Revisiting the history of Zou Gal, 1917-1919

Prelude: The hills of Zoland bear silent testimony to a past shaped by resilience, courage, and an unyielding spirit of self-determination. Among these defining moments stands the historic struggle of the Zou people during the turbulent years of 1917–1919—an episode remembered today as Zou Gal. This period marked not merely a confrontation with colonial expansion but a profound assertion of identity, autonomy, and ancestral dignity.

As we gather to commemorate the 109th Zou Gal Day in 2026 at Zou Gal Hall, Zoveng, Lamka, we are called to reflect deeply on the historical significance of this resistance. The observance is not only a remembrance of sacrifice but also a reaffirmation of the enduring legacy that continues to shape the collective consciousness of the Zou community.

In this spirit of reflection and scholarly engagement, Dr. S. Thangboi Zou presents his paper titled “Revisiting the History of Zou Gal, 1917–1919.” His work seeks to re-examine the narratives surrounding the Zou resistance, drawing from historical records, oral traditions, and indigenous perspectives that have often remained underrepresented in mainstream historiography.

This revisitation is both timely and necessary. It offers an opportunity to critically engage with the past—not as a distant memory, but as a living heritage that informs present identity and future aspirations. By situating Zou Gal within a broader historical and cultural framework, the paper contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics between colonial forces and indigenous resistance in the region.

As we honour the bravery of our forebears, this academic endeavour enriches the commemoration by bridging memory with scholarship. It invites us not only to remember but to understand, to preserve, and to pass forward the legacy of Zou Gal with clarity and pride.

........ Here goes the paper presented by Dr S Thangboi Zou ........

1. Historical Background of Zou Gal

Political and social situation before 1917.

The administrative system of British colonial rule in Manipur

• Maharaja as the nominal ruler:
  The Manipur king continued to rule internally.
• British Political Agent:
  A British officer called the Political Agent supervised the administration and represented the British Government.
• Indirect rule:
  The British allowed the traditional monarchy to continue but ensured loyalty to the colonial government.
• State Durbar system:
  Administrative decisions were made through the Manipur State Durbar, a council consisting of the Maharaja and selected officials.

Relations between hill tribes and the colonial government

·         Direct British supervision:

The hill areas were placed under the responsibility of the Political Agent in Manipur.

·         Village chief system retained:

Traditional tribal chiefs continued to govern villages, but the hill house tax was paid to Manipur.

·         Minimal interference policy:

The British followed a policy of indirect control, interfering mainly in:

• ·         tax collection
• ·         law and order
• ·         inter-tribal conflicts

·         Military posts:

Security was maintained through forces such as the Assam Rifles.

Recruitment for the Labour Corps during World War I (1914-18)

• ·    During World War I, the British Empire required a large number of non-combat workers to support military operations in Europe and the Middle East. These workers were organised into labour units such as the Indian Labour Corps.
• ·    From the hill regions of present-day Manipur, Nagaland, Mizoram, and adjoining Chin areas, the British recruited thousands of tribal men to serve as labourers.
• ·    In Manipur, a labour corps was raised from other communities like Naga, Nepali, and some of the Kuki tribes, too. Under the command of the Political Agent of Manipur, the first batch of the coolies, numbering around 200 were sent to France in May 1917.

·         Methods of Recruitment

a) Through Political Officers

British officers, such as the Political Agent in Manipur supervised recruitment in the hill areas.

b) Through Village Chiefs

c) Voluntary

Local grievances among hill communities (Indirect cause)

·         Administrative Neglect in the Hills:

The hill areas of Manipur lacked a “satisfactory” administrative system despite covering about 7,000 square miles of rugged and roadless terrain. The President of the Darbar, largely occupied with valley affairs, relied on poorly paid intermediaries known as Lambus, resulting in minimal governance, almost no schools, and little social development for the hill tribes.

