Massacres perpetrated by the Kukis during the British Rule in India
|
Senior Prof K Yugindro Singh (Retd)
Prior to 1889, the interior of the tract of country known as the Chin-Lushai Hills, was a terra incognita i.e., an unexplored land comprising of impenetrable jungles and rugged, very tall mountain ranges, never visited by outsiders [Reid 1893: pp.1]. The Government of India under the British used the generic word ‘Kuki’ to denote the various tribes who had successively been driven out from the Chin- Lushai Hills into the neighbouring country to the north and west i.e. the present India and Bangladesh; they considered the words ‘Kuki’ and ‘Chin’ as being synonymous [Grier-son 1904: pp.1-2]. The British administrators considered the Kukis, the Chins, and the Lushais as being of the same race [Shakespear 1912: pp.8]. According to Thomas H. Lewin, the word ‘Lushai’ probably means ‘the decapi-tators,’ being derived from ‘lu’ a head and ‘ sha' or ‘shat’ to cut ; and it was undoubtedly the custom among Lushai people in the olden days to carry off as trophies the heads of enemies slain in battle [Lewin 1874: pp.3]. Mr Lewin categorised and included “The Kookis or Lhoosai” as one of the wild races of South-Eastern India [Lewin 1870: pp.246]. The origin of the word “Kuki” was not known to the administrators of British India [Shaw, 1929: pp.11].
Recently, the Royal Anthropological Institute, UK has reported that the word “Kuci or Kuchi” is an Afghan Persian word meaning “nomads or those who go on migrations” [Tapper 2008: pp.97]. The term ‘Chin’ is a derogatory Burmese word meaning ‘Basket Carriers’ [Suantak 2010: pp.18]. The name ‘Chin’ became legalized as the official term by The Chin Hills Regulation in 1896 [Sakhong 2005: pp.5]. The Kachin and Shan still called the Chin as ‘Khyan’ or ‘Khiang’ or ‘Chiang’ [Sakhong 2005: pp.3].
According to GE Fryer, ‘Khyengs’ (now called Chins or Kukis) have a tradition that they came down many years ago from the sources of the Kyendweng (now called Chindwin) river [Fryer 1875: pp.46]. Historian D.G.E. Hall confirms that the Shans drove out the Chins from the Chindwin valley into the Chin hills (Sakhong 2005: pp.16). Daniel Thangkholun Lhungdim (known as T Daniel), the author of “Israel Lhiove (We are descendants of Israelites)” opined that “after having migrated from Israel our forefathers reached Afghanistan and there they were identified as ‘Kuchi’ meaning nomadic or migratory.” (Suantak, 2012, pp.96). Carey and Tuck expressed their conviction by writing: “Without pretending to speak with authority on the subject, we think we may reasonably accept the theory that the Kukis of Manipur, the Lushais of Bengal and Assam, and the Chins originally lived in what we now know as Thibet and are of one and the same stock.” (Carey & Tuck, 1896, pp.2). Based on the above historical accounts of migration, it may be inferred that the Chin-Kuki-Lushai tribes had tra- velled for centuries through various countries including Israel, Persia, Afghanistan, Tibet, China until they finally came down to the Chindwin River belt from where they were, subsequently, driven out into the Chin Hills by the Shans.
The village system among the Kukis is a series of petty dictatorial State each under a hereditary Dictator or Chief (Called Lal) who can call upon his people to furnish him with everything that he requires. A chief’s son, on attaining manhood, does not, in general, remain with his father, but sets up a separate village of his own [Hunter 1876: pp.60]. A Kuki Chief is the absolute owner of the village under his jurisdiction and he has supreme authority with executive, judicial and military power. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the village army. In times of war, the Chief is supposed to lead the army. His words are law within his Chiefdom and his decisions are final [Baite 2024: pp.4080]. The Kukis are remarkable for their extreme softness of voice and the euphonic sweetness of their language, when not spoken under great excitement [Pemberton 1835: pp.17]. The Kuki chiefs are experts in the art of diplomacy. Even the British officer like Major-General Sir James Johnstone expressed his admiration in the diplomacy of some Kuki chiefs who came to see him [MAR 1879: pp.11]. William Shaw said that the Kukis are very obstinate and wilful [Shaw 1929: pp.21]. According to B.S. Carey, “Kukis are notoriously treacherous and not to trust their promises” and this observation made by Carey is contained in a letter dated 4th January 1918 from WF Rice, Chief Secretary of Burma to the Chief Secretary of Assam [Rice’s letter 1918].
