A COMMEMORATIVE SPEECH ON
ZOU GAL (Kuki Rising) 1917 – 1919
by Dr. David Vumlallian Zou
Delhi University
on the 1st Zou Gaal Day (17 March
2011)
MP’s Club, South Avenue, New Delhi
“The most serious incident in the history of
Manipur and its relations with its Hill
subjects was the Kuki rebellion … it cost 28
lakhs of rupees to quell, and in the course of
it many lives were lost.”1
- Sir Robert Reid, Governor of Assam
Shakespear’s Map (1929)
& ZLS Sketch2 (2002)
Colonel L.W. Shakespear
prepared a sketch map of the “Area of Operations during the
Kuki Rebellion 1917-19
in which Columns of Assam Rifles and Burma Military Police
Battalions were
employed.” In this sketch published in 1919, Shakespear included
familiar places
inhabited by the Zou such as Hengtham (Hiangtam), Chibu (Tonjang) and
Shuganoo (Sugnu).
The scenes of fighting
shown in the ZLS Sketch such as Singngat, Muollum, Munpi,
Saipheh, Behiang are
missing in the map of Shakespeare. Mombi and Longya are the two
villages in southern
Manipur that stands out in the official map; but I have not been able
to identify them with
the present map of Manipur.
Event Sequence
1.3 million combatants
and non-combatants from India went to Mesopotamia (i.e., the
three Ottoman vilavets of
Basra, Mosul and Bagdad) during World War I. Of this, 293,
152 non-combatants
served as Porter Corps and Labour Corps3 under the Indian Army
Act of 1911, and this
included 1,602 prisoners. The British has a strong commercial and
strategic interest in
the Persian Gulf with the formation of Anglo-Persian Oil Company4.
The forces from India
(Indian Expeditionary Force D) occupied Basra to protect oil
works at Abadan in
southern Persia (Iran).
First
Labour Corps for Mesopotamia
Spring 1916
The British recruited
labour corps for the war efforts in Mesopotamia from tribals of the
Santhal Pargana, Chota
Nagpur and by tapping Indian jails. In the words of Lt. Col. W.B.
1 Robert Reid (1942) History of the
Frontier Areas bordering on Assam from 1883-1941, Shillong:
Assam Government Press,
p. 79.
2 Zou Literature Society (2002) “Zou Gaal” pp. 19
– 27 in Chinthu Zaila – Zou Literature Reader X,
Churachandpur: Published
by T. Lamkhothawng on behalf of ZLS.
3 Radhika Singha (2007) “Finding Labor from India
for the War in Iraq: The Jail Porter and Labour
Corps, 1916-1920” Comparative
Studies in Society and History, 49 (2): 412 – 445.
4 Lt. Col. A. T. Wilson (1930) Loyalties
in Mesopotamia, 1914-1917, London.
2
Lane of the Indian
Medical Services, “The honour of India was upheld first by aborigines
and then by convicts.”5 But the Santhals of Mayurbhanj (a chiefdom in Bihar and Orissa)
rose in rebellion
against attempts to force them into the Labour Corps6.
Spring 1917
The Government of India
asked Maharaja of Manipur, Churachand Singh, to supply
labourers for the war in
Mesopotamia.
March 1917
Colonel Cole managed to
enroll about 736 labourer from Manipur, good response from
the Tangkhul area. In
total, about 4,000 men proceeded towards Mesopotamia.
Second
Labour Corps for France
August 1917
The Government of India
set a target of finding another 50,000 men for Labour Corps for
France. To satisfy this
hunger for human resource, the Government sent a request for a
Second Labour Corps to
which the Maharaja of Manipur wrote to the Viceroy: “In view
of the size and
frequency of the drafts required for the first Corps of hillmen, I regret that
I shall be unable to
raise a second Corps of hillmen. But I hope to raise a second Corps,
when required, from any
valley Manipuri subjects, and it is my desire to accompany it on
active service.”7 The Maharaja’s offer was refused as the Chief Commissioner of
Assam
feared the disapproval
of conservative Hindu Meiteis.
