|Regions with significant populations|
|Various Kukish languages, Burmese language|
|Christianity, Animism, Buddhism, Judaism and Seventh-day Adventist|
|Related ethnic groups|
|Shan, Karen, Kachin and Chin|
The Kukis, also known as the Chin in the Chin State of Myanmar and as Mizo in the Indian state of Mizoram are a number of related Tibeto-Burman tribal peoples spread throughout the northeastern states of India, northwestern Burma, and the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. In Northeast India, they are present in all states except Arunachal Pradesh. This dispersal across international borders is mainly attributed to former British colonial policy.
- 1 Name
- 2 History
- 3 Cultures and traditions
- 4 Laws and government
- 5 Kuki State Demand
- 6 Notable Kuki/Chin
- 7 See also
- 8 References
- 9 External links
The name "Kuki" is used in India, "Chin" in Burma.
The name "Chin" is disputed. During the British Raj, the British used the compound term 'Chin-Kuki-Mizo' to group the Kukish language speaking people, and the Government of India inherited this. Missionaries chose to employ the term Chin to christen those on the Burmese side and the term Kuki on the Indian side of the border. Chin nationalist leaders in Burma's Chin State popularized the term "Chin" following Burma's independence from Britain.
More recently Chin and Kuki have been rejected by some for Zomi, a name common to several peoples speaking small Northern Kukish languages, including the Zou. which other groups like Hmars, Zou/Zo Hmal,Koms may not coopt. The term Mizo also can cause confusion, particularly following the emergence of the Zomi National Congress.
Contact with outside world and resistance
Long ignored by the outside world, an important landmark in the history of the Kuki people was the arrival of missionaries and the spread of Christianity among them. Missionary activity had considerable social, cultural and political ramifications while the acceptance of Christianity marked a departure from ancestral customs and traditions. The spread of English education introduced the Kuki People to the modern era. William Pettigrew, the first foreign missionary who came to Manipur, arrived on 6 February 1894 and was sponsored by the American Baptist Mission Union. He, together with Dr. Crozier, worked together in the North and the Northeast of Manipur. In the south, Watkins Robert of the Welsh Presbytery mission organized the Indo-Burma Thadou-Kuki Pioneer Mission in 1913. To have a broader scope, the mission’s name was changed to North East India General Mission (NEIGM).
The first resistance to British hegemony by the Kuki people was the Kuki Rebellion of 1917-19 after which their territory was subjugated by the British and divided between the administrations of British India and British Burma. Up until their defeat in 1919, the Kukis had been an independent people ruled by their chieftains.
During World War II, seeing an opportunity to regain independence, the Kuki fought with the Imperial Japanese Army and the Indian National Army led by Subhas Chandra Bose but the success of the Allied forces over the Axis group dashed their hopes.
Cultures and traditions
Sawm, a community center for boys – was the center of learning in which Sawm-upa (an elder) did the teaching, while Sawm-nu took care of chores, such as combing of the boy’s hair, washing of the garments and making the beds, etc. The best students were recommended to the King’s or the Chief’s service, and eventually would become as Semang & Pachong (ministers) in the courts, or gal –lamkai (leaders/ warriors) in the army.
Lawm (a traditional form of youth club) was an institution in which, boys and girls engaged in social activities, for the benefit of the individual and the community. It was also another learning institution. Every Lawm has lawm-upa (a senior member), To’llai-pao (overseer or superintendent), and Lawm-tangvo (assistant superintendent). Besides being a source of traditional learning, Lawm was also useful for imparting technical and practical knowledge to its members, especially with regard to farming methods, hunting, fishing, and sporting activities such as- Kung – Kal (high jump, especially over a choice mithun), Ka’ng Ka’p, Ka’ngchoi Ka’p (top game), Suhtumkhaw (javelin throw using the heavy wooden implement for pounding-de-husking-paddy) and So’ngse (shot put).
The Lawm was also a center where the young people learned discipline and social etiquette. After harvest season, ‘Lawm meet’ is celebrated with a Lawm-se’l and, as a commemoration, a pillar is erected. The event is accompanied by dance and drinking rice-beer, which sometimes continues for days and nights.
Laws and government
With regard to governance, Semang (cabinet) is the annual assembly of a Kuki village community held at the Chief’s residence represents the Inpi (Assembly). In such an assembly, the Chief and his Semang and Pachong (cabinet members and auxiliary of Inpi) and all the household heads of the village congregate to discuss and resolve matters relating to the village and the community.