The noted British ethnographer, ET Dalton described the Kukis as a Nation of wild hunters and warriors being ruled by their principal hereditary chiefs or rajahs, but divided into clans , each under its own chief. When engaged in hostile expeditions, they can sleep at night in hammocks swung in trees [Dalton 1872: pp.44]. Regarding the tacticality of the Kukis, Pemberton observed: “The plunder of property is less the object of the marauders than the acquisition of heads, which are considered essential to the due performance of the funeral rites of their village chieftains, and to obtain which, they will undertake long and difficult journeys, and remain concealed for days together in the jungle bordering on the different lines of communication, between distant villages ; they spring on the unwary traveller, decapitate him in an instant, and plunging into the forests, are far on their way home, before the murder becomes known in the village of the miserable victim. Among the Kookees, success in these expeditions establishes a claim to the highest distinctions the tribe can confer, and their approaches are made with such secrecy, that the yell of death is almost always the first intimation the villagers receive of their danger” [Pemberton 1835: pp.18].
Regarding the barbarity of the Kukis, John Rawlins wrote: “If a Cuci assails the house of an enemy, and can kill a woman with child, so that he may bring two heads, he acquires honour and celebrity in his tribe, as the destroyer of two foes at once” [Rawlins 1792: pp.188].
According to Mac-Culloch, “The Kukis are great hunters and are passionately fond of the sport, looking upon it, next to war, as the noblest exercise for man. They kill tigers, deer and small game by means of poisoned arrows” [Mac-Culloch 1859: pp. 62]. The Kukis are very skilful in making weaponry.
The effectiveness of the poison is unmatched; even a lion hit by a poisonous arrow cannot move more than 5 feet away. Even if it does not penetrate into the skin, the object does not escape death if it ever causes bruise in the skin with or without bloodshed [Haokip 2017: pp.206].
Way back in 1904, GA Grierson reported : “The Lushai Chief Lalluln began, about the year 1810, to move northwards, and the Thados were gradually expelled from the Lushai Hills, and settled down in Cachar somewhere between 1840 and 1850. About the same time the Thados of the Chin Hills were conquered by the Soktes under their chief Kantum, and were driven towards the north into Manipur, where they settled down in the hills to the south.” [Grierson, 1904: pp.59]. The Manipuris (Meiteis) considered the Soktes or Kamhow Kuki tribe inhabiting in the Chin Hills as a much more formidable one than the Lushai Kuki tribe; they were courageous and were even provided with better firearms [MAR 1874: pp.9]. AO Hume described the Soktes or Kamhow as ‘a fierce Kuki tribe who invariably killed everyone they came across’ [Hume 1880: pp.462].
J Guite writes “ In their opposition to despotism and control, large numbers of hillmen fled to Lushai Hills and Manipur against the rising rajahs of the Chin Hills. The Lusheis fled to the Lushai Hills in about 1810, although its advance guard, especially Rokums and Zadengs might have reached there much earlier.
After procuring firearms the Lushei chiefs too, especially those of the Lallul’s family, were soon to become ‘formidable’ to other tribes from 1830 onward. Lushei’s expansionist poli-cy also forced many of the earlier inhabitants to escape to Tipperah, Cachar and Manipur. First the ‘Old Kukis’ were obliged by the ‘New Kukis’ (Lhangums, Changsans and Thadous) to flee while the latter in their turn were pressed by the advancing ‘Luchyes’ (Lu-sheis). Thus, within a span of 20 years, the Lushei rajahs swept over the whole part of the Lushai Hills and ‘nearly every village’ was founded to be ruled by a rajah of Sailo, Thanglua and Pallian.” [Guite 2011: pp.353].
