Naga-Kuki conflict: The search for definitions

Dr. Tuisem Ngakang

Once in an academic discussion in Jawaharlal Nehru University, a  noted historian from the northeast stated that the Kukis and the Nagas  are traditional enemy, this was resented by some young Naga scholars and  make the historian to retract his statement.  It is true that despite  the history of the Naga-Kuki relationship was marked by mistrust and  suspicion, the enmity between the Nagas and the Kukis are not older than  the colonial period.

In the colonial writings, the first reference to the ‘Kuki’ was made  in 1777 when this tribesmen attack the British subjects in Chittagong  when Warren Hastings was the Governor General of Bengal. In Manipur Sir  James Johnstone, the Political Agent of Manipur in 1877-1886 writes in  his book Manipur and the Naga Hills that  ‘Kukis’ were first heard in Manipur, between 1830 and 1840. The influx of Kukis in Manipur during the 19th century created a lot of ethnic tension and administrative problem for  the state. The inter-ethnic relation between the Meitei-Naga and Kukis  underwent change with the influx of Kukis in 19th century and  the settlement of Kukis migrants in the hills of Manipur adjacent to  the Naga villages. BC Allan in his celebrated book, Naga Hills and Manipur writes that “ by 1845 the British administration in Manipur faced  problems when the Kukis began to come in great numbers and started to  ‘drive away’ many of the older inhabitant.”

The British Political Agent W. McCulloch was entrusted by the then  Maharaja of Manipur, Maharaja Nar Singh to manage the tribal affairs of  the hills. Land was given to the Kukis and they were allowed to  establish villages under their chief. This policy of colonial  administrators allowing Kukis to settle in the land that belonged  traditionally to the Nagas was designed to use them as a buffer against  the raids on Manipur. This sown the seed of enmity between the Kukis and  the Nagas.  Dr. Lal Dena has also pointed out that the double purpose  of the Kukis settlement in and on the frontier of Manipur was that the  warlike Kukis had to act as a buffer, first against Burmese and secondly  against recalcitrant Nagas and Lushais tribes. The same policy was  followed by Chandrakrity Singh (1850-85), the Maharaja of Manipur, and  the British Political Agent R. Brown. The Nagas resented the attitude of  the Manipur Maharaja and the British political Agents.

Between 1880-1890s, the Kukis attacked many Naga villages without  provocation. In 1880 Chingsow, a Tangkhul village was attacked, killing  45 people (20 men and 25 women). In another incident 286 people were  killed in a single night in Chingjaroi another Tangkhul village. 187 of  whom were women and children. There were many accounts where the Nagas  were captured and carried off by the Kukis as slaves. Ngahui, another  Tangkhul village bears the brunt of the marauding nature of the Kukis.  Many were killed and many were taken away as slaves. Many Kabui villages  were burnt down, hundreds were killed, grains were looted, pigs,  buffalos were slaughtered and carried off.  The Kuki-Naga relationship  suffers a major setback during the Kuki Rebellion in 1917-1919 and the  Zeliangrong Naga Revolt of 1930-31.

The relationship of Naga-Kuki becomes irreconcilable with the  conflict in 1990s that took many precious lives and properties of both  the communities. The aftermath of the conflict further aggravated with  the kind of term that used for presenting to the international  communities by the Kukis with the intention to jeopardize the ongoing  Indo-Naga peace talk and the observation of September 13 as Black Day  (Sahnit Nikho in local Thadou dialect) to commemorate the death of the  Kukis during the conflict. The term like holocaust, genocide, ethnic  cleansing etc are wrongly used to describe the conflict of 1990s in many  writing by Kukis organizations and individual.

In a moment of violence, those who become the targets of violence,  the culprit is always the other- so during the Naga-Kuki conflict the  Kukis claim that the Nagas perpetrated all the violence and the Nagas  will claim the same. It is not simple to say who the aggressor and who  is the victim here. If the Kukis suffered the loss of 961 precious lives  in the conflict, the Nagas loss not less than the number of lives! The  Zeliangrong Naga alone claim that during the 1991-1995 Naga Kuki  conflict 123 Zeliangrong people were killed by Kukis, 201 were injured,  940 houses were burnt down and 1500 people were displaced. Villages of  both the communities were uprooted and people rendered homeless.  The  conflict has often been termed as HOLOCAUST by many Kukis writers and  organizations. Is it an apt term to be used in the case of Naga-Kuki  conflict?  It will be wrong to compare to that of the holocaust of  Germany where Nazis were clearly the aggressors and the Jews their  victims. During this conflict, Kukis killed Nagas and Nagas killed Kukis  and both the communities took advantage of their violence to kill and  harm the other as they saw each other as their enemies! The conflict is  also seen as GENOCIDE (as seen in many writings of the Kukis), where one  community deliberately attempt to wipe out the other – this is not the  case with the Naga-Kuki conflict.

Was the Naga-Kuki conflict of 1990s the case of ETHNIC CLEANSING?  Ethnic cleansing is the systematic removal of a group from a given  territory, it is usually accompanied with the efforts to remove  physical, cultural evidence of the targeted group, through destruction  of homes, places of worship, cemeteries etc. In the case of Naga-Kuki  conflict both the communities suffered not less than the other. Many  villages of both the communities were uprooted or deserted and many  become refugees, some villages like Chasad a Kuki village and Kaihao a  Tangkhul village was deserted and latter resettled.  Thus the term  ethnic cleansing will be a badly chosen word to describe or define the  nature of Naga-Kuki conflict.

Some even referred the conflict as RIOT. It is generally assume that  riots are spontaneous bursts of anger and they die down quickly.  It is  true that there may be some elements of spontaneity in the violence but  most of the incidents were carefully planned and executed.

ETHNIC CONFLICT seems to be the most fitting term to describe the  Naga-Kuki conflict of 1990s for the simple reason that both the  communities look themselves as a separate ethnic group distinct from one  another, secondly all the members of both the communities are directly  or indirectly affected by the conflict.

No community gains from the conflict, both the communities were  victim, there was no victor, they suffered, and they feel the pain and  anguish and see the trauma. The conflict touched people live in  unprecedented way. Death, displacement, loss of home and properties were  so close to many people of both the communities. The observing of Black  Day and Requital Day will only increase bitterness between the  communities.

The writer can be contacted at

Subscribe to Nagajournal

Don’t miss out on the latest issues. Sign up now to get access to the library of members-only issues.