September 1917
The chiefs of Mombi
(Ngulkhup) and of Longya (Ngulbul) were the first to dissent. With
an escort of 100
riflemen, the Political Agent and Captain Coote set out for Mombi
village (six days out
from Imphal) to arrest Ngulkhup, who was the first chief to revolt
against the British
authorities. As Ngulkhup refused to meet the Political Agent, Mombi
was burnt down. They
were en route for Longya when orders were received to return and
to take no further
action with the Kukis8.
December 1917
For about two months,
both side did nothing. But suddenly Chiefs of Hinglep and Ukhul
raided the Manipur State
Forest Toll Station at Ithai9. Mrs. Cole, the wife of the Political
Agent of Manipur, knew
Ngulkhup of Mombi personally, and attempted to mediate by
meeting Ngulkhup near
Sugnu. But negotiations broke down.
Military
Suppression, Phase I
January 1918
5 NAI, New Delhi, Home Department, Political, B,
Feb. 1917, nos. 353-96. Cited in Singha (2007)
“Finding Labor from
India for the War in Iraq” p. 412.
6 NAI, New Delhi, Foreign & Political
Department, Internal, Sept. 1918, nos. 84 – 100.
7 National Archives of India (hereafter NAI), New
Delhi, Foreign Department, Political File No. 54,
1917.
8 Colonel L.W. Shakespear (1929) History
of the Assam Rifles, p. 216.
9 Office of the Political Agent, Special File n.
388, 1919, SLRB, Imphal.
3
On 22 January 1918, two
columns from Manipur and Burma were ready to strike.
(a) First Column –
Imphal & Teddim
Captain Steadman to
proceed from Teddim to Mombi to converge with Captain Coote
and Mr. Higgins
(Assistant Political Officer?) moving through Mombi and Longya
area10. Steadman was badly wounded at three places11. Using Haika as a military base, it
was apparently Captain
Coote who crossed the Imphal River (Guun) to attack
Gawtengkot stockade that
became famous in Zou folklore. It was on record that Higgins
received a severe bruise
“on his shoulder from a spent bullet”12 while he was in action
in
the Mombi area.
(b) Second Column –
Imphal
The Political Agent of
Manipur and Captain Hebbert to proceed from Imphal towards
Tamu to reopen the Burma
road13.
Escorted by the Assam
Rifles, the Political Agent of Manipur, Cosgrave, proceeded to
Tammu, burning hostile
villages on his way.
February 1918
Hutton conducted
operations in the western hills of Manipur with a column of Naga Hills
Rifles. Laipi, chief of
Senting, surrendered before Hutton. Meanwhile, Colonel Cloete led
a force from Silchar to
Imphal. And Cosgrave marched to south-west Manipur.
May 1918
Home Department accepted
the need to provide better equipment to the Assam Rifles.
Military operations
would halt during the monsoon, and resumed in the next winter.
Beatson-Bell, the Chief
Commission of Assam, came to Imphal to consult the local
authorities.
July 1918
Beatson-Bell visited
Shimla to seek advice from the Viceroy and the Commander-in-
Chief14. The Political Agent of Manipur and the Deputy Commissioner of
the Naga Hills
were summoned to Shillong
to discuss the renewal of operations in the next winter. This
would be under the
unified command of General Keary15.
August 1918
General Keary arrived in
Shillong to plan the military campaign involving the combined
forces of Assam and
Burma. He would assume complete military as well as political
control of all the areas
under operation16.
10 Shakespear, History of the Assam
Rifles, p. 214.
11 Shakespear, History of the Assam
Rifles, p. 219.
12 Shakespear, History of the Assam
Rifles, p. 220.
13 Shakespear, History of the Assam
Rifles, p. 214.
14 NAI, New Delhi, Home Department, Political File
no. 31, 1918.
15 NAI, New Delhi, Home Department, Political File
no. 185, 1918.
16 NAI, New Delhi, Home Department, Police Files
no. 47, 1919.
4
Military
Suppression, Phase II
January 1919
Operations resumed, and
the General Officer commanding Manipur reported 44 persons
killed, 48 villages
burnt, 40 mithuns killed, large quantities of food grain destroyed, and
44 rebels made to
surrender.