Guite continued to write: “Those Kukis, especially the Thadous, who fled from the Chin Hills and Lushai Hills soon became formidable against other tribes in the hills of Manipur where, by 1870s, one could see at least five dominant Kuki chiefs viz., Kudingma (Khotinmang), Hawkip (Chassad Haokip), Mombi (Mangvung Haokip), Chongput (Chongphut Haokip) and Sumti.” (Guite of Mawlpi)” [Guite, 2011: pp.354].
Immediately after the Anglo-Manipuri war which was concluded on 27th April 1891, the British troops disarmed the entire population residing in the Manipur valley and over 4000 firearms recovered from the Manipuris (Meiteis) were confiscated and broken up. However, the British troops did not recover about 1000 firearms from the Kukis as the latter did not participate in the Manipur war of 1891 [MAR 1892: Para 5]. On 29th April 1892, the British abolished the aged old “Lallup System” which was instrumental for commissioning of Manipuri youths to Manipuri Army [Lal Dena 2015: pp.95].
Taking advantage of the disturbed condition in the Manipur Valley and the absence of Manipuri Army posts in the Hills, post the Manipur war, the armed Kukis carried out serious attacks on some Naga villages in the Hills massa- cring a number of Nagas. Further, during the Kuki Rebellion (1917-1919), the revolting Kukis raided a number of unarmed villages with about 1,000 persons (mostly Nagas) being killed, many missing, many taken away as captives, and many villages burnt. In what follows a series of massacres perpetrated by the Kukis in the North-East including Manipur, during the British rule in India, is being revisited based on authoritative historical records :
1. On the night of the April 16, 1844 under instruction of Paite chief, Lalchukla about two hundred Kukis armed with muskets and other weapons descended from the hills to swoop upon the Manipuri (Meitei) village of Kachu-bari, in Pertabgur (Sylhet). The villagers were taken by surprise and found no time to fly or offer any effective resistance. The raiders continued the attack mercilessly throughout the whole night and destroyed the village al-together. The raiders killed a large number of villagers, taking 20 heads and carrying off 6 into captivity including a minor girl.
The heads of the slain Manipuris were offered in the burial function of Lalchukla’s father (Laroo). This tragic incident was known as Kachubari Massacre [Chatterjee 1985: pp.13].
2. In 1847, Colonel Mac-Culloch, the then Political Agent in Manipur reported that between 200 and 300 villagers inhabiting Manipur were killed or captured by the Lushai Kukis [Mackenzie 1884: pp.290].
3. In June 1847, the then Magistrate of Sylhet reported that a series of massacres were carried out by the Lushei Kukis in the British territory killing more than 150 persons [Mackenzie 1884: pp.290].
4. In November 1849, the then Magistrate of Sylhet reported that the Lushai Kukis raided Seyahpow village, situated at ten miles south of Silchar, killing 29 persons and taking 42 captives [Mackenzie 1884: pp.291].
5. In 1854, the then Chittagong Superintendent of Police reported that there occurred 19 raids in the Chittagong frontiers during ‘the past seventeen years’, in which 107 people were killed, 15 wounded and 186 taken into captivity [Mackenzie 1884: pp.338].
6. In 1857, the Sukte (Kamhow) Kukis raided Chassad killing 8 men and carried off the Chassad Raja's wife, named Toonghoolmah, with her two boys (Toonghool and Yakapow) and one girl [MAR 1876: pp.6].
7. In 1859 Sukte (Kamhow) raided Hankeep village near Shugnu and burned the village taking 15 heads and carrying off 45 captives including women and children. They also burned Saitol village but no one was killed or captured [Mackenzie 1884: pp.164].
8. On the 31st January, 1860 a large body of Lushai Kukis under chief Rutton Poes, numbering 400 or 500, after sweeping down the course of the River Fenny, burst into the plains of Tipperah at Chagul-neyah, burned or plundered 15 villages, killed 185 persons, and carried off about 100 captives [Mackenzie 1884: pp.342].
