Talk:Kuki–Paite Conflict

Expand scope ?
I suggest that this article be moved to Ethnic conflict in Manipur where the Kuki-Zomi conflict can be dealt within the larger context (this would parallel the existing article Ethnic conflict in Nagaland). Here are some sources for the article: Any objections or comments ? Abecedare (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Insurgencies in India's Northeast
 * Ethnicity and Socio-Political Assertion: The Manipur Experience
 * Wounded land: politics and identity in modern Manipur
 * Bleeding Manipur
 * Low intensity conflicts in India: an analysis
 * Manipur Backgrounder

Manipur media called this ethnic clash as the "Kuki-Paite Clash" when in fact it should actually have been "Kuki-Zomi Clash." Thadous and Paites are two different tribes in Northeast India who want Kuki and Zomi respectively to be the nomenclatures for all the non-Naga tribes in Manipur. The Thadou tribe wants Kuki and the Paite wants Zomi. This is the key bone of contention between the two tribes which led to the outbreak of this ethnic war. It's a fact that during the 1997 clash, the Gangte tribe fought alongside the Thadous in the name of Kuki and on the other hand, the Paite, Vaiphei, Tedim Chin and Simte tribes fought in the name of Zomi. So, calling this ethnic clash ah "Kuki-Paite Clash" is fundamentally completely wrong. It was a misunderstanding. That too, of calamitious consequences. Something that should never be repeated. Ever. It definitely was not just the Paites. Let's honestly accept this historical fact. 122.160.105.10 (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent attempts to change sourced text
The first source, "DOTS-based tuberculosis treatment and control during civil conflict and an HIV epidemic, Churachandpur District, India" can be found here. It says "wer than 6% were documented as completing the full course. From June 1997 to October 1998 two ethnic groups in Churachandpur District, the majority Paite group and a minority group, the Kuki, originally displaced from the north of the state, were involved in open conflict." At some point "Thadou speaking" was added, but recently an attempt has been made to change "Kuki" to Mizo contradicting the source.

"By 1997 a group of minor tribes led by the Paite and originally named "The Seven Tribes" had been renamed the "Zomi Reunification Organization" or ZRO with a militant wing named the "Zomi Revolutionary Army" (ZRA). Taxation demands by the KNF, tension over the use of the Zomi nomenclature which the KNF saw as a move against the Kuki"

was changed to:

"In 1993 a group of tribes The Vaipheis, Paites, Zous, Simtes, Tedims Officially accepted the terms Zomi as their nomenclature Which leds to the Formation of "Zomi Re-unification Organization" or ZRO with a militant wing named the "Zomi Revolutionary Army" (ZRA). Taxation demands by the KNF, tension over the use of the Zomi nomenclature which the KNF saw as a move against the Kuki (inferiority complex)"

The source does not support 1993. It says "In 1995, the name of the ‘Seven Tribes’ in Churachandpur district was changed to “Zomi Re-unification Organization (ZRO)” at the initiative of the Paite. Its formation day is observed every year on 20th February as ‘Zomi Nam Ni.’ The Zomi and its tribes are Hmar, Zou, Vaiphei, Gangte, Simte, Zomi and Paite." I have no trouble with naming the minor tribes so long as we use what the source says, but 1993 is incorrect. The point the old text made was that this had been done by 1997, which the souyrce backs. "Inferiority complex" (which is confusing placed where it is) seems to be original research perhaps based on the source, but the source doesn't actually back it.

Also, "lined up 20 men allegedly sheltering NSCN (IM) cadres and shot at them" was changed to "lined up 20 innocent villagers and shot at them" which is at least closer to the original, which until February read "lined up 20 villagers". The source doesn't support the "allegedly sheltering" bit, just "20 villagers."

