Meitei–Kuki–Naga Relations Before and After Indian Independence

History, Colonial Transformations, Post-Colonial State Formation, and Contemporary Conflict

Abstract

The relationship among the Meitei, Kuki, and Naga communities in Manipur is shaped by pre-colonial political economy, colonial ethnic classification, and post-independence state restructuring. Prior to British intervention, relations were characterised by fluctuating patterns of trade, warfare, tribute, and political subordination between valley-based Meitei kings and surrounding hill tribes. Colonial policies restructured land, identity, and administration, crystallising ethnic boundaries. After India’s independence and Manipur’s merger in 1949, democratic politics, constitutional safeguards, insurgent nationalism, and competing territorial claims transformed earlier socio-political interactions into rigid ethnic contestations. This paper traces these transformations through archival records, colonial ethnography, and post-independence political developments, demonstrating how historical state formation, identity institutionalisation, and development asymmetries culminated in protracted ethnic conflict, including the large-scale violence from 2023 onward.

---

Keywords

Meitei, Kuki, Naga, Manipur, Hill–Valley Divide, Colonialism, Insurgency, Ethnic Conflict, Northeast India

---

1. Introduction

Manipur’s ethnic mosaic is dominated by three broad civilizational groupings: the Meitei of the Imphal valley, and the Kuki and Naga tribes inhabiting the surrounding hill ranges. Their relationship spans centuries of interaction defined by political domination, economic exchange, conflict, and strategic alliance. While inter-group rivalry existed in the pre-colonial past, it was neither permanently antagonistic nor existential in character. The present intensity of ethnic polarisation is a modern political outcome, not an ancient inevitability.

This paper seeks to answer three core questions:

1.      How were Meitei–Kuki–Naga relations structured in the pre-colonial and colonial periods?

2.      How did Indian independence and state formation (1947–1971) transform these relations?

3.      Why have these relations increasingly become violent and polarised in the post-1980 period, culminating in the 2023–2025 conflict?

2. Methodology and Sources

This study adopts a historical–political method, drawing from:

• British colonial political reports and gazetteers
• Anthropological works of J.H. Hutton, T.C. Hodson, Verrier Elwin
• Indigenous historians such as Gangmumei Kamei, Khelchandra Singh, and Lal Dena
• Post-colonial conflict analysis literature
• Government commission reports and constitutional documents

3. Pre-Colonial Political Order and Ethnic Interaction (before 1891)

3.1 The Meitei Kingdom and Valley State Formation

The Meitei established a powerful centralised kingdom in the Imphal valley by the 15th century. Kings such as Pamheiba (Garibniwaz) transformed the state through Hindu Vaishnavite conversion, administrative centralisation, and military expansion.¹

The valley functioned as:

• A wet-rice agrarian economy
• A court-based monarchy
• A centre of literacy and state institutions

In contrast, the hill tribes remained segmentary societies, organised through clan councils and shifting cultivation.

3.2 Kuki and Naga Political Systems

The Nagas were historically village-republics with strong ritual autonomy, while the Kukis followed a chieftainship system based on hereditary village authority.²

Both groups:

• ·         Practised jhum (shifting cultivation)
• ·         Engaged in inter-village warfare
• ·         Conducted trade with the valley

3.3 Interdependence and Conflict

Relations were marked by:

• ·         Tribute collection by Meitei kings
• ·         Hill raids during inter-tribal rivalries
• ·         Economic exchange of forest produce for salt, iron, and cloth

Crucially, conflict remained localised and political, not ethnic-existential.

4. Colonial Transformation (1891–1947)

4.1 British Conquest and Administrative Dualism

After the Anglo-Manipur War of 1891, Manipur became a British protectorate. A dual system emerged:

• ·         Indirect rule through the Meitei king in the valley
• ·         Direct political agents in the hills

The hills were officially classified as "Excluded Areas", separating administrative futures.³

4.2 Census, Tribe, and Identity

Colonial censuses rigidified identities by:

• ·         Classifying Kukis and Nagas as tribes
• ·         Categorising Meitei as a Hindu caste society
• ·         Freezing fluid ethnic boundaries into permanent administrative labels⁴

4.3 Christian Missionaries and Educational Asymmetry

Christian missions expanded rapidly in Naga and Kuki areas:

• ·         Producing high literacy
• ·         Linking hill elites to pan-tribal consciousness
• ·         Creating religio-ethnic differentiation from Meitei Vaishnavism

5. Merger with India and Post-Colonial Restructuring (1947–1971)

5.1 The 1949 Merger Agreement

Manipur merged with India under controversial conditions in 1949. The elected Manipur Assembly was dissolved, generating valley-based resentment over the loss of sovereignty.⁵

Hill groups increasingly aligned with central protections, while many Meitei elites saw the merger as political subjugation.