·         Disproportionate Taxation and Economic Exploitation:

Hill households were required to pay Rs. 3 house tax to Manipur despite operating within a subsistence jhum economy with limited currency circulation. J.E. Webster noted the stark imbalance between revenue and expenditure: “The revenue derived directly from the hill tribes consists of about Rs. 70000 a year in the form of tax on houses; while the expenditure on the hills has hitherto ranged between Rs. 17000 and Rs. 19000.”

·         Colonial and Valley Discrimination against Hill Tribes:

The neglect of hill communities was further reflected in discriminatory attitudes within the administration. Webster observed: “Unfortunately, …the Manipuri has not yet learned to look upon the Kuki or Naga as a human being and it would be not fair to the hill tribes to hand them over, unprotected to the mercies of the Manipuri.”

Such neglect, unequal taxation, and lack of development contributed significantly to growing resentment and eventual rebellion among the hill tribes.

2. Causes of the Zou Gal

Besides the above socio-political situations, these are the direct causes

·         Forced recruitment for the Labour Corps in France during World War I

·         Fear of being sent overseas

·         Interference with traditional chiefship/leadership

·         Perceived disruption of traditional religious practice

 

Ø  At that moment, our forefathers faced a difficult choice: to submit quietly or to defend their dignity and way of life (liberty).

Ø  History tells us what they chose. They chose courage. They chose unity. They chose to stand for their people.

Ø  The Zous and cognate tribes responded to the king’s summon by stating that “they would neither send their own tribesmen nor let men of other tribes join the corps”.[i]

Ø  That choice became what we remember today as Zou Gal (Zou Uprising).

 

3. Zou Preparation for Resistance

·         There were around 700 Zous at Thingat Somthong and Buksao Henthang villages.

·         The Buhsau chief, Pu Henthang killed mithuns as the Zou forces pledged to wage war on the ‘Sirkir’ (government). They also decided to help Haokips of Ukha to “kill the Sahebs”.[ii] (Colonial Record).

·         Higgins (Pol Officer) expressed his perceived dread for the Zou forces as: “We look like having a bloody and protracted war on here, though numbers were probably exaggerated. But if the Manhlun-Manchungs (Zous) are out, as these seems to be no doubt, they will have plenty of guns. The Chin Hills border is stiff with them”.[iii]

4. Key Events of the War (as per colonial record)

·         By the end of 1917, Cosgrave and his armed men were ambushed at Tuibom, near Sugnu by Zou and Thadou forces.

·         27^th January 1918, Capt. Steadman and his soldiers were ambushed at Gotengkot, near Haika village by Zou and Thadou forces. Captain Steadman lost eleven of his men’s lives and got many wounded including himself.

·         March 16, 1918, Buhsau raided by the British forces, the chief Henthang and his men surrendered to the British armies, but was shot dead along with his family members. One British soldier died. They burned all the houses.

·         17^th March 1918, Singngat village was attacked by the British troops, and then occupied after a brief encounter. Singngat burnt and foodgrains destroyed.

·         After burning Singngat, Cosgrave and his column marched forward to attack Hiangtam on the 19^th March 1918.[iv] Burned 100 maunds of rice. Fierce fighting took place for hours. Sepoy Harka Bahadur Chettri was shot dead at the head. Pu Kamkeleng and Pu Suohkham/kam were killed. [v]  Cosgrave said: “The defence of Hengtam village was by far the most stubborn and well organised fight I have seen the Manipur Kukis put up, and there is every sign that our present foes Manlun Manchong Kukis (referred to as Zous) are a more formidable foe than the other Kukis with whom No. 2 column has so far dealt”.[vi]

·         21^st March 1918.[vii], Tonjang was attacked again, it was already burnt before Cosgrave and party reached the village. A brief encounter ensued.

