Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:16:17.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Colonialism and Its Unruly?—The Colonial State and Kuki Raids in Nineteenth Century Northeast India*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2013

JANGKHOMANG GUITE
JANGKHOMANG GUITE*
Affiliation:
Department of History, Assam University, Silchar-788011, Assam, India Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the colonial representation of tribal raids in the Northeast frontier of India and argues that, rather than being the ‘lawless and predatory habits of the savage hill tribes’, it was an expression of hill politics. The Kukis raided British territory when they discovered that an extension of the colonial boundary threatened their very existence as an independent state-evading population. It traces how the Kukis re-ethnicized themselves in the hills by evolving a system that is state-repellent, protected by a vast strip of forested jungle around their settlements commonly known as the ‘hunting ground’. It locates the ‘raid’ in the context of the difference in the perception of space and territoriality between the colonial state and indigenous polities. Colonial spatial ideology and its hill-valley binary are seen to play a vital role in animating tension on the frontier. The raid is thus understood as the ultimate weapon of resistance against an established state by an independent ‘not-a-state-subject’ people in defence of their autonomy and essentially represents non-state practices against state appropriations. Instead of being ‘unruly’, the raid is seen as a form of organized and premeditated resistance based on the consciousness of the hillmen's lived world order.

Type
Research Article
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 48 , Issue 5 , September 2014 , pp. 1188 - 1232
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to colleagues who shared their critical comments on earlier drafts of this paper, and to the anonymous referees.

References

1 Zomia is an upland region of Southeast Asia, Southwest China, and Northeast India. Amongst others, see Scott, James C. (2009). The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia, Yale University Press (YUP), New HavenGoogle Scholar.

2 See Grierson, G. A. (1904[1994]). Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. iii, part iii, Low Price Publication (LPP), DelhiGoogle Scholar. The term ‘Kuki’ is used here to mean the various tribes as understood by the British to be ‘Kukis’ who called themselves Chins, Kukis, Mizos, Zomis, Zos, etc. Likewise, I retain the old names, mentioning the new ones in brackets in the first instance.

3 West Bengal State Archives (WBSA), Kolkata, Judicial Proceedings (JP): June 1871, Nos. 206–207; Vumson (1986). Zo History, Aizawl, pp. 40–105; Mackenzie, A. (1884[2007]). The North-East Frontier of India, Mittal, New Delhi, pp. 351–352Google Scholar; Shakespear, J. (1912[1975]). The Lushei Kuki Clans, Tribal Research Institute (TRI), Aizawl, pp. 3–8Google Scholar; Carey, B. S. and Tuck, H. N. (1895[1987]). The Chin Hills: A History of the People, British dealings with them, their Customs and Manners, and a Gazetteer of their Country, Gian, Delhi, pp. 118–163Google Scholar.

4 There are several forms of resistance: ‘counter insurgency’, ‘confrontation’, ‘counter aesthetics’, ‘negotiations’ and other ‘everyday forms’ of resistance. See for instance, Guha, R. (1983). ‘The Prose of Counter-Insurgency’ in Guha, R. ed. Subaltern Studies II: Writing on South Asian History and Society, Oxford University Press (OUP), DelhiGoogle Scholar, and his other book (1983), Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India, OUP, Delhi; Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance, YUP, New HavenGoogle Scholar; Guha, R. (1989). The Unquiet Woods: Ecological Change and Peasant Resistance in the Himalaya, OUP, DelhiGoogle Scholar; Sivaramakrishnan, K. (1999). Modern Forests: Statemaking and Environmental Change in Colonial Eastern India, OUP, DelhiGoogle Scholar; Skaria, A. (1999). Hybrid Histories: Forest, Frontiers and Wildness in Western India, OUP, DelhiGoogle Scholar; Cederlof, G. (2005). The Agency of Colonial Subject: Claims and Rights in Forestlands in the Early Nineteenth-century Nilgiris, Studies in History, (n.s.), 21:2, 247–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 For the formation of these statelets in the region see Sinha, S. ed. (1989). Tribal Polities and State Systems in Pre-Colonial Eastern and North Eastern India, Bagchi and Co., CalcuttaGoogle Scholar; Bhattacharjee, J. B. (1991). Social and Polity Formations in Pre-Colonial Northeast India, Vikas, New DelhiGoogle Scholar.

