Talk:2023–2024 Manipur violence/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Title

A more descriptive term than violence should be used. What's the most accurate - clashes or unrest? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Use of the word violence is not uncommon. Clash and unrest is.
>>> Extorc.talk 18:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Clashes & unrest are more common & accurate: 2021 Apure clashes, 2021 Ataye clashes, 2021 Baghdad clashes, 2021 Beirut clashes, 2021 Darfur clashes, 2021 Kalay clashes, 2022 Arauca clashes, 2022 Tripoli clashes, 2023 Al-Aqsa clashes; 2021 South African unrest, 2022 Corsica unrest, 2022 Kazakh unrest, 2022 Leicester unrest, 2023 French pension reform unrest, 2023 Sinaloa unrest, Kenosha unrest. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
You can make an RM disc. No need for prior discussion. >>> Extorc.talk 19:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing

@Maharaja of India, would you like to point me to a discussion where Christianity Today is established as a WP:RS? It is the only source which repeatedly pins the blame on Hindu nationalism which, none of the high quality sources on this page do. >>> Extorc.talk 06:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

CT says "church burnings are the result of the growth of Hindu nationalism among the dominant Meite community", Even sources like BBC, The Wire which wont shy away from mentioning hindutva if its present don't pull in the Hindutva angle because it is simply not significant here. >>> Extorc.talk 06:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

:Would you point me to a discussion where Christianity Today was discussed and concluded to be a deprecated source? Maharaja of India (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

You're creating your own rules. Wikipedia does not work on : All Source - Deprecated sources = WP:RS Mixmon (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
When a not-so-high-quality source is completely in disagreement with all the high-quality sources, I don't need a discussion to demonstrate its unreliability. The burden of proof falls on you. >>> Extorc.talk 12:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

9000, ... again?

@Maharaja of India, can you please stop restoring the redundant mention of the number 9000 as you did here. The number is already mentioned in the article
"By the end of 3 May, 55 columns of the Assam Rifles and the Indian Army were deployed in the region and by 4 May, more than 9000 people were relocated to safer locations.".
Sources are treating "flee" and "rescued" as replaceable in this case. >>> Extorc.talk 06:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC) :No, because that's just your opinion. The Guardian has put forward both the figures separately. We should edit according to what the sources say instead of what we think. Maharaja of India (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Maharaja of India"The Guardian has put forward both the figures separately" Could you please demonstrate to me where is guardian saying that 9000 people flee and another 9000 were rescued? >>> Extorc.talk 12:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Maharaja of India, I initially removed the dead bodies location here which you re-aded without any explaination here. I removed your unexplained edit here and you as of this edit have reverted that as well. I would like to inform you that you are currently engaging in WP:EDIT WARRING. You have already made 2 reverts and another revert will warrant a ban under WP:3RR.
Now addressing the issue.

  • "Lead is the summary of the body" doesn't mean that everything mentioned in the lead has to be bloated and elaborated in the body.
  • "Unofficial figures put a higher death toll that's why its imp. to mention how official figure is compiled" In almost every conflict, there are unofficial death tolls which are higher than the official reported, but we simply don't corroborate on that and literally count where the dead bodies were found. That is extremely WP:UNDUE.

>>> Extorc.talk 04:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC) :Please read MOS:LEAD that says that it is the "summary of its most important contents". You can't have something in the lead but then completely omit it from the body as you did. Nobody has bloated anything. If I were to mention the name of each victim that would have been WP:TOOMUCH. You still haven't demonstrated how this is WP:UNDUE instead you are referring to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Maharaja of India (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Kindly check all the links I provided. This edit did not completely omit the death toll. >>> Extorc.talk 07:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
"You still haven't demonstrated how this is WP:UNDUE":- Nowhere in the pages related to violence where large scale death tolls are recorded, do we count the dead bodies in the body of the content on the page. 2020 Delhi riots, 2017 Northern India riots, 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots, 2012 Assam violence >>> Extorc.talk 07:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2023

The ongoing violence is not between tribals and non-tribals. It is happening between meitei and kuki (kuki is one of the 32 tribes that is settling in Manipur). So the article mentioned here in wrong information and misleading. Manipur have more than 30 tribes in total and the clashes is happening between meitei and kuki (i,e not with all the tribes). So please change the wordings (tribes vs non-tribes) 103.99.184.102 (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2023 (2)

Please remove the religion bases words. The clashes has nothing to do with religion. Many other tribes who are Christians have been and still in harmony with the meitei people. There is no need to bring Religion here. 103.99.184.102 (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2023 (3)

Requesting to undo vandalisms of Unknown editor8 SlashunkI (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Request

Please don't include Christian and Hindu and any religions in this page. This violence is between ethnics groups not between any religions. Zoramnuam (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Nagas?

We are saying in the lead that Nagas are also a party to this violence. But it appears that the sources just involve Nagas while explaining the demographics of the state and not the episode of violence. @Mixmon >>> Extorc.talk 05:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Most of the sources are about Kuki-Meitei clashes. Some articles focussed on larger historical context do mention Nagas but don't discuss their role in present violence. Mixmon (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
So would say we should remove Naga from the lead and expand more on it in the background sec? >>> Extorc.talk 11:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I would not object to this but I don't think it is important considering that they are not directly involved in this particular incident. Mixmon (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
@Extorc: Given this article is now posted in the ITN section of the main page - which highlights the first few sentences of the lead for anyone scrolling over - I think removing them from the lead is an important change to make so we are not misrepresenting the sources. Not sure how critical it is to expand on them later in the article given Mixmon's point Schwinnspeed (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I will do that now, I was looking for some more affirmative reactions. >>> Extorc.talk 15:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 Done >>> Extorc.talk 15:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Zo people?

Someone has added zo people in parties to the civil conflict of infobox. Are they involved in this conflict? Mixmon (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

TheHindu talks about some Zomi people instead. >>> Extorc.talk 04:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Are they same? In any case, If RS is using "Zomi" we should not use any other alternative. Mixmon (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@Mixmon: nly if we can'tt rove they're the same. --95.24.62.201 (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

vandalisms of Unknown editor8

Requesting to undo vandalisms of Unknown editor8 SlashunkI (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Which particular edit? Mixmon (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Manipur_violence&diff=prev&oldid=1153749539 SlashunkI (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2023

Requesting to undo vandalisms of Unknown editor8

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Manipur_violence&diff=prev&oldid=1153749539 SlashunkI (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done>>> Extorc.talk 13:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Dispute: Extorc is engaging in biased editing

Extorc is a Hindu as per his wiki page. This is a contentious issue which has a religious element to it, and The New York times reports that some Meitei Hindu's are perpetrators, therefore, Extorc is prohibiting me from adding this section straight from the NYTimes, alleging that I am engaging in vandalism. How do we deal with this situation? I would like an impartial 3rd party outside of India to mediate on this.

Here is the paragraph I want to add:

The NYtimes spoke to one of the Kuki tribal villager chiefs who recounted the attack on their 80-household village. A group of about 200 members of the Meitei group, accompanied by Manipur police officers driving jeeps, mounted an attack on the Kuki village. This raises questions about the role of the local police force in the violence. [1]

Songangte (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Let the NYtimes speak to a meitei (who lost his house,family members) again and hear what he says. There's always twi sides of a story, you cannot post everything based on a one sided story.
In the valley, the meitei are suffering because of their houses being burnt, family members being killed, vehicles being burnt etc. because of the kuki people backed by their so called militants immigrants brothers from Myanmar etc. These things should also be published. 103.99.184.102 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
You should not engage in personal attacks. There are 100s of interview of people, wr are not supposed to include everything. Does NYT call it a "genocide"? Does NYT uses the line "This raises questions about the role of the local police force in the violence"? You used one interview to conclude a whole lot of things and it's clearly WP:OR Mixmon (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@Mixmon Can we call it "ethnic cleansing" instead?[1] [2] It might be a more accurate term sicne the elected people's representative put it that way. I apologize for using the term "genocide" earlier and I removed it, so "ethnic cleansing" would be more proper. By the way "genocide" is used in this Op Ed, but I am okay not citing that since it is an opinion piece. [3] Songangte (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Ethnic cleansing is a political claim. Everything a politician says is treated as a political claim and here, can only possibly be included in the reactions sections. >>> Extorc.talk 17:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
As far as the Op Ed is concerned, it says " As the nature and character of the riots transform from one of ethnic cleansing to genocidal attacks across the divide" which means that the attacks resemble the ones which take place in genocide. It doesn't directly characterize this conflict as a genocide at all. Added to that, as you correctly noted, this is lower quality because it is an opinion piece. >>> Extorc.talk 17:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
A small reminder : Your edit suggested that "genocide" was state-sponsored. Now you want to add "ethnic cleansing" (of whom?) because a politician (in a tweet) says so [4] Mixmon (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)

Requested move 6 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2023 Manipur violence → 2023 Manipur unrest – Jim beat me to the punch on this, but I also agree that the use of "violence" in this article's title is poor because it is way too general. I believe "unrest" better describes the events that have transpired that this article focuses on. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Support 2023 Manipur Riots I feel like 'riot' feels more accurate than 'unrest'. FusionSub (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because the word 'violence' describes what is actually happening there. Ther term 'unrest' softens and downplays the current incidents. It my indirectly provide a support for the exterme elements which are conducting the violence. I also beleive that the word 'violence' describes the crux of events. If changed it would demean the lifes lost in the violence. Dinesh Kumar 08:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddineshk (talk • contribs)

:I suggest moving to 2023 Manipur riot instead. Maharaja of India (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose "because it is way too general", as I said in the thread started above and I'll restate, it is not uncommon in the context of India for the use of the word "violence" to show up in the title.
The sourcing of this page is really good and the top sources of this page call it "violence".
You're going to need a bit more than "I believe" to change the title.
>>> Extorc.talk 04:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
There is precedent, but that doesn't make it correct. As I said in the prior section, only the third article really uses the word as most would, and that article is talking about a number of events over a long period of time without direct connection to each other. Additionally, the article suggests that this event is "a violence", even though that simply isn't grammatically correct. And yes, the articles linked call it violence, but of course there is violence going on. That doesn't mean simply calling the event "violence" describes it properly. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, I actually didn't say that in the prior section, I never posted said comment. Point still stands though. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support @Extorc: I recognize that the sources themselves are calling it 'violence'. But if you look at the precedence on wiki, and at the examples from yourself and Jim Michael 2 above, there is difference in approach when the violence is a result of a prolonged conflict and period of unrest. The majority of the content in this article covers the historical unrest in the region, beyond just this more recent instance of violence. Schwinnspeed (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose The conflict between the communities might be historical but this particular incident is clearly distinct and got triggered by a high court order and subsequent policy actions. It's not a prolonged unrest but an extraordinary case of extreme violence. The article is about recent protests and not ethnic relations in Manipur. --Mixmon (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Clash(es), riot(s) & unrest are all possible titles. Which word best describes this local, recent spike in violence (not the longer-term ethnoreligious conflict)? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Out of the two alternatives you presented in the original thread, I'd say that unrest is definitely the inferior option because it downplays what actually happened in the 3 days. Clash still might get weak support from many participants. >>> Extorc.talk 19:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support 2023 Manipur riots per Jim Michael 2 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose using the word unrest, which seems like an inappropriate description for this. I would probably support using the word riots. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The proposed is a understatement, since considerable violence was plainly meted out. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would like to note that I am also on board with the usage of "riots" to describe this event as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
    Or I guess clashes as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Keep the article title as it is. Using "Manipur unrest" isn't as appropriate as "violence". See reliable independent sources such as India Today [5] and The Guardian [6] that use the term 'violence'. There are several other reliable publications as well that stresses on the said title. I wouldn't even consider this to be renamed into Manipur riots. Rejoy2003(talk) 04:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography has been notified of this discussion. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Ethnic groups has been notified of this discussion. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject India has been notified of this discussion. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undue OR?

