Talk:2023–2024 Manipur violence

Illegal immigrants

I was curious about this edit of Iskandar323, which introduced this passage under the summary of "copyediting".

In 2023, the state government in Manipur began efforts to remove what it claimed where illegal immigrants from settlements in reserve forest areas. Officials stated that illegal immigrants from Myanmar had been settling in Manipur since the 1970s.

References

In a later edit, they deleted the scratched out phrase.

The first sentence apparently comes from this statement in the source:

But Meiteis say that the protest against ST status is just a facade. The Kukis are unnerved by the state government's drive to remove illegal immigrants from settlements in reserve forest areas.

The second sentence from these statements in the source:

"Kukis are migrating illegally from across the Myanmar border and occupying forest land in Manipur. Recently, the Manipur government started an eviction drive to clear illegal settlements in reserve forest areas. The drive was in all areas, including those inhabited by Meiteis and Muslims, but only the Kukis are protesting," says Chand Meetei Pocshangbam of the All Meitei Council.

"Meiteis are demanding an NRC because of the sudden population spike in the last two decades in areas bordering Myanmar. Illegal immigrants from Myanmar have been settling in Manipur since 1970s but the movement has intensified now," he says.

Apparently, "Chand Meetei Pochshangbam of the All Meitei Council" has turned into "officials", and his claims climbed out of the quote marks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

If you check the diff, I didn't introduce the material, but merely moved it from one section to another. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is the block of edits that you made. This content wasn't present before your edits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Change it as you see fit. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Background section on refugees

I have deleted from the mainspace a huge section on refugees from Myanmar, which is growing and growing. Please note that material in the background sections has to be validated by sources that connect it to the present topic. You can't simply add whatever you personally think is relevant. That would be considered WP:OR. Also, all the material concerning Mizoram should be deleted. Pinging Chaipau for his input.

The renewed outbreak of civil war in Myanmar has caused an influx of refugees in the states of Manipur and Mizoram. Dozens of illegal immigrants, including ex-security, forces reportedly entered Manipur. In July 2023, there were an estimated 50,000 refugees who had fled into India.

While the Myanmar refugees are given familial treatment with compassion to take shelter by the state government of Mizoram, the Manipur government's view on the matter is somewhat divergent. Dominant Zo-Kuki demographic of Manipur's Churachandpur district which borders the state of Mizoram, and the dominant Mizos have strong ethnic relation with each other and also with Kukis of Myanmar. While Chief Minister Zoramthanga of Mizoram, under his governance, shows a sense of compassion towards refugees including ex-forces of Myanmar, at least some Zo-Kuki portion in Manipur are not happy with the attitude of Manipur government, under the leadership of Chief Minister N Biren Singh, towards them who are, if not together, in the proximity of Myanmar immigrants.

In addition to the influx, drug trafficking, spillover of the war and the Myanmar junta's use of aerial bombing and napalm has destabilized the border region. In January 2023, the Myanmar Air Force carried out airstrikes targeting the Myanmar-based Chin National Army's headquarters, near the India-Myanmar border. The air attacks violated Indian airspace and soil, according to local Mizo organizations and the international research and advocacy organization Fortify Rights. India expressed its concern to the junta about its military actions near its sensitive northeastern region in the wake of massive exodus of refugees into India. Minister of Home Affairs Amit Shah stated that the influx of Kuki people from Myanmar created insecurity amongst the Meitei people of Manipur and triggered the violence. According to ground reports, many refugees also brought arms with them and instigated drug turf wars.