9. In early 1861, a body of Kukis made fierce attacks on three populous villages and a wealthy mart in hill Tipperah near Odoypore (Udaipur) where they killed 150 people and took 200 into captivity [Guite 2011: pp.340].
10. In January 1862, three villages viz., (i) Ram-dulal’s Bari (ii) Rammu- hon’s Bari, and (iii) Chundraipara in the jurisdiction of Rajnugger Thana, Sylhet were burnt by the Lushai Kukis and a large number of the inhabitants massacred or carried off. These villages lie close together, about eight miles from Adumpore and the incident came to be known as the Adumpore massacre [Mackenzie 1884: pp.297]
11. Between 1863 and 1869 there were 30 separate raids in the Arakan Hill Tracts supposedly carried out by Chins and Lushais. In those raids 65 persons were killed and 268 carried into slavery [Carey & Tuck 1896: pp.17].
12. In 1865, the Sukte (Kamhow) Kukis destroyed Chengbolekhool, a village in Manipur territory with 29 men being killed [MAR 1876: pp.6].
13. In 1869, the Sukte (Kamhow) Kukis raided Bombdang, a village in Manipur territory, killed 11 men and took 11 captives [MAR 1876: pp.6].
14. In 1871, the Sukte (Kamhow) Kukis raided two villages of Fukloway (Numfow) in Manipur territory with 1 man being killed and 7 captives carried off [MAR 1876: pp.6].
15. In 1871, a party of at least 2,000 Sukte Kukis, two-thirds of them armed with muskets committed raids upon Teebeekung, Tooyel, and Nagan villages killing 11 persons and taking 67 persons as captives [MAR 1876: pp.7].
16. On the morning of 23rd January, 1871 the Cacharee Punjee of Ainerkhal in Ihe Hylakandy Sub-Division of Cachar was attacked by a party of Lushai numbering about 200. The village was burnt.
25 persons killed and 37 taken captives. On the same day the tea garden of Alexandrapore was destroyed with Mr Win- chester, the planter being killed, and his child Mary, a girl of six years carried off. [Mackenzie 1884: pp.305; Carey & Tuck 1896: pp.15].
17. On the 27th January, 1871 a party of Lushai Kukis attacked Nugdigram garden in Ihe Hylakandy Sub-Division of Cachar killing 11 persons and carrying off 3 persons [Mackenzie 1884: pp.306].
18. On the 23rd January, 1871 a village named Ca-charipara in Sylhet was almost entirely burnt, more than 20 persons being killed, and some young women carried off [Mackenzie 1884: pp.307].
19. In the latter half of January, 1871 a party of Lushais made their appearance in Tipperah Hill, burning villages and killing and wounding the villagers. The Tipperah Hills recorded around 85 deaths including 6 policemen. These raiders were also reported to have carried off at least 64 captives [Guite 2011: pp.341].
20. On the night of 15th February, 1871 a village in the hills, in the south-east of Manipur Valley was attacked ferociously by a party of raiders suspected to be Lushai Kukis. The village was destroyed, 40 persons decapitated, and about 20 captives carried off [Mackenzie 1884: pp.307].
21. In 1873, a savage party of Sukte (Kamhow) Kukis numbering about 200, led by their chiefs Yatol and Kooding raided Chantheng village in Mani-pur territory and burned the village with 12 persons being killed and 56 taken captives [MAR 1875: pp.3].
22. In 1874, a force of about 300 of Sukte (Kam-how) Kukis, many of whom were armed with muskets suddenly attacked Kumsol (Anal) village in Manipur territory so that no one could escape whereby killing 11 persons and taking 34 captives including women, children and village Khullakpa (Headman) [MAR 1876: pp.10].
23. In October 1874, the Suktes (Kamhows) attacked two Anal (Numfow) villages, Kumsol and Mukong, in Manipur territory to the south of Manipur Valley and killed 17 men and carried off 78 captives inclu- ding women, and children [Mackenzie 1884: pp.168].