February 1919
The British occupied
Chief Ngulbul’s Longya village, killed his son, and arrested his
brother along with
another 55 persons. They also captured the chief of Ukha, Ngulkhup
(chief of Mombi), Tinton
(chief of Longya) with his henchman Enjakap17.
June 1919
Active operations were over, and rebels were tried by a Special Tribunal under Regulation 111 of 1818.
Personalities:
Leadership
Ngulkhup, chief of
Mombi; Mombi stands about 5000 feet high up and commands a most
extensive view to south
and west, the eye ranging over a sea of tangled hills and valleys
from the Manipur valley
to the far distant Chin Hills.
Ngulbul, chief of Longya
Tintong, chief of Layang
who raided the Kabui Nagas
Pachei, an old chief of
Chassad, was the last to surrender; Chassad was in the
unadministered area of
Somra Tract.
Chengjapao, head of the
Thados
Khotinthang, chief of
Jampi, head of the Thado clan; allegedly claimed to be the
Maharaja and collected
revenues and guns from weaker villages.
The piece complied by
ZLS gave a list of Zou leaders who surrendered at Hiangtam in
1919; as –
Pu Goulun, Pu Langzagin,
Pu Lagou, Pu Tonghau, Pu Henkham, Pu Vungdam, Pu
Suohgou, Pu Helthang, Pu
Lampum, Pu Suohkham, and Pu Salet.
We also have another
list of 48 names who participated in the Zou Gaal, and another list
of 10 names who were
imprisoned by a Special Tribunal. We need to find more
information about our
war heroes, and perhaps compiled them as a collection of short
biographies.
Kumbi against Kangla
17 NAI, New Delhi, Home Department, Police Files
no. 8, 1919.
5
Chingakhamba Sanachouba
Singh, Manipuri pretender to the throne ; he lived with his
disciples at Kumbi near
Moirang. According to colonial reports, Chingakham told the
Kukis that “he was
destined to be a raja and that if they would follow him and help him
he would make things
pleasant for him in every way possible when he came to power and
that their house tax
should only be Rs. one per year … the Manipuri had told them that
the sahibs had gone to
fight the Germans and that there were very few troops left in
Imphal.”18
Chinga Khamba claimed to
be the elder brother of the incumbent Mahajara of Manipur,
Churachand Singh. At
Moirang, he was instrumental in the establishment of some
unauthorized courts19.
John Paratt20 (2005) saw Changakham’s role as a “testimony to patriotism of the
Kukis,
and a strong tie between
the two people of hill and valley in any emergency” (p. 42).
Interpretations
Official
Version
Shakespeare recalled
that Major John Butler (the elder) in the early 1850s wrote that
procrastination and
forbearance of the British would be seen by “savages” as a sign of
fear and weakness. He
further claimed, “Had they [Political Agent and Capt. Coote] been
allowed to punish Longya
as well, it is probably the clans would have thought better than
to rebel; as it was, the
speedy retirement of the detachment heartened both Chiefs, who
sent in messages to the
effect that they closed their country to us … [pp. 210-11] The
start of this rebellion
was largely due to our procrastination in not dealing at once and
fully with it when the
trouble first showed itself” (p. 212).
Subaltern
Perspective
According to Bhadra, the
“Kuki uprising was the outcome of three distinct forces – anti-
British, intra-tribal,
and intra-dynastic.”21 (p. 35). The Kukis resented forced labour that
consisted of two types:
first, Pothang Bekari – the obligation to carry goods and baggage
for touring officers, or
construction works without payment (locally called “pawt pua”;
and second, Pothang
Senkhai – household contribution in cash or kind such as chicken,
egg, or meat to feed
touring officers free of cost22. Because of a strong movement against
pothang, it was
abolished in the valley of Manipur in 1913. But it was retained in the hill
areas. In 1915-16, there
were individual petitions by hillmen asking for exemptions from
pothang. Gautam Bhadra
observed that “a clear transition took place from making
petition, to excuse, to
direct refusal”23 (p. 18).
18 Manipur State Archives, Imphal, Webster’s letter
No. 81, dated 3 Jan. 1918.
19 NAI, New Delhi, Home Department, Political File
no. 29, 1918.
