In a powerful rebuttal to former CM N. Biren Singh’s claims, the Kuki Organisation for Human Rights (KOHUR) cites 18th-century British records to argue that the Kuki Hills—and by extension the Kuki people—predated the formation of Manipur’s state boundaries.
BY PC Bureau
In its detailed memorandum submitted to Governor A.K. Bhalla, the Kuki Organisation for Human Rights (KOHUR) has presented a strong rebuttal to the claims made by former Chief Minister N. Biren Singh regarding the origins and status of the Kuki people in Manipur. Central to KOHUR’s argument is a historically grounded claim: the Kuki Hills—and the Kuki people—existed in the region long before Manipur was formally recognized as a state.
Kuki Hills Encircled the Valley Before Manipur Had Borders
While acknowledging that Manipur functioned as a sovereign entity before British rule, KOHUR clarifies that its sovereignty was confined to the Imphal Valley, with no defined territorial boundary until the 1830s. Contrary to modern claims that seek to retroactively extend Meitei rule over the hills, historical records show otherwise.
A key piece of evidence cited by KOHUR comes from Major Michael Symes, a British envoy who documented his 1795 expedition in “An Account of an Embassy to the Kingdom of Ava.” In it, he refers to a 1763 military expedition led by Captain Swinton to a hilly region called Mackey:
READ: Remembering Lamnunthem Singson: A Life Displaced, A Legacy Enduring
“A hilly country, bounded on the north, south and west by large tracts of Cookie mountains and on the east by the Burampoota; beyond the hills to the north by Assam, to the west Cashai (Cachar).”
This unequivocally shows that the Kuki Hills—spelled “Cookie” in colonial orthography—encircled the Meitei-dominated valley as early as 1763, confirming that the Kuki people were settled in the highlands long before the British drew Manipur’s official boundaries in 1894–96.
Moreover, rivers such as the Tuivai, Chakpi, Tuipui, and parts of the Imphal River beyond Sugunu were outside the historic territorial limits of Manipur. Present-day districts like Chandel and Churachandpur were, therefore, not part of the Manipur kingdom during the 18th century.
Kuki Rights Body Accuses Biren Singh of Weaponizing History#KOHURRebuttal #ManipurCrisis #NBirenSingh #BirenSinghMemo #KukiRights #RefugeeProtection #KOHUR https://t.co/ImMUPjJiTt
— POWER CORRIDORS (@power_corridors) June 22, 2025
Cheitharol Kumbaba: A Flawed Historical Foundation
KOHUR’s memorandum also urges caution in accepting the Cheitharol Kumbaba, the royal chronicle of Manipur, as a reliable historical source—especially for periods predating the 15th century.
The memorandum states:
“Dating in the Cheitharol Kumbaba before the fifteenth century is controversial. It was based on oral traditions and is largely imaginary. One should use the dating in the chronicle with caution.”
KOHUR outlines three critical points:
- Chronicle Properly Maintained Only from 1485 CE
The Cheitharol was systematically recorded only after the introduction of the cheithapa system in 1485 CE. Accounts of earlier reigns—such as those of King Kyamba (1467–1508 CE)—were rewritten during the reign of King Chinthang Khomba (Bhagyachandra) in the 18th century, after earlier records were declared lost. The chronicle itself acknowledges that the original leaves were missing. - Scholarly Criticism of Early Sections
Historian Nepram Bihari, who translated the Cheitharol into English, acknowledged that many modifications and alterations were made in rewriting the chronicle.
Another respected scholar, Dr. Saroj Nalini Parratt, remarked:
“The dating given for the reign of all of these kings cannot be taken seriously… Possibly these are legendary figures taken from the traditions of all the yeks which eventually made up the Meetei confederacy.”
- Chronological Implausibility and Lack of Scientific Basis
KOHUR also challenges the fantastical reign lengths attributed to early rulers. It notes that Pakhangba and several other kings are said to have ruled for up to 120 years each:- Pakhangba – 120 years
- Taothingmang – 100 years
- Naophangba – 90 years
- Urakonthouba – 90 years
- Naothingkhong – 100 years
- Ayangba – 89 years
- Irengba – 90 years
READ: Rejoinder to N. Biren Singh Memorandum
Together, these seven rulers allegedly reigned for a combined 679 years, despite the historical fact that life expectancy in ancient India averaged only 35–40 years. KOHUR concludes that such claims fail the test of science, logic, and historical credibility.
Myths Must Not Erase Historical Realities
The KOHUR memorandum argues that current efforts to question the legitimacy of the Kuki people’s place in Manipur are rooted in selective history and politicized myths. By reasserting well-documented evidence from the colonial period and by critically examining sources like the Cheitharol Kumbaba, KOHUR affirms that:
- The Kuki Hills and their inhabitants predated the formal establishment of Manipur’s boundaries.
- The Cheitharol Kumbaba cannot be relied upon for accurate historical dating before 1485 CE.
- Efforts to rewrite history must be challenged with facts, not folklore.
As debates around indigeneity, land, and political rights intensify, KOHUR calls for history to be anchored in evidence, not ethnicity-driven agendas.