This source also says " Spark off by the massacre of 24 June 1997 in Saikul village Churachandpur, it led to the killing of more than 400 people, burning down of 46770 houses and displacement of over 20000 people including children and aged/ invalids before traditionally signing of a final peace accord by the involved parties on October 1998. It is not a surprise that during the clashes ammunitions became more essential than food for the people to survive. The Paite-Kuki clashes involved mainly two groups who were earlier grouped under the common nomenclature Kuki.  (The Thadou speaking Kukis and the Paites Zomis)" which besides clarifying the extreme nature of this conflict backs "Thadou seaking Kukis".

It also says "The Paite-Kuki clashes also develop in the context of the quest for a commonly acceptable group nomenclature by a group of tribes claiming to have a common origin and close socio-cultural ties. Even though the clashes were popularly describes as “Kuki-Paite” clashes, not all those tribes who were earlier known by the name Kuki were involved in the clashes with the Paite. It was only the Thadou speaking group of the people who were involved in the clashes with the Paites. This was because of the fact that the clashes developed in the context of accepting “ Kuki” or “Zomi” nomenclature, and that the clashes were between the “Kuki” favouring Thadous and the “Zomi” favouring Paites." Doug Weller talk 14:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Simplification of conditions in the region
The current description of the causes for the conflict is:

"The Thadou-speaking Kuki had been displaced from their home in the northern part of Manipur to Churachandpur. The Paite-Zomi were the original inhabitants of the district.

Part of the conflict came from the use of names. Both communities were considered Kuki by Thadous. However, the Paites preferred to call themselves "Zomi"- they considered the term "Kuki" to be a foreign slang word. The Thadou-speaking Kukis considered this use of the word "Zomi" to be offensive to them. (See Mizo people#Etymology.) The Thadou-speaking Kukis also believed that the Zomi/Paites were supporting Naga tribesmen, their enemies without any evidence.

By 1997, a group of minor tribes (including the Zou, Vaiphei, Gangte, Simte and Zomi) led by the Zomi/Paites formed the Zomi Reunification Organization (ZRO). This group had a militant wing named the "Zomi Revolutionary Army" (ZRA). At that time, the Thadou-speaking Kukis had already formed the militant Kuki National Front (KNF) and had been terrorising the villagers.

The KNF started imposing taxation on the Zomi/Paites, further escalating tensions .[1]"

And while I don't want to go against what 122.160.105.10 said in 2009 about the conflict, given that he seems to be actually from the state wherein this occurred and I am not, and actually seems to be an ethnic Paite/Zomi whereas I am not, the conflict was not primarily due to simple concerns over nomenclature, though that may have been a spark in some cases. Their comments about the title being incorrect is valid and I will probably move the page soon.

The conflict between the Kuki and the Zomi at the time was mostly due to migratory conflicts. The Thadou had indeed been displaced by NSCN (IM) and other Naga militants and were thus very anti Naga. The Paite seem to be less so, and so when the Thadou and the KNF based within the group began extorting the Paite, they began to create their own associations (ZRA) to defend themselves. Due to simple geopolitics at the time, the ZRA aligned themselves and were allied to several NSCN factions, namely NSCN (IM), which caused great concern amongst the ranks of the KNF who were still fighting in intermittent clashes against the NSCN who they accused of genocide. This is why they accused the residents of Saikul of harboring the NSCN, since it was affiliated with the ZRA who had links to the NSCN, leading to the massacre there which started the war.

This version of events more acutely lays out the starting to the conflict and is what's backed up by most sources.

That being said, the article should still probably be renamed which I'll do later if no one objects along with implementing the changes I outlined above

Sailingsmooth5 (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * it should also be noted that this version of events is what most primary sources on the ground say. Obviously these cant really be cited but the proof of their veracity lies in media reports at the time Sailingsmooth5 (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Expansion
Bro! Could you help me in expanding this article? It seems this article already has some details but some are unsourced, and this is frequently edited by newcomers and IPs. I think your help will be significant in its improvement. Haoreima (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why "expansion" is needed. Rather, all unsourced content should be removed unless verifiable. Since Rebecca Haokip's article is available online, you can use it to clean up the page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)