Traditionally, the Chin were animists. Due to the work of Arthur E. Carson a Baptist missionary, many converted to Christianity. Many Chins have also served as evangelists and pastors, ministering in places like the United States, Australia, Guam and India.
The Bnei Menashe (Hebrew: בני מנשה, "Sons of Menasseh") are a small group within the indigenous people of India's North-Eastern border states of Manipur and Mizoram; since the late 20th century, they claim descent from one of the Lost Tribes of Israel and have adopted the practice of Judaism. The Bnei Menashe are made up of Mizo, Kuki and Chin peoples, who all speak Tibeto-Burman languages, and whose ancestors migrated into northeast India from Burma mostly in the 17th and 18th centuries. They are called Chin in Burma. In the late 20th century, an Israeli rabbi investigating their claims named them Bnei Menashe, based on their account of descent from Menasseh. Most of the peoples in these two northeast states, who number more than 3.7 million, do not identify with these claims. Some have supported other movements to separate from India.
Prior to conversion in the 19th century to Christianity by Welsh Baptist missionaries, the Chin, Kuki, and Mizo peoples were animists; among their practices were ritual headhunting. Since the late 20th century, some of these peoples have begun following Messianic Judaism. The Bnei Menashe are a small group who started studying and practicing Judaism since the 1970s in a desire to return to what they believe is the religion of ancestors. The total population of Manipur and Mizoram is more than 3.7 million. The Bnei Menashe number below 9,000; more than 3000 have emigrated to Israel.
Kuki State Demand
To demand Kuki state, a committee named Kuki State Demand Committee (KSDC) was formed on 2 November 2010 to articulate and champion the political will of the Kuki people in present-day state of Manipur. Preceding the formation of KSDC was a landmark meeting held on 2 September 2010 in New Delhi under the aegis of Kuki Inpi and Kuki Nampi Palai: each and every Kuki revolutionary organisation was invited to discuss and deliberate the future of the Kuki people. The resolution passed at the meeting - following the assent of all the revolutionary groups - was to seek statehood for the Kukis comprising their ancestral land over which our forefathers, from time immemorial, had governed independently. KSDC’s objectives include security for the future of the Kukis in terms of identity, territory and economic development. By April 2011 district level KSDC offices were opened in Churachandpur, Chandel and Sadar Hills. On 12 May, all the Kuki Chiefs became members of KSDC and resolved to support the demand for Kuki statehood. On 17 June, KSDC made a solemn appeal to the entire Kuki public to wholeheartedly support the demand for a Kuki state.
Reasons for formation of KSDC
KSDC’s demand for Kuki state is also prompted by the following issues that show gross discrimination of Kukis in the state of Manipur:
- Denial of Sadar Hills District
- Denial of Tribal Protection Under the Sixth Schedule
- The Eight Schedule
- Disparity in Development: Neglect of Tribal/Kuki Areas
- Rendering Hill Areas Committee Non-functional
- Denial of Proportionate Representation
- Land Alienation and Annexation of Tribal Land through state administrative mechanism (overlapping in the 2011 census), which is taken up by COPTAM (Committee on Protection of Tribal Areas, Manipur)
- State Government meddles with chieftains rights to deprive them of their land.
Kuki State Movement
The present-day political map of Manipur is a British construct. Kangleipak, the Meitei people’s ancestral land, comprises the valley in today’s Manipur political map. Kuki hills and Kangleipak were administratively constituted into a single unit as Manipur by the British without the consent of the Kuki Chieftains.
In India, the bulk of Kuki territory was included within the boundary of Manipur, as the British administered these lands through the Political Agent and later on under the Manipur Durbar. In the post- independence era, Kukis initially opposed the proposal for Manipur’s merger with the Indian Union because it would include Kuki territory as a part of Manipur. However, Manipur as created by the British merged with the Indian Union in 1949. In due course, Kukis reconciled to the merger in the hope that they would benefit equitably in the new dispensation. Thus, began the Kuki people’s tryst with destiny under the reassuring promises of Indian democracy, only soon to be thoroughly disillusioned by the ills of deep-rooted majoritarian bias in an ethnically diverse and communally divisive political environment.