(To be contd)
Prior to 1889, the interior of the tract of country known as the Chin-Lushai Hills, was a terra incognita i.e., an unexplored land comprising of impenetrable jungles and rugged, very tall mountain ranges, never visited by outsiders [Reid 1893: pp.1]. The Government of India under the British used the generic word ‘Kuki’ to denote the various tribes who had successively been driven out from the Chin- Lushai Hills into the neighbouring country to the north and west i.e. the present India and Bangladesh; they considered the words ‘Kuki’ and ‘Chin’ as being synonymous [Grier-son 1904: pp.1-2]. The British administrators considered the Kukis, the Chins, and the Lushais as being of the same race [Shakespear 1912: pp.8]. According to Thomas H. Lewin, the word ‘Lushai’ probably means ‘the decapi-tators,’ being derived from ‘lu’ a head and ‘ sha' or ‘shat’ to cut ; and it was undoubtedly the custom among Lushai people in the olden days to carry off as trophies the heads of enemies slain in battle [Lewin 1874: pp.3]. Mr Lewin categorised and included “The Kookis or Lhoosai” as one of the wild races of South-Eastern India [Lewin 1870: pp.246]. The origin of the word “Kuki” was not known to the administrators of British India [Shaw, 1929: pp.11].
Recently, the Royal Anthropological Institute, UK has reported that the word “Kuci or Kuchi” is an Afghan Persian word meaning “nomads or those who go on migrations” [Tapper 2008: pp.97]. The term ‘Chin’ is a derogatory Burmese word meaning ‘Basket Carriers’ [Suantak 2010: pp.18]. The name ‘Chin’ became legalized as the official term by The Chin Hills Regulation in 1896 [Sakhong 2005: pp.5]. The Kachin and Shan still called the Chin as ‘Khyan’ or ‘Khiang’ or ‘Chiang’ [Sakhong 2005: pp.3].
According to GE Fryer, ‘Khyengs’ (now called Chins or Kukis) have a tradition that they came down many years ago from the sources of the Kyendweng (now called Chindwin) river [Fryer 1875: pp.46]. Historian D.G.E. Hall confirms that the Shans drove out the Chins from the Chindwin valley into the Chin hills (Sakhong 2005: pp.16). Daniel Thangkholun Lhungdim (known as T Daniel), the author of “Israel Lhiove (We are descendants of Israelites)” opined that “after having migrated from Israel our forefathers reached Afghanistan and there they were identified as ‘Kuchi’ meaning nomadic or migratory.” (Suantak, 2012, pp.96). Carey and Tuck expressed their conviction by writing: “Without pretending to speak with authority on the subject, we think we may reasonably accept the theory that the Kukis of Manipur, the Lushais of Bengal and Assam, and the Chins originally lived in what we now know as Thibet and are of one and the same stock.” (Carey & Tuck, 1896, pp.2). Based on the above historical accounts of migration, it may be inferred that the Chin-Kuki-Lushai tribes had tra- velled for centuries through various countries including Israel, Persia, Afghanistan, Tibet, China until they finally came down to the Chindwin River belt from where they were, subsequently, driven out into the Chin Hills by the Shans.
The village system among the Kukis is a series of petty dictatorial State each under a hereditary Dictator or Chief (Called Lal) who can call upon his people to furnish him with everything that he requires. A chief’s son, on attaining manhood, does not, in general, remain with his father, but sets up a separate village of his own [Hunter 1876: pp.60]. A Kuki Chief is the absolute owner of the village under his jurisdiction and he has supreme authority with executive, judicial and military power. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the village army. In times of war, the Chief is supposed to lead the army. His words are law within his Chiefdom and his decisions are final [Baite 2024: pp.4080]. The Kukis are remarkable for their extreme softness of voice and the euphonic sweetness of their language, when not spoken under great excitement [Pemberton 1835: pp.17]. The Kuki chiefs are experts in the art of diplomacy. Even the British officer like Major-General Sir James Johnstone expressed his admiration in the diplomacy of some Kuki chiefs who came to see him [MAR 1879: pp.11]. William Shaw said that the Kukis are very obstinate and wilful [Shaw 1929: pp.21]. According to B.S. Carey, “Kukis are notoriously treacherous and not to trust their promises” and this observation made by Carey is contained in a letter dated 4th January 1918 from WF Rice, Chief Secretary of Burma to the Chief Secretary of Assam [Rice’s letter 1918].