·         Ngalzang situated near Indo-Myanmar border (in Manipur) was attacked and burnt down in May 2018. “On that night, the Subedar and his sepoys also arrived there and proceeded towards Nghalzang. And I informed the Subedar that our enemy were at sight, at that moment they fired at us which the sepoys also returned firing; then we entered their village and burnt it and returned to Pangmual again.[viii]

·         H. Falkland, Superintendent of Lushai Hills responded a message by forwarding a telegram to the Commissioner of Silchar as:

“Information received that Joh Tribesmen threaten to raid Chingbunga and Luanbunga in our territory directly. Tuisah is fordable wired Manipur for action he suggests” [ix].

 

5. Oral History and Indigenous Memory

Various oral traditions, songs, stories, and local accounts.

• Community memories
• Family histories (eg. Biographies)
• Village narratives

They help recover perspectives missing from colonial archives.

6. Re-interpretation of Zou Gal history

·  Was it only a reaction to labour recruitment?

No, while the recruitment for the Labour Corps during World War I acted as an immediate trigger, the Zou Gal emerged from deeper grievances such as administrative neglect, heavy taxation, and colonial interference in hill affairs.

·  Was it a defense of autonomy (liberty, dignity, land) and traditional governance?

Yes, the movement can be interpreted as a collective effort by the Zou/Kuki chiefs and communities to defend their autonomy, dignity, land rights, and traditional systems of governance from increasing colonial control.

·  Was it a broader anti-colonial resistance movement?

Yes, the Zou Gal (Zou Rebellion or Kuki Uprising) can also be viewed as a broader anti-colonial resistance against British authority in the hill regions of Manipur and the surrounding frontier areas. In this sense the Zou Gal resembles other tribal resistance movements like the Santhal Rebellion (1855–1856), Munda Rebellion (1899–1900), and Rampa Rebellion (1922–1924).

7. The Values Revealed by Zou Gal

Beyond the historical events themselves, Zou Gal represents a number of important values that define the character of the Zou people.

Courage: First, Zou Gal reminds us of the courage of our forefathers. They were not a powerful army equipped with modern weapons. Yet they had the courage to stand against a colonial power because they believed in protecting their way of life.

Unity: Second, Zou Gal demonstrates the importance of unity. During that difficult period, different villages and clans came together to face a common challenge. This unity allowed the people to resist pressures that no single village could have faced alone.

Love for Land and Identity: Third, Zou Gal reflects the deep attachment our ancestors had to their land, culture, and identity. They understood that land was not merely a physical territory. It was the foundation of their community, their traditions, and their future generations.

Today, our challenges are different from those faced by our ancestors. We are no longer living under colonial rule. However, we face new issues such as cultural erosion, social fragmentation, and the pressures of modernisation to the extent of forgetting our tradition & culture.

Thank You.

By:

The 109^th Zou Gal Day Observance Committee

United Zou Organisation, General Headquarters.

 

---

[i] Interview conducted by Chilunthang to Suohkhup Manlun of Sehken village, Churachandpur on 24/7/2009. Also found in ‘Resolution on the Late Kuki Rising’, op.cit. p.1

[ii] ‘Progress of Operation against Kukis 1918’, Political – B, March 1919, Sl. No. 41, Row-2, Sec.-2, op.cit. p. 73

[iii] Political B, March 1919, Sl. No. 41, op.cit. p. 71

[iv] Tour Diary of Political Agent 1916-1918, p.6.

[v] Chinthu Zaila’ (Zou Literature Reader-X), op.cit. p.22

[vi] Tour Diary of Political Agent 1916-1918, op.cit. p.6

[vii] Tour Diary of Political Agent 1916-1918, op.cit. p.8

[viii] A letter sent by Thangtuala to the Superintendent of Lushai Hills. C.B No. 9, File No.85, Political Department, Mizoram State Archives.

123 No. 233G of 18-9-1918: A letter sent to the Superintendent, Lushai Hills by Luanvunga Vuite, chief of Vaikhawtlang, C.B. No. 9, File No. 85, Political Department, op.cit.