Consequently, in 1960 the Kuki National Assembly submitted a Memorandum to Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, seeking a separate Kuki state within the Indian Union. Following the Prime Minister’s apathy towards the Kuki people’s political aspirations and the stark discriminative action taken by the Government of India in favour of pro-British colonialists by according statehood to Nagaland in 1963, the ever anti-colonial Kukis joined hands with the Mizo National Front, but only to be betrayed in 1986, when the Mizo Accord was signed between Government of India and Mizo National Front that categorically excluded Kukis. MNF’s main proclaimed objective was territorial integration and a single administration for the Kuki-Mizo people. − − In Manipur, the 60-odd years of communally driven state Government policies and continued discriminative deliberations have proven beyond doubt that Kukis will never be allowed to develop economically or to progress in the existing state. Perpetuation of status quo would exacerbate the condition of the Kuki people, never alleviate. Besides, more important than political and economic deprivations, the Kuki people have not been and are not safe or secure in Manipur. They have suffered immense loss of lives and loss of parts of their territory at the hands of Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak & Muivah), primarily due to the state Government’s callous approach to their security. Coupled with this predicament, aggressive penetration into erstwhile peaceful hill areas by Meitei militants and the Meitei state Government’s myriad discriminatory policies has made the condition of the Kukis utterly woeful. Years of tolerance and patience has failed to bring justice or equitable treatment to the Kukis.
Given their prevalent pitiable state and predicament, revival of self-determination – the Kuki people’s pre-British period status – albeit under the democratic framework of India, is essential for the Kukis to exist as a people with distinct cultural ethos and in a context that honourably befits their history, which is statehood. This is central to, and fully in harmony with, the spirit of unity in diversity, the bedrock of Indian nationhood.
Historical development that justifies KSDC’s demand for Kuki statehood
Kuki State Demand Committee pledges to pursue its political goal through means that are peaceable and noble, but which do not compromise the territorial integrity of the Kukis as well as the commitment demonstrated by our ancestors. KSDC, on behalf of the Kukis of the present and future generations, also pledge to restore the ancestral Kuki territory to its rightful status of self-determination. Self-determination, sought within the Constitution of India, is in the form of statehood. In principal, the stand of KSDC is also in line with the resolution of the Kuki chiefs, who fought against the British colonialists in the ‘Kuki Rising, 1917-1919’: At all cost, we should fight against the British for the preservation of our independence, and for the protection of our land, culture and tradition. The colonialists’ aggressions on Kuki territory, which began in 1777 culminated in the Kuki Rising of 1917-1919. The intensity of Kuki defiance is cited by Maj Gen DK Palit: rather than attend a Durbar the Political Agent of Manipur organised to discuss the issues that incensed the Kukis, Chief Ngulbul of Mombi (Lawnpi) and Chief Ngulkhup of Longya sent a message that they have ‘closed the country to the British.’ In present-day context, Chief Ngulbul and Chief Ngulkhup’s dominion is in Chandel district of Manipur. To elicit due support and understanding in the pursuit of Kuki statehood, noteworthy to mention is the age-old relationship between the Kuki Chief and the Meitei Ningthou (Raja or Chief), which underpinned by mutual respect. The two neighbours stuck together through thick and thin, helping each other in times of external aggression. An eloquent ancient Meitei aphorism bears testimony to this bond:
Chingna koina pansaba,
Haona koina panngakpa,
Manipur sana leimayol.
Encircled by the range of hills,
Secured all around by the people who dwell therein;
Oh Manipur, thou golden land.