6 These aspects of hill-valley relationships are reflected in most of the local court chronicles. See also Pemberton, R. B. (1835[2000]). The Eastern Frontier of India, Mittal, Delhi, p. 2Google Scholar.

7 The Kukis claimed that the Raja of Manipur took refuge in the house of Khongsat Kuki's father until the Burmese withdrew. See Shaw, W. (1929). Notes on the Thadou Kukis, Govt. of Assam Press, Shillong, p. 48Google Scholar. Raja Chingtung Komba (Joy Singh) stayed amongst the Kukis during the Burmese occupation of Manipur; the superior rice cultivated by the Kukis was given to him during this time. See McCulloch, W. (1859[1980]). An Account of the Valley of Manipore and of the Hill Tribes, Mittal, Delhi, p. 61Google Scholar.

8 WBSA, JP: 27 February 1850, No. 36, Lister to Grant, 2 February 1850.

9 The spelling of the word ‘Lushai’ is used in official records, but both Lushei or Lusei have also been used. ‘Lushai’ is the generic name for those dwelling in the Lushai Hills, whereas ‘Lushei’ is colloquial usage. For consistency, the spelling ‘Lushai’ has been used throughout this paper.

10 See WBSA, JP: August 1872, No. 220, Appendix-B: Robert Brown to Secy. Govt. of India (GOI), 22 March 1869. For an account of the escape of rebel Sawbwa ‘pretender’, Shwe Gyo Byu Prince, see Carey, Chin Hills, pp. 20–26.

11 Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, p. 301.

12 McCulloch, An Account of Manipore, p. 24; Hodson, T. C. (1908[1999]). The Meitheis, LPP, Delhi, pp. 9, 60Google Scholar.

13 See Raj Mala or Annals of Tripura as analysed by Long, Reverend J. in the Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. XIX; Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, pp. 269–270Google Scholar.

14 Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, p. 150.

15 Ibid., p. 279.

16 Carey, Chin Hills, p. 161.

17 Ibid., p. 150.

18 This is apparent in most colonial accounts. Quotations are from some reports: WBSA, JP: August 1872, No. 220, Appendix B: Dr R. Brown, Political Agent of Manipur, to GOI, 22 March 1869; WBSA, JP: July 1871: No. 108: H. C. Southerland, Magistrate of Sylhet, to Commissioner of Dacca, 29 April 1871; and the Observer (newspaper), 11 March 1871, as reproduced in Mackenzie's North-East Frontier, pp. 572–573.

19 Pemberton, Eastern Frontier, pp. 16–18. See also Macrae, J. (1801). Account of the Kookies or Lunctas, Asiatick Researches, Vol. vii, (reprint: Cosmo, New Delhi, 1919), p. 197Google Scholar; WBSA, JP: 27 May 1844, No. 103.

20 Waddel, L. A. (1901[2000]). The Tribes of the Brahmaputra Valley, Logos, Delhi, pp. 2–4Google Scholar. (Emphasis added).

21 In 1866 Asiatic Society of Bengal proposed a ‘great Ethnological Congress’ in Calcutta ‘to bring together in one exhibition’ such ‘specimens’. The ‘grand’ scheme was ‘reluctantly’ cancelled later when the Commissioner of Assam expressed possible ‘inconvenient political implications’ in bringing the fragile ‘specimens’ to Calcutta. See Dalton, E. T. (1872[1960]). Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal, Govt. of Bengal, Calcutta, p. iGoogle Scholar.

22 Lewin, T. H. (1870[1978]). Wild Races of South-Eastern India, TRI, Aizawl, p. 3Google Scholar; Waddel, The Tribes, pp. 2–3. (Emphasis added).