@Iskandar323, you removed a line from the background section here. I was the original editor who added that content here. At that time this content was well sourced and not at all WP:OR or WP:UNDUE using a high quality source. Would you please reinstate that information with the originally added source. Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk 08:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Extorc: Perhaps another source mentioned this information, but none of the three sources attached to that statement supported it. However, related material from India Today has already been re-included under the "2023 escalation" subheader. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Alright, I feel that section is apt. >>> Extorc.talk 09:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hindu christian

@Iskandar323, It could be argued that Hindu/Christian is not WP:DUE enough to show up in the lead-sentence as most sources do not consider it as important of a distinction. Definitely many sources do mention it but it is not as important as the ethnic markers like the current version makes it seem. I would be satisfied with a demotion, like a mention in the lead somewhere near the end. >>> Extorc.talk 12:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I think it is due for several reasons, including the number of sources that make this direct observation in relation to the ethnicities involved, as well as the variety of related pieces of information with religious connotations. We have a commentator noting that Christianization is one source of tensions; we have a bishop stating that the Christian community felt unsafe; and churches were demolished as part of the preceding escalation, and were a significant target of attacks during the actual violence (up to 27 churches were destroyed). An important point is that "ethnicity" is about shared culture as much as anything, and religion is a part of that, so "ethnic tensions" include religious tensions. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Extorc is right. This is an ethnic conflict, not a religious one. The main difference between the two groups is that the Metei are sendentary populations living in the valleys, and the Kukis/Nagas are hill tribes. I think they have always been historically separate until the British put them together into a single administration. (Meitei claim that the hills have always belonged to them. Maybe so in a real-estate sense, but the Kukis didn't pay any taxes to them nor did the Meitei kings govern the hill populaions.) During the Briish Raj era, the British administered them directly via the Governor of Assam. Shortly before independence, the British "returned" the hills to Manipur. The king then tried to use the hill tribes to undercut the State Congress, but the Indian government soon took over the state and the princely rule came to an end. The privileges granted by the king to the hill tribes ended along with it.
The present tensions are ostensibly about a scheduled tribe status, but I also see in The Hindu that there was a hidden "illegal immigrant" bogey:

The Kuki-Zomi people are accused of having largely entered India illegally from Myanmar and occupied State-owned forestlands to cultivate poppies.[1]

Indian media reports are full of Meitei propaganda. So we should be really careful in using them. The Wire published a nice myth-buster,[2] countering some of it. Pinging TrangaBellam, who has worked on Meitei pages before.
Coming back to the original issue, I see the Hindu Press, Christian Press and the British Press going on about religion, but the Indian Press knows better. Here are some early articles that make absolutely no mention of religions.
Not a single one of them makes a slightest hint of the religions of these groups!
The religious predominance of the groups should cerainly be mentioned somewhere, but not in the lead sentence, where it is making it look like a religious conflict. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rahul Karmarkar, Fifty-five Army columns deployed in violence-hit Manipur, 9,000 people shifted to safer places, The Hindu, 4 May 2023.
  2. ^ Lien Chongloi, Dispelling Some Misleading Claims About the Violence in Manipur, The Wire, 27 May 2023.

Hindu christian

@Iskandar323, It could be argued that Hindu/Christian is not WP:DUE enough to show up in the lead-sentence as most sources do not consider it as important of a distinction. Definitely many sources do mention it but it is not as important as the ethnic markers like the current version makes it seem. I would be satisfied with a demotion, like a mention in the lead somewhere near the end. >>> Extorc.talk 12:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I think it is due for several reasons, including the number of sources that make this direct observation in relation to the ethnicities involved, as well as the variety of related pieces of information with religious connotations. We have a commentator noting that Christianization is one source of tensions; we have a bishop stating that the Christian community felt unsafe; and churches were demolished as part of the preceding escalation, and were a significant target of attacks during the actual violence (up to 27 churches were destroyed). An important point is that "ethnicity" is about shared culture as much as anything, and religion is a part of that, so "ethnic tensions" include religious tensions. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Extorc is right. This is an ethnic conflict, not a religious one. The main difference between the two groups is that the Metei are sendentary populations living in the valleys, and the Kukis/Nagas are hill tribes. I think they have always been historically separate until the British put them together into a single administration. (Meitei claim that the hills have always belonged to them. Maybe so in a real-estate sense, but the Kukis didn't pay any taxes to them nor did the Meitei kings govern the hill populaions.) During the Briish Raj era, the British administered them directly via the Governor of Assam. Shortly before independence, the British "returned" the hills to Manipur. The king then tried to use the hill tribes to undercut the State Congress, but the Indian government soon took over the state and the princely rule came to an end. The privileges granted by the king to the hill tribes ended along with it.
The present tensions are ostensibly about a scheduled tribe status, but I also see in The Hindu that there was a hidden "illegal immigrant" bogey:

The Kuki-Zomi people are accused of having largely entered India illegally from Myanmar and occupied State-owned forestlands to cultivate poppies.[1]

Indian media reports are full of Meitei propaganda. So we should be really careful in using them. The Wire published a nice myth-buster,[2] countering some of it. Pinging TrangaBellam, who has worked on Meitei pages before.
Coming back to the original issue, I see the Hindu Press, Christian Press and the British Press going on about religion, but the Indian Press knows better. Here are some early articles that make absolutely no mention of religions.
Not a single one of them makes a slightest hint of the religions of these groups!
The religious predominance of the groups should cerainly be mentioned somewhere, but not in the lead sentence, where it is making it look like a religious conflict. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rahul Karmarkar, Fifty-five Army columns deployed in violence-hit Manipur, 9,000 people shifted to safer places, The Hindu, 4 May 2023.
  2. ^ Lien Chongloi, Dispelling Some Misleading Claims About the Violence in Manipur, The Wire, 27 May 2023.

Undue disruptive

@103.168.75.82 Kindly discuss your issues here instead of repeatedly reverting me. >>> Extorc.talk 12:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

You stop deleting sections on arambai tenggol and meitei leepun. and don't spread your HINDUTVA politics in these part of INDIA. you are not welcome here. 103.168.75.82 (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
You are currently engaging in WP:PERSONAL ATTACK, persistence will get you banned. @103.168.75.82 >>> Extorc.talk 08:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it was a personal attack. (IP editor, please be WP:CIVIL.) But you haven't explained why you removed Arambai Tenggol material was removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the addition, you can see several issues.

"Arambai Tenggol, named after a weapon used by the Manipuri kings, and Meitei Leepun to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Bajrang Dal.
Said to have been formed less than five years ago, members of these groups wear black clothes and move around with guns in large groups on two-wheelers. These groups, the tribal students’ organisations said, were said to have targeted villages and urban localities of Kuki-Zomi-Hmar-Mizo people, burned their houses and churches, and raped their women besides killing and injuring many.[7]"

All of these are political allegations made by Bhakta Charan Das, a Congress member. We already have political statements by opposition leaders in the article, these are undue. Also, these were presented as statements of fact. >>> Extorc.talk 05:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I see widespread talk about Arambai Tenggol and other Meitei organisations, including from the Kuki People's Alliance [8]. If RS don't say it directly, attributed statements can be included. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Causes section

I have reverted a large section at the beginning added by Fayninja. This kind of a section can only be written after things settle down, and enough information becomes widely available for various people to analyse it and provide their viewpoints. A single source that seems to represent one of the parties in dispute is quite inadequate.

I would also point out this key paragraph from a recent Indian Express article:

While Chief Minister N Biren Singh on Sunday blamed “Kuki militants who are supposedly under the Suspension of Operation (SoO) agreement”, for the continuing violence, these sources said gun-toting miscreants, from both the Kuki and Meitei communities, had clashed with security forces over the past few days. Former CRPF DG Kuldiep Singh, who was appointed security advisor to the Manipur government in the wake of the May 3 violence, said the militants could not be identified as belonging to Kuki SoO groups.[1]

Since this is authoritative information, we should not be talking about the SoO militant groups at all, unless something changes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your rollback but you seem to have missed the nuances in the officer's statement.
  1. "Could not be identified as belonging to Kuki SoO groups": This statement suggests that there was some uncertainty or lack of clarity in identifying the groups. It implies that the available information or evidence was insufficient to definitively attribute the groups to Kuki SoO (Suspension of Operations) groups. The speaker is indicating that further investigation or verification is required to make a conclusive determination.
  2. "They were not Kuki SoO groups": This statement expresses a higher degree of certainty. It suggests that the groups in question have been examined or evaluated, and the conclusion is that they do not meet the criteria or characteristics associated with Kuki SoO groups. The speaker is asserting that the groups can be definitively ruled out as belonging to Kuki SoO.

To elaborate on the complexity of factors at play. I would like to point out from the same Indian Express article:

Earlier, some Kuki groups were also alleged to have looted weapons from police stations in Churachandpur. Officials also indicated that some weapons were provided by Kuki groups that have signed the Suspension of Operation (SoO) agreement with the government.

“We are fighting militants who are fomenting violence. But I can’t say they belong to Kuki SoO groups. The issues involved here are very complex and the situation is tense. Security forces are trying their best to restore peace,” said Kuldiep Singh, security advisor.

But sources said some SoO groups are suspected to have provided direct or indirect support to Kukis in the wake of attacks from some Meitei groups.