20 Paratt, John (2005) Wounded Land:
Politics and Identity in Modern Manipur, New Delhi.
21 Gautam Bhadra (1975) “The Kuki (?) Uprising 1917
– 1919: Its Causes and Naure” in Man in
India, March, pp. 10 – 56.
22 Lal Dena (1991) “Some Anomalies of Colonial
Rule, 1891 – 1919” pp. 70-88, in Lal Dena, History
of Modern Manipur
1826-1949, New Delhi: Orbit Publishers
& Distributors, p. 81.
23 Gautam Bhadra (1975) “The Kuki (?) Uprising
1917-1919: Its Causes and Nature” Man in India, 55
(1): 11 – 56.
6
Outcomes
At the end of Kuki
Rising in 1919, “the hill people were for the first time brought under
intensified political
and administrative control of an imperial power” (Lal Dena, 1991:
134)24. “Rules for Management of the State of Manipur”25 was discussed seriously and
implemented by the
Government of India.
(a) British paternalism:
Sir Nocholas Dodd Beatson Bell, the Chief Commissioner of
Assam (19 April 1919)
proposed that the colonial Sub-Divisional Officers would be
permanently posted in
the hill areas of Manipur and “generally act as fathers to the
hillmen and restore
their confidence in the British raj.”26
J.E. Webster, Chief
Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Assam (1 Jan. 1918) wrote,
“The insolence of the
Kuki and his lack of regard for authority is due to the fact that he
has never been taught
the lesson of disobedience, either by the Manipur Raj or the
imperial Government.
These hill tribes do not become tractable citizens until they have
experienced the heavy
hand of the paramount.”27
(b) Three hill
subdivisions (Churachandpur under B.C. Gasper, Tamenglong under W.
Shaw, Ukhrul under L.L.
Peter) were created after this, briefly discontinued and revived
in 1932 with four
subdivisions. Senapati (the Mao-Maram area) was initially excluded in
the hill subdivision,
and was directly administered directly the Durbar President from
Imphal. In the new
administrative arrangement, the Political Agent would closely
supervise the hill
administration through the British SDOs instead of the native agents
called lambus.
(c) Creation of seven
Assam Rifles outposts now known as “the sentinels of the hills”.
(d) The British state
proposed to “open up roads, administer simple, set up schools and
hospitals”.
(e) The Raj had a chance
to recast itself as the paternalist protector of the weaker (read
loyal) villages and the
propagator of peace among their hill subjects during the course of
the Kuki Rising.
Ningmuanching (2010) “Communities that had coexisted as a hill
people [sic.] now
emerged as hostile who had apparently inherited a history of
antagonism. British
intervention … transformed inter-village feuds into ethnic conflict
between hill people who
were now grouped as the Nagas and the Kukis”28 (p. 107).
24 Lal Dena (1991) (ed.) History of Modern
Manipur 1826 – 1949, New Delhi: Orbit Publishers &
Distributors.
25 NAI, New Delhi, Foreign Department, Political
Files no.1011 (1923).
26 Cited in Lal Dena (1991) “Kuki Rebellion
1917-1920” (pp. 126-134) in Lal Dena, ed. History of
Modern Manipur, p. 133.
27 National Archives of India, New Delhi, Foreign
and Political Department, Webster’s letter dated 1
Jan. 1918, “Rebellion of
the Kuki Tribes”, Webster’s letter 1 Jan. 1918.
28 Ningmuanching (2010) Reading Colonial
Representations: Kukis and Nagas of Manipur,
Unpublished M.Phil
dissertation, Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New
Delhi, 2010.
7
J.E. Webster, Chief
Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Assam (June 1918) reported
that over 1000 persons
(“friendlies”) from villages loyal to the British camp at Imphal
due to “the terror of
the Kukis”29.
Dawn
of Political Consciousness
How did the experience
and memory of the war returnees who met at Suangpi shape the
subsequence “hill
politics” or political consciousness” of southern Manipur?