The above aphorism clearly demarcated Kuki and Meitei territories. The ‘people’ or ‘Haona’ refer to the Kukis, masters of the hills; ‘Manipur sana leimayol, the golden land’, refers to the ancestral Meitei territory comprising the valley, which lay cosseted surrounded by Kuki hills and their brave warriors. Contrary to some notable academics’ view, the Kuki Chiefs were not 'vassals' of the Meitei Ningthou, neither were they ever treated as such. The Kuki Chiefs were independent and benevolent autocrats, who kept their territory secure and intact. In the words of JH Hutton, ‘the Kukis were ruled by their own organized chiefs and treated as they had been in the past at any rate, by the Manipur State as allies.’ The Kukis protested the transfer of hill administration to the Manipur State Durbar and made clear their stand by stating: The hills were never a part of India prior to the annexation of these frontier hills (Statement of Kuki National Assembly, 1947). This political stance was reiterated by KNA: The unchallenging fact is that, if the British government left the country, then naturally the Kukis should be free. (In a Memorandum submitted to the Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India, 1960) By the Act of 1935, Government of India, Burma was separated from India in 1937. This rather deft, but sly imperialist masterstroke, split ancestral Kuki territory between British India and British Burma, without Kuki consent. In the words of William Shaw, ‘The unprepared Kukis could not, however, openly challenge the Britishers but had to wait for an opportune time when they could re-assert their freedom.’ This opportunity presented itself in World War II. In the Great War, the Kukis and the Indian National Army fought on the side of Imperial Japanese and entered into a political agreement with both parties regarding the future of the Kukis after the war. Pu Jamthang gives an account of the agreement between the Kukis and the Japanese held in present-day Burma at Koija (north of Homalin) and Zale’n (south of Homalin) camps, on 5 Oct and 12 Oct 1943, respectively. The number of Kuki Chiefs and elders present on the occasion was a total of 310; Imperial Japan was represented by 3 Japanese officers, namely Ezemia, Nokamisan and Nakamisang. A translation of the text regarding the treaty at Koija and Zalen camps is as follows: The Kukis and the Japanese killed a mithun or bison to formalise the treaty. They ate the animal’s liver and heart (symbolising deepest commitment to the treaty) and declared that a tiger devour either party that reneged! The salient points of the Kuki-Japanese agreement are as follows:
In war time, Kukis would help the Japanese in combats against the British, provide local guides, intelligence, provisions and other necessary materials. In the course of the war, the Imperial Japanese army would respect the dignity and honour of the Kuki people. Following victory of the Axis powers, the Kukis would regain independence, as was prior to the advent of the British, and Japan would facilitate in the process of Kukis rebuilding their nation.
The victory of the Allied forces and subsequent independence of Burma, India and Pakistan resulted in Kuki territory being incorporated within the three state-nations. The British not only divided our ancestral lands, but also divided us into ‘Old Kuki’ and ‘New Kuki’ with the sole intention to subdue and prevent us from becoming a strong and united nation. In the Indian Union, the states are organized on ethno-linguistic lines in recognition of the existing mosaic of ethnic identities, languages and cultures. The right to govern their own affairs within their traditional territory has been denied to the Kukis, whilst it has long been extended to other ethnic entities in the Northeast. As a result, the Kuki inhabited areas of Manipur Hills, Karbi-Anglong and North-Cachar Hills of Assam and Tripura remain grossly underdeveloped and the people live in abject poverty. National schemes and developmental programs have consistently been denied to Kuki inhabited regions by the state machinery dominated by the majority communities. The long years of neglect and sufferings of the Kuki people under these state governments, dictated by the interests of the majority communities, have rendered the Kukis economically, socially and politically backward and deeply vulnerable. ‘Unity in Diversity’, the basis of Indian Polity, can work only when the diverse communities are on the same pedestal, which engenders mutual respect for one another. The Kukis have been subjected to political adversity and their neighbouring communities have taken advantage of their consequent vulnerability. This fact was highlighted by the Kuki National Assembly in 1960: Unless strong measures are immediately taken up for self-preservation, namely establishment of a separate state of their own within the Indian Union, they will surely succumb sooner or later to a process of extinction and extermination, which has been threatening them very seriously. However, the Government of India has not addressed the Kuki issue and the saga of the Kuki people’s never-ending sufferings and struggles continues. From 1950-1990, the Tangkhul people of Ukhrul District in Manipur carried out selective and systematic elimination of Kuki chiefs and elders, totalling 42. This was done to implant a fear psychosis among Kukis so that they