23 Pioneer, 23 April 1873, reproduced in Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, p. 585; Lewin, Wild Races, p. 2. (Emphasis added).

24 Inner Line Regulation was fixed along the Naga foothills in 1876 (modified in 1882), and in the Kuki foothills in 1878 (Cachar) and 1879 (Chittagong Hill Tracts). See Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, pp. 396–398.

25 Lewin, Wild Races, p. 3.

26 Expeditions against the Kukis were undertaken in 1845, 1850, 1861, 1870, 1871–1872, 1889, 1890–1891, 1891–1892 (by the British), and in 1857, 1875, 1883 (by the Manipuris).

27 See Scott, The Art of Not Being Governed.

28 Ibid., pp. 142–164.

29 Vumson, Zo History, pp. 33–39.

30 For an account of the Kuki settlement in Chindwin valley see, Vumson, Zo History, pp. 26–105; Lalthangliana, B. (1977). History of Mizo in Burma, Zawlbuk Agencies, Aizawl, pp. 1–26Google Scholar; Dalton, Descriptive Ethnology, p. 114.

31 ‘To the upper (country of the) Kyendweng [Chindwin] (river); To the level (plains of the) baleng and dry htoan (grasses), To the brick (walled) city of our forefathers, To the level (plains of the) baleng and dry htoan (grasses), Which are so charming (literally not a little charming), Let us hie, come along! Let us haste with every speed, Oh my fairy-like young brother!’, as quoted in Fryer, G. E. (1875). On the Khyeng People of the Sandoway District, Arakan, Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. 1, pp. 39–82Google Scholar, quotation from pp. 46–47.

32 On ‘Khumbat Chief’ a brief notice was made by McCulloch in An Account of Manipore, pp. 5–6.

33 For the movement of people from China to the tropics see, Wiens, H. J. (1954). China's March toward the Tropics: A Discussion of the Southward Penetration of China's Culture, Peoples, and Political Control in relation to the Non-Han-Chinese Peoples of South China in the Perspective of Historical and Cultural Geography, HamdenGoogle Scholar.

34 See Shakespear, Lushei Kuki Clans, pp. 91–94, 175, 190; Shaw, Thadou Kukis, pp. 24–32; Parry, N. E. (1931[1988]). The Lakhers, Omsons, Delhi, p. 4Google Scholar.

35 For Khul or Chhinlung traditions see McCulloch, An Account of Manipore, pp. 55–57; Shakespear, Lushei Kuki Clans, pp. 91–95; Shaw, Thadou Kukis, pp. 24–32; Parry, The Lakhers, p. 4; Lewin, Wild Races, p. 238.

36 As quoted in Pudaite, R. (1963). The Education of the Hmar People: With historical sketch of the people, Indo-Burma Pioneer Mission, Sielmat, p. 21Google Scholar.

37 Lit. noichin = down, mang = great, boulpi or kho = large-habitat or city, which may be translated as a great city or large settlement in the plain, possibly in the Chindwin valley.

38 Pudaite, Hmar People, p. 21.

39 Thadou's Khul story noted: Chongthu, with his followers, left their ‘bowel of the earth’ or ‘subterranean region’, analogous of the ‘walled city’, when king Noimangpa, his elder brother, had threatened to kill him for injuring the people during the Chon festival. See Shaw, Thadou Kukis, pp. 24–26; McCulloch, An Account of Manipore, pp. 55–56.

40 For Mizos, Khampat in Burma is the point where their future state hinges. A banyan tree planted by them before leaving that walled settlement is a prophecy: once its branches touch the ground their ruined kingdom would be restored. See Lalthangliana, Mizo in Burma, pp. 87–91.