References

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the paring down by @Kautilya3. Immigration as a contributing factor has emerged ex post facto, after the fact, and should not be placed in the background section. Chaipau (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The sub-section had a lot of contribution from my side. Would have considered looking if it fits in other sections example: Overview. I don't fully agree removing all of it as such as it also explains genuine sentiments of the Kukis, to some extent their displeasure towards the Manipur govt. vis-a-vis Mizoram govt. which also had some voiced audibly. But anyways if two editors agree on the same edit (more of a deletion), I respect. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2024

Addition of Aigejang Shooting to the See Also section. Minmarion (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 On hold pending whether the page Aigejang Shooting passes review by new page patrollers or not. If so, will add. —Sirdog (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, no harm in just adding it now. If the link becomes red enough people are watching this page where it'll be swiftly removed.  Done. —Sirdog (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Recurrent violence

After perusal of the content and sources cited, I have removed these

"On 17 June, the Archbishop of Imphal stated that 249 churches have been burnt in Manipur.

The state police face allegations of siding with the dominant Meitei community. In an effort to call for peace, opposition leaders visited the violence-affected areas on 29 July.

On 14 December bodies of 64 recently killed were handed to their families."

Reasons:

1. WP:Relevance of content - The content does not have any relevance at all to the section (Recurrent violence)
2. Also in view of MOS:Oversection
3. Without any relevance to the section and far from Manual of Style, it is bloating the article

If any of our respected editors and anyone for that matter think it otherwise, please come up with your valuable points, so that we can discuss.

Thank you. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2024

Please also highlight the fact that most of the encroachers evicted by the current dispensation are from the Meitei community. 122.164.102.52 (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

393 temples supposedly destroyed

Link to revert

Luwanglinux, Two sources were provided for this claim:

• "'Religious conflict narrative is misleading'". www.thesangaiexpress.com. Retrieved 2024-06-24.
• "Meitei churches not spared by Kukis". Imphal Free Press. Retrieved 2024-06-24.

Both Imphal-based newspapers, who do not have access to the Kuki-dominated hill districts. Where does their information come from? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by Imphal based newspaper having no access to Kuki dominated hill districts, I think you are quite misleaded here, there are Pangal community Naga community ( which some are correspondence of Imphal based newspaper) who can access all area of Manipur being groups uninvolved to this ethnic clash. also most of temples and shrines destroyed are uploaded through social media and many are located at the fringe. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 01:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

If they have correspondents, the newspapers are obliged to tell us so. They put like "Special correspondent", "Churachandpur correspondent" etc. There is none. This is just recycled propaganda. Some nonsense organisation called "UKAL" (whose name The imphal Free Press can't even spell right), which is reproduced by supposed "Meitei Christian victims". This is not "news", just rumour like in social media. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

why are you lebelling an org as nonsense ? also if that is the only issue why are you reverting the other edits ? 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 07:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

UKAL short form of Umang Lai Kanba Lup is not any nonsense org as stated by Kautilya3, its an organisation established in 1979 for conserving the heritage of Lai Haraoba UKAL

The Umanglai Kanba Apunba Lup (UKAL) organization based in Manipur conducted extensive research and investigation to identify the desecrated sacred sites, which include those dedicated to ancestral and local deities from the pantheon of Sanamahi religion, as well as traditional Hindu mandirs. Working Committee on Protection of Meitei Temples (under the UKAL) informed that 393 Meitei temples and shrines were destroyed and burnt by Kuki militants. WCPMT convenor Mutum Maniton denounced that Kuki militants not only destroyed the shrines & temples but in some instances also humiliated the Meitei community by first kicking and spitting on the sacred sites before burning them. While stating that the committee has been collecting the data of the temples destroyed by Kuki militants, he urged people to give information if some destroyed temples have been missed out, by visiting UKAL headquarters located at Konung Mamang and submitting evidence in form of photos.... Out of 393 desecrated/destroyed sites, 223 Hingkhol Lai (homestead deity/Ishta devi in the pantheon of Sanamahi religion) shrines were desecrated: 41 in Kakching, 72 in Churachandpur, 20 in Bishnupur, 43 in Tengnoupal, 30 in Imphal East, 4 in Imphal West and 13 in Kangpokpi. 110 sites dedicated to Apokpa Laipham, the ancestral deity of the Meiteis, were also desecrated: 15 in Tengnoupal, 38 in Churachandpur, 22 in Bishnupur, 23 in Kakching, 9 in Imphal East and 3 in Kangpokpi. 44 laishang (holy shrines) dedicated to worship of forest deity Umang Lai were desecrated: 3 in Tengnoupal, 11 in Churachandpur, 4 in Kakching, 3 in Imphal East, 10 in Kangpokpi, 6 in Bishnupur and 7 in Imphal West district...