The noted British ethnographer, ET Dalton described the Kukis as a Nation of wild hunters and warriors being ruled by their principal hereditary chiefs or rajahs, but divided into clans , each under its own chief. When engaged in hostile expeditions, they can sleep at night in hammocks swung in trees [Dalton 1872: pp.44]. Regarding the tacticality of the Kukis, Pemberton observed: “The plunder of property is less the object of the marauders than the acquisition of heads, which are considered essential to the due performance of the funeral rites of their village chieftains, and to obtain which, they will undertake long and difficult journeys, and remain concealed for days together in the jungle bordering on the different lines of communication, between distant villages ; they spring on the unwary traveller, decapitate him in an instant, and plunging into the forests, are far on their way home, before the murder becomes known in the village of the miserable victim. Among the Kookees, success in these expeditions establishes a claim to the highest distinctions the tribe can confer, and their approaches are made with such secrecy, that the yell of death is almost always the first intimation the villagers receive of their danger” [Pemberton 1835: pp.18].
Regarding the barbarity of the Kukis, John Rawlins wrote: “If a Cuci assails the house of an enemy, and can kill a woman with child, so that he may bring two heads, he acquires honour and celebrity in his tribe, as the destroyer of two foes at once” [Rawlins 1792: pp.188].
According to Mac-Culloch, “The Kukis are great hunters and are passionately fond of the sport, looking upon it, next to war, as the noblest exercise for man. They kill tigers, deer and small game by means of poisoned arrows” [Mac-Culloch 1859: pp. 62]. The Kukis are very skilful in making weaponry.
The effectiveness of the poison is unmatched; even a lion hit by a poisonous arrow cannot move more than 5 feet away. Even if it does not penetrate into the skin, the object does not escape death if it ever causes bruise in the skin with or without bloodshed [Haokip 2017: pp.206].
Way back in 1904, GA Grierson reported : “The Lushai Chief Lalluln began, about the year 1810, to move northwards, and the Thados were gradually expelled from the Lushai Hills, and settled down in Cachar somewhere between 1840 and 1850. About the same time the Thados of the Chin Hills were conquered by the Soktes under their chief Kantum, and were driven towards the north into Manipur, where they settled down in the hills to the south.” [Grierson, 1904: pp.59]. The Manipuris (Meiteis) considered the Soktes or Kamhow Kuki tribe inhabiting in the Chin Hills as a much more formidable one than the Lushai Kuki tribe; they were courageous and were even provided with better firearms [MAR 1874: pp.9]. AO Hume described the Soktes or Kamhow as ‘a fierce Kuki tribe who invariably killed everyone they came across’ [Hume 1880: pp.462].
J Guite writes “ In their opposition to despotism and control, large numbers of hillmen fled to Lushai Hills and Manipur against the rising rajahs of the Chin Hills. The Lusheis fled to the Lushai Hills in about 1810, although its advance guard, especially Rokums and Zadengs might have reached there much earlier.
After procuring firearms the Lushei chiefs too, especially those of the Lallul’s family, were soon to become ‘formidable’ to other tribes from 1830 onward. Lushei’s expansionist poli-cy also forced many of the earlier inhabitants to escape to Tipperah, Cachar and Manipur. First the ‘Old Kukis’ were obliged by the ‘New Kukis’ (Lhangums, Changsans and Thadous) to flee while the latter in their turn were pressed by the advancing ‘Luchyes’ (Lu-sheis). Thus, within a span of 20 years, the Lushei rajahs swept over the whole part of the Lushai Hills and ‘nearly every village’ was founded to be ruled by a rajah of Sailo, Thanglua and Pallian.” [Guite 2011: pp.353].