41 Scott, The Art of Not Being Governed, pp. 178–219.

42 J. H. Hutton notes in Shaw's Thadou Kukis, p. 23, fn. 1.

43 WBSA, JP: August 1872, No. 220.

44 Dalton, Descriptive Ethnology, p. 114.

45 They are preserved in their themthu (literally wise word). In Daiphu sacrifice, for instance, thempu begins by invoking Pathen (God) who ‘arises’ from Vamthamjolpi (sky), Neljangphaichampi, Kolkhamlaipi, Kangmaiphaipi, Noichinbolpi, Leidupi-Leithaopi, Kholkip-Kholjang, etc. He thanked Pathen for protecting them in the old and new places, in the back and in the front, in the pathway, at Tuitobin, Tuivailen, Gelgamsi, Silen, Siselkibut, Shinapkai, Liplou, Mavang, Kongloi, Peusan, Tongdonkol, Loitong, Maipithel, Thoubal, Thangjing, Koubru, Gangpisi, Govasi, Thengbung, Tuihat, Menar, Alvatuo, and Tuikang. See Haokip, L. (2000). Thempu Ho Thu, (in Thadou-Kuki), Imphal, pp. 35–41Google Scholar.

46 Most colonial ethnographers noted jhum cultivation. See for instance, Shakespear, Lushei Kuki Clans, pp. 31–33; Shaw, Thadou Kukis, pp. 87–88; Carey, Chin Hills, pp. 210–213.

47 Shakespear, Lushei Kuki Clans, p. 34.

48 The area of the ‘great salt spring’ called Chiboo was a ‘hunting ground’ where both the Thadous and Lusheis manufactured salt and also hunted; when the former killed anything, noted Edgar, ‘they left a hind leg at the spring for the Lushais, who in their turn, when lucky, used to leave a leg for the Thadoes’. WBSA, JP: August 1872, No. 220.

49 The ‘sacred grooves’ of Falams and Hakas were, however, close to the village where, in the former, they were marked by ‘a large and curious rock which is use[d] as [an] altar, on which was laid food, feathers, and odds and ends’. Carey noted that the fire that destroyed some portion of Falam town was ascribed by the Chins to the wrath of the reigning deity in their groove when the British soldiers felled some trees there in order to make a suspension bridge. He also noted that a sick slave girl, before her death, confessed that it was because she had cut down the trees in the Haka's groove which were put up for sale. See Carey, Chin Hills, pp. 198–199.

50 McCulloch, An Account of Manipore, pp. 62–63.

51 This aspect of ‘culture and agriculture of escape’ is persuasively discussed in Scott, The Art of Not Being Governed, pp. 178–219.

52 See Sinha, Tribal Polities, pp. 177–211, 243–305; Bhattacharjee, Social and Polity Formations.

53 As cited in Woodthorpe, R. G. (1873). ‘The Lushai Expedition, 1871–72’ in Sharma, S. K. and Sharma, U. (2005). Discovery of North-East India, Vol. 8, Mittal, New Delhi, pp. 9–22Google Scholar, quotation from p. 18.

54 For the concept of mlechhas in early north India see Parasher-Sen, A. (2004). ‘“Foreigner” and “Tribe” as Barbarian (Mleccha) in Early North India’ in Parasher-Sen, A. ed. Subordinate and Marginal Groups in Early India, OUP, New Delhi, pp. 275–313Google Scholar.

55 WBSA, JP: 27 February 1850, Nos. 33–34.

56 Ibid., No. 36.

57 These descriptions abundantly filled the pages of the diaries and reports of Blackwood, Raban, Hopkinson, Edgar, Lewin and most of the military officers who had businesses in the Kuki hills.

58 WBSA, JP: June 1871, Nos. 206–207; Vumson, Zo History, pp. 40–105; Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, pp. 351–352; Shakespear, Lushei Kuki Clans, pp. 3–8.

59 WBSA, JP: August 1872, No. 220. See also National Archives of India (NAI), New Delhi, Foreign Political-A, Proceeding, (FPP-A): August 1872, No. 70.

60 J. W. Edgar to Secy. Govt. of Bengal, 5 June 1872, as reproduced in Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, p. 472.

61 Ibid., pp. 472–474.

62 WBSA, JP: August 1872, No. 212.

63 Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, pp. 335, 359.