It is said there was an extensive research done by UKAL to identify temples desecrated or destroyed in the violence 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 08:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, your sources didn't provide any information about it, one even misspelt its name! If it is a respectable organistion, I withdraw my description. But still, we have no idea how it got its information and how reliable it is.

Umang Lai is described as a sacred grove.and the image shown is that of a tree. It is fine if people worship trees, but you can't go around calling them "temples".

The overwhelming majority of the 393 so-called "temples" are Hingkhol lais, which are described as homestead deities. Once again, it is doubtful if we can call them temples.

The Hindu Post article mentions 16 "Hindu mandirs", the only ones that can be classified as "temples", and these are said to have been "completely destroyed or desecrated". So, how many were actually destroyed? We have no idea. "Desecration" can mean a wide range of things, ranging from knocking down a gate to actually damaging the image of worship. It is too vague a description.

The article also claims that the Churachandpur Radha-Krishna temple was "completely destroyed or desecrated". Given that the article is gung-ho about twitter posts, I can't see how it ignored a TV footage showing the temple to be in tact, and Hindu demonstrators with placards saying "Don't believe in rumours"!

I am afraid it is all wishy-washy information/misinformation with no clarity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Umang Lai are not merely trees or sacred groves. In Sanamahism faith they are believed to be historical dwelling places of Gods or ancestors (ancestor worship tradition of Meiteis as evident from Sagei Apokpa literal meaning Father or Parent of a clan "sagei" ). Each Umanglai is associated with a small home (laishang/temple) as evident from the above photo of Umanglai, these religious structures are so sacred to the Meiteis and its tradition has been done since time immemorial.

In a survey conducted by Umanglai Kanba Lup (UKAL) in the year 2016, they recorded some 700 umanglais in Manipur. Umanglais are classified broadly into five groups: 1. Deities Associated with the Creation Myth: Pakhangba, Marjing, Koubru, etc. 2. Ancestral Deities: Poireiton, Khamlangba, Puthiba, etc. 3. Clan and Domestic Deities: Laishram Ereima, Usham Soraren, Tongbram Lairembi, Thongam Thongnangningthou, Soibol Lairema, Hijam Lairema, etc. 4. Royal family members who became deities: Tabung Ningthou, Naothing khong, Khagemba, Mungyamba, Khubomba, etc. 5. Desanskritised Hindu Gods: Ramji Ningthou (of Thinunggei), Senkudeva (of Yumnam Huidrom), and Kalika 6. Deified individuals who met violent death: Nonggabi, Tarung Lairembi, Yumjao Lairembi, Ereima, etc...

I have used the term temples and shrines so when I wrote about 393 its not only hindu temples or mandir but many of Laishang included. Just like almost every Christain Colony have a Church, Meitei Colony surely do have these Laishang or Umanglai and its associated temple or shrine. It is worth noting two Meitei Colony or locality in Kuki dominated Ccpur were reduced to rubble like a wasteland 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 17:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

We can't get into too much religious stuff here, I am afraid. I am happy to list temples and shrines separately, but they have to be public ones. No "household" stuff (because when a house may get destroyed all the household stuff too will get destroyed). So, tell me how many temples and how many shrines, and how you arrived at those numbers. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I am bringing out 700 Umanglais approx survey by UKAL and its definition only because you seem to confuse it for some random trees. Those Laishang associated with Umang lai are for public, we can leave out Hingkhol Lai shrines as they fall under private properties, but they are indeed worship places and private temples. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 08:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

References

"Claimed"