“Since the May 3 violence, both the Meiteis and Kukis are feeling insecure. In the wake of continuing violence from either side, both communities are arming themselves to defend against attacks. SoO groups too are under pressure from the community as Kukis have been disproportionately targeted in the violence. This is leading to spiraling of clashes,” said a Manipur official.[2]

Fayninja (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I did not miss the nuances. If the SoO militant groups had provided arms to other Kuki members, that is a separate issue. We are not yet discussing the arms that have been provided to the Meitei rioters.
But I find no evidence for the wide ranging theories about how the Kukis have resorted to violence. The majjority of violence is inside the Valley, where it is Meitei that have been killing and driving away the Kukis. The state machinery is entirely under their control. Even a Kuki MLA that went to attend a meeting in the valley is now in an ICU.[9] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The Meitei outburst was a decades-old build-up of frustration on Kuki privileges which let them buy land in Imphal while prohibiting Meitei purchase in their areas and also, with no delineation of traditional Kuki territory, it allowed them to eat away into the protected hill forests as explored by the articles which I had summarised before it got reverted due to its essay-like layout. The Meiteis had been demanding a ST status since a long time before the conflict and when ATSUM protested against it, the balloon was popped because the Meiteis perceived it as Kukis desiring to take advantage over them through discriminatory institutions like ST status and minority reservations.
Personal opinion: If you do reservations (or special treats), then do it for ALL on the basis on their population share. If you can't do it for ALL, then don't do it at all and keep it entirely meritocratic. Fayninja (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
What you have stated as your "personal opinion" shows in your wrie-up. It blames the Kuki people for X, Y and Z and tries to justify the Meitei grievances. For example, you write The pressure on land in Manipur has contributed to the tensions. How does Wikipedia know there is "pressure on land"? You have bought into the Meitei narrative.
I see cooked-up grievance narratives of the dominant class. If the 90%–10% division of the land was all there was to it, then the state budget should have also been splt 90%–10%. Is that happening? No. The state expenditure would be split quite the opposite way. The Kukis can also claim "frustration" for not getting their due share of the state's development expenditure. If these are genuine issues, why haven't they been debaed in the Legislative Assembly, which they control anyway? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that was the wording of the 3/4 articles that were analysing the roots of the conflict. During my writing, I was not privy to the wider blame game between Meiteis and Kukis. I had only summarised the first few articles which Google had shown from a simple search here. Unlike you, I was not reverse searching to implicate a particular community with articles that have not even been covered in the mainstream media. If you enjoy scouring the deep web for alternative narratives, then you should edit from a neutral standpoint as Kuki militants have still been active under curfew here.
I have not read any articles on state expenditure but if what you are saying is true than that could be for a whole lot of reasons. For instance, distribution of tax base (i.e., Imphal could be wealthier and more productive) and economic viability of state investments to name a few. You are implying a conflict similar to Hyderabadi vs. Costal Telugus. This type of thinking will plunge into a regression that will logically end onto a no-tax system and the dissolution of government. Fayninja (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it is like the conflict between Telangana vs. Coastal Andhra, but it is 10 times worse. The Telangana people are not scheduled tribes, but the Kuki people are. Telangana is not a hill state, but the Kuki districts are hill districts. So the disparity is much more pronounced.
The dominant community sets the narratives and, with the rise of the BJP, it becomes a "grievance" narrative. We have to do some basic "smell checks" before we even consider them to be serious issues. For example, the so-called "land pressure". How do the population densities of Manipur compare to those of Benal or Bihar? Or Arunachal Pradesh, which is a hill state?
Your write-up did not even mention the authors in the citations. That indicates that you were not even coscious of whether it was a Meitei source or a Kuki source or a WP:THIRDPARTY source. These things are highly imporant when you are covering a conflict situation. See WP:SOURCEDEF and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Deeptiman Tiwary, Home Minister Amit Shah in Manipur, to review security, hold talks with Kukis, Meiteis, The Indian Express, 30 May 2023.
  2. ^ Deeptiman Tiwary, Home Minister Amit Shah in Manipur, to review security, hold talks with Kukis, Meiteis, The Indian Express, 30 May 2023.

Spelling mistake in the article

The word "permission" is misspelled in the article. 212.252.142.216 (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Noted and fixed. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2023

Change this--

Recurrent violence

On 14 June, at least 11 people were shot dead

To this

On 14 June, at least 11 people were shot dead including nine Meitei men

From this source- Nine Meitei men were killed and 10 injured in Khamenlok, a Kuki village in Imphal East district of violence-hit Manipur, on Tuesday night, the police said.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/manipur-khamenlok-many-killed-june-13-2023/article66967216.ece Japantoste (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cherrell410 (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

India map

india map is depicted wrongly please correct it asap. 2406:B400:D4:2058:E9FF:D934:AEB6:740B (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

If there is a mistake and you don't have the user permission to fix it, you may submit an edit request, that depicts what should be changed, as seen in the thread above. Cherrell410 (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Civil War

Many sources are now starting to refer it as the Manipur State Civil War [10]. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Then again I do agree it is a bit WP:Too Soon and we should wait and see, the Myanmar Violence begun in February 2021 and became the Myanmar civil war (2021–present) by May 2021. Lets wait and see but there are already some WP:RS calling this the Manipur State Civil War which is unfortunate. Anyway lets wait and see but hope this article keeps getting updated. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
That was a WP:PRIMARY source, good for only attributed statements. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
If anything, it can be noted in the 'reactions' section. I agree this unfortunately looks like its headed there but at this time would recommend adding per WP:CRYSTALBALL Schwinnspeed (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Why revert my media coverage edit?

Hi @Jjmgwiki Why was my edit in the 'media coverage' section reverted? If it was done by mistake, please reinstate. ParanormalRat (talk) ParanormalRat (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2023

On 3 May 2023, ethnic violence erupted in India's north-eastern state of Manipur between the Meitei people, a predominantly Hindu majority that lives in the Imphal Valley ......

change Hindu -> Sanamahism

Source: https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/06/understanding-indias-manipur-conflict-and-its-geopolitical-implications 150.129.164.131 (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Make Infobox NPOV

In infobox change methods: Arson (church burning) -> Arson (Religious site burning) or (church & temple burning) & Damage: remove churches destroyed or add religious sites destroyed.

  1. Mayhem in Manipur: The State burns while the Centre looks away by Frontline
  2. VHP calls for peace in Manipur; demands action against 'anti-national' elements by The Hindu
  3. Manipur violence: What is happening and why by BBC
  4. Temple vandalised, villagers terrified by The Sangai Express
  5. In Manipur riots 221 churches, 17 temples and 3413 houses burnt by Voice of Seven Sisters
  6. India struggles with quelling ethnic clashes in Manipur by Deutsche Welle
  7. Hundreds of Houses of Worship Destroyed in Manipur, India by International Christian Concern

150.129.164.48 (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2023

Add "Myanmar 700 refugees enter manipur" how the myanmar crisis threatens to destabilize indias manipur state

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=864IbtFrsC0

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2023

The viral video section mentioned that the younger victim was gangraped. The updated article on The Wire has statements from the victim who confirmed that none of them were raped. Please remove the line that says the victim was raped. Article is: https://m.thewire.in/article/rights/manipur-police-women-video-paraded-naked?_gl=1*1lhrcsh*_ga*dV9tMmJUbHJ5R1VUaEJWTEhZT1ZjR0JfSnVyUmI1ZlFNY1NRV1lJelVQaU10VzloVE1NRGxyaElzYU9HMkhQag..*_ga_65DW8NFTWS*MTY5MDU5ODc3Ni4xLjEuMTY5MDU5OTI2NC4wLjAuMA.. Roman3141 (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: Added the word "allegedly" since the source did say that the police were investigating the matter, and the charge of rape was still on the table. Added citation as well. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2023

Replace "set to fire by Meitei group" to "set to fire by unknown miscreants" Roman3141 (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Is somebody looking into this? Roman3141 (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
See above req. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2023 (2)

Change " Total Kuki population in Manipur: 28,342" to "Total Chin-Kuki population in Manipur: 450,057" Roman3141 (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The numbers need to added for the Chin Kuki group, Kuki is a group of tribes. Use the same reference in the article: https://www.populationu.com/in/manipur-population Roman3141 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Change " Total Zo population Manipur: 24,294" to "Total Zo population Manipur: 136,068" Roman3141 (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I am using the same #17 resource mentioned in the article but the numbers need to be added for the Zo group:https://www.populationu.com/in/manipur-population Roman3141 (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1st August 2023

Change "In response, Meitei groups conducted a protest a day before on May 2nd afternoon blocking all roads to the Kuki villages . When the peaceful All Tribal Students protest was underway , the Anglo-Kuki Centenary Gate was set to fire by Meitei group" to "The clashes started after a portion of the Anglo-Kuki Centenary Gate was set to fire by unknown miscreants".

Reason: Source is biased. It was written by a Chongloi - a Thadou Kuki. No other article exists for a may 2nd blockade either.

  1. Chongloi-Thadou Kuki tribe source: https://thadoukukiyouthcommunity.wordpress.com/2016/03/31/the-history-of-thadou-people/

2. sources:

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/manipur-violence-a-birds-eye-view-of-destruction-and-evacuation-2369669-2023-05-05

https://scroll.in/article/1048707/what-the-mobs-left-behind-in-manipurs-hills-burnt-homes-looted-shops-and-thousands-of-displaced Tms369 (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I have removed the original content. Sources do not agree on how and why the violence started. So, nothing more can be said. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2023

Change "Ethno-Religious" to "Ethno" 2600:8805:D281:CBC0:B4E3:C46D:E513:26B3 (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No valid reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

User:DSP2092 is adding POV and censoring

Please check his edit. Yojitout (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't censored anything & only added different context based on sources. Checkout here my edits on this page. I am only making it NPOV. There are some users pushing their view like @Zocdoclesson - edits, @Jjmgwiki - edits which is making article WP:UNDUE. DSP2092talk 17:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
So who approved that line that said the fire was started by the Meiteis based on a single biased opinion piece written by a Kuki, the community fighting with the Kukis? Is there any established user here who can replace "set to fire by Meitei group" to "set to fire by unknown miscreants"? 97.130.89.18 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Edit to my comment above. Should be "community fighting with the Meiteis". Roman3141 (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Please ignore my comments above. I posted to the wrong thread. Roman3141 (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Please do not remove references / citations from the article. Also, there are no images or videos of temples being arsoned. Dont make the article a POV page. Zocdoclesson (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
@Zocdoclesson, There's enough sources. - link DSP2092talk 04:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
"Having enough sources" is not an excuse to remove citations that you do not like. Please be unbiased on Wikipedia. Zocdoclesson (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Kuki/Zo

The reliable sources recogise three broad ethnic groups in Manipur: the Meitei, the Nagas, and a third group which is variously called "Kuki", "Kuki-Chin", "Kuk-Zomi", "Kuki-Chin-Zomi" etc. All these labels refer to the same collection of tribes as far as we are concerned. No finer distinctions have been made by the reliable sources. So, it is misleading to claim that only the Kuki are involved, not the Zomi etc.

(For the uniniiated, "Kuki" is the Bengali term, "Chin" is the Burmese term, and "Zo" or "Zomi" is the self-ascribed term for the same group of tribes. They all speak Kuki-Chin languages, but some of them accept some labels and others don't. It is too much of a mess to wade into all that tribalism for our purposes.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Christian ecclesiastical views

Please do not push your agendas by selecting narrow one sided or biased sources. Example: User Zocdoclesson added anti-christian angle in this ethnic violence by citing a regional news article from the Indian state of Kerala that has an accusation from an archbishop. That's as biased and unreliable as one can go. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Roman3141 (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, religious community views can only be mentioned with WP:in-text attribution, not in Wikipedia voice. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Pro Hindutva views

Please don't push pro-Hindutva views by stating that the violence has little to do with religion and more to do with ethnicity. Hundreds of churches and people in Manipur were targeted over the past few months, not by the Muslims, Sanamahis, Buddhists or Sikhs but primarily by Meitei Hindus. Even Meitei churches were targeted (citations of which are continously removed) by people of the same ethnic group.