may leave their hearths and ancestral lands. In the process, 64 Kuki villages were uprooted, which are now occupied by the Tangkhuls. In an ever-worsening scenario, on 22 October 1992 ‘Quit Notice Served by United Naga Council (UNC) to Kukis’ was issued, signed by RK Thekho, president of UNC, Imphal. Copies of the notice were distributed to all Naga villages, Sub Divisional Offices/District Commissioner Offices of the Manipur state government, and to the Editors of Manipur Mail and Manipur News for publication. Consequently, from 1992–1997, the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak & Muivah) launched the infamous Kuki genocide. The casualties totalled over 900 Kuki people dead (a significant number of them women and children), 350 uprooted villages, and more than 50,000 people displaced. The degree of human rights violations committed by the NSCN (IM) is reflected in the statement of Yambem Laba, a noted journalist from Manipur:
|“||The Naga cry against human rights abuse perpetrated by the Indian Army for over fifty years was, completely overshadowed by one incident of Zoupi [Kuki] village on 13 September 1993.||”|
— Yambem Laba
The above remark refers to one of the many incidents in which NSCN (IM) cadres at gunpoint tied up and massacred 107 Kuki men (87 died at the spot; 20 later succumbed to injuries), butchering them with machetes and spears. In fact the Nagas served notice to the Kukis to quit Zoupi village by 15 September. In spite of the people leaving the village on the 13th, two days ahead of the deadline served, they were butchered. This reveals the treacherous mentality of the NSCN-IM. Tobu Kevichusa, Secretary of Naga National Council statement at the funeral service of Pu Mangkholen Hangsing, IAS, Commissioner of Taxation and Excise, another victim of NSCN (IM), is significant: Isak and Muivah, the leaders of NSCN (IM), has proclaimed among the international community that the Government of India have killed innocent Nagas and abused their human rights. On the contrary, here is a stark example of their role of engaging in fratricidal activity by killing blameless people like Mangkholen to benefit their sectarian policy. From 1950s and 1960s, the Kuki people have submitted numerous memorandums demanding a separate state and also appealed for protection and restoration of their uprooted villages. Unfortunately, the Governments of India and Burma have so far chosen to ignore the Kuki people’s non-violent and positive overtures. The indifference of the Government of India has resulted in escalation of atrocities against Kukis that beggar description. The government, instead of addressing the Kuki question, has kept up its negotiations with NSCN-IM, the perpetrators of Kuki genocide, while completely evading talks, for example, with the Kuki National Organisation. In August 2005, KNO signed the Suspension of Operations with the Indian Army, which represented the Central Government, in order to facilitate political dialogue with Government of India. To date, talks between Government of India and KNO have not begun. This speaks volumes about the indifference and extreme callousness of GoI towards the Kuki people and their problems.
In the meantime, taking advantage of the unfortunate Kuki condition of vulnerability, the Meitei insurgent outfits have infiltrated Kuki areas in large numbers and set up bases to wantonly indulge in inhuman harassment and torture of innocent and unarmed Kuki village folks. They also launch attacks on Indian Security Forces, mindless of the reprisals on civilian Kukis, and engage in laying Indiscriminate Explosive Devices. As a result, many Kukis are either killed or incapacitated by landmine explosions. The Meitei insurgents, who have an understanding with the military junta, are also operating from Burmese territory. The Government of India remains a mute spectator to these sufferings of its Kuki citizens and has failed utterly to protect them.
Kukis and MNF Movement
As mentioned above, the blatant disregard of Kuki interest by GOI prompted them to join the Mizo National Front’s secessionist movement in 1965. However, Kuki confidence in their ethnic Mizo brethren also witnessed betrayal when the Mizo Accord was signed in 1986 with GOI. Contrary to formal agreement signed in 1965 at Kawnpui in Churachandpur, only the former Lushai Hills formed a part of Mizoram. The accord disgracefully excluded Kuki territory, which had earlier been incorporated by the British within the existing state of Manipur. The political boundary of the present state of Manipur is a creation of the British. Manipur or Kangleipak, from time immemorial consists of the valley, which is less than 10% of the total area of the state. ‘In fact, the entire valley was not always the domain of the Meiteis: in the English translation by Saroj Parratt of the Cheitharon Kumpapa: The Court Chronicle of the Kings of Manipur (2005, 23) from the original text written in Meitei Mayek (script), during the reign of Taotingmang, the third Meitei king (Sakabda 186 (264 CE)), his territory extended “only up to Lilong, seventeen miles from Kangla”.’ − − The Kukis suffered at the hands of the British. In independent India, in spite of the dire deprivations experienced by the Kukis owing to GOI’s deliberations and latterly by MNF’s betrayal, KSDC still seeks a political solution for the Kuki people within the Constitution of India.