64 WBSA, JP: December 1870, No. 172.

65 WBSA, JP: November 1866, Nos. 97–112.

66 Captain H. Hopkinson, Commissioner of Arakan, to the Secy., Govt. of Bengal, 7 May 1856, as quoted in verbatim in Mackenzie, North-East India, pp. 531–536.

67 See for instance, WBSA, Political Proceeding (PP), B: September 1891, Nos. 1–55, File L/8 of 1889.

68 Macrae, Account of the Kookies, p. 185; Brown, Statistical Account of Manipur, p. 48.

69 Stewart, R. (1855). Notes on Northern Cachar, Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. xxiv, No. 3, pp. 582–701Google Scholar. Quotation from p. 627.

70 Macrae, Account of the Kookies, p. 185. Sating (the flesh between the upper side of the ribs and the hide of all animals killed) is one such tribute paid by a man to his senior male next-of-kin till it went up to clan head (pipa). See Shaw, Thadou Kukis, pp. 65–66.

71 See WBSA, JP: June 1871, Nos. 206–207; Carey, Chin Hills, pp.118–163.

72 Carey, Chin Hills, p. 202.

73 Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, p. 358.

74 Lewin, Wild Tribes, p. 131.

75 Shakespear, Lushei Kuki Clans, p. 61.

76 Shaw, Thadou Kukis, p. 77. (Original emphasis).

77 There were two omens, one through the use of an egg and another by water. Shaw, Thadou Kukis, p. 83.

78 Shakespear, Lushei Kuki Clans, p. 22.

79 The Elephant ‘Kheda’ system was introduced to the Cachar frontier under the Military Department and Kuki ‘hunting grounds’ had virtually become ‘our valuable elephant-hunting grounds’ to the colonial state. Chatterjee, S. (1985). Mizoram under the British Rule, Mittal, Delhi, p. 43Google Scholar.

80 Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, pp. 277–278.

81 Hamilton, W. (1828[1993]). East-India Gazetteer, LPP, New Delhi, pp. 308–310Google Scholar.

82 Kumar, P. (2006). State and Society in North-East India: A Study of Immigrant Tea Plantation Labourers, Regency, New Delhi, pp. 25–31Google Scholar.

83 WBSA, JP: March 1865, Nos. 79–81; September 1865, Nos. 4–6; August 1872, No. 220; NAI, FPP-A: August 1872, No. 70; Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, p. 299.

84 Under Assam Rules of 1854, the lease of land for tea gardens was granted for 99 years: one-quarter of the grant with revenue was free in perpetuity, and the remaining three-quarters were revenue free for 15 years followed by 3 annas per acres for another 10 years and 6 annas for the remaining 74 years. See Kumar, State and Society, p. 28.

85 See for instance, WBSA, JP: 27 February 1850, No. 36.

86 WBSA, JP: September 1865, Nos. 4–6.

87 WBSA, JP: August 1872, No. 220; NAI, FPP-A: August 1872, No. 70.

88 Lord Siva was said to have ‘conceived a violent passion for a Kuki woman’ who accompanied the Raja whilst visiting the former's abode and that her neck was ‘broken by a divine kick delivered by Parvati, the jealous spouse of the enamoured deity’. See Raj Mala or Annals of Tripura as analysed by Reverend J. Long in the Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. XIX; Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, pp. 269–270.

89 To its eastern and northern directions Manipur's southern and western boundaries were respectively drawn, and to its westward boundary the Cachar southern boundary was drawn.

90 WBSA, JP: August 1872, No. 220. (Emphasis added).

91 Carey, Chin Hills, p. 134.

92 Shakespear, Lushei Kuki Clans, pp. 33–36; Carey, Chin Hills, pp. 215–220; Shaw, Thadou Kukis, pp. 88–90.

93 J. H. Hutton notes in Shaw's Thadou Kukis, p. 23, fn. 1.

94 WBSA, JP: July 1871, No. 269; October 1871, No. 209.

95 WBSA, JP: August 1872, No. 220; NAI, FPP-A: August 1872, No. 70.

96 WBSA, JP: April 1871, No. 253; Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, pp. 305–308.

97 See Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, pp. 396–398.

98 WBSA, JP: December 1870, No. 172. See also Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, pp. 360–361.

99 Edgar to Secy. Govt. of Bengal, 5 June 1872 as in Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, p. 472; Kumar, State and Society, pp. 25–31.

