Evolving Perceptions of the Thadou Kukis
|
Hareshwar Goshwami
In recent years, certain communities-including the Thadou-who have long been identified by others as Kuki in Manipur have begun to assert that they do not, in fact, recognise this designation as their own. This development appears to sit uneasily alongside earlier scholarly observations.
Notably, Dr Kam-khenthang, in his work The Paites (1988:6), records that the Thadou historically preferred to be known, at different levels, either as Thadou or as Kuki. Such divergent claims have given rise to a genuine dilemma for observers such as myself and have reopened a fundamental question: who, then, are the Kukis ? The matter is far more than one of nomenclature. It reaches into the deeper currents of history, memory, and collective identity, and reveals the enduring tension between self-definition and externally imposed labels within Manipur’s intricate and layered social fabric.
With limited yet sincere inquiry, I have sought to understand this question within Manipur’s historical and socio-political setting. It appears that the term Kuki-rightly or otherwise-has historically functioned as a broad, externally applied designation rather than a precise or self- defined ethnic category. In Manipur, people use the word Kuki to refer to the Thadou, Paite, Hmar, and other cognate groups related to them. Even though these groups are not entirely the same, they do share some things in common, such as their tradition, culture and the ways they live. While some among these communities increasingly prefer broader formulations such as Chin-Kuki-Mizo or related no- menclatures, the usage of the term Kuki has remained largely consistent in local parlance.
Beyond Manipur, their kindred groups are often identified by wider collective names such as Chin, Mizo, or Zo/Zomi, reflecting differing regional, poli- tical, and historical contexts. Nevertheless, within Mani-pur, they continue to be collectively understood and referred to as Kukis by the majority of the populace.
Regarding the Thadou, my friend Khaikhotinthang Kipgen—an intellectual and respected scholar—once graciously presented me with his book The Thadou Kukis, a work he authored during his lifetime with deep scholarly commitment. In this book, he identifies the Khongjai or Thadou as comprising numerous constituent groups, including Doungel, Kipgen, Haokip, Hangshing, Chongloi, Sit-lhou, Singson, Sa-um, Lhangum, Changsan, Len-thang, Thangeu, Insum, Jongbe, Mate, Luphoh, Lupheng, Ngoilu, Lamhao, Lunkim, Baite, among others.
While his classification may, in certain respects, differ from those advanced by other writers and historians, it nevertheless brings into sharp relief an essential historical and sociological reality: the Thadou constitute one of the most substantial, cohesive, and influential components within the wider Kuki community of Manipur.
In the present context of Manipur, the considered and collective decision of the majority of the Thadou community-along with other cognate groups historically situated within the Kuki fold-to uphold the unity and territorial integrity of the State is both commendable and deserving of unequivocal support. This stance reflects a profound sense of historical responsibility, political maturity, and a principled commitment to peaceful coexistence among Manipur’s diverse communities.
At the same time, it represents a conscious and reasoned effort by the Thadou to assert a distinct position, particularly as the term Kuki has, in recent times, increasingly come to be associated-inappropriately-with violence, illega- lity, and destabilising activities.
More gravely, it is a matter of serious concern that certain anti-social elements with their frontals operating under the broader Kuki nomenclature are attempting to destabilise and fragment Manipur in pursuit of narrow political ambitions and financial gain. Such activities, often alleged to involve collaboration with illegal migrants, undermine long-standing inter-community bonds and pose a direct threat to social harmony, public security, and the territorial sanctity of the State.
In these circumstances, many right-thinking people in the Thadou community find themselves compelled to clearly delineate and distinguish its identity and political position from the Kuki nomenclature, reaffir-ming its commitment to peace, legality, and the unity of Manipur.
The author is a writer & politician
In recent years, certain communities-including the Thadou-who have long been identified by others as Kuki in Manipur have begun to assert that they do not, in fact, recognise this designation as their own. This development appears to sit uneasily alongside earlier scholarly observations.
Notably, Dr Kam-khenthang, in his work The Paites (1988:6), records that the Thadou historically preferred to be known, at different levels, either as Thadou or as Kuki. Such divergent claims have given rise to a genuine dilemma for observers such as myself and have reopened a fundamental question: who, then, are the Kukis ? The matter is far more than one of nomenclature. It reaches into the deeper currents of history, memory, and collective identity, and reveals the enduring tension between self-definition and externally imposed labels within Manipur’s intricate and layered social fabric.
With limited yet sincere inquiry, I have sought to understand this question within Manipur’s historical and socio-political setting. It appears that the term Kuki-rightly or otherwise-has historically functioned as a broad, externally applied designation rather than a precise or self- defined ethnic category. In Manipur, people use the word Kuki to refer to the Thadou, Paite, Hmar, and other cognate groups related to them. Even though these groups are not entirely the same, they do share some things in common, such as their tradition, culture and the ways they live. While some among these communities increasingly prefer broader formulations such as Chin-Kuki-Mizo or related no- menclatures, the usage of the term Kuki has remained largely consistent in local parlance.
Beyond Manipur, their kindred groups are often identified by wider collective names such as Chin, Mizo, or Zo/Zomi, reflecting differing regional, poli- tical, and historical contexts. Nevertheless, within Mani-pur, they continue to be collectively understood and referred to as Kukis by the majority of the populace.
Regarding the Thadou, my friend Khaikhotinthang Kipgen—an intellectual and respected scholar—once graciously presented me with his book The Thadou Kukis, a work he authored during his lifetime with deep scholarly commitment. In this book, he identifies the Khongjai or Thadou as comprising numerous constituent groups, including Doungel, Kipgen, Haokip, Hangshing, Chongloi, Sit-lhou, Singson, Sa-um, Lhangum, Changsan, Len-thang, Thangeu, Insum, Jongbe, Mate, Luphoh, Lupheng, Ngoilu, Lamhao, Lunkim, Baite, among others.
While his classification may, in certain respects, differ from those advanced by other writers and historians, it nevertheless brings into sharp relief an essential historical and sociological reality: the Thadou constitute one of the most substantial, cohesive, and influential components within the wider Kuki community of Manipur.
In the present context of Manipur, the considered and collective decision of the majority of the Thadou community-along with other cognate groups historically situated within the Kuki fold-to uphold the unity and territorial integrity of the State is both commendable and deserving of unequivocal support. This stance reflects a profound sense of historical responsibility, political maturity, and a principled commitment to peaceful coexistence among Manipur’s diverse communities.
At the same time, it represents a conscious and reasoned effort by the Thadou to assert a distinct position, particularly as the term Kuki has, in recent times, increasingly come to be associated-inappropriately-with violence, illega- lity, and destabilising activities.
More gravely, it is a matter of serious concern that certain anti-social elements with their frontals operating under the broader Kuki nomenclature are attempting to destabilise and fragment Manipur in pursuit of narrow political ambitions and financial gain. Such activities, often alleged to involve collaboration with illegal migrants, undermine long-standing inter-community bonds and pose a direct threat to social harmony, public security, and the territorial sanctity of the State.
In these circumstances, many right-thinking people in the Thadou community find themselves compelled to clearly delineate and distinguish its identity and political position from the Kuki nomenclature, reaffir-ming its commitment to peace, legality, and the unity of Manipur.
The author is a writer & politician