Rationale for Kuki State
Kukis own more than 50% of the entire territory in the state. As in the past, Kuki chieftains continue to own the lands for which they possess legal Pattas (land deeds). For the record, prior to the interference of the British, Kuki chiefs ruled over the entire hills of present-day Manipur and vast contiguous ranges, which is now in Nagaland. Meitei militants or Valley-based insurgent groups, have ravaged the Kukis and their lands in Chandel and Churachandpur districts in Manipur. They lay landmines (purportedly for Indian Security Forces), rape Hmar Kuki women at Parbung; physically displace Kuki population at Khengjoi in Chandel) and engage and torture village folks, including the chiefs, in forced labour.
The official population census of Manipur is very revealing regarding the Kukis. The figures are available in Delhi under District Census Report. Please compare 1981, 1991 with 2001. The figures will show that in 2001 those existing in the previous two censuses are missing. 2001 census was taken after the NSCN-IM’s aggression on Kukis. − − The fact of the political subjugation leading to deprivation of the Kukis of their life, liberty and free expression and the denial of the benefits of the Constitutional provisions establishes that they are a deprived and discriminated section of society in the State and their political aspirations of being a part of democratic India cannot be fulfilled if the prevailing system and circumstances continues. In fact, all the factors which have contributed to creation of separate states of Nagaland, Meghalaya, Goa etc. and recently Jharkhand, Uttaranchal and Chhattisgarh are present in the case of demand of separate state for the Kukis within the parameters of The Constitution of India and to protect the culture and the distinctiveness of the Kukis. The demand of separate statehood is justified which will guarantee them the recognition and protection granted under the Constitution of India of right to life and to live with dignity. − − Therefore, a Bill intended for the purpose of creation of separate state of Kukis can be introduced in accordance with Articles 2 or 3 of the Constitution of India containing appropriate provisions amending Schedule I of the Constitution with the name of State specifying its boundaries and Schedule IV allocating number of seats to such newly formed State in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and also stating the number of seats constituting the legislative assembly. The said bill should also contain appropriate consequential provisions for the state so formed.
- Zoramthanga, the Burmese Indian boxer who won a bronze medal at the 1990 Bombay Boxing World Cup
- Mangte Chungneijang Mary Kom, (born 1 March 1983), also known as MC Mary Kom, or simply Mary Kom, is a boxer from Manipur, India. She is a five-time World Amateur Boxing champion, and the only woman boxer to have won a medal in each one of the six world championships.
- Burmese: ချင်းလူမျိုး; MLCTS: hkyang lu. myui:, pronounced: [tɕɪ́ɴ lù mjó]
- T. Haokip, 'The Kuki Tribes of Meghalaya: A Study of their Socio-Political Problems', in S.R. Padhi (Ed.). Current Tribal Situation: Strategies for Planning, Welfare and Sustainable Development. Delhi: Mangalam Publications, 2013, p. 85.
- Alphabetical List of India's Scheduled Tribes
- Violence and identity in North-east India: Naga-Kuki conflict - Page 201 S. R. Tohring - 2010 "... for these tribes including • the Kuki/ speaking tribe such as: 'Chin', 'Mizo', 'Chin-Kuki-Mizo', 'CHIKIM', 'Zomi', 'Zou', 'Zo'. ... During the British era, the British rulers used the term 'Chin-Kuki-Mizo' and the Government of India seemed to follow ..."
- Sachchidananda, R. R. Prasad -Encyclopaedic profile of Indian tribes- Page 530 1996
- Pradip Chandra Sarma, Traditional Customs and Rituals of Northeast India: Arunachal ... Page 288 Vivekananda Kendra Institute of Culture "chose to employ the term Chin to christen those on the Burmese side and the term Kuki on the Indian side of the ... The Mizo of today's Mizoram are the descendants of Luseia, and the Zomi of Manipur are from the Songthu line, and thus all ..."
- Amy Alexander Burma: "we are Like Forgotten People" : the Chin People of Burma Page 16 2009 "... within Chin State, Chin nationalist leaders popularized the term “Chin” following Burma's independence from Britain."
- History of Zomi T. Gougin - 1984.
- B. Datta-Ray Tribal identity and tension in north-east India Page 34 1989 "Now to accept the term Chin would mean subtle Paite domination in the matter, which the other groups like the Hmars, Zous, Anals and Koms may not coopt. A Zomi leader categorically stated that 'Chin' is a Burmese word which literally ..."
- Keat Gin Ooi - Southeast Asia: A Historical Encyclopedia, from Angkor Wat to East ... - Volume 1 - Page 353 2004 "Until recently, there appeared to be a consensus that the term Chin was not an identity that any of these peoples would ... Some promote the terms Zo and Zomi, stating that they are derived from the name of the mythic common ancestor of all ..."
