Zou Gal (Kuki Rising) 1917 - 1919

A COMMEMORATIVE SPEECH ON

on the 1st Zou Gaal Day (17 March 2011)

MP’s Club, South Avenue, New Delhi

- By David Vumlallian Zou

“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.”

- Sir Robert Reid, Governor of Assam

Shakespear’s Map (1929) & ZLS Sketch (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 Corps 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 Company.

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. Lane of the Indian Medical Services, “The honour of India was upheld first by aborigines and then by convicts.” But the Santhals of Mayurbhanj (a chiefdom in Bihar and Orissa) rose in rebellion against attempts to force them into the Labour Corps.

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.” 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 Kukis.

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 Ithai. 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 - 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 area. Steadman was badly wounded at three places. 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” 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 road.

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- Chief. 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 Keary.

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 operation.

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 Enjakap.

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

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.”

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 courts.

John Paratt (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.” (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 cost. 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” (p. 18).

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). “Rules for Management of the State of Manipur” 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.”

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.”

(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” (p. 107).

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”.

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”. 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

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

1. Bhadra, Gautam (1975) “The Kuki (?) Uprising 1917-1919: Its Causes and Nature” Man in India, 55 (1): 11 – 56.
2. Chishti, S M A W (2004) Kuki Uprising In Manipur 1919-1920, Guwahati: Spectrum Publication (82 pp; Rs. 295).
3. Chishti, S M A W , Political Development in Manipur 1919-1949, Delhi: Kalpaz Publications.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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. Reid, Robert (1942) History of the Frontier Areas bordering on Assam from 1883-1941, Shillong: Assam Government Press, p. 79.
8. Shakespear, Colonel L.W. (1929) History of the Assam Rifles, p. 216.
9. 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.
10. Zou Literature Society (2002) “Zou Gaal” pp. 19 – 27 in Chinthu Zaila – Zou Literature
11. Reader X, Churachandpur: Published by T. Lamkhothawng on behalf of ZLS.
12. Robert Reid (1942) History of the Frontier Areas bordering on Assam from 1883-1941, Shillong: Assam Government Press, p. 79.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Lt. Col. A. T. Wilson (1930) Loyalties in Mesopotamia, 1914-1917, London.
16. NAI, New Delhi, Home Department, Political, B, Feb. 1917, nos. 353-96. Cited in Singha (2007)
17. “Finding Labor from India for the War in Iraq” p. 412.
18. NAI, New Delhi, Foreign & Political Department, Internal, Sept. 1918, nos. 84 – 100.
19. National Archives of India (hereafter NAI), New Delhi, Foreign Department, Political File No. 54, 1917.
20. Colonel L.W. Shakespear (1929) History of the Assam Rifles, p. 216.
21. Office of the Political Agent, Special File n. 388, 1919, SLRB, Imphal.
22. Shakespear, History of the Assam Rifles, p. 214.
23. Shakespear, History of the Assam Rifles, p. 219.
24. Shakespear, History of the Assam Rifles, p. 220.
25. Shakespear, History of the Assam Rifles, p. 214.
26. NAI, New Delhi, Home Department, Political File no. 31, 1918.
27. NAI, New Delhi, Home Department, Political File no. 185, 1918.
28. NAI, New Delhi, Home Department, Police Files no. 47, 1919.
29. NAI, New Delhi, Home Department, Police Files no. 8, 1919.
30. Manipur State Archives, Imphal, Webster’s letter No. 81, dated 3 Jan. 1918.
31. NAI, New Delhi, Home Department, Political File no. 29, 1918.
32. Paratt, John (2005) Wounded Land: Politics and Identity in Modern Manipur, New Delhi.
33. Gautam Bhadra (1975) “The Kuki (?) Uprising 1917 – 1919: Its Causes and Naure” in Man in India, March, pp. 10 – 56.
34. 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.
35. Gautam Bhadra (1975) “The Kuki (?) Uprising 1917-1919: Its Causes and Nature” Man in India, 55 (1): 11 – 56.
36. Lal Dena (1991) (ed.) History of Modern Manipur 1826 – 1949, New Delhi: Orbit Publishers & Distributors.
37. NAI, New Delhi, Foreign Department, Political Files no.1011 (1923).
38. Cited in Lal Dena (1991) “Kuki Rebellion 1917-1920” (pp. 126-134) in Lal Dena, ed. History of Modern Manipur, p. 133.
39. 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.
40. Ningmuanching (2010) Reading Colonial Representations: Kukis and Nagas of Manipur, Unpublished M.Phil dissertation, Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, 2010.
41. NAI, New Delhi, Foreign and Political Department, Rebellion of the Kuki Tribes, Webster’s letter 5 June 1918.
42. Guite, Jangkhomang (2011) “Monuments, Memory and Forgetting in postcolonial North-East India”
43. Economic and Political Weekly, February 19, 2011, Vol. XLVI, No. 8, pp. 56 – 64.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

All Rights Reserved by Dr. David Vumlallian Zou

--------------------------------------------------------------------