Consequences due to existence of Kuki Hereditary Chieftainship
|
K Yugindro Singh, M Manihar Singh and Sh Janaki Sharma
1. What is Hereditary Chieftainship ?
The institution of hereditary chieftainship is well described by WW Hunter in his book ‘A Statistical Account of Bengal Volume- VI’ as under: “The village system among the Kukis is best described as a series of petty States, each under a Dictator or chief (Called Lal), and he can call upon his people to furnish him with everything that he requires. A chief’s son, on attaining manhood, does not generally remain with his father, but sets up a separate village of his own. The men of one chief are able to transfer their allegiance to another at will, and it hence happens that a village becomes large or small according to whether the chief is successful in war or the reverse. The chiefs all come from a certain clan called Aidey, from which all the tribes are said to have originally sprung. Only the son of a chief can set up a village for himself. It is held that all chiefs are blood relatives, and it is consequentially forbidden to kill a chief save in the heat of a battle.
The house of a Lal (or chief) is a harbour of refugee. A criminal or fugitive taking shelter there cannot be harmed, but he becomes a slave to the chief under whose protection he has placed himself. Each man is bound to labour three days yearly for his chief, and each house in the village furnishes its share of any expense incurred in feeding or entertaining the Lal’s guests. The chief’s house, also, is built for him by the voluntary labour of his people. The residence of a powerful chief is generally surrounded by the houses of his slaves …” (Hunter, 1876, pp.60).
Thomas H Lewin lucidly provided an exactly similar description of the hereditary chieftainship of Kuki tribes (Lewin, 1869, pp.116-117). Thus, a chief enjoys enormous power inside the traditional Kuki society. A hereditary Kuki chief has supreme authority with executive, judicial and military power. Such a chief claims the absolute ownership of the village under his jurisdiction and the land including forests within the village. He is the commander-in-chief of the village army.
In times of war, the chief is supposed to lead the army. The chief is the guardian of law and his words are laws. His power is absolute and his decision in any dispute is final. The chief is assisted by ‘Upas’ who are the elders of the village, appointed by him as advisors. However, he is not bound to abide by the advice of the Upas and has the last word in any matter. The decision of the Upas without consulting the chief cannot be taken as final. ‘Haosa’ is the office of the village chief. It is hereditary, passing from father to son. A daughter has no rights for inheritance.The chief is the Lord of the soil. A chief can allot village land to outsiders, including foreigners, and make them settle in the village as long as they please him.
Villagers have no freedom, and live in the village at the pleasure of the chief. All villagers owe allegiance to the chief with respect and pay such taxes as imposed by the chief. The chief can appoint and dismiss or expel anyone in the village. The villagers do not have the right to oppose their chief individually as well as collectively. However, the power of the chief has its own limitation. For example, if a chief becomes too tyrannical, then the villagers could migrate to other villages deserting the chief. In that case, the chief has no right to stop them as it is a practice sanctioned by the tradition.
This serves as some sort of limitation on the power of the chief. But then, it is a very difficult thing for the villagers to do so as even then, the chief has the right to confiscate the movable as well as immovable properties of the villagers who decide to desert him. This means that the villagers have to lose all their properties in case they decide to migrate without the chief’s permission. Thus, it is extremely difficult for the villagers to desert their chief and migrate to another village.
2. Communities practicing hereditary chieftainship in Manipur
According to historical records of authority and the census data of the erstwhile British Government of India, all New Kukis of Manipur, now called ‘Kuki-Chin-Zo’ are immigrants from the Chin Hills of Burma (Myanmar) and the Lushai Hills (Mizoram) who entered Manipur during and after the reign of Maharaja Nara Singh (1844-to 1850). The New Kuki tribes taking settlement in Manipur, are Thadou, Mizo (Lushai), Ralte, Sukte, Mhar, Vaiphei, Paite, Gangte, Simte, Zou etc.
All New Kuki tribes of Manipur have hereditary chieftainship system of village administration which is best described as a series of petty States, each under a dictatorial chief.
The Nagas and Old Kuki tribes (viz. Kom, Chiru, Koireng, Lamgang, Anal, Chothe, Purum, Aimol) also have chieftainship system of village administration but their Chieftainship is not hereditary unlike that of the New Kukis. The Naga Chiefs and the Old Kuki chiefs are elected by the villagers, and they do not claim ownership of the village and forest. Their role is mainly limited to ceremonial and religious activities. They do not have supreme authority and power like the hereditary chieftains. The advice of the village elders and the council binds them.
