1990.

Kunal Ghosh & Vikas Kumar, Partition of Manipur, Greater Nagaland and Contrived Tangkhul-Naga
Identity: Role of Script and Lingua Franca in Mainstream; Vol. XLIII No. 20; Delhi, 7 May 2005
Kunal Ghosh & Vikas Kumar, The Naga Question in Manipur, outsiders reply to Vashums paper in
Mainstream; Delhi, September 16-22, 2005.
Mangang, Paonam Labanggo., Kangleipakta Revolution (revolution in Manipur), Imphal, 1997.
Manipur Fact File 2001; Imphal, All Manipur College Teachers Association, 2001
Maxwell, Neville., Indias China War; Bombay, Jaico Publishing House, 1970.
On Naga Hohos Naga Integration, Naga Socialist Council of Nagaland, (Khaplang Faction), 2002.
People of Manipur rises to save unity and territorial integrity; Imphal, United Committee Manipur
(UCM), 2002.
Selected works of Jawaharla Nehru, Volume II; Delhi, Nehru Memorial Musuem & Library.
Singh, Karam Manimohan., Hijam Irabot and Political Movement in Manipur, Delhi, B.R.Publishing,
1989.
Singh, N. Lokendra., The Unquiet Valley, Delhi, Mital Publications, 1998.
Verghese, B. G., Indias Northeast Resurgent: Ethnicity, Insurgency, Governance, Development; Delhi,
Konark Publishers, 1996., p. 95.
Why Manipuris Fight for Right to National Self-Determination, United National Liberation Front,
Manipur, 3rd edn., 2001.
##
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr Malem Ningthouja (N. M. Meetei) had pursued BA (h) History from Hindu College, Delhi and had
completed MA, M. Phil and Ph. D in History from the University of Delhi. He began to involve in social
activism since class V and began to hold key position in local club among elders while he was in class XI.
He was one among the co-founders of the Fine Arts Society, Hindu College, Delhi. He was the president
of Manipur Students Association Delhi 1999-2000. He is currently a member of the Editorial Board of the
journal Revolutionary Democracy, founder cum chairperson of Campaign for Peace & Democracy
(Manipur), Founder cum Managing Trustee of the Labour Research and Organisation Foundation
(LAROF) and an alternate member of the International Coordination Committee of the International
League of Peoples Struggle. He is also a member of; Coordination of Democratic Rights Organisation,
Committee for the Release of Political Prisoners and; Indian History Congress. He is the author of the
books Freedom from India; a History of Manipur Nationalism; Spectrum, Guwahati, 2011 and Indias
War on Democracy; the Debate on AFSPA 1958, Waba publications, Imphal, 2014. He had edited a
compiled work on AFSPA entitled the Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958: Manipur Experience;
CPDM, New Delhi, 2010: Professor Sanajaobas Right to Self-determination of Manipur; CPDM, New
Delhi, 2013: Comrade Irabot and Capitalism; IRCC and CPDM, Imphal, 2013. His forthcoming book
entitled Diametrical Nationalisms: Rulers, Rebels and Mass is in the press. He was a guest lecturer in the
University of Delhi.