Luwanglinux, this edit is very strange. The WP:ONUS is for you to explain why it is needed. What does "claimed" even mean in this context? Who is claiming it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The media coverage section points out and discuss about partisan nature of Manipur's local media. But, the wider audience is covered by mainstream media. The inclusion was based on a research study by a group of reputable independent scholars. I added both POV or both side of the story of this conflict for WP:NPOV. Meitei majoritarianism or Anti Christain sentiment is claimed by one sided Christain supporters. It is alleged Christain Kuki did not spare Meitei Church in the violence. Except the ethnic conflict reason, none of the reasons given in the article passed the litmus test. I tagged it claimed as its also dubious propaganda as much as the rest of the reasons. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 17:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I see. So you propose to rewrite the whole content of this page by grading the mainstream Indian media as "biased", based on this report by supposedly "reputable", "independent" scholars?

What kind of evidence exists for them to have been "reputable" and "independent"? What reception has this supposed research study received? Has anybody agreed this study is of any worth, outside the Imphal circles?

What about international media? Have these reputable independent scholars declare them to be biased too? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying we should rewrite the whole content of the article based on the research study, but both sides of the story should be discussed specially when conflict like these involve propaganda from both involved parties. For evidence anyone can check it out, there is systematic and data analysis. There is an online ebook format here of the research study accessible to all. This involved scholars who had done other research work published in reputable journals previously . It is very strange and sad, whenever Imphal based publication comes Kautilya3 discriminate it like rubbish things stating things such as "Has anybody agreed this study is of any worth, outside the Imphal circles?, Both Imphal-based newspapers, who do not have access to the Kuki-dominated hill districts. Where does their information come from?" rather than the content or the authors credibility. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 08:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Association of Meitei Christian Victims

So this Goa source mentiones an "Association of Meitei Christian Victims". But they have been mentioned in October 2023 quite often. One paragraph in The Sangai Express says:

Of the 350 Churches torched in the course of the violence, more than 50 per cent belonged to the Meitei Christians. As such, the narrative that the violence is a religious conflict is highly misleading, they said.

I don't know why they think it is "misleading", because by their own admission, more than half of the destroyed churches were Meitei churches. So how can it not be a religious conflict?

Philem Rohan, who is supposed to have become their representative, also shows the same kind of inconsistency:

Philem Rohan Singh, a popular Meitei Christian travel vlogger who has become the face of the community, told New Lines that “people from these groups [Meitei Leepun and Arambai Tenggol] may have been involved but largely this has come from the Leikai [village neighborhood] committees exacting personal revenge from the Christian families.... Rohan Singh also contested the “communal” narrative — that there were fault lines within the Meiteis — alleging instead that the churches were destroyed by the Kuki-Zos.

So, Leikai committees were extracting "revenge" from Chrinstian families, but it is not "communal". Go figure!

But, apparently, blaming Kukis is part of the programme.

He shared a list of 13 such churches, of which New Lines verified that 10 were still standing, unharmed.

I think this conclusively demolishes all the testimony provided by this group of informants. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Blame game is from both sides if I must say, in one instance a kuki drunk fellow who did not return home for a few days was published or propagated as murdered by Meitei which later returned unharmed after 4 days.

“They burnt our vehicles and vandalized Church property on May 3 and May 4 by Kuki people following the same faith”, a Meitei Christian victim from Churachandpur, Warrepam Sobha Meitei told media persons at Manipur Press Club today. Ofcourse they didn’t burnt our Church because there are many houses of the Kuki people in the surroundings. But their motive was cleared they looted and took our church property and vandalized in the campus, Sobha said adding that why the Kuki Christian followers destroyed the churches run by the Meitei people. Another Meitei Christian Victims of the violence Pastor Angom Shantikumar said that his Church – Manipur Baptist Church located at Sugnu Zouveng in Kakching district was vandalized by a mob on May 28 evening and later burnt by the armed Kuki militants. “We – all communities of the Sugunu area formed a peace committee to maintain harmony in the region but all of a sudden on May 27, we were told to leave the area as the Kuki militants were reportedly targeting the Meitei people”, He said adding that the Church was surrounded by the Kuki Villages and later we vacated the area our church was attacked and burnt...