Chritians and Hindus each make up around 41% of the state, however the damage and destruction faced by the former far exceeds the latter. Zocdoclesson (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks on editors. I have already mentioned the problems with your edits before you opened this new section. Please study WP:RS, in particular the difference between WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources. The Archbishop counts as a primary source, for whom only attributed statements can be made.
You also don't seem to be aware of WP:NPOV which asks you to summarise the consensus views of all published sources, not just ones that you cherry-pick. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I cited are several sources from different news outlets, yet you decided to cherrypick the one article where an Archbishop stated his view on the violence and remove all other sources Zocdoclesson (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Please feel free to bring up whatever you think is leigiimate content. The WP:ONUS is on those who want to include content to achieve consensus for it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
We all need to know more about the current situation or read up on Manipur, if we want to edit or contribute to this article. The anti-christian narrative will fall apart under scrutiny because if anyone has read about Manipur, he/she will know that there are three major tribes or communities - Meiteis, Nagas, and Kukis. The Nagas and Kukis are Christians while the Meiteis are mostly Hindus. The Naga community in Manipur is much bigger than the Kukis. If this was a religious violence, the Nagas would have been involved from day one but the fact is they aren't till this day. This is purely an ethnic conflict between the Meiteis and Kukis. We all need to do our due diligence if we want this article to be neutral. Roman3141 (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

@ComparingQuantities: you are encouraged to specify here what are the points where this article is not neutral. Else, this will be considered as WP:DRIVEBYTAG. Chaipau (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2023 (2)

The start of the violence and who started the fire at the cemetery gate is an ongoing discussion. This article claims it was started by the Meiteis without any proof but refers to an article on The Wire written by a Kuki. Talk about one sided allegations! Please change " the Anglo-Kuki Centenary Gate was set to fire by Meitei group[24]." to "the Anglo-Kuki Centenary Gate was set to fire by unknown miscreants." Roman3141 (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Source seems to be sufficient basis for the claim, but this doesn't mean that this can't be changed if new info comes out about the incident. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
How did you say "Source seems to be sufficient basis for the claim"? It's one single article written by someone from the group who's fighting against the Meiteis.
I will make it simple. Group A and Group B are fighting and killing each other. Someone from group B wrote an article saying Group A started the fight, and there's no other article from anyone else because no evidence has been found on who started it. Are you going to keep that accusation?
Check what you said again, you said "seems". You are not sure nor is anyone else, as of today. Don't you think removing that line is fair to everyone until reliable evidence comes along instead of accusing a whole community based on the opinion of one person from the other community? Roman3141 (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
See WP:NEWSORG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P,TO 19104 (talk • contribs) 19:02, July 31, 2023 (UTC)

You are talking about this source:

It is labelled as "Analysis" by The Wire and, therefore, regarded as WP:RS by Wikipedia.

Most of the mainstream Indian media are useless for May because they didn't have any reporters in Manipur. The only exceptions are The Print, which had reporters there, and India Today which has "India Today NE" based in Gauhati, I think, and had covered Manipur for a long time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2023

Change the line in the lead


As of 29 July, 181 people have been killed in the violence.


to

As of 29 July, 181 people have been killed in the violence, including 113 Kukis and 62 Meiteis.


Use these sources

https://www.telegraphindia.com/north-east/manipur-bearing-brunt-of-violence-kukis-make-up-two-thirds-of-the-victims-says-reuters-analysis/cid/1955181


https://www.reuters.com/world/india/bunkers-sniper-rifles-deepening-sectarian-war-india-dents-modis-image-2023-07-28/ Joseph Guitar (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

It is important to not set up this article up as a Meitei vs Kuki ethnic conflict in the lead itself. The exact nature of the conflict, and the many different setups that are possible, can be described in the article body. The lead should just highlight the notability in terms of human cost. So the breakup of Kuki and Meitei is not required in the lead. Chaipau (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Anti-christian sentiment under the causes section of the page is clearly a propaganda.

This is pathetic how Wikipedia is allowing a biased peace of opinion on it's platform. The violence in Manipur is clearly a tribal issue not religious. How come it is mentioned here that it's "anti Christian" sentiments that caused violence? It's so despicable. 203.115.84.243 (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources are good enough for the claim. More than 250 churches were destroyed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
There are over 500 churches that have been burned to the ground. The churches belong to both Meiti and Tribal communities. If that is not anti Christian sentiment, then what is? Zocdoclesson (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Remove this opinion written in the name of information

The rise of BJP power in Manipur has empowered the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to incite the Vaishnavite Meitei to assert Hindutva politics against religious minorities. This included giving rise to Meitei-based organisations and increased vigilantism, cultural policing, and anti-minority rhetoric.

This is clearly an opinion and nothing else. This is what you call information? 203.115.84.243 (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. The statement is reliably sourced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2023

Duplicated edt request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1]

Change X="Of the 60 Assembly constituencies, 40 are held by the valley and 20 by hill tribes.[46][51]" to 

Y= "Of the 60 Assembly constituencies, 40 are held by the valley and it is unreserved seat which can be held by any community or tribe and 20 by hill tribes which is reserved seat and can be held by ST only." Earthiserregular (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Who is looking into this edit request? Roman3141 (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wrong blue colouration of Kuki Zo Christian area.

Pls remove the map of religious distribution of Manipur.

The presence of native Naga Christian is not shown in the map .The colouration is incorrect and it represent a biased and distorted picture. Earthiserregular (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Removed "Kuki-Zo" from the caption, but did not remove the map. Chaipau (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Negligible Sanamahism?

I don't find the "negligible" qualification reliable. Haokip's statement is based on the census, which is more than 10 years old, and, even then, a brute force categorisation. It doesn't capture for example:

"We follow dual faith. We have our indigenous religion Sanamahism. It is a very old religion that was also practised by my forefathers. We also follow Hinduism. Most people in Manipur follow these two religions," Sanajaoba said.[2]

Hinduism is not exclusivist. It doesn't ask you to stop believing whatever you were believing earlier. It just adds another layer of belief.

Secondly, there has been a revival of Sanamahim during the last decade. People in the know claim that the present violence is mainly perpetrated by the revivalists.

The two main supremacist groups behind these inhuman attacks are the Arambai Tenggol (meaning Warrior Blood) and Meitei Leepun groups. The Arambai Tenggol was created to bring back the past glory of the Meitei religion namely “Sanamahi”. The Group has the backing of State machinery, and of those in power. This radical group from its inception had one main objective and that was to eradicate the Zomi-Kuki Tribals who settled mostly in the Southern District of Manipur.[3]

I haven't seen any of the news reports over the last three months state that Sanamahism was "negligible". This is an entirely misleading remark. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It is possible that Sanamahism is seeing a revivalism precisely to help the argument for ST status of the Meitei. So a census from 10 years ago is relevant in the background section. Haokip's article is from 2015, and the ST issue became important in 2012. It is important to state it, if not in wikivoice then through an explicit attribution to Haokip.
Singh (2023) mentions that ST issue may not help majoritarian politics ultimately, but we are seeing it evolve as we write this.
Chaipau (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://eci.gov.in/assembly-election/ae-2022-manipur/
  2. ^ Manipur's titular king tastes ‘power', says will be happy if addressed as Maharaja, The New Indian Express, 20 June 2020.
  3. ^ Mercy Vnghianuang Guite, Why has the Supreme Court abandoned the Zomi-Kuki Tribals of Manipur?, India Today NE, 15 June 2023.

Population figures

Our Manipur page says Sanamahism is over 7%. That can be hardly called "negligible". (I don't know where the figure came from, but it is consistent with the cited table which inicates 8.2% "other religions".)

I am finding Haokip's demographic data increasingly dubious. His remark about OBC status is also wrong, as his own footnote indicates. All Meitei in Manipur are OBC, unless they are SC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Haokip's numbers are not "dubious". They are probably from 2011. The numbers quoted in contemporary news articles are probably from 2021. When the 2021 numbers become available, please insert those numbers in brackets. Eventually they should go into a table. Chaipau (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
"Probably" is not good enough. It is the scholar's job to specify it, and provide a citation. Without either of these, we can't accept these, as if they are some timeless constants that have been written in the sky.
There is no 2021 census. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Please provide references here. Haokip's article comes from a peer-reviewed journal. The other from? Chaipau (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC (edited) 20:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The reference was already there before you started editing, reference [49]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I have reinstated the original figures now. I am pretty sure they are correct as they have been mentioned in lots of sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Please provide citations to all numbers. Chaipau (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
The reference was Saikia. But Saikia got all his numbers from Haokip. Chaipau (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
@Kautilya3:: Could you please direct me to other sources that have the same population numbers as Saikia's? All the other numbers, not based on the census data, are estimates, and are liable to be biased one way or the other. Chaipau (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Most news reports giving percentage numbers like 50%, 53% or 57%, sometimes mentioned as Meitei and sometimes as the Valley population.
And here is a journal paper specifically about the Valley population.
-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

On another note, the Background section needs to contain the minimum amount of material required to understand the page. Issues like Vaishnavite sect and Muslims being calld "Panals" are not really needed here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

OTOH, I think it is important to distinguish between some categories---not doing so would mean that you are constraining your background to preclude some particular analyses.
  • It is important to distinguish between the Vaishnavite/Pangal/Sanamahi groups. Singh singles out the Pangals at a number of points in his artticle.
  • There are other works which have shown that the Krishna mythologies become important in the Hindu rhetoric. It is also important to point to the Manipuri Vaishnavism article for the history of Hinduism in the Imphal valley.
  • On the ST side, it is important to distinguish between the Naga and the Kuki. I agree with your earlier comment that no further distinction is needed.
I shall update all percentages from Census directly. Chaipau (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
I have since inserted visuals to depict population splits between the valley and hills based on census tables. These numbers are not split on Meitei/Kuki/Naga but the categories available in the tables---religion and SC/ST status. But they should give a rough idea about the Meitei and other populations. A little more will be needed to get the Meitei-speakers vs Kuki/Naga speakers, and I shall get them when I have some time. I think this will do for now to keep us grounded---to be able to check against estimates that are reported. Chaipau (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

References

How it began

 – article discussion

The violence began that same day, when reports surfaced that the Anglo-Kuki War Memorial Gate had been burnt down by unknown miscreants, Kukis beleive that it was burnt down by Meiteis, but there was no evident of that. This led Kukis to burn several villages inhabited by Meitei communities in Churachanpur, which in turn prompted retaliation by the Meitei, who reportedly torched several localities belonging to the Kuki community in the Imphal Valley areas, leading to several casualties.