Guite continued to write: “Those Kukis, especially the Thadous, who fled from the Chin Hills and Lushai Hills soon became formidable against other tribes in the hills of Manipur where, by 1870s, one could see at least five dominant Kuki chiefs viz., Kudingma (Khotinmang), Hawkip (Chassad Haokip), Mombi (Mangvung Haokip), Chongput (Chongphut Haokip) and Sumti.” (Guite of Mawlpi)” [Guite, 2011: pp.354].
Immediately after the Anglo-Manipuri war which was concluded on 27th April 1891, the British troops disarmed the entire population residing in the Manipur valley and over 4000 firearms recovered from the Manipuris (Meiteis) were confiscated and broken up. However, the British troops did not recover about 1000 firearms from the Kukis as the latter did not participate in the Manipur war of 1891 [MAR 1892: Para 5]. On 29th April 1892, the British abolished the aged old “Lallup System” which was instrumental for commissioning of Manipuri youths to Manipuri Army [Lal Dena 2015: pp.95].
Taking advantage of the disturbed condition in the Manipur Valley and the absence of Manipuri Army posts in the Hills, post the Manipur war, the armed Kukis carried out serious attacks on some Naga villages in the Hills massa- cring a number of Nagas. Further, during the Kuki Rebellion (1917-1919), the revolting Kukis raided a number of unarmed villages with about 1,000 persons (mostly Nagas) being killed, many missing, many taken away as captives, and many villages burnt. In what follows a series of massacres perpetrated by the Kukis in the North-East including Manipur, during the British rule in India, is being revisited based on authoritative historical records :
1. On the night of the April 16, 1844 under instruction of Paite chief, Lalchukla about two hundred Kukis armed with muskets and other weapons descended from the hills to swoop upon the Manipuri (Meitei) village of Kachu-bari, in Pertabgur (Sylhet). The villagers were taken by surprise and found no time to fly or offer any effective resistance. The raiders continued the attack mercilessly throughout the whole night and destroyed the village al-together. The raiders killed a large number of villagers, taking 20 heads and carrying off 6 into captivity including a minor girl.
The heads of the slain Manipuris were offered in the burial function of Lalchukla’s father (Laroo). This tragic incident was known as Kachubari Massacre [Chatterjee 1985: pp.13].
2. In 1847, Colonel Mac-Culloch, the then Political Agent in Manipur reported that between 200 and 300 villagers inhabiting Manipur were killed or captured by the Lushai Kukis [Mackenzie 1884: pp.290].
3. In June 1847, the then Magistrate of Sylhet reported that a series of massacres were carried out by the Lushei Kukis in the British territory killing more than 150 persons [Mackenzie 1884: pp.290].
4. In November 1849, the then Magistrate of Sylhet reported that the Lushai Kukis raided Seyahpow village, situated at ten miles south of Silchar, killing 29 persons and taking 42 captives [Mackenzie 1884: pp.291].
5. In 1854, the then Chittagong Superintendent of Police reported that there occurred 19 raids in the Chittagong frontiers during ‘the past seventeen years’, in which 107 people were killed, 15 wounded and 186 taken into captivity [Mackenzie 1884: pp.338].
6. In 1857, the Sukte (Kamhow) Kukis raided Chassad killing 8 men and carried off the Chassad Raja's wife, named Toonghoolmah, with her two boys (Toonghool and Yakapow) and one girl [MAR 1876: pp.6].
7. In 1859 Sukte (Kamhow) raided Hankeep village near Shugnu and burned the village taking 15 heads and carrying off 45 captives including women and children. They also burned Saitol village but no one was killed or captured [Mackenzie 1884: pp.164].
8. On the 31st January, 1860 a large body of Lushai Kukis under chief Rutton Poes, numbering 400 or 500, after sweeping down the course of the River Fenny, burst into the plains of Tipperah at Chagul-neyah, burned or plundered 15 villages, killed 185 persons, and carried off about 100 captives [Mackenzie 1884: pp.342].