Being an online encyclopedia, we should focus on WP:NPOV which need both side of the story of this conflict, thats all I suggest.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 08:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means representing fairly and proportionately the views published by WP:RS, not the views of the involved parties, whose biases are evident. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV also states "without editorial bias", there should not be selective ignoring of sources , also I am waiting suggestion for 393 temples and Umang lai Laishang destroyed in the violence including private temples (Hingkhol Lai) 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 05:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Not all "sources" are equal. WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources are treated differently, And, among SECONDARY sources, there are many considerations that decide the relative reliability. You need to read WP:SECONDARY and WP:RS thouroughly and see its application in many contexts in order to understand how the criteria apply. Note in particular, As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. You are not allowed to bring up presumed "editorial bias" without presenting evidence and looking at the relevant context. See WP:ASPERSION. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "393 temples", I have already responded in the section above, stating, So, tell me how many temples and how many shrines, and how you arrived at those numbers.. You haven't yet done this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Manipur kingdom

Luwanglinux, I see here an attempt identify the present-day Manipur state with the historical "Manipur kingdom". Note that there is no schoarly consensus on this. Some dissenting views:

In the pre-colonial period, the hill people lived as independent and sovereign nations in their respective chiefdoms, free from any external control.

Historically, the valley region of the state was under a monarchical system, whereas the hill areas are under tribal sovereigns.

Ever since the colonial government brought the hill areas by annexation into the fold of Manipur, which was then only the Imphal Valley, the hill tribes and the valley community have been "living together separately," with certain separate administrative arrangements.

This is not something we can get into on this page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The statement of saying Manipur kingdom is Imphal valley is wrong as per various WP:RS, it needs correction or it should be dropped if there is no relevance 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 13:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes, you kind of ignore all historical facts and records, just because some scholar argue without any sense. Like you said sovereignty is not something one can claim as per wish, so what is this tribal sovereignty in Manipur kingdom? Does it even make any sense 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 13:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

As I can observe, there is a lot of edits (@Luwanglinux) and reverting (@Kautilya3) in overall. But it's okay as editing also a process of consensus. See, the tendency to keep your preferred version is understandable.

After running through discussions in this section, I have removed the part from the "Background" section (second line as quoted):

"It consists of the Imphal Valley, associated with the Manipur kingdom, and the surrounding hills populated by hill tribes.",

as @Luwanglinux is in favor of another view of Manipur kingdom, and @Kautilya3 is in favor of the existing view. Whereas, @Kautilya3, has also expressed that we cannot into dissenting views.

Hope, it is agreeable to both of you - @Kautilya3 and @Luwanglinux. Feel free to discussing definitely if not satisfied.

Happy editing. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The original content was reliably sourced, along with a quotation, and I provided three more sources here. If Luwanglinux want to contest it, he needs to present his sources and make a case. Calling it "wrong information" based on his own beliefs hardly behooves a Wikipedia editor. That is road to an WP:AE block/ban. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Alerting Chaipau, whose content is being discussed here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no historical basis for identifying the Manipur kingdom with the present-day Manipur state. Editors here read much more than what they cite in the articles. Please show evidence of Manipur kingdom's administration of the Hills. Even the British did not administer the Hills in the true sense of the word till after the Kuki wars in the 20th century. Chaipau (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, there is no historical basis of identifying the Manipur Kingdom with the present-day Imphal Valley either.

Some editors perhaps think that they read it better and understands better than others. But I think all are worth what they are and worthy of appreciation for contributing voluntarily in Wikipedia.