100 WBSA, JP: August 1872, No. 220.

101 For details of the conflicts see Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, pp. 321–25.

102 Kumar, State and Society, pp. 35–59.

103 Kumar, D.et al. eds (1983). The Cambridge Economic History of India, Vol. 2, c. 1757 to c. 1970, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 513Google Scholar.

104 Besides others, the story of Ponoo is interesting. She was captured from Calcutta bazaar, and after a long imprisonment she was forcibly brought to Cachar by an ‘emigration agent’ and employed in the tea garden where she was captured by the Kuki raiders. She was released from her Lushei captors during the Lushai Expedition, 1871–1872. See the moving depositions of others in WBSA, JP: August 1872, No. 212, Appendix-C.

105 WBSA, Police Proceedings: June 1875, Nos. 14–16, File No. 369.

106 Administration Report of Manipur, 1878–1879, p. 19; Assam Administration Report, 1879–1880, p. 5; Shaw, Thadou Kukis, p. 46; Johnstone, J. (1896[1987]). My Experience in Manipur and Naga Hills, Gian, Delhi, p. 26Google Scholar; Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, pp. 426–436; Brown, R. (1874[2001]). Statistical Account of the Native State of Manipur, Mittal, New Delhi, p. 57Google Scholar.

107 Lister was accompanied by hundreds of Kukis during his expedition against Mullah in 1850; more were utilized during the Lushai Expedition, 1871–1872. One thousand Kuki warriors joined the Manipuris expedition against the Suktes in 1875. See for instance, WBSA, JP: 27 February 1850, No. 36; August 1872, No. 220; Shaw, Thadou Kukis, p. 48.

108 Shaw, Thadou Kukis, p. 46.

109 Smallpox and cholera generally came from the plains through raiders, merchants, etc. Should those infected visit a village the residents ‘scattered more effectually than it would be by an attack’ and a man from an infected village would be ‘assuredly shot’ if he attempted to approach another village. These diseases ‘excited the greatest terror’ so that the victims were left to providence and a number of them killed themselves on the first appearance of the symptoms. See McCulloch, An Account of Manipore, p. 63; Carey, Chin Hills, p. 186; Lewin, Wild Races, p. 142.

110 Of equal importance and the argument I have made in another paper see ‘Civilisation and its malcontents: The politics of Kuki raid in nineteenth century Northeast India’, The Indian Economic and Social History Review, 48, 3 (2011): 339–76.

111 For instance see Pemberton, Eastern Frontier, p. 2.

112 Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, p. 279.

113 Ibid., pp. 277–278.

114 Ibid., p. 278.

115 WBSA, JP: December 1870, No. 172. See also Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, pp. 360–361.

116 The Chittagong Hill Tracts were inhabited by the Mugh, Chakmas, Poangs, Phrus, etc., who were commonly known as ‘Joomeas’. Their earlier relationship with the Kukis, though episodic, can be inferred from the case of 1777 when Ramoo Khan, a Chakma chief of the Tract, rebelled against British authority and called in ‘large bodies of Kookie men’ to assist him. See Lewin, Wild Races, pp. 41–130; Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, p. 332.

117 Ibid., p. 337.

118 Ibid., pp. 333–38.

119 Ibid., pp. 354–55.

120 Ibid., pp. 290, 355.

121 WBSA, PP (B): September 1891, Nos. 34–37, File No. L/17 of 1889; NAI, Foreign External Proceedings-A (FEP-A): October 1889, Nos. 30–52; Reid, A.S. (1893[1976]). Chin-Lushai Land including a description of the various expeditions into the Chin-Lushai Hills and the final annexation of the country, TRI, Aizawl, pp. 40–46Google Scholar.

