By Bhogtoram Mawroh
Last week, Thuingaleng Muivah, general secretary of the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak-Muivah) faction, the most powerful insurgent group in the North East, returned to his native village in Ukhrul district of Manipur. This was a homecoming five decades in the making. His visit comes at a very critical moment in the state. Technically, Manipur is still under the throes of a civil war, with the Meitei and the Kuki-Zomi locked in a bloody conflict that has resulted in more than 250 deaths and the displacement of over 60,000 people. The Nagas have not publicly supported either of the groups, against whom they have their own grievances. The Nagas claim that many of the areas where Kukis reside originally belonged to them, but these have now become overrun with illegal immigrants from Myanmar. On the other hand, the Kuki-Zomis claim that they have always been residing in those areas. This creates complications.
If one looks at the map of the proposed Nagalim, one can see that it includes areas outside Manipur and Nagaland. In Arunachal Pradesh, these are areas inhabited by the Konyaks, Nocte, and Wanchos, while in Assam, they include regions under present-day Karbi Anglong, presumably because of the Rengmas who live in certain parts of the district. But there are problems with such claims.
Although the Konyaks, Nocte, and Wanchos politically identify themselves as Nagas, they are not ethnically Naga. These three groups belong to the larger Tibeto-Burman language family, but within that, they form a subgroup completely separate from the Nagas. They are part of the Sal group which, apart from them, also includes the Kok-Borok languages (spoken by the Bodo, Garo, Dimasa, and Tripuri) and the Jingpho-Luish group, spoken by the Singpho in Arunachal Pradesh, known as Kachin in Myanmar. The Nagas, Meitei, and Kuki-Zomi belong to the Kuki-Chin-Naga language group, which means that not very long ago these three groups shared a common ancestor from whom they all diverged. They also share a distant common ancestry with the Konyak, Nocte, and Wancho, but this connection is as far removed as the present-day Naga, Meitei, and Kuki-Zomi are from the Garo. I met a Konyak lady not long ago, who admitted that the Konyaks’ cultural practices differ from other Naga groups and appear more similar to those of the Garos and Bodos. At the same time, the NSCN-Khaplang faction remains one of the strongest Naga insurgent groups fighting against the Indian state.
The incorporation of groups that are not originally Naga into the Naga movement is evident in Manipur as well. One of the oldest indigenous groups in Manipur are the Anal, who are today considered part of the larger Naga group. According to their myth, a long time ago, two brothers emerged from a cave on Haubi Peak. The elder became the ancestor of the Anal, while the younger went down to the valley, became the Meitei, and ruled over the valley. Another version speaks of the Meitei, Anal, and Thadou (a Kuki-Chin-Mizo group) as the descendants of three men whose father was the son of Pakhangba, the mythical snake-man ancestor of the Manipuri royal family. These stories were recorded in the 2024 book ‘How the World Was Born’ by Lopamudra Maitra. While some may dispute the authenticity of these stories, there is a historical argument to be made.
The porosity of the boundary between the hill and the valley, and how one group would regularly merge with the other, was strongly argued by James C. Scott in his 2009 path-breaking book ‘The Art of Not Being Governed’. According to this view, the hill people included those from the valley who fled to escape taxation, conscription, and other coercive measures undertaken by valley states. From time to time, however, people from the hills would descend to the valley to benefit from the resources available there. The distinction between hill and valley, therefore, is very thin. Thus, the story recounted by the Anal of their ancient connection with the Meitei, Naga, and Kuki-Zomi is not far-fetched. Linguistic evidence already proves that they are closely related to each other—much more closely than to any other group in the region—and this is not merely due to proximity.
Here comes the most interesting part. The Anal, though today considered part of the Naga family, were actually known as Old Kuki in colonial records. Linguistically, they are much closer to the Kuki-Zomi than to any Naga group, and this is precisely what the Kuki-Zomi have been claiming. The same is true of the Kom, another group claimed by the Nagas as their own. When I was in Kangpokpi in Senapati district of Manipur—today the buffer between the Meitei and the Kuki—Mary Kom was celebrated as one of their own by the resident Kuki-Zomi community. If you ask a Kom, they would rather identify simply as Kom than align with any other group. But in a place where violence is widespread and weapons are easily available, it is safer to identify with whichever group is the strongest. Thus, the claim that many of the Kuki-Zomis are illegal immigrants may not stand up to scrutiny. The same allegation can just as easily be levelled against the Nagas.
The map of Nagalim also claims part of Karbi Anglong, since the Rengma Nagas reside there. But colonial records, such as the 1908 book ‘The Mikir’ by Charles Lyall, clearly mention that the Rengma Nagas were recent immigrants into what is today Karbi Anglong. They came from the eastern side of the Dhansiri River, from what is now Nagaland. Since the book was written in the early 20th century, the migration must have occurred within a century before that. To claim parts of Karbi Anglong as part of the proposed Nagalim, therefore, would be hypocritical if the Kuki-Zomi are being branded as illegal immigrants—especially when groups like the Biate (also part of the larger Kuki-Zomi group) residing in the East Jaintia Hills have a much older history there than the Rengma in Karbi Anglong.
Dimapur, today part of Nagaland, itself bears testimony to a non-Naga past. The name reveals that it was a non-Naga area—it was the capital of the Dimasa Kingdom during the 13th century and remained their capital until it was captured by the Ahom ruler Suhungmung in 1526 CE. The Dimasas/Kacharis were, in fact, one of the main rivals of Hima Jaintiapur. It is therefore clear that at least until the 16th century, the area was inhabited by the Dimasa. There may have been groups that are today identified as Naga, but they were not present in large numbers at least until that time.
The return of Muivah is meant to keep the pressure on the Indian state, especially on the issue of the Naga flag and constitution. Even if the Indian state accedes to these demands, the problem will arise regarding the areas in which they are to be implemented. Will the Karbis and Dimasa allow it to be implemented in areas where the Nagas themselves are recent migrants—the same label they apply to the Kuki-Zomi? Will the Kuki-Zomi accept the land they consider their own to come under such an agreement? Will Arunachal Pradesh allow Nagalim to extend into territories inhabited by groups that are not Naga? Will the Meiteis allow Nagalim to be created in territory they claim as part of their own history? The road ahead for the Nagas to realise the final outcome of their decades-long struggle remains difficult.
The Nagas have suffered greatly through all these decades, and in my opinion, the destiny of the Naga people ought to be decided by the Nagas themselves. But there are other peoples, other histories, and other realities that have to be considered. Is it possible that there can be reconciliation where lasting peace can be found? I am sure there is, but concessions must be made by both the Indian state and the Nagas. If both are recalcitrant, it is the Indian state that will hold the advantage. They will simply bide their time until new leadership takes charge, and then play the delaying game, while the Nagas remain caught between the promise of a future that keeps receding and a present that holds no hope. That would be truly unfortunate.
(The views expressed in the article are those of the author and do not reflect in any way his affiliation to any organisation or institution)