Talking about Manipur Kingdom, there are numerous sources. One among them says, "Manipur consists of about 8000 square miles, chiefly hills surrounding a valley 630 square miles in extent." (James Johnstone, Manipur and Naga Hills, p85)

As one of your party expressed that we do not want to get into this for the article (understandably because, this is historical and out of the scope for the article). Just minimal removal of portion that the other party view as wrong. For the statement that "Even the British did not... in the true sense...Kuki wars...", as of now we may keep it out of scope for discussion (WP:OR as of now), but ready to discuss if required. Hope that clarifies further why and how we need to improve the article. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Okenkhwairakpam that is not what I said. Chaipau (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Kautilya3 the sources provided are dubious, these are rather one sided opinions of the scholars involved which I believe is not a historical record. Roluah seem to use opinionated statement of KK Suan ( a political science professor) as reference and Lal Dena ( a retd history prof ) seem to use a reference which does not match with content claimed “Before the connection of the British government with that of Manipur took place, the latter, not to speak of exerting influence over the tribes, was unable to protect the inhabitants of the valley from their exaction and blackmail, and even after the conclusion of peace with Burma, and fixation of boundary of Manipur, the majority of the tribes were independent, and known to us little more than by name.” (McCulloch, 1859:73)., I can't find these quoted text from this page mentioned

• Manipur kingdom and its rule over the hills of Manipur is evident from Kohima Stone in present day Nagaland as mentioned by James Johnstone, also Kabaw valley was a part of Manipur Kingdom and under the rule of various Meitei kings.

Our first acquaintance with the Nagas practically began in 1832, when Captain Jenkins and Lieutenant Pemberton escorted by Rajah Ghumbeer Singh's Manipur troops, forced a passage through the tu Us with a view to ascertaining if there were a practicable route into Assam. They came via Paptongmai and Samagudting to Mohong Deejood. There is every reason to believe that the Manipuris in former days did penetrate into the Naga Hills, and exacted tribute when they felt strong enough to do so. All the villages have Manipur names in addition to their own. But during the period of her decadence, just before and during the Burmese War of 1819-25, any influence Manipur may have possessed fell into abeyance. At that time it was re-asserted, and Ghumbeer Singh reduced several villages to sub-mission, including the largest of all, Kohima, at which place he stood upon a stone and had his foot-prints sculptured on it, in token of conquest. This was set up in a prominent position, together with an upright stone bearing carved figures and an inscription. The Nagas greatly respected this stone and cleaned it from time to time. They opened a large trade with Manipur, and whenever a Manipuri visited a Naga village he was treated as an honoured guest, at a time when a British subject could not venture into the interior without risk of being murdered.Even up to the Naga Hills campaign of 1879-80, the Nagas regarded Manipur as the greater power of the two, because her conduct was consistent; if she threatened, she acted. One British subject after another might be murdered with impunity, but woe betide the village that murdered a subject of Manipur. A force of Manipuris was instantly despatched, the village was attacked, destroyed, and ample compeiisation exacted. The system answered well for Manipur; many of the Nagas began to peak Manipuri, and several villages paid an annual tribute. Still, up to 1851, we considered that we had some shadowy claim to the hills; though we never openly asserted it.

The Manipuris conquered the Kale-Kabaw valley, and Zimme with other frontier states became independent.Sinbyushin ruled from 1714 to 1733.

It is impossible for Manipur Kingdom to even invade Kabaw valley (now a part of Burma) if its rule is limited within the central valley (Imphal).

I shall now proceed to describe generally the territory of Muneepoor, through which lie the routes leading from the districts of Sylhet and Cachar to the Ningthee river, and central portion of the northern provinces of Ava. 1st. The country inhabited by the Muneepoorees is, by the Burmahs called Kathe, which term they equally apply to the people ; by the inhabitants of Cachar it is named Moglie ; by those of Assam, Meklee, and by the Shans, or those who inhabit the country east of the Ningthee or Khyendwen river, it is known as Casaay, of which term the Burmese word KathC is a corruption. Such avariety of names, to designate the same tract-of country, has created much difficulty to our geographers ; and even in the latest maps, published within the last three or four years, the same errors and mistakes are found, which characterised the very first attempt to illustrate the geography of this remote corner of our Indian possessions. Cassay is in these maps still represented as a separate kingdom, lying to the south of the Muneepoor Territories, and the features of the whole country are in numerous instances totally distorted.