3. Hereditary Chieftainship exists only in Manipur
The institution of hereditary chieftainship is anti-ethical to the practice of democracy. There is sufficient room for a Kuki chief to become tyrannical. The institution of hereditary chieftainship was abolished in the Chin Hills of Burma (Myanmar) in February 1948. In Mizoram, the system of hereditary Chieftainship was abolished by the Assam-Lushai District (Acquisition of Chiefs’ Rights) Act, 1954. In Tripura, the Panchayat System has replaced the institution of Kuki chieftainship, which functions under the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council.
“The Manipur Hill Areas (Acquisition of Chiefs’ Rights) Act, 1967" was enacted to abolish the institution of hereditary Chieftainship with all its rights and privileges. The Bill of the said Act was passed by the Legislative Assembly of Manipur on 10th January 1967 and received the assent of the President of India on 14th June 1967. Subsequently, the Legislative Assemble notified the said Act on 20th June 1967, under the official notification No. 3/32/66-Act/L. However, the said Act though enacted in 1967 has not been enforced yet due to objections from the frantic lobby of the politically powerful Kuki chiefs. The institution of hereditary chieftainship still survives and is currently in practice among the New Kukis in Manipur due to non-enforcement of the said Act. Presently, Manipur is the only State in the North East where the hereditary chieftainship exists.
4. Abnormal increase of Kuki villages in Manipur
The basic reason for the abnormal increase of Kuki villages in Manipur is due to failure of the Government of Manipur to enforce the “The Manipur Hill Areas (Acquisition of Chiefs’ Rights) Act, 1967". But surprisingly, the said Act was referred to the Hon’ble High Court of Manipur for settlement of a dispute regarding the chieftainship of a village in Churachandpur in 2016 [H. Mangchinkhup vs. State of Manipur in Writ Petition (C) No. 605 of 2016].
According to land ownership systems prevalent in the Kuki society, only one son can inherit the chiefship of a village from his father. Other sons of the chief often venture out to set up their own villages. ‘The Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956’ requires a minimum of 20 houses to establish a village. However, defying this provision of the Act, many Kuki chiefs are still well known in establishing villages with a few houses, enabling them to make most of their sons as village chiefs. Illegal Kuki-Chin migrants from Myanmar and Bangladesh provide an opportunity to all the ambitious sons of a chief to fulfil their aspiration of becoming village chiefs. This practice leads to rapid growth of new villages with assimilation of Kuki refugees/illegal migrants as members of the the villages. Table 1 depicts the pattern of district-wise growth of villages in Manipur during the period 1969-2023:
(To be contd)
1. What is Hereditary Chieftainship ?
The institution of hereditary chieftainship is well described by WW Hunter in his book ‘A Statistical Account of Bengal Volume- VI’ as under: “The village system among the Kukis is best described as a series of petty States, each under a Dictator or chief (Called Lal), and he can call upon his people to furnish him with everything that he requires. A chief’s son, on attaining manhood, does not generally remain with his father, but sets up a separate village of his own. The men of one chief are able to transfer their allegiance to another at will, and it hence happens that a village becomes large or small according to whether the chief is successful in war or the reverse. The chiefs all come from a certain clan called Aidey, from which all the tribes are said to have originally sprung. Only the son of a chief can set up a village for himself. It is held that all chiefs are blood relatives, and it is consequentially forbidden to kill a chief save in the heat of a battle.
The house of a Lal (or chief) is a harbour of refugee. A criminal or fugitive taking shelter there cannot be harmed, but he becomes a slave to the chief under whose protection he has placed himself. Each man is bound to labour three days yearly for his chief, and each house in the village furnishes its share of any expense incurred in feeding or entertaining the Lal’s guests. The chief’s house, also, is built for him by the voluntary labour of his people. The residence of a powerful chief is generally surrounded by the houses of his slaves …” (Hunter, 1876, pp.60).
Thomas H Lewin lucidly provided an exactly similar description of the hereditary chieftainship of Kuki tribes (Lewin, 1869, pp.116-117). Thus, a chief enjoys enormous power inside the traditional Kuki society. A hereditary Kuki chief has supreme authority with executive, judicial and military power. Such a chief claims the absolute ownership of the village under his jurisdiction and the land including forests within the village. He is the commander-in-chief of the village army.
In times of war, the chief is supposed to lead the army. The chief is the guardian of law and his words are laws. His power is absolute and his decision in any dispute is final. The chief is assisted by ‘Upas’ who are the elders of the village, appointed by him as advisors. However, he is not bound to abide by the advice of the Upas and has the last word in any matter. The decision of the Upas without consulting the chief cannot be taken as final. ‘Haosa’ is the office of the village chief. It is hereditary, passing from father to son. A daughter has no rights for inheritance.The chief is the Lord of the soil. A chief can allot village land to outsiders, including foreigners, and make them settle in the village as long as they please him.