5.2 Constitutional Asymmetry

India introduced:

• ·         Scheduled Tribe safeguards for Kukis and Nagas
• ·         Land protection laws in hill districts
• ·         No ST status for Meiteis

Article 371C:
This article provides special administrative arrangements for Manipur through a Hill Areas Committee but lacks full legislative sovereignty.

Sixth Schedule:

Manipur hill areas were excluded from Sixth Schedule protections, creating institutional disadvantage relative to other tribal states.

Legal Impact:
This constitutional asymmetry intensified ethnic polarization over land, autonomy, and political safeguards.

6. Insurgency, Ethnic Militarisation and Territorial Competition (1970s–2000s)

6.1 Naga Nationalism

The NSCN movement sought Naga territorial integration (Nagalim), including Naga-inhabited regions of Manipur. This alarmed both Kukis and Meiteis.⁶

6.2 Kuki Militancy and Kuki–Naga Clashes

In the 1990s, a violent Kuki–Naga conflict erupted over:

• ·         Territorial control
• ·         Village boundaries
• ·         Political dominance

Over 1,000 deaths occurred between 1992–1997. Between 1992–1997, a violent Kuki–Naga conflict erupted over territorial dominance and militant control. Over 1,000 deaths and 300 villages were affected. This altered ethnic boundaries and political alignments permanently.7

6.3 Meitei Insurgency

Valley-based Meitei insurgent groups emerged demanding:

• ·         Sovereignty
• ·         Protection of valley's political rights
• ·         Repeal of central security laws

This created a triangular insurgency structure unique in India.

7. Land, Demography and Development Inequality

Post-1970 development deepened tensions:

• ·         Hill districts remained underdeveloped
• ·         Valley economy expanded rapidly
• ·         Forest laws, poppy cultivation, and migration altered demographic balances

Land became a symbol of ethnic survival, not merely an economic resource.

8. The 2023–2025 Ethnic Violence: Structural and Immediate Causes

The conflict triggered by the Manipur High Court directive on ST status escalated into full-scale ethnic violence, resulting in large-scale displacement and institutional breakdown.

8.1 Immediate Trigger

The Manipur High Court directive on Meitei ST status was perceived by Kuki groups as a threat to:

• ·         Land ownership
• ·         Political representation
• ·         Minority protections

8.2 Structural Causes

• ·         Constitutional inequality
• ·         Historical distrust
• ·         Armed group entrenchment
• ·         Weak neutral policing
• ·         Ethnicised civil society

The conflict produced:

• ·         Over 200 deaths
• ·         70,000+ displaced
• ·         Complete ethnic segregation of Imphal Valley and hill peripheries

9. Comparative Analysis: Before and After Independence

Dimension	Pre-Colonial	Post-Independence
Nature of Conflict	Political & economic	Identity & constitutional
Land Control	Tributary & customary	Legalised ethnic ownership
Polity	Monarchical	Electoral-democratic
Violence	Episodic raids	Prolonged armed conflict

Timeline of Major Events

Year	Event
1891	British conquest of Manipur
1949	Merger with Indian Union
1970s	Rise of insurgent movements
1992–1997	Kuki–Naga ethnic conflict
2023–2025	Major Meitei–Kuki ethnic violence

10. Conclusion

The Meitei–Kuki–Naga relationship was historically structured by political asymmetry and economic interdependence, not permanent ethnic hostility. Colonial rule transformed fluid identities into bureaucratic ethnic categories. Post-independence constitutional arrangements, insurgent militarisation, land laws, and development inequality converted administrative difference into existential ethnic contestation. The 2023–2025 conflict is not an aberration but the cumulative outcome of these unresolved structural contradictions.

Long-term peace requires:

• ·         Constitutional safeguards for all
• ·         De-militarisation
• ·         Neutral governance
• ·         Shared economic futures
• ·         Truth and reconciliation mechanisms

---

References

Baruah, S. (2005). Durable disorder: Understanding the politics of Northeast India. Oxford University Press.

Elwin, V. (1969). The Nagas in the nineteenth century. Oxford University Press.

Gangmumei Kamei. (2004). History of modern Manipur (1826–1949). Akansha Publishing.

Hodson, T. C. (1911). The Naga tribes of Manipur. Macmillan.

Hutton, J. H. (1929). The Nagas of India. Macmillan.

Khelchandra Singh, N. (1988). Manipur Itihas. Manipur Sahitya Parishad.

Lal Dena. (2008). Ethnicity and identity in Northeast India. Manak Publications.

Shimray, U. (2004). Women in Naga society. Regency Publications.

South Asia Terrorism Portal. (2023–2025). Manipur conflict database. Institute for Conflict Management