Checkout reference - https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/06/understanding-indias-manipur-conflict-and-its-geopolitical-implications DSP2092talk 14:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The USIP article is authored by Binalakshmi Nepram, who is a Meitei, and has been making partisan commentary all through. The sequence of events isi by no means as straightorward as the article makes out. This is not WP:NPOV.
The only local report I know from 3 May is
It mentions arson on both the sides of the border (Churachandpur and Bishnupur). It mistakenly calls the "Kangvai Torbung area" as being in Churachandpur district, but it is actually in the Bishnupur district according to the District Census Handbook.
The Telegraph wrote towards the end of May about the beginnings of the violence:
As far as I am concerned, it is not clear how the violence started. Note also that Pramot Singh declared that he had deployed his activists in advance:

Speaking to The Indian Express, Singh said, “We knew something like this would happen one day, so our cadres have been stationed in these villages on the periphery of the (Meitei-dominated Imphal) Valley well before the start of the riots on May 3… since 2015-16.” (Esha Roy, I worship the CM… bigger blow to come: chief of Meitei outfit at centre of Manipur clashes, The Indian Express, 8 June 2023.)

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
So how does this article then say the fire was started by the Meiteis based on a single article on The Wire, written by Lien Chongloi who is a Kuki? How is he not biased? If nobody is sure, that line should be removed. Roman3141 (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Roman3141 is referring to the line "the Anglo-Kuki Centenary Gate was set to fire by Meitei group" which is based on a single article written by Lien Chongloi for The Wire. It is a matter which is being probed by the SIT team and at this moment there are no clear reports on the matter.
So, please change the line "the Anglo-Kuki Centenary Gate was set to fire by Meitei group" to "the Anglo-Kuki Centenary Gate was set to fire by unknown miscreants" Tms369 (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Forgot to mention in my earlier comment, Lien Chongloi- IS A KUKI! So the article is not neutral and his claims are not verifiable either. How did it even make it up there and why is it still not taken down? Tms369 (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
So Binalakshmi Nepram's article cannot be used as she is a Meitei and biased but Lien Chingloi's thewire.in article can be used to blame Meiteis for the fire? Do you know that Lien Chongloi is Kuki? If you are accusing Nepram of being biased, why not apply the same yardstick to Chongloi? You guys need to remove this accusation that has no evidence and relies on an opinion piece from a Kuki.
Please change "the Anglo-Kuki Centenary Gate was set to fire by Meitei group" to "the Anglo-Kuki Centenary Gate was set to fire by unknown miscreants" Roman3141 (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
@Kautilya3 Nepram's article is biased? Wikipedia policy says, "Refusal to use a source because 'it is biased' is totally wrong, because most reliable sources are biased'. Is this what you are doing? Are you allowed to do this? Roman3141 (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
It is labelled as "Analysis and commentary" and subject to WP:RSEDITORIAL. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
It's self-published by a US federal institution, so it should either be attributed either to that institution or to the author ... whoever is considered weightier in this instance I suppose. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed! The USIP article claims:

The violence began that same day, when reports surfaced that the Anglo-Kuki War Memorial Gate had been burnt down. This led Kukis to burn several villages inhabited by Meitei communities in Churachanpur, which in turn prompted retaliation by the Meitei, who reportedly torched several localities belonging to the Kuki community in the Imphal Valley areas, leading to several casualties.

drawing a direct line of causation beween the Gate and the burning of villages. But the local newspapers don't validate these claims. The Gate has cement concrete foundations and steel columns, and it is some 30-40 feet high. No way can it be "burnt down"! The narrative doesn't pass the basic smell test.

In an extremely detailed coverge,[1] Sangai Express wrote clearly that some tyres were burnt near the Gate, which were soon doused by local people. It didn't lead to any escalation. The paper also informs us that the Meitei held a "counter-blockade" at the border between the two districts so that the residens of Torbung and Kangvai couldn't return to their homes after the rally. This caused stone-throwing and arson by both the sides. Under the Moirang section, the paper tells us that there was a "counter agitation" against the ATSUM rally in the Moirang subdivision (by Meitei), that led to vandalisation of homes in Kangvai. It said that people were seen fleeing their homes and gathering in a plain.

The ground coverage does not support USIP's linearised narrative of Kukis starting the conflict and Meitei "retaliating".

And, what do we make of the fact that the Kuki homes in Imphal were marked months in advance?[2][3][4][5][6][7] What was that in "retaliation" to? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It's only semi-related, but I found this wire piece dispelling a few claims. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
@Kautilya3 That "fact" that Kuki homes were marked didn't get any traction because while some kuki homes got marked, some didn't. Some meitei and naga homes have the same red marks as well. And it wasn't random markings: Those reports were from the National Games Village where newspaper hawkers, service providers and govt. surveyors, etc sometimes use markings to distinguish the identical govt. houses.
If that claim had any credibility, the army would have picked up on it. They have been stationed at NGV since the 4th of May.
And as to how the belligerent group identified the kuki homes, it was as simple as getting one sympathiser from the locality to identify the kuki homes. Fortunately, they came late (around 11.30pm) and by then all the Kukis had fled to a nearby safezone. Tms369 (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Tms369, wecome to Wikipedia! Please browse through the policy pages linked from the Welcome message I posted on your talk page. In particular, Wikipedia is written by summarising WP:RS (reliable sources). Please avoid WP:OR (original research). On contentious pages like this one, a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policy is expected. Please review the cited pages as soon as possible. It is important! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tribal Solidarity March takes ugly turn; houses, offices, vehicles burnt, The Sangai Express, 4 May 2023.
  2. ^ Devadeep Purohit, As conflict in Manipur reaches 26th day, a look at the 'plot' that keeps the fire burning, The Telegraph (India), 29 May 2023.
  3. ^ Ranjan Solomon, BJP’s Communal Politics Has Deepened Historical Conflicts in Manipur, The Wire, 7 June 2023.
  4. ^ Nona Arhe, THE Anatomy of Manipur Violence: ‘Empty-handed, desperate flight through forests’: Kuki-Zomis on encountering mobs, fleeing to Nagaland, Newslaundry, 31 July 2023.
  5. ^ Shivarayan Rajpurohit, ‘Faith in god, not govt’: Manipur survivors in Delhi say they were ‘forced to leave’ their homes, Newslaundry, 17 May 2023.
  6. ^ Probe involvement of 2 radical Meitei groups in Manipur pogrom: tribal student bodies, The Hindu, 19 May 2023.
  7. ^ house markings, Twitter thread, August 2023.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2023 (2)

Please remove the sentence, According to several organisations, there have been accounts of partisan killings by security forces, as well as allegations of the police siding with the Meitei community. from the lead as it is not neutral. 2406:7400:98:1DF:1D43:8619:B977:629C (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Kautilya3 has written above: You haven't brought any sources that contradict it. You can't just argue your way through Wikipedia based on your personal opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:7400:98:1df:1d43:8619:b977:629c (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 Not done for now: Could you explain how this sentence is not neutral? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2023

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Please make the changes in the Background section

X== "Of the 60 Assembly constituencies, 40 are held by the valley and 20 by hill tribes.[46][51]" as

Y== Of the 60 Assembly constituencies, 40 are held by the valley and it is unreserved seat which can be held by any community or tribe and 20 by hill tribes which is reserved seat and can be held by ST only." Earthiserregular (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
The source is the election Commision of India ,through which State Assebly election/Vidhan Sabha are being held in In India under the provision of article 326 of Indian Constitution,Pls check the link here for source [11]https://eci.gov.in/assembly-election/ae-2022-manipur/ and in the map distribution of seats are given,Out of the 60 State Assembly Seat 20 are reserved for ST only.
The remaining 40 seats are unreserved. Earthiserregular (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The link is not working for me. Please provide a WP:Full citation and a quote that establishes the claim. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Please read the "description" in Wikipedia article ref link given here Manipur Legislative Assembly you will find the answer,Seat allocation in Vidhan Sabha/State Assembly is done through Representation of People Act not on the basis of Plain or Hill people. Earthiserregular (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that. Thanks.
However, unless there are sources that mention these facts in the context of the present conflict, they would be WP:UNDUE in the backgroud section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Below are the sources, all reliable. Please make the change as requested by Earthiserregular.
1. Below two sources show that the 40-seat and 20-seat distribution is not done by hill and valley.
From https://www.elections.in/manipur/
"Manipur has 2 parliamentary constituencies. The state has 60 legislative assembly constituencies out of which 20 are reserved for a candidate belonging to scheduled caste and tribes. The state contributes 1 seats to the upper house, the Rajya Sabha."
From "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manipur_Legislative_Assembly"
"At present, 1 assembly constituency is reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and 19 assembly constituencies are reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled tribes."
2. Below two sources show that ST candidates can contest for a general seat.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_political_positions_in_India.
"Several seats in the Parliament of India, State Assemblies, urban and rural-level institutions are reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). These reserved seats are elected by all voters in a constituency, without a separate electorate. A member of an SC/ST is not debarred from contesting a general (i.e. non-reserved) seat."
From https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/general-category-seat-is-for-all-sc/articleshow/4132090.cms
"The Supreme Court has held that a person belonging to the SC, ST or Backward Class category can contest elections in posts reserved for the general category and there cannot be a restriction on their vying for the post" Roman3141 (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Which of these sources are about the present conflict? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
This line "The valley-based Meitei dominate the political establishment. Of the 60 Assembly constituencies, 40 are held by the valley and 20 are in the hill districts." comes right after the 1960 land reform act. If you are going to ignore the fact that this line falsely implies that that 20 seats are reserved for STs and they cannot contest a general seat from the 40 other seats at all, please add "At the time of this conflict" to the beginning of the line. Roman3141 (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
"At the time of this conflict" would imply that the domination was a temporary phenomenon. No evidence for it has been provided. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Line removal request dated 12th August 2023

Editors are requested to remove the line "The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples. They came to be administered only after the Kuki rebellion of 1917–19 by British administrators without the involvement of the Meitei state"


1. Reference to Zomia is problematic as it refers to all the lands and peoples at elevations above 300 meters stretching from the Central Highlands of Vietnam to Northeastern India (including the whole of Manipur, wherein the lowest elevation in the Imphal Valley is 760m) that encompasses parts of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Myanmar, as well as four provinces of China (including the whole of Tibet). The book takes a broader/macro look on the people of this giant region with emphasis on the Akha, Hmong, Karen, Lahu, Mien, and Wa peoples and hence, is not appropriate in this context.


ref: https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-battle-over-zomia/

https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300169171/the-art-of-not-being-governed/


2. There are plenty of citations from neutral and tribal sources with regards to the administration of the subjects of the hills of Manipur by the Manipuri Kings. Their influence over the hills waned in the times when Manipur was engulfed in political turmoils in the face of either Burmese invasions or family squabbles over the Throne but the influence had always been re-established.


-"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 submission, including the largest of all, Kohima, at which place he stood upon a stone and had his footprints sculptured on it, in token of conquest...

...The system answered well for Manipur; many of the Nagas began to speak Manipuri, and several villages paid an annual tribute."

:Chapter III, My Experiences in Manipur and the Naga Hills (1896) by J. Johnstone

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37839/37839-h/37839-h.htm#ch3


-"The State has recently, after sixteen years of British administration, been committed to the government of the Prince who was chosen to fill the vacant throne after the events of 1891; and it is greatly to be hoped that its future may be happy and prosperous, and that it may exercise an increasing influence in winning to civilization the wilder tribes which recognise its authority".