Villagers have no freedom, and live in the village at the pleasure of the chief. All villagers owe allegiance to the chief with respect and pay such taxes as imposed by the chief. The chief can appoint and dismiss or expel anyone in the village. The villagers do not have the right to oppose their chief individually as well as collectively. However, the power of the chief has its own limitation. For example, if a chief becomes too tyrannical, then the villagers could migrate to other villages deserting the chief. In that case, the chief has no right to stop them as it is a practice sanctioned by the tradition.
This serves as some sort of limitation on the power of the chief. But then, it is a very difficult thing for the villagers to do so as even then, the chief has the right to confiscate the movable as well as immovable properties of the villagers who decide to desert him. This means that the villagers have to lose all their properties in case they decide to migrate without the chief’s permission. Thus, it is extremely difficult for the villagers to desert their chief and migrate to another village.
2. Communities practicing hereditary chieftainship in Manipur
According to historical records of authority and the census data of the erstwhile British Government of India, all New Kukis of Manipur, now called ‘Kuki-Chin-Zo’ are immigrants from the Chin Hills of Burma (Myanmar) and the Lushai Hills (Mizoram) who entered Manipur during and after the reign of Maharaja Nara Singh (1844-to 1850). The New Kuki tribes taking settlement in Manipur, are Thadou, Mizo (Lushai), Ralte, Sukte, Mhar, Vaiphei, Paite, Gangte, Simte, Zou etc.
All New Kuki tribes of Manipur have hereditary chieftainship system of village administration which is best described as a series of petty States, each under a dictatorial chief.
The Nagas and Old Kuki tribes (viz. Kom, Chiru, Koireng, Lamgang, Anal, Chothe, Purum, Aimol) also have chieftainship system of village administration but their Chieftainship is not hereditary unlike that of the New Kukis. The Naga Chiefs and the Old Kuki chiefs are elected by the villagers, and they do not claim ownership of the village and forest. Their role is mainly limited to ceremonial and religious activities. They do not have supreme authority and power like the hereditary chieftains. The advice of the village elders and the council binds them.
3. Hereditary Chieftainship exists only in Manipur
The institution of hereditary chieftainship is anti-ethical to the practice of democracy. There is sufficient room for a Kuki chief to become tyrannical. The institution of hereditary chieftainship was abolished in the Chin Hills of Burma (Myanmar) in February 1948. In Mizoram, the system of hereditary Chieftainship was abolished by the Assam-Lushai District (Acquisition of Chiefs’ Rights) Act, 1954. In Tripura, the Panchayat System has replaced the institution of Kuki chieftainship, which functions under the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council.
“The Manipur Hill Areas (Acquisition of Chiefs’ Rights) Act, 1967" was enacted to abolish the institution of hereditary Chieftainship with all its rights and privileges. The Bill of the said Act was passed by the Legislative Assembly of Manipur on 10th January 1967 and received the assent of the President of India on 14th June 1967. Subsequently, the Legislative Assemble notified the said Act on 20th June 1967, under the official notification No. 3/32/66-Act/L. However, the said Act though enacted in 1967 has not been enforced yet due to objections from the frantic lobby of the politically powerful Kuki chiefs. The institution of hereditary chieftainship still survives and is currently in practice among the New Kukis in Manipur due to non-enforcement of the said Act. Presently, Manipur is the only State in the North East where the hereditary chieftainship exists.
4. Abnormal increase of Kuki villages in Manipur
The basic reason for the abnormal increase of Kuki villages in Manipur is due to failure of the Government of Manipur to enforce the “The Manipur Hill Areas (Acquisition of Chiefs’ Rights) Act, 1967". But surprisingly, the said Act was referred to the Hon’ble High Court of Manipur for settlement of a dispute regarding the chieftainship of a village in Churachandpur in 2016 [H. Mangchinkhup vs. State of Manipur in Writ Petition (C) No. 605 of 2016].
According to land ownership systems prevalent in the Kuki society, only one son can inherit the chiefship of a village from his father. Other sons of the chief often venture out to set up their own villages. ‘The Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956’ requires a minimum of 20 houses to establish a village. However, defying this provision of the Act, many Kuki chiefs are still well known in establishing villages with a few houses, enabling them to make most of their sons as village chiefs. Illegal Kuki-Chin migrants from Myanmar and Bangladesh provide an opportunity to all the ambitious sons of a chief to fulfil their aspiration of becoming village chiefs. This practice leads to rapid growth of new villages with assimilation of Kuki refugees/illegal migrants as members of the the villages. Table 1 depicts the pattern of district-wise growth of villages in Manipur during the period 1969-2023:
(To be contd)