Beyond the village crown: Why the Kukis will gain most by abolishing chieftainship

Dr Raj Singh
When L. B. Singh raised the constitutional question of Kuki chieftainship in Sangai Express (January 13, 2026), he correctly addressed what is visible - the legal contradiction between hereditary tribal authority and Indian democracy. Here, we need to insist on probing further, into terrain that is less litigated and more uncomfortable: even if chieftainship could be defended in law, does it still serve the Kukis themselves in the 21st century?
The answer, when examined through social, philosophical, political, and comparative lenses, is increasingly clear. The continuation of chieftainship harms the Kukis more than anyone else. It impedes their internal democratization, isolates them from neighbouring ethnic communities, fuels recurring conflicts, and locks future generations into a structure designed for a pre-modern world.
From Survival Mechanism to Structural Liability
Historically, tribal chieftainship emerged as a functional institution. In eras of insecurity, raids, migration, and scarce resources, a central authority ensured cohesion, protection, and continuity. In such contexts, loyalty to a chief was often the price of survival.
But institutions, like living organisms, must evolve or perish. What once protected can later imprison.
Today’s Kukis are no longer migrating bands in an uncharted wilderness. They are not the uncontactable of the Amazon needing anthropological protection. They are politically conscious citizens of Manipur, participating in elections, pursuing higher education, engaging in global labour markets, and contributing to constitutional discourse. Retaining absolute hereditary authority in such a setting is not cultural preservation - it is institutional anachronism. To cling to autocratic chieftainship in such a context is not cultural pride, but self-inflicted stagnation.
The Weberian Warning: When Tradition Refuses Rationality
Sociologist Max Weber classified authority into three types: traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal. Traditional authority, of which chieftainship is a classic example, rests on inherited legitimacy. But Weber was explicit: traditional authority collapses when it refuses to rationalize.
Kuki chieftainship today remains:
- Hereditary rather than elective
- Unaccountable rather than transparent
- Absolute rather than consultative
This places it in direct conflict with the rational-legal authority of a modern state. The collision is not merely constitutional; it is civilizational.
Comparative Lessons from the Neighbourhood
The strongest argument against chieftainship is not ideological. It is empirical. In the Chin State, ethnically and culturally contiguous with the Kukis of Manipur, chieftainship was abolished in 1948 following independence. Village committees replaced hereditary control, enabling broader participation in land and governance.
In Mizoram, where Kukis form a significant population, the Lushai Hills District (Acquisition of Chief’s Rights) Act, 1954, dismantled chieftainship. The result was not cultural extinction but political maturation, culminating in statehood, stable governance, and social cohesion.
Across Southeast Asia, similar trajectories unfolded:
- In Thailand, hill tribes transitioned from clan chiefs to community councils integrated with local administration.
- In Vietnam and Laos, customary leaders were absorbed into elected village structures.
- In Indonesia’s eastern regions, Adat leaders now function within democratic frameworks rather than above them.
In none of these cases did society regress. In most cases, social trust increased, and inter-group conflict decreased.
The American Indian Parallel: Culture Without Autocracy
Those who fear cultural loss often invoke indigenous protection. But the example of Native American tribes tells a different story.
The Navajo Nation, the largest tribal nation in the U.S., operates under a written constitution with an elected president, legislature, and independent tribal courts. No hereditary chief controls land or people, yet the Navajo language, ceremonies, and clan systems flourish. Similarly, the Cherokee Nation, once governed by hereditary chiefs, transitioned as early as 1827 to elected leadership under constitutional rule, strengthening unity rather than weakening it. Even the much-cited Iroquois Confederacy demonstrates that indigenous governance need not be autocratic: its chiefs were removable, accountable, and appointed through collective consent.
The lesson is unambiguous. Cultures survive by constitutionalizing power, not by sacralizing it.
Identity deepens when authority is accountable, and communities gain dignity when tradition serves people - not the other way around.
The Hidden Cost: Internal Inequality Among Kukis
One of the least discussed consequences of chieftainship is internal stratification.
Within Kuki society:
- Land ownership is monopolized by chiefs
- Ordinary villagers remain tenants in their own land
- Youth lack security, mobility, and economic agency
This creates what economist Amartya Sen would describe as capability deprivation.
Development stalls not because of geography or discrimination alone, but because “opportunity is structurally withheld.”
Ironically, this internal inequality is often projected outward as external oppression, masking the real bottleneck within.
Chieftainship and the Politics of Permanent Conflict
A pattern emerges wherever Kukis coexist with other ethnic groups - Naga, Paite, Bodo, Meitei, among others. Conflicts recur over land, settlement, jurisdiction, and authority. This is not a coincidence. Most neighbouring tribes have abandoned chieftainship and adopted village councils or republican systems. When a chieftain-based society interacts with council-based societies, friction is inevitable:
- Negotiation meets command
- Consensus meets decree
- Shared land ethics meet private ownership claims
Chieftainship thus becomes a conflict multiplier, not because Kukis are inherently antagonistic, but because their governance model is structurally incompatible with their neighbours.’
Affirmative Action: Protection Without Reform
India’s affirmative action policies were intended as “transitional safeguards,” not perpetual exemptions from reform. Scheduled Tribe (ST) protections were meant to lift communities into equality, not to freeze internal hierarchies.
Yet, in practice, affirmative frameworks sometimes shield feudal structures from scrutiny. Chiefs claim authority in the name of tribal autonomy, while ordinary tribals remain voiceless.
This produces resentment among:
- Other tribal groups that have democratized
- Deprived non-tribal populations
- And the Younger Kukis themselves
The result is a combustible mix of grievance, suspicion, and ethnic polarization.
Rousseau’s Question: Who Is the Sovereign?
Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that sovereignty belongs to the general will of the people. Under chieftainship, sovereignty is inherited, not expressed.
A Kuki villager today is simultaneously:
- A citizen of India
- A voter in elections
- And a subject within his own village
This split identity generates cognitive and political dissonance. Democracy cannot thrive where people are trained in obedience at the feudal home and participation at the ballot box.
The Myth of Cultural Extinction
Let us dismantle the most emotive argument: that abolishing chieftainship will erase Kuki culture.
Culture is language, memory, ritual, art, kinship, and shared history. It is not land monopoly or hereditary power. Europe did not lose its culture when monarchies fell. Japan did not lose its soul when feudal lords vanished.
Cultures survive by adapting their institutions, not by embalming them.
1967: The Missed Opportunity
The Manipur Government’s 1967 resolution to abolish chieftainship remains unimplemented. This is not respect for diversity; it is administrative paralysis. Decades of indecision have entrenched vested interests, denying the Kukis the chance to reform.
The Counterintuitive Truth: Kukis Stand to Gain the Most
Abolishing chieftainship would:
- Democratize land access
- Empower youth and women
- Reduce inter-ethnic suspicion
- Harmonize relations with neighbouring tribes
- Align the Kuki society with constitutional citizenship
Most importantly, it would shift Kuki identity from defensive isolation to confident participation.
A Choice Between Inheritance and Inheritance of the Future
This debate is not about Meitei versus Kuki, hill versus valley, or tribe versus state. It is about whether Kukis wish to inherit an archaic system - or inherit a future. History shows that societies that reform their internal power structures reduce external enemies.
Those who do not reform carry their conflicts wherever they go.
Letting go of chieftainship is not surrender.
It is self-liberation.
And the most radical truth of all:
The end of chieftainship may be the beginning of lasting harmony for the Kukis themselves.
This is the social wisdom.