As a responsible citizen, I have gone through the write-up of G. Solomon's "LAND BELONGS TO GOD” carried out in The Morung Express (dated the 5th Oct2007)The title sounds much gracious and bountiful from the Christian point of view, but by going thoroughly, the whole content of his writing is nothing more than an empty vessel. Rather from the whole content, the only correct historical summary is the HEADING ITSELF. It is rather ridiculous that a person with a limited historical knowledge took up so much challenge in chronolising the past history of Nagaland and its beloved citizens, even by ignoring the 19th century into consideration.
Solomon, if I am not mistaken I guess you are from the neighboring state of Manipur by the style of your writing without a proper address for correspondence who seems to be newly introduced to the history of Nagaland and eagerly waiting to write-up something on Naga issue so as to be in the limelight.
Solomon, if you analyses carefully your write-up Heading and the content of your article they are all mis-interpreted and contradictory in itself You have given, LAND BELONGS TO GOD, and shortly in the next passage you directly came down to the summary about the origin of the KUKIS and the DIMASA KACHARIS. What actually is your intension? Be specific to your article!! Probably you might be talking about the dispute prevailing in the Ntangki Reserved Forest..? But that too is not the matter of your concern, the concerned authorities are taking enough and active responsibilities to solve the matter amicably and the state govt. is very much well aware of the fact concerning Ntangki Reserved Forest about who the encroachers are and who the settlers are. As far as Kuki villages are concerned (your doubt), there is enough and sufficient written records and judgments passed by the Court and the then Kohima district administration (dated 12th Sept. 1985) regarding the present site where your interest lies. Not to mention in detailed illustration, you are better advised to refer letter of clarification from various writings/ contributions viz 1. The statement of Kuki GB Union Ahthibung Area (dated 2nd Oct.2007 Nagaland Post), 2. WSH clarification on Land issue (dated 29th Sept.2007, 3. Statement of Hon'ble Forest Minister, Govt. of Nagaland at the floor of the House (Dated 10th March2007), 4. Statement of Ex-Yimchungru Hoho Chief (October 5, 2007) etc to clear up your doubts. All this statements are true with a valid documents and records, issued in the larger interest of the Christian Naga society.
Again, as a proud and a privileged Kuki and as a responsible citizen of Nagaland, I am somehow reluctant to your baseless article since you don't know anything. However, it is necessary to ratify your statement in the larger interest of a civilized society. Up till now I have not gone through any writings/documents regarding the Kukis origination from Vietnam from any writers irrespective of Indian historians/ the British historians whatever you called. Perhaps, you may be the first self styled historian proclaiming to contribute a false propagation to tarnish one's original version that is been caught.
At some point of time, your passage reads" Kukis scattered in the Naga areas and settled with the permission of the land owner as tenant under some stipulated condition by them". If so, your points seems you are well aware of the Kukis settlement from the past two-three centuries back. So, if you are so sure of the Kukis Settlement by virtue of the permission from someone.....produce your stand points with a valid document/record and be specific. It is a challenge to justify your statement. As far as my knowledge is concerned, the Kukis had been living in the then Naga Hills much before your great grandfathers were born. For your understanding, one of the oldest Kuki village namely SONGLHUH village was established since the 16th century which proves that the Kukis were one of the foremost tribe inhabiting our present state of Nagai and.
In your writing you have mentioned that "when the Naga National Movement erupted some Kukis had withdrawn", how ridiculous it sounds? Do you clearly understand how and when the Naga National Movement started? For your discernment, the Kukis had contributed tremendously for the Naga Nation right from the inception of the first Naga Organized body, the NAGA CLUB, 1919 and are still actively involved till today. To cite a few points of our participation in the Naga movement, Pu Lengjang Kuki was one of the signatory of the Simon Commission, 1929 and we had also like any other Naga tribe participated in the Naga Plebiscite, 1951 and also in the Interim Body before the attainment of our statehood there were two Kuki members namely, Pu Jangkhosei and Pu Lutjakai of whom the later is still alive. I see no turning point of any Kukis from active political mainstream of Nag a National Movement.
From the UGs points of view, the Kukis had enough participation so to say and are still contributing their best. The aged long historical relationship with the present Naga national movement cannot be jeopardized because of your senseless allegations. Many active leaders are serving for the cause of Naga Nation under different organizations and are carrying out a responsible role in formulating programmes and policies for the betterment of our Naga national movement with a long cherished dream of a sovereign nation, and the struggle will go on. Where are you looking at? Do you need a special lens to oversee those happenings? As such, you are challenged to clear your standpoint at what time the Kukis forsake and withdrew from the Naga National Movement.
You also talk about Kacharis and their settlement, if you are conscious enough to analyses your statement, infact the word 'Dimapur' you wrote itself signifies the presence of Dimasa Kacharis. If you don't believe you are advised to pay a visit to the historical fort of the Dimasa Kachari king palace at Rajbari near Circuit House at Dimapur.
G. Solomon your contradictory statement comes to a great surprise for the people of Nagaland. May be your intention lies towards contributing a British policies of Divide and Rule. But mind you, the aged long cordial relationship between the tribes of Nagaland cannot be led astray because of your unknown vague statement. No one will believe you because you speak false and baseless allegation as such you are advised not to make such baseless information in the future.
Kh. S. Sila,
Dimapur.