:Introduction, The Meitheis (1908) by T.C. Hodson

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/en/download/The_Meitheis_1000240989.pdf


-"In most cases, the control of the hills was always short-lived and had to be frequently asserted by frequent military expeditions"

:Tuisem Ngakang, Naga Historian

https://www.indiatoday.in/history-of-it/story/manipur-violence-when-did-kukis-reach-manipur-and-how-past-is-shaping-states-present-2416215-2023-08-04


3. The usage of the 1917-19 Kuki Rebellion is also problematic. The rebellion took place in Longpi, Ukhrul District of Manipur (The Home of the Tangkhul Nagas), not a region outside the Kingdom. The then Maharaja, under the behest of his British overseers, had recruited able-bodied men (both valley people and Hill people) to serve in WW1, particularly in the Indian Labour Corps. Only the Kukis of that village rebelled. Rebellions happen only when there is authority. I hope the logical fallacy is obvious to all.

https://indianculture.gov.in/digital-district-repository/district-repository/anglo-kuki-war-longpi-1917-19

Side-note: The Nagas and Old Kukis/Kom-rem do not particularly have fond memories of this rebellion, as it consisted, among other atrocities, pillaging and massacres of their women, children and villages by the rebels while their men were away serving in WW1.

https://scroll.in/latest/1054175/manipur-police-book-author-two-academicians-for-allegedly-distorting-states-history Tms369 (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done
  1. Nowhere in the article "The Battle over Zomia" does Hammond discuss the Manipur or the Kuki-Naga situation. The article does not describe that a challenge to "Zomia".
  2. The quote from Tuisem Ngakang, Naga Historian, reinforces the Naga as belonging to "Zomia", and undercuts the demand that the reference to Zomia be removed.
Chaipau (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Regarding Zomia:
"Scott includes all the lands at altitudes above 300 meters stretching from the Central Highlands of Vietnam to northeastern India."
The definition of Zomia as shown in the article and the book clearly implies that the whole of Manipur, including the valley, as being a part of Zomia. By extension of that definition, Meiteis are residents of Zomia too.
The area is in the form of a valley, which is flat, elongated and tapering towards south with isolated hills. It is an intermountain valley surrounded by hillocks about 1,500 - 2,000 m high. The western part of the valley is flanked by abruptly rising hills while by lying rolling hills bound the eastern side. The valley slopes down from north to south from an altitude of 880 to 770 m.a.m.sl.
The term may, hence, only be used to differentiate the peoples of Zomia from the civilisations of, say, Assam valley (lowest elevation 45m) and Burma (lowest elevation 0m).
You have also not responded to the quotes directly challenging the second sentence.
I request you, or any other editor, to look into this matter again with a modicum of neutrality. Tms369 (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Your definition of Zomia is uni-dimensional and not helpful. The concept of Zomia is not just a region defined by an elevation, but it includes characteristics of peoples---primarily by those who has escaped state-making projects. They are non-state, illiterate, etc. by choice and not by compulsion. Here is a better summary:
'Zomia' is a shorthand reference to the huge massif of mainland Southeast Asia, running from the Central Highlands of Vietnam westward all the way to northeastern India and including the southwest Chinese provinces of Yunnan, Guizhou, and western Guangxi. Zomia has, Professor Scott contends, been peopled over the last 2,000 years largely by runaways from several state-making projects in the valleys, most particularly Han state-making projects. They have, in the hills, acquired, and shifted, their ethnic identities. Far from being 'remnants' left behind by civilizing societies, they are, as it were, 'barbarians by choice', peoples who have deliberately put distance between themselves and lowland, state-centers. It is in this context that their forms of agriculture, their social structures, and much of their culture, including perhaps even their illiteracy, can be understood as political choices
I am stating this here because this issue has come up time and again. Please do not accuse others of neutrality in talk pages. The claim in the text is attributed to a peer-reviewed reliable source. Chaipau (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Regarding Zomia:
By every accountable definition given by the author, Zomia is EXPLICITLY a geographical area. Also, it is not my definition. It is literally from the author! The definition I cited is, in fact, a more refined geographical definition from the one you cited because as per this quote, the whole of Northeast India, including the Brahmaputra Valley (an actual lowland of 45m amsl), is a part of it. The abridged definition may be because the quote comes from a talk event in Somerville College.
One can't, therefore, say "The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia" because the whole of Manipur is a part of Zomia.
And regarding the peoples inhabiting this region, all the indigenous peoples of Manipur, including the meiteis, were considered tribes by the British.
According to the census records of 1891, 1901 and 1931, the Meitei was listed as a Scheduled Tribe;
Exclusion in the ST list of the then newly formed Republic of India was purely voluntary, largely due to ignorance and self-pride.
The Meitei were not denied or left out from the STs List as they claim – they chose not to be included. ;
As the book author claims, all of these tribes escaped "state-making process" from various civilisations, particularly Han/Chinese, and came to inhabit "Zomia" at one point or another; and it would be completely wrong to suggest, which this problematic line does, that the Manipur hill tribes are "runaways" from the Imphal Valley that ran into the hills. No source would corroborate that.
Editors are, hence, requested to either (a) remove the line "The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia" or (b) change it to "The whole of Manipur is noted by Scholars as forming part of Zomia".
Regarding the second sentence:
The citations I had given earlier indicate that the Meitei king had lost authority over the surrounding hills during Burmese invasions and political turmoil, but had reestablished that authority by the time MG J. Johnstone, Political Agent in Manipur (1877-86), and T.C. Hodson, Prof. of Social Anthropology at Cambridge University, wrote about Manipur in 1896 and 1908 respectively. Editors are, hence, reminded to completely remove the second line. The final part doesn't even have a source. Tms369 (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@Tms369, the same issues raised by @Kautilya3 apply here. Chaipau (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Why the inconsistency in language?

See the bolded words in the below two lines:

1. "...thereby preventing Meitei and other people from expanding into the hill districts."

2. "The tribal population is not prohibited from settling in the valley region."

Please use the same phrase in both the lines. Pick either "expanding into" or "settling in", but use the same in both the lines. Roman3141 (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
@Kautilya3, the phrasing was correct and the objection was based on a false equivalence. What the law explicitly rejects is the transfer of deeds from ST to non-ST. It does not reject the deeds that non-STs already had in the hills before the Act came into force. That is why the phrase expanding into was used which is the more correct NPOV form. Chaipau (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, good point. I reverted it back. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
@Chaipau, if the law rejects transfer of deeds from ST to non-ST, how does that justify the use of the word "expansion"? A sale of land in India involves the transfer of deeds anyway. Why don't we use the original term in the source material instead of your own interpretation? What you are doing is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research, which explicitly states, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented."
If you cannot show us where the word "expansion" is used in the source material, please do not use "expansion" in the above mentioned sentence. Roman3141 (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
@Roman3141, please refer to WP:PARAPHRASE: "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words" You should show explicit where the WP:NPOV violation has occurred.
Please also look at WP:BATTLEGROUND. This is not the place to wage any Meitei-Kuki conflict. The editors here are not interested in taking sides and are just interested in reporting what has been said in WP:RS in their own words. Chaipau (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
No personal attack or accusation, @Chaipau. I didn't say you were taking sides, did I? Paraphrasing is way different from using a totally different term like "expansion" instead of "transfer" in the source material. Can you show us the exact line in the land reform act that you are paraphrasing? Roman3141 (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Please look at the entire thread here and the edit summary reverting the change from @Kautilya3. There exists no WP:CONSENSUS that the phrase "expanded into" is not WP:NPOV, based on the earlier claim. Chaipau (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The edit history and the revert don't provide any detail or justification on how two different phrases - "expanded into" and "settling in" were used for the two communities. My request for change is because of the following two reasons:
1. There's ABSOLUTELY nothing in the original source that mentions about Meiteis expanding into the hill districts. You are applying your own incorrect interpretation here which violates the "No original research" Wikipedia policy/guideline.
2. You are totally missing the "superficial" in paraphrasing as defined by Wikipedia which states, "Close paraphrasing, or patchwriting, is the superficial modification of material from another source." What you have done is not even paraphrasing, it's adding something new that's not in the source.
Why don't we stick as close as possible to the source material which is a legislative piece, and say transfer of deeds or buying land? That would be truly NPOV instead of the current version. Thanks. Roman3141 (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 Done
I have changed "expand into" to "grab land", as given in Kipgen (2018). Note that the issue of land reforms is not straightforward and will require elaboration. Chaipau (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you on one thing, that the issue of land reforms is not straightforward and will require elaboration. But to use "grab land" here looks like another way to keep your original interpretation. In the Kipgen paper you cited (if you had read it), you should've noticed that he provides another reference for using the land grab allegation. Here is the line in his first article:
"The main opposition to this bill is the idea of land grabs by the valley dwellers and the state’s hegemony through forceful intrusion to the land resources of the tribal people and infringement of their customary rights (Kipgen 2017: 506)."
Now if you look at the reference cited in the above line, this second article, "The enclosures of colonization: Indigeneity, development, and the case of Mapithel dam in Northeast India" is written again by Kipgen. He is alleging something based on another article he wrote :) Jokes aside, the line he referenced in the second article for alleging "land grab" in his first article is below:
"Usually lands are appropriated for the construction of a military camp specifically for troops deployed and also to secure the dam site. Lands were grabbed for the construction of associated infrastructure without or minimal compensation to landowners."
He is clearly mentioning in his original source/article that lands were grabbed for military or infrastructure development purposes but changing it to "land grabs by valley dwellers" in his other article, which is really disingenuous to say the least.
Let's treat the Manipur Land Reform Act as we treat any other piece of legislation. Let's stay as close as possible to the source material and state clearly what the act says without applying our own interpretation.
My request, please change the line:
"the seventh amendment (2015) is seen as an attempt by the valley dwellers to grab tribal land",
to
"the seventh amendment (2015) is seen as an attempt by the government to grab tribal land for the construction of military camp or associated infrastructure". Roman3141 (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 Not done --- citation required. Chaipau (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Changing Manipur's history and boundary?