9. In early 1861, a body of Kukis made fierce attacks on three populous villages and a wealthy mart in hill Tipperah near Odoypore (Udaipur) where they killed 150 people and took 200 into captivity [Guite 2011: pp.340].
10. In January 1862, three villages viz., (i) Ram-dulal’s Bari (ii) Rammu- hon’s Bari, and (iii) Chundraipara in the jurisdiction of Rajnugger Thana, Sylhet were burnt by the Lushai Kukis and a large number of the inhabitants massacred or carried off. These villages lie close together, about eight miles from Adumpore and the incident came to be known as the Adumpore massacre [Mackenzie 1884: pp.297]
11. Between 1863 and 1869 there were 30 separate raids in the Arakan Hill Tracts supposedly carried out by Chins and Lushais. In those raids 65 persons were killed and 268 carried into slavery [Carey & Tuck 1896: pp.17].
12. In 1865, the Sukte (Kamhow) Kukis destroyed Chengbolekhool, a village in Manipur territory with 29 men being killed [MAR 1876: pp.6].
13. In 1869, the Sukte (Kamhow) Kukis raided Bombdang, a village in Manipur territory, killed 11 men and took 11 captives [MAR 1876: pp.6].
14. In 1871, the Sukte (Kamhow) Kukis raided two villages of Fukloway (Numfow) in Manipur territory with 1 man being killed and 7 captives carried off [MAR 1876: pp.6].
15. In 1871, a party of at least 2,000 Sukte Kukis, two-thirds of them armed with muskets committed raids upon Teebeekung, Tooyel, and Nagan villages killing 11 persons and taking 67 persons as captives [MAR 1876: pp.7].
16. On the morning of 23rd January, 1871 the Cacharee Punjee of Ainerkhal in Ihe Hylakandy Sub-Division of Cachar was attacked by a party of Lushai numbering about 200. The village was burnt.
25 persons killed and 37 taken captives. On the same day the tea garden of Alexandrapore was destroyed with Mr Win- chester, the planter being killed, and his child Mary, a girl of six years carried off. [Mackenzie 1884: pp.305; Carey & Tuck 1896: pp.15].
17. On the 27th January, 1871 a party of Lushai Kukis attacked Nugdigram garden in Ihe Hylakandy Sub-Division of Cachar killing 11 persons and carrying off 3 persons [Mackenzie 1884: pp.306].
18. On the 23rd January, 1871 a village named Ca-charipara in Sylhet was almost entirely burnt, more than 20 persons being killed, and some young women carried off [Mackenzie 1884: pp.307].
19. In the latter half of January, 1871 a party of Lushais made their appearance in Tipperah Hill, burning villages and killing and wounding the villagers. The Tipperah Hills recorded around 85 deaths including 6 policemen. These raiders were also reported to have carried off at least 64 captives [Guite 2011: pp.341].
20. On the night of 15th February, 1871 a village in the hills, in the south-east of Manipur Valley was attacked ferociously by a party of raiders suspected to be Lushai Kukis. The village was destroyed, 40 persons decapitated, and about 20 captives carried off [Mackenzie 1884: pp.307].
21. In 1873, a savage party of Sukte (Kamhow) Kukis numbering about 200, led by their chiefs Yatol and Kooding raided Chantheng village in Mani-pur territory and burned the village with 12 persons being killed and 56 taken captives [MAR 1875: pp.3].
22. In 1874, a force of about 300 of Sukte (Kam-how) Kukis, many of whom were armed with muskets suddenly attacked Kumsol (Anal) village in Manipur territory so that no one could escape whereby killing 11 persons and taking 34 captives including women, children and village Khullakpa (Headman) [MAR 1876: pp.10].
23. In October 1874, the Suktes (Kamhows) attacked two Anal (Numfow) villages, Kumsol and Mukong, in Manipur territory to the south of Manipur Valley and killed 17 men and carried off 78 captives inclu- ding women, and children [Mackenzie 1884: pp.168].
(To be contd)