Manipur Kingdom was much larger than the present day Manipur State which boundary was fixed by the British. If there is a territory of a kingdom, there is a rule of the kingdom. Manipur kindom frequent armed conflict with Burma over Kabaw Valley existed before British came to India. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 20:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC) 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 20:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The extent of the Manipur kingdom prior to the advent of the British was debated quite extensively when Chaipau wrote the initial paragraphs. See Talk:2023–2024 Manipur violence/Archive 1#Changing Manipur's history and boundary?. It became clear that there is no scholarly consensus on it, and there is no clear evidence available either. The British writings are wholly inadequate to settle the issue, because they didn't write anything about Manipur before they themselves got involved, and when they got involved, they altered the situation. For instance, they armed and equipped Gambhir Singh with modern weaponry, using which he subdued the hill tribes. (Mackenzie, Relations with the Hill Tribes 2012, p. 150).

The best that can be said about the traditional Manipur kingdom is that it might have exerted some kind of control over the hills close to the valley, and perhaps those along the trade routes, but even then it was limited to occasional collection of tributes, not extending any form of administration. See

• Kamei, Andrew Lathuipou (2023), Governmentality: Power and Counter Conduct in Northeast India's Manipur and Nagaland, Taylor & Francis, pp. 72–74, ISBN 9781000953664

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Manipur Kingdom also called Meckley and various other names is an evolved state from chieftainship (led by Ningthouja or Mangang clan) to a kingdom. Even Moirang, Khuman and other clans had its own principalities at one point of time in history.

• The state formation started in the valley, and the kings subsequently established their control over the tribes in the hills.

• Manipur, known through various names in the region between South Asia and South-East Asia, history records its existence as a sovereign Asiatic kingdom since ancient times. Known as Kathe to the Burmese, Meklee to the Ahoms, Mooglei or Moglai to the Cacharies, Cassey to the Shans, the people of this land have undergone several ordeals in the course of its long drawn civilizational history. Historically evolved practices over the centuries...Through a long process from the 1st century A.D to 15th century the Meitei came into existence as an organised state during the reign of king Kyamba (1467-1508) with the internationally recognisation of its sovereign status by Shan king of upper Burma side by side with the mutual demarcation of the boundaries(A. Lokendra Singh, 1986:3). The recognition of the internationally entity of the Meitei state (kingdom) by powerful king of upper Burma in 15th century proved the power and strength of Meitei union. As a result of the fusion of Indo-Aryan and Mongoloid peoples, the nucleus of the Manipuri (Meiteilon)—speaking people of today was formed and this nucleus is believed to have formed in the first centuries of the Christian era (R.K. Jhalajit Singh, 1992:20). The Meitei language marked the symbol of the Meitei nationality and on the basis of its unilingual character the Meitei kingdom stood a nation state (Gangmumei Kamei, 2010:20)

• Manipur Kingdom gradually developed from chieftaincy to a state (Battacharjee,2003: 365).The central plain had witnessed the evolution of a powerful kingdom from many petty principalities each independent of one another.Meitei, Angom,Moirang, Khaba Nganba, Khuman, Chenglei and Luwang were the seven tribes who interacted and fought among one another over centuries until their final emergence as one Meitei tribe (Manikchand, 2014: 18–20). The ‘Loiyumba Shinyen’ named after King....On the other hand, in the hills, the Chief of each tribe held autonomy over his principality and allotted some surplus as a sign of tribute for the King in the valley. This gestured a friendly relationship, and they remained allies. In cases where the dues were not paid, the king sent for an ambush or invaded villages, thereby imposing his suzerainty and collecting tributes. Ethel Grimwood mentioned how Thangal General12 was feared upon as he destroyed villages in hills for non-payment of revenue (Grimwood, 1975: 61–62). Once the King withdrew, these villages enjoyed their independence and were hardly intervened

