The issue of indigeneity: Who are the indigenous ?

Janghaolun Haokip
The Issue of Indigeneity has been an endless debate, particularly in the State of Manipur settled by three major groups of people viz. the Kukis, the Meiteis, and the Nagas, who firmly believe or so resolutely express that they are indigenous groups. Time to time, these groups are confronted with the question of their indigeneity that goes on to spark heated debates that are often communal and disturbing to the peace and harmony, and the integrity of the State. In this article, we shall explore the concept of indigeneity and how to bring about an amicable solution in the context of Manipur and within its major groups of people.
Who are the Indigenous ?
According to the United Nations, as accepted by them in 1982, a preliminary definition by Mr José  R Martínez-Cobo, Special Rapporteur on Discrimination against Indigenous Populations, “Indigenous communities, peoples, and Nations are those that, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them.”
In a similar effort to identify Who are the Indigenous, the World Bank, in its strive to understand poverty, has vividly indicated that, “Indigenous Peoples are distinct social and cultural groups that share collective ancestral ties to the lands and natural resources where they live, occupy or from which they have been displaced. The land and natural resources on which they depend are inextricably linked to their identities, cultures, livelihoods, as well as their physical and spiritual well-being. They often subscribe to their customary leaders and organisations for representation that are distinct or separate from those of the mainstream society or culture. Many Indigenous peoples still maintain a language distinct from the official language or languages of the country or region in which they reside.”
Who are Indigenous to Manipur?
To study the indigeneity of people, it is to be specifically noted that at a certain time, we were all migrants, nomadic people in search of food and shelter. Studies show that the pre-modern migration of human populations began as early as about 1.75 million years ago with the movement of Homo erectus out of Africa across Eurasia. Then came the Homo sapiens 150,000 years ago in Africa, who then moved out to different parts of the world about 70,000 years ago. This simply asserts and evinces that we were all migrants at one point of time, and the question of Indigeneity, in its entirety, arose only very late in time, perhaps only in the post-colonial world.
However, apropos to the post-colonial indigeneity, the three major groups of people in Manipur have all claimed to be indigenous to Manipur. In fact, they have their own myths and traditions to substantiate their claims. The Meiteis of the valley claim to have a long tradition of a Manipuri Kingdom in existence since the early years of the first century. The Nagas likewise have their own beliefs and traditions of indigeneity, while the Kukis too have traditions of originality to the land, supported by the connections of their Chiefs identified as Kuki Achouba and Kuki Ahongba to the earliest known Manipuri King and creator of Manipur King Pakhangba, according to Cheitharol Kumbaba, the royal chronicle of Manipur.
Correspondingly, “A glimpse of Indigenous Tribes of Manipur”, an article published in mygov.in, Government of India, there are 33 tribes that either belong to Kuki or Naga who are recognised as Indigenous groups. While it is not known on what grounds these tribes are recognised as indigenous, it must at the same time be noted that they are considered indigenous by the Government of India.
Kukis and Indigeneity
Haoginlen Chongloi, a research scholar and the author of the book History, Identity, and Polity of the Kukis, in his article “The Kukis and Koubru: the Epitome of Unity” writes that History is the witness that the Kukis are indigenous to Manipur and that Meitei Kings and Kuki Chiefs share close relations. Besides, he also mentioned that there are numerous instances of successful expeditions carried out by Kings of Manipur with the assistance of the Kukis, and we cannot also deny the fact that there were numerous instances of Meitei Kings who were saved by the Kukis. In 1857, when Maharaja Chandrakriti lost the battle against the Suktes and all of his army fled in confusion, it was the Kuki chief who took pity on the king. William Shaw (1929) wrote that a Kuki chief called Chongja Kuki fired his round and declared, “The Rajah shall not die until I, Chongja, am first killed by the Rajah’s enemy” and later took the king to safety.
Moreover, Phanjoubam Chingkeinganba, a correspondent of Assam-based Asomiya Pratidin newspaper, similarly wrote that during the period when Maharaj Bodhchandra was under intense pressure by both the newly formed democratic India and the Hindu Meeteis, Kuki chiefs sent more than 150 men to aid Bodhchandra to resist the signing of the merger agreement and protect the king from her Hindu subjects. This could not have been possible if the Kukis were migrants as few vested interest asserts today.
It is also to be noted that in the pre-colonial era, the Kukis enjoyed their own independence under the able administration of their chiefs. The accusations that the Kukis are but migrants is simply because of this simple reason that prior to the post-colonial period, the Kukis have occupied extensive regions that includes parts of modern day Bangladesh, Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, and extending into modern day Myanmar. It is therefore an invalid rationale to term the Kukis as migrants in Manipur because of their presence in other regions. In fact, if that rationale has to be employed, there are also a reasonable number of the Meiteis and Nagas who are settling in present day Myanmar.
The Issue of Indegeneity and the way forward
It is implicit then that the Kukis, the Meiteis, and the Nagas can all otherwise be called as migrants if they do not respect the traditions and beliefs of one another. It is very unfortunate that few vested interests are often calling out at a community or either communities are conspiring against another community to gain certain benefits by demeaning another and questioning their dignity.
Dr Lamtinthang, an anthropologist and renowned social activist of Manipur, in an interview for the Hills Journal, noted that, “There is no point to draw in who is indigenous or non-indigenous in the Indian context. Once you are recorded in the Government registry through bonafide certification or identification, or through any Constitutional schedule, you are treated as citizens of Independent India. In other words, the question of indigeneity does not arise since all groups of people known by different names were once migrants, migrating from one place to another.” This corroborates the vanity of the issue of indigeneity as it only is an unseemly call for communal misunderstanding and unnecessary conflict that may but greatly hinder the development and obstruct the future prospects of the State.
The way forward has to be a comprehensive model that will be practical in nature, and will promote, then question, the distinct identity that each of these groups takes pride in. The words of Dr Jangkholam Haokip, proprietor of Bethesda Khankho Institute: Centre for Integrated Studies have to be similarly noted with much reverence.  He stated that, “For Indigenous people, land is not a commodity to be exploited for profits. Land is a being, essential for our knowledge, healing and well-being. We are a part of the land and are connected to everything that is within that land. In other words, Land is the source of our identity, culture, wisdom and theology and theological expressions. So, if you take away our land from us, you are taking away not only everything that makes us what we are (our identity) but also the very basic foundation of the earth community, that is, interconnectedness and interdependence.”
Conclusion
The issue of Indigeneity demands a deliberate discourse. Particularly in a communally sensitive State like Manipur, the question must lay buried than to allow it to surface time and again. The danger has to be realised as it has the potential to thwart communal harmony, as it challenges one to go to the extremes simply to defend something that holds little relevance to the common people but at the same time can flare up to a devastating event. The State Government on its part must discourage this obscene terming so as to best avoid any conflicts and violence. Individuals, and organisations, whether civil or armed undergrounds, must likewise refrain from questioning the tradition and beliefs of people. Only this can bring lasting peace and harmony in the State.