- Ramamoorthy Gopalakrishnan - Socio-political framework in North-East India Page 149 1996 "Later, the term 'Mizo' created a lot of confusion particularly when the Zomi National Congress emerged. ... But the problem arose with the use of the term 'Chin' (it is not given due recognition in the List of Scheduled Tribes in Manipur)."
- Chinkholian Guite - Politico-economic development of the tribals of Manipur: a study ... Page 8 1999 "Conceptual Meaning and Various Interpretations of the Terms— Chin, Kuki and Mizo (a) Chin The term Chin is the name given to this Zo/Zou tribes (formerly known as Chin-Kuki-Mizo) group of people in Myanmar (Burma). They are mostly found in the ..."
- Mrinal Miri (1 January 2003). Linguistic Situation in North-East India. Concept Publishing Company. p. 77. ISBN 978-81-8069-026-6. Retrieved 28 August 2013.
- T. Haokip, 'Kuki Churches Unification Movements', Journal of North East India Studies, Vol. 2(1), 2012, p. 35.
- Burma and Assam Frontier, ‘Kuki rising, 1917-1919’, L/PS/10/724, Oriental and India Office Collections (OIOC), British Library, London
- Guite, Jangkhomang (2010) "Representing Local Participation in INA–Japanese Imphal Campaign The Case of the Kukis in Manipur, 1943–45" Indian Historical Review Vol.37, No.2, pp. 1291-309.
- Paokhohao Haokp, "Reinculcating Traditional Values of the Kukis with Special Reference to Lom and Som", in T. Haokip (ed.). The Kukis of Northeast India: Politics and Culture. New Delhi: Bookwell, 2013, Chapter 11.
- T. Lunkim, "Traditional System of Kuki Administration", in T. Haokip (ed.). The Kukis of Northeast India: Politics and Culture. New Delhi: Bookwell, 2013, Chapter 1.
- Chin Cultural Profile
- Jacobs, J et al (1990, 152), The Nagas, Hansjörg Mayer, Stuttgart: ‘shortly after the War – in which many Nagas fought with bravery for the Allied cause’, Sir Charles R Pawsey, Deputy Commissioner of the Naga Hills, formed the Naga Hills Districts Tribal Council in 1945, which in 1946 became the Naga National Council (NNC)
- Haokip, S (2010, 37), Rhetorics of Kuki Nationalism, Lustra Print, New Delhi
- in JC Higgins’ letter No 1243, 7 November 1917, to the Chief Secretary of Assam
- Maj Gen DK Palit (1984, 62) in Sentinels of the North-East
- Introduction to William Shaw (1929), Notes on Thadou Kukis, written by JH Hutton, July 1928, p. 3.
- William Shaw (1929), Notes on Thadou Kukis, p. 50
- Jamthang Haokip (1984), Manipur a Kuki te leh Christianity
- In 1964 the Kuki National Assembly supported the Manipur Mizo Integration Council (MMIC) for a single administrative unit (MMIC/H). From 15/18 January 1965 the Mizo People’s Convention (MPC/1965, Document for Manipur Mizo Integration Council, signed by Holkhomang Haokip, General Secretary and KT Lalla, Chairman of the Council) was held at Kawnpui in Churachandpur on the issue of ‘Territorial Integrity’, and as Vumson writes (Zo History, 1986, 278, published by the Author, Mizoram), to create one Administrative Unit for the Kuki-Mizo people called ‘Mizoram State’. Thus began the movement in the name of Mizo National Front, which was a deterrent to Naga hostilities in the 1960s. The Mizo People’s Convention (MPC), 15/18 January 1965, Kawnpui, Churachandpur was attended by the following representatives: − #Paite National Council − # Vaiphei National Organisation − # Simte National Organisation − # Zoumi National Organisation − # Mizo Union, Mizoram − # Mizo National Front − # Chin National Union − # Mizo National Union − # Hmar National Union − # Kuki National Assembly − # Gangte Tribal Union − # Kom National Union − # Baite Convention Council
- Ethnocentrism at Its Height: ‘Save The Meiteis’: Who Is Inviting Armageddon? − By S Chawngthu (Northeast Sun Magazine, ? 2007)
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Kuki people.|