As stated previously, suzerainty of Manipur kings over the hill tribes of Manipur is evident from above sources provided. It might not be wrong to state Meitei kingdom started from the central valley(Imphal) . But the statement that Manipur kingdom (that got recognition of British) as Imphal Valley kingdom make no sense at all. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 04:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Warring Groups

I have removed the following part in the section "Warring groups":

"Secessionist Meitei insurgent groups, having previously escaped to Myanmar due to Indian counter-insurgency operations, are believed to have returned to Manipur in the midst of violence and begun to conduct operations against the Kuki-Zo villages. "

Notes

References

The source is too weak to warrant an entry. We need to place the well sourced, and corroborated facts and information that merits Wikipedia, not beliefs of some random news. Please feel free to discuss if any user/editor have contrary view on this edit. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

What is meant by "sources are too weak"? Who decides and how? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I said "the source" not "sources" as you misunderstood.

And please read the content carefully, "..., are believed to have returned ...". Can we posit "belief" of some weak, random news source and make up a statement for an encyclopedia. And for your reasonable doubt of "Who" and "How", please re-run, and see if I am making some sense, and you may decide for yourself as a responsible editor. The content of the source are also full of uncertainties pertaining to the statement posited. Moreover, there are contrary statements even in the source itself. So, the source itself (that is for "Who?"), and the content which written with uncertainties, guesswork (that's for the "How?"). If you find difficulties in reading and understanding the source content, please feel free to ask. Happy to discuss line by line.

Concerned editor may also take it as an opportunity to put another source that corroborates the "belief" into a fact, and posit genuinely. Else it is original research (WP:OR), misinterpretation of source (WP:SOURCEMIS).

Hope that clarifies. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Your edit summary said, Belief cannot be part of Wikipedia.. Are you citing some Wikipedia policy for this? Or is it a rule you made up yourself?

Since insurgent groups operate secretively, information about them is always laced with such uncertainties, even in the top-quality sources. Nobody has said that such information has to be excluded anywhere.

In any case, that is pretty old content. This article hasn't been updated for months. There is a lot more information available now, including the NiA chargesheet, which I will be adding eventually. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure, we must add prominent facts, well published, and even minority view if worthy of an encyclopedia (please correct me if I am wrong in interchanging wikipedia and encyclopedia), not some wishy-washy beliefs.

"Since insurgent..... secretively, .... uncertainties,...". Aren't you reasoning yourself for your preferred version? I would rather not doubt the capabilities of news professionals, than give my own reason believe a news piece with uncertainties and guesswork in almost every paragraph. You may re-consider it yourself, I respect experienced people of their wits and wisdom. We must improve the article rather than clinging on to preferred version.

For the NIA chargesheets..., would appreciate eventually.

Thanks again. Happy editing. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Warring Groups-2

I have also removed the following part from the section "Warring groups":

"In September, one militant was arrested, along with four other civilians, for travelling with illegal arms wearing police uniforms. After the court granted him bail, he was rearrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and taken to Delhi. Subsequently NIA issued a public warning stating that Myanmar-based insurgent groups were organising to wage a war against India by exploiting the ethnic clashes."

References

Reasons:

(a) There is no merit of random arrests to be part of the section.

(b) Selective sourcing, say biased view.

(c) Other such arrests are too prominent that reflects opposing view.

Please feel free to discuss if any user/editor have contrary view on this edit. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not a "random arrest". It was an arrest by NIA, which normally investigates terrorism-related charges. How many such arrests have taken place during this conflict? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Random arrest in the sense of random picking from some arrests by NIA. As for the "How many... in the conflict?", I hope you answered it yourself that you are aware (view previous section talk). Thanks you again. Happy editing. Okenkhwairakpam (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)