122 Reid, Chin-Lushai Land, p. 8.

123 WBSA, JP: June 1866, No. 79; January 1867, No. 82; and August 1872, No. 220. See also NAI, FPP-A: August 1872, No. 70.

124 NAI, FPP-A: August 1872, No. 70; WBSA, JP: August 1872, No. 220.

125 Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, p. 305.

126 WBSA, JP: April 1871, No. 253; January 1872, No. 141; and February 1872, No. 106; Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, pp. 305–309.

127 WBSA, JP: August 1872, No. 212.

128 Reid, Chin-Lushai Land, p. 11.

129 This led to Military Operations, followed by the permanent occupation of the Chin Hills.

130 WBSA, PP (B): September 1891, Nos. 1–55, File L/8 of 1889; Carey, Chin Hills, p. 26.

131 WBSA, PP (B): September 1891, Nos. 94, File L/8 of 1889.

132 WBSA, PP (B): September 1891, No. 1, File No. L/8 of 1889.

133 For details of Lalchookla's statement before Captain Blackwood see WBSA, JP: 12 February 1845, No. 105. See also the depositions of 14 other Kukis. Laroo was badly beaten up for not supplying men to the two princes who had attempted to occupy the gaddi (throne) of Manipur state. On the report of raid see WBSA, JP: 27 May 1844, Nos. 103–109; Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, pp. 274–290.

134 WBSA, JP: 27 May 1844, No. 103; 8 January 1845, No. 193.

135 See WBSA, JP: 27 February 1850, No. 35.

136 WBSA, JP, 3 September 1844, No. 42; 12 February 1845, No. 105; Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, p. 288; Chatterjee, Mizoram under the British Rule, pp. 13–25.

137 WBSA, JP: 3 September 1844, No. 42.

138 WBSA, JP: April 1871, No. 206. Edgar however noted that the attack on Kochabari was the work of Lushei chief Mongper and that the Manipuris were helping the Poitoos.

139 About 150 people were killed.

140 Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, p. 291.

141 See WBSA, JP: April 1863, Nos. 374–377.

142 WBSA, JP: November 1860, Nos. 245–47; Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, pp. 342–343. See also Roychowdhury, N. R. (1976). Kuki Disturbances in Tripura, 1860–61, Social Scientist, 4:9, 60–65Google Scholar.

143 WBSA, JP: November 1860, No. 246.

144 WBSA, JP: February 1861, Nos. 120–124, 166, 304, 309–310; March 1861, Nos. 113–114; Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, pp. 344–345. See also, Roychowdhury, Kuki Disturbances in Tripura, 1860–61, p. 61.

145 WBSA, JP: March 1861, No. 114.

146 Carey, Chin Hills, pp. 120, 130, 154, 161.

147 The Chassads raided villages that refused to pay them tributes and acknowledge Manipur Raja's authority over them. They also attacked Manipur police thannas. See Johnstone, Manipur and the Naga Hills, p. 185; Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, pp. 203–204, 211–212; Dun, Gazetteer of Manipur, p.34; Shaw, Thadou Kukis, pp. 46–47.

148 WBSA, JP: August 1872, No. 220, Appendix C; Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, pp. 167–168; Carey, Chin Hills, pp. 19–20, 141.

149 The frontier bazaars visited by the Kukis included: Tipaimukh, Bepari/Changsil Bazar and Lushai Haut (in Cachar); Demagiri and Kassalong Bazar (in Chittagong); Talakme (in Araccan); and in Burma: Yazagyo (by Thadous and Soktes), Kalemyo (Siyins), Indin and Sihaung (Tashons), Myintha and Gangaw (by Hakas).

150 Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, p. 338.

151 See Mackenzie, North-East Frontier, p. 322; Carey, Chin Hills, p. 26.

152 WBSA, JP: November 1860, Nos. 245–247; March 1861, No. 114.