Radhika Singha said,
“The imperial quest for labor yields new perspectives on the
political
transformations underway in the course of the Great War … Flight and episodes
of full-scale resistance
on the part of those targeted for noncombatant recruitment
influenced this
reevaluation, as did their marked preference for fixed and limited terms …
The Kuki-Chin uprising
of 1917-1918, and other smaller convulsions in the northeastern
hill districts brought
on by labor recruitment for the war, alerted the Army authorities in
France to the need to
maintain contractual faith with ‘hill-men’ who had gone there in
Labor Corps … Limited
terms and rising wages could make ‘noncombatant’ service
attractive enough to cut
into combatant recruitment” (p. 442).
Memory & Memorials
(a) Zogal Jr. High
School was established at Tuining in 1972, but later relocated at
Behiang village where it
received Grant-in-Aid on 1 October 1980.
Zou Gaal Memorial Shield
was introduced on 19 October 1976. Zou Gaal Hall was built
in 1978 with financial
assistance from the Government, and it is being redeveloped
currently at the same
construction site.
(b) A statue of
Chengjapao Dougel, “King of the Kukis and the leader of the Kuki Rising,
1917-1919” in the heart
of Moreh town).
(c) In 1958, the Kuki
Political Sufferers’ Association of Manipur (KPSAM) demanded a
“War Memorial in the
heart of Imphal town to commemorate Kuki Martyrs and
Sufferers”30. Accordingly, a plot was given at Imphal where the Kuki Inn came
up in
1963. Recently the
central government sanctioned funds for a war memorial complex
which includes a museum,
a library and a committee hall in the same premises.
A Note on Primary
Sources
(a) National Archives of
India, New Delhi
Foreign Department,
Political Files
Home Department , Police
Files
(b) Manipur State
Archives, Keishampat Junction, Imphal
29 NAI, New Delhi, Foreign and Political
Department, Rebellion of the Kuki Tribes, Webster’s letter 5
June 1918.
30 Guite, Jangkhomang (2011) “Monuments, Memory and
Forgetting in postcolonial North-East
India” Economic
and Political Weekly, February 19, 2011, Vol. XLVI, No. 8, pp. 56 –
64.
8
Administrative Reports
of the Manipur State (annual) 1916 - 1919
Tour Diaries of the
Manipur Political Agency, 1916 – 1919
Kuki Rebellion Paper,
1917 – 1919
(c) D.C.’s Court, Imphal
Boundary Register that
lists Kuki villages and their specific role during the rebellion;
Petitions and Orders
passed, divided into civil, criminal and miscellaneous; it presents
vignettes on the inner
life and politics of the Kuki villages.
Bibliography
Bhadra, Gautam (1975)
“The Kuki (?) Uprising 1917-1919: Its Causes and Nature” Man in
India, 55 (1): 11 – 56.
Chishti, S M A W
(2004) Kuki Uprising In Manipur 1919-1920, Guwahati: Spectrum
Publication (82 pp; Rs.
295).
Chishti, S M A W , Political
Development in Manipur 1919-1949, Delhi: Kalpaz Publications.
Guite, Jangkhomang
(2011) “Monuments, Memory and Forgetting in postcolonial North-East
India” Economic
and Political Weekly, February 19, 2011, Vol. XLVI, No. 8, pp. 56 –
64.
Lal Dena (1991) “Some
Anomalies of Colonial Rule, 1891 – 1919” pp. 70-88, in Lal Dena,
History of Modern
Manipur 1826-1949, New
Delhi: Orbit Publishers & Distributors, p. 81.
Ningmuanching (2010) Reading
Colonial Representations: Kukis and Nagas of Manipur,
Unpublished M.Phil
dissertation, Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi, 2010.
Reid, Robert
(1942) History of the Frontier Areas bordering on Assam from 1883-1941,
Shillong: Assam
Government Press, p. 79.
Shakespear, Colonel L.W.
(1929) History of the Assam Rifles, p. 216.
Singha, Radhika (2007)
“Finding Labor from India for the War in Iraq: The Jail Porter
and Labour Corps,
1916-1920” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 49 (2):
412 –
445.
Zou Literature Society
(2002) “Zou Gaal” pp. 19 – 27 in Chinthu Zaila – Zou Literature Reader
X, Churachandpur: Published by T. Lamkhothawng on
behalf of ZLS.
XXXXXXXXXXXX