One user has made the following edit, "It (Manipur) constitutes the Imphal Valley, associated with the Manipur kingdom, and the surrounding hills which was part of zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples, that came to be administered only after the Kuki rebellion of 1917–19." Wikipedia has its own article on "Manipur Kingdom" that mentions the area and the boundary of the Manipur kingdom. This user is citing an article/opinion piece written by a Kuki author to make this edit. This is a gross misrepresentation of history and is totally incorrect. There are enough published articles and written records to indicate that the hill areas have always been part of the Manipur kingdom. Read the works of Brtish authors like TC Hodson, Sir James Johnstone, etc. To pick one opinion piece written by a Kuki shows the user's biased view. This needs to be edited or updated. Roman3141 (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia does not use citations and references based on ethnicities of authors. It does not matter to which ethnic group Haokip (or Singh) belongs to.
If you have relevant references, please cite them here in the talk page. Chaipau (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
So, a state/kingdom with a 2,000 year old history will be questioned based on a single opinion piece written by someone from a group who wants to break up the State? Have you seen the Wikipedia article on the kingdom of Manipur? Let's start with that and what it says. Or, are you going to change the area/boundary mentioned in that article too by citing this same opinion piece?
All the books below were written by British explorer/officers.
See section 1, first line in this book. It clearly mentions the area of the Manipur kingdom. https://ia801403.us.archive.org/27/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.158175/2015.158175.The-Meitheis.pdf
See Chapter 3, pages 41 - 45 in the book below. It talks about how the Nagas and Kukis paid tribute/tax to the Meitei kings, and how Manipur's boundary even extended to the Naga hills at one time. It also mentioned this about the Kukis, "They (Kukis) were first heard of as Kukis, in Manipur, between 1830 and 1840; though tribes of the same race had long been subject to the Rajah of Manipur".
https://ia600206.us.archive.org/0/items/cu31924098843083/cu31924098843083.pdf
See this book below too. Relevant part, "At the same time, the way the Manipuris managed all the hill-tribes about them was very creditable. Every village had to work for the Rajah so many months in the year – about four. Some had to cut wood, and bring so many bundles in for the palace; others had to give so much rice, or go down to Cachar or to Kohima for trading purposes, and each tribe had its own duties. This system extended throughout Manipur, and not only amongst the hill-tribes, but also among the Manipuris themselves, and was called 'Lalup.' In return for their services they got their land rent free, and were not restrained from trading in their own interests as soon as they had performed their 'Lalup' for the Maharajah."
https://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/grimwood/manipur/manipur.html
This new line was also added - "and the surrounding hills which was part of zomia". According to the link provided, Zomia is a geographical term coined in 2002 by historian Willem van Schendel of the University of Amsterdam. So, the hill areas of Manipur belonged to an area created by someone in 2002?
Please do not change established history or facts with cherry-picked opinion pieces. If this is allowed, any state or country's boundary can be questioned by citing opinion pieces. Roman3141 (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Roma3141, this is Wikipedia. You can't say "read blah". Please provide full citations and tell us what they state. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
And isn't this opinion of hill areas being free and being part of Zomia fall under the Undue weight category? See below:
"Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." Roman3141 (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Since you have pdf's of your sources available, you could perhaps cut-and-paste statements that you think contradict the included content. The content says that the hill tribes were "non-state" and unadministered. So, to contradict it, you would need statements that say that they had states and that they were administered. This is not an issue regarding the "boundary" of Manipur. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
The original sentence that I pointed out in my first comment, has been changed. But this current sentence is very misleading, "It consists of the Imphal Valley, associated with the Manipur kingdom, and the surrounding hills populated by hill tribes." This implies that the hill areas were not part of the Manipur kingdom, which is incorrect. All the resources I cited above clearly mentioned that both the valley and hill areas were part of the Manipur kingdom ruled by the Meitei kings. Can we change this sentence to, "It consists of the Imphal Valley and the surrounding hills populated by hill tribes."? If we want to include reference to the Manipur kingdom, we then need to mention that both the valley and hill areas were part of this kingdom.
For the undue weight category, I am referring to this sentence, "The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples." Isn't this a fringe idea/theory that shouldn't be given undue weight as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Roman3141 (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Is anyone looking into my edit request? Roman3141 (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
It is a peer-reviewed scholarly source. You need sources of equal or higher quality in order to contest it.
As I said before, this is not a question of the boundaries of the kingdom. Rather it is regarding what kind of administation was in effect. The claim is that the hill regions were unadministered during the kingdom rule. To contradict it, you need to provide sources that say they were administered, and describe how they were administered. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
@Kautilya3 We are referring to two different lines. Refer to my comment that points out the line that talks about Imphal valley, the Manipur kingdom and the hill areas. Notice how the phrasing makes it sound as if the hills were never part of the Manipur kingdom. I have already pointed out the historical books and relevant passages that showed that the hills were part of the Manipur kingdom. Surely, historical books should have more weight than a thesis written by someone who has wanted to break up Manipur. Roman3141 (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The two issues are closely linked. So I am afraid nothing more can be done unless you are able to come up with other scholars that present differrent interpretations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
@Kautilya3 Separate administration of the hill areas is relevant only after the British introduced it, around the early 1900's. Manipur kingdom is before that, two very different timelines. That difference should be clearly called out and mixing that up will be an error. We cannot say India was not ruled by the British by referring to the years after 1947. Are there other Wikipedia editors who can join this discussion and provide their views/opinions? Is Kautilya3 the only editor here? Roman3141 (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The content was added by Chaipau, who brought in the first scholarly source cited in the article. The content reflects what the source says. You haven't brought any sources that contradict it. You can't just argue your way through Wikipedia based on your personal opinions. High-quality sources are needed. Plenty of scholarly sources talk about the hill-valley divide in Manipur. The maps drawn by the British colonialists don't imply a unitary state.

However, what is significant is that Manipur’s native rulers had very little military control over the kingdom’s fiercely independent hill tribes; ever since medieval times, their authority was always largely restricted to the Imphal Valley. The more numerous and powerful of the tribes were the Nagas and the Kukis,[9] who were divided into smaller groups, each of which was possessive about their territorial rights.

While the valley areas had for hundreds of years been under a monarchical system, the social and political organisation in the hill areas of Manipur can largely be categorised into two types: the chieftain system of the Zos, and the system of 'village republic' of the Nagas.

Thongkholal Haokip himself has explained his view in more detail in an earlier article:

  • Haokip, Thongkholal (September 2017), "Dereliction of Duties or the Politics of 'Political Quadrangle'? The Governor, Hill Areas Committee and Upsurge in the Hills of Manipur", Indian Journal of Public Administration, 63 (3): 456–474, doi:10.1177/0019556117720606

What constitutes Manipur before the British rule is a matter of debate that continues to linger in the ethnic politics today. More than two decades after Pemberton submitted his report on the eastern frontier, McCulloh (1980, p. 75), the then political agent of Manipur, in his account of the valley of Manipur and of the hill tribes wrote:

  • 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 of blackmail, and even after the conclusion of peace with Burma, and the fixation of a boundary for Manipur, the majority of the tribes were independent, and known to us little more than by name.

So, when we talk about the "Manipur kingdom", we can only talk about the valley being under its firm control, not the hills. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)r

Refer to the topic Line removal request dated 12th August 2023. Tms369 (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Tms369, Knowledge progresses with time. If you have scholarly sources (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP) published in the last decade or two, please bring them forward. Trying to dig up British administrator narratives from two centuries ago and using them to contradict present day scholarship constitutes WP:OR. (British Raj-era sources are generally not regarded as WP:RS. Sometimes, when there are no contemporary sources available,, we can use them but generally attribute the specific views to them rather than stating them as fact. We are not permitted to synthesize our own conclusions from what they say.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Can you please show where this line is mentioned in the WP:RS article? "British Raj-era sources are generally not regarded as WP:RS". This is for my own learning, thanks. Roman3141 (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:SCHOLARSHIP tells you: Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. For dealing with historical matters, we also use WP:HISTRS, which recommends scholars proficient in historical research. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
@Kautilya3
"As a matter of policy and symbol of subjugation, all the earlier clan principalities of Manipur, other than the Ningthoujas, all the Loi communities in the valley and different tribal communities of the state paid tribute to the rulers of Manipur. Besides, the newly conquered territories beyond the present boundaries specially, in the Kabo valley also paid tribute to the state.
The tributes so collected was the revenue for protection, uses of natural resources and public properties from the subordinated principalities, villages and ethnic groups under the kingdom of Manipur...
Regarding the extension of tributary villages, though the system started since ancient period, the regular payment in most of the tributary villages started since the time of Meidingu Khagemba (1(5)97-1652) A.D. and continued till the British occupation of Manipur in 1891 A.D. Of course, there were some fluctuations in the number of tributary villages according to the power and strength of administration of the ruling monarchs."
http://oldror.lbp.world/UploadedData/6909.pdf
"In the 19th century, British Political Agent for Manipur James Johnstone observed that the King had great powers in determining the religion of Manipuris. Sometimes “the inhabitants of a village were elevated en masse from the level of outcastes, to that of Hindoos (sic) of pure caste” (Johnstone 1878, p. 3). He described that if the King so chooses, a person belonging to the hill tribe could receive the sacred thread of the twice-born castes and be admitted as a Ksatriya. "
https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12121041
I have even deliberately avoided works by Gangmumei Kamei and Lal Dena such as A History of Manipur: Pre-colonial Period (1991) and History of Modem Manipur, 1826-1949 (1991) since their first publication dates don't satisfy your "published in the last decade or two" criteria, even though these books are considered the gold standard of Manipur History.
I am not telling you what to do, but maybe next time try not to give too much weight to historical narrations by someone who didn't even major in History. Especially when that someone has an active FIR case on his head for distortion of historical facts.
https://thewire.in/government/manipur-police-anglo-kuki-war-book-fir Tms369 (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
The first source does not indicate that the hill areas were "administered" by the Maharajas. Collecting tribute is not the same as administering. It was entirely common for traditional kings to collect tributes from each other, but leave the internal administration in own hands.
The second source is not even relevant. Religions and castes are not under discussion.
Gangmumei Kamei is a standard historical reference for Manipur and we can presume that all contemporary scholars have studied it before writing their own articles. But if something is directly contradictory (rather than your own WP:SYNTHESIS), you are welcome to bring it forward.
Regarding the FIR issue, I will be taking it to WP:RSN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
T. Haokip wrote, as you mentioned:
More than two decades after Pemberton submitted his report on the eastern frontier, McCulloh (1980, p. 75), the then political agent of Manipur, in his account of the valley of Manipur and of the hill tribes wrote:
  • 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 of blackmail, and even after the conclusion of peace with Burma, and the fixation of a boundary for Manipur, the majority of the tribes were independent, and known to us little more than by name.
Following which you deducted "So, when we talk about the "Manipur kingdom", we can only talk about the valley being under its firm control, not the hills."
It is clearly evident that T. Haokip, and some others, has taken the weakness of the Manipur Kings after the Burmese invasions out of context to push his own agenda that the tribes were always independent.
It is now directly contradicted by the first article as well as the first-hand reports from J. Johnstone and T.C. Hodson, which I submitted.
Also, regarding the 2nd article, religious dominance is very much relevant in our context.
"Social exclusion of the hill tribes and Yaithibis (sweeper and scavenger groups) was implemented as they were prevented from entering the court and public places."
Social exclusions and inclusions were done on subjects, not on independent peoples. I think that's pretty much common sense.
And you cannot assume "we can presume that all contemporary scholars have studied it before writing their own articles", especially not to someone who didn't pursue History.
Also, if you want to talk administration, let's talk administration. The line "They came to be administered only after the Kuki rebellion of 1917–19, by British administrators" holds no water as this article will point out:
"The outbreak of the Kuki rebellion in the year 1917 is closely related with the political, economic and administrative changes which were introduced gradually since the occupation of the country by the British in 1891...
The introduction of the hill house tax at the rate of Rs. 3 per house per annum gave a severe blow to the economy of the Kuki people...
The ultimate cause was the attempt made in the past to administer a vast tract of hills with a wholly inadequate staff which resulted in the British officers getting out of touch with the hill tribes... This led to the growth of a serious lack of understanding between the rulers and the ruled. This administrative pattern was the main character of the British colonial administration"
Now I want you to pay close attention:
"The period (1891-1907) was well utilized for introducing several changes in the form of administrative reforms in the state... In a strategic move, the administration of the hills of Manipur inhabited by the Naga, Kuki and other tribes was separated from the valley and was kept under the charge of the Vice President of Darbar leaving little scope for Raja to interfere in its administration.This new arrangement was made with reasoning that the people of the hill tribes were different from the valley-based Manipuris and were having entirely different customs and languages. This change in the administrative system of Manipur created a deep-rooted alienation between the people of valley and the hills which widened with the passage of time"
The reasoning for separation is folly in retrospect, as it was simply the Assam administrative model applied to Manipur. But Manipur, both its people and land, are way more homogenous, and I can go on and on about the customs and languages of our people. But what you should take away from this is that the British separated the hills and the valley. And it wasn't because the hills were independent from the Manipur king, it was because of the British's own folly reasoning. Tms369 (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It is time to brush some more policies of Wikipedia regarding sourcing:

  • WP:CONTEXTMATTERS tells you: In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. This is interpreted to mean that high-profile international publishers such as SAGE, Routledge, Springer etc. rank a lot higher than a local college department-published journals. Khangchian's article has no citations on Google scholar [12]. I stil think it is a valuable paper, and am willing to read through it. But you need to quit making the argument that it trumps what the established scholars have said.
  • WP:SCHOLARSHIP tells you: Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. I have cited above a secondary source that reviews all the existing views. Kamei, Governmentality: Power and Counter Conduct in Manipur and Nagaland (2023). Please read that, page PT72 onwards.
  • Also please make an attempt to provide WP:Full citations for the sources whenever you discuss them. We need to see evidence that you at least spent some thought into assessing the appropriateness of the source for the present discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
You will have to forgive me for not having access to paying sites.
What V. Khangchian mentioned is actually already very well established:
"After the Anglo-Manipur war of 1891, the hill areas were brought under British rule and the hill administration became the personal responsibility of the political agent...
The geographical division of Manipur into valley and hills provided a good opportunity to the British to apply their well-known policy, "divide and rule"... Shakespeare justified the omission (of the hill territory) on the plea that "the hill tribes are not Manipuris and have entirely different customs and languages"
SITLHOU, H. (2015). Confronting the State: Land Rights Discourse in the Hills of Manipur. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(30), 70–77. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24481977
I am in no way or form denying that the Khulakpa system / Village Chieftainship / Village Headman system mentioned in Kamei's book exist. It exists to this very today, in fact. It simply has no bearing in this context.
Some other thing I stumbled upon which may be relevant in our context:
"When the Angami Nagas rose in rebellion against the British in the famous village of Khonoma (1879), James Johnstone led a contingent of 2000 forces from Manipur to suppress the rebels. Out of the 2000 forces of Johnstone, about 1000-1200 were Kuki irregulars (Johnstone 2002: 128-129). However, it should be noted that these Kuki irregulars were sepoys of the Manipur Raja and not people acting on their own whims."
Hanneng, D. (2018). The Kukis of Naga Hills: Rethinking Kuki-Naga Relations in Light of Kukis Contribution to the Early Naga Movement. Journal of North East India Studies, 8(2) http://www.jneis.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/8.2.4.pdf Tms369 (talk) 06:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
If we are going to get anywhere near consensus, we need to focus on the issues of "administration", not boundaries, not tributes, not lallup, and not recruitment into forces.
1. Looking at the "administration" issue, you have brought some sources that claim that it was introduced into the hill areas by the British in 1891 or soon after, whereas the currrent article text says it was introduced after the Kuki Rebellion. In either case, the administration was introduced by the British. All sources seem to agree on this point.
2. Regarding the 1891 vs. 1919 debate, I favour the 1919 date. No doubt some changes were introduced in 1891 and the Kukis found them distasteful enough to rebel. But this was some kind of a "light touch" administration, which can also be found in other hill regions of the British Raj. I don't know the precise details, but they are not that important for our purpose. After 1919, the administration was made a lot stronger. Haokip cites Lal Dena for this:

After the defeat of the Kukis in the so-called Kuki rebellion, the British brought about tighter administrative control and as such ‘the hill people were for the first time brought under intensified political and administrative control of an imperial power’ (Dena, 1991, p. 134). Subsequently, Manipur was divided into four subdivisions—one with headquarters at Imphal and three in the hills under a sub-divisional officer (SDO) each...(emphasis added) [1]

Sitlou, quite strangely, omits the mention of Kuki Rebellion and the administrative changes that took place after it, whereas most sources agree that the Kuki Rebellion was a watershed event, which caused the British to rethink their entire approach to hills administration. Sitlou seems to base his account on some one called Kshetri with unknown credentials, claiming:

In 1893, the hill areas were divided for the first time into five subdivisions: Mao, Ukhrul, Tamenglong, Tengnoupal and Churachandpur (Kshetri 2006:4)

I think this is seriously wrong information. In 1893, Churachand Singh was seven-year old, and he wasn't given kingly responsibilities until 1907. "Churachandpur" couldn't come into existence in 1893 during his infancy. The number of subdivisions is also dubious. I have seen three or four subdivisions mentioned, but never five! I think we need to set aside this source for historical information.
3. Finally, regarding the so-called "divide-and-rule policy" of the British, it is a favourite beating stick for Indian scholars to wield, but in this case there are alternative explanations that the scholars haven't at all considered. First of all, hill tribes all over India were seen by the British as forming separate identities distinct from the surrounding populations, and they were administered separately, even when there were no princely states or Maharajas involved. They were labelled as "excluded" or "partially excluded" areas, and administered in a light-touch manner by Political Agents, rather than the standard revenue administrators. For example, the Manyam hills in the "Godavari Agency" was part of the Madras Presidency, which witnessed a famous rebellion in 1922 (on which the recent hit film "RRR" is based). The hill-subdivisions of Manipur were similar "agencies". (They weren't called agencies because the whole of Manipur was an "agency" on account of it being a princely state, but the principle was the same.) Moreover, the British genuinely thought that the Manipuris would not be able to administer them in a fair manner. Here is Robert Reid quoted:

The words of Robert Reid, who was the Governor of Assam from 1937-1942, will not be totally unfounded, “History shows that the Manipuri cannot and will not give the hills an administration of the standard to which they are both entitled and now accustomed, and it can only be maintained by the control now exercised”.[2]

So, the idea that the British were simply playing a divide-and-rule game in devising separate administrations is not WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Quite accidentally, I found the first chapter of Rajendra Kshetri's book online [13], but the relevant citation [5] hasn't been included. So, we have no idea where he got the date 1893 from. But he does confirm what we have been arguing, viz., that the administration of hills was left to the tribes and their chieftains themselves, and there was little change after 1891. He indicates there was a change in 1919, but is vague about the details. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
All of the excerpts below are from this textbook and will back up Khangchian's and Sitlhou's articles:
DENA, L. (2014) British Policy Towards Manipur (1762-1947) Third Edition
(p.s. the link is for the second edition from 2008)
"The period of regency (1891-1907) was fully utilized for making all the major decisions and also introducing several changes in the administrative set up of the native state" (Dena, chapter 4:1, p75)
"The assumption of authority by raja Churachand Singh on the 15 May, 1907, was of significance in view of the fact that the British had reconstituted Manipur durbar...According to the scheme for the administration of the state, the president of the durbar was the raja himself, and the vice president was an English I.C.S officer lent from Assam provincial civil service. ...The president was given charge of education, medical and armed state police; the vice-president, the hill tribes, finance & revenue of all sorts and the ordinary members, judiciary, works, civil police and jail. The above facts show the position and powers of the durbar and the role of the English officer in it, and above all, the influence of the political agent, who was the 'de facto' head of the state" (Dena, Chapter 4:3, p60)
This shows the re-organisation of state administration when going from Direct Rule to Native Rule in 1907. The British continued to retain administration of the hill tribes.
"At the time of installation of the maharaja Churachand Singh to the gaddi of Manipur in 1907, there were about 42 lambus earning a monthly salary of Rs.7 and above them were a host of lam-subedars with with a monthly salary of Rs.15. The entire hill territory was divided into five sardars (sub-divisions). Each sardar was looked after by a number of lam-subedars and lambus" (Dena, Chapter 5:2, p82)
"The proximate cause of the rebellion was the objection of the Kuki chiefs to allowing their subjects to be sent to war fronts with the labor corps which had been raised for the second time... The long standing cause of the rebellion was the wrong administrative approach of local officials... the British officers failed to get in touch with the hill tribes and were unable, when any crisis arose, either to appreciate the gravity of the situation or to take effective steps to ally the panic." (Dena, Chapter 5:4, p97, p99)
All these show that there was administration before 1919.
Regarding the administrative changes after 1919:
Sitlhou actually mentions the administrative changes after the Kuki Rebellion in detail. You simply missed it. The article lists seven administrative changes, with relevant changes being the following:
"1. Manipur's boundary was defined and well demarcated.
2. State durbar for administration of the hill areas surrounding the Imphal valley was continued, but there were improvements in the system.
4. Three administrative sub-divisional headquarters were set up.
6.. A separate budget was set aside for the administration of the hill areas for the first time.
7. The village administration remained unchanged. Most disputes, except certain heinous offences against the state, were settled in accordance with tribal customs." (SITLHOU, H. (2015). Confronting the State: Land Rights Discourse in the Hills of Manipur. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(30), 70–77. pp72)
"Well aware of the inadequacies of their control over the hill tribes, the colonial officials decided to reorganize the hill administration...The southwest area with headquarters at Churachandpur (named after maharaja Churachand Singh) was under the charge of B.C.Gasper; the northwest area with headquarters at Tamenglong under William Shaw; and the northeast area with headquarters at Ukhrul under L.L.Peter. However, a large area in the north and in the southeast areas continued to be administered from Imphal by the president (a European officer) of the durbar." (Dena, Chapter 5:2, p83-84)
This clearly shows there was a reorganisation to improve the existing administrative structure. The present wikipedia line defines it as an introduction to administration, which is completely wrong.
Regarding the Divide-and-rule policy:
"The hill territory was separated from the general administration of the state on the plea that "The hill tribes are not Manipuris and have entirely different customs and languages. The raja in future will only have a bodyguard of about 100 rifles and therefore will be unable to enforce his orders outside the valley, whereas the political agent will have a military police battalion to support the authority of the vice-president"... It was the ulterior motive of the British administration to create a 'a barrier of a wall" not only between the hill men and plains men but even among the hill people themselves. The truth of the matter was that the people irrespective of caste, creed and religion, belonged to the same racial stock and their languages were dialects of the Tibeto-Burman." (Dena, Chapter 5:2, p75)
Regardless of what the truth may be, I think a view from both parties is necessary to grasp the real situation. I think we can mention both without leaning into either.
Therefore, I, again, ask the editor(s) to completely remove the lines "The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples. They came to be administered only after the Kuki rebellion of 1917–19 by British administrators without the involvement of the Meitei state",
Or replace it with the lines "After the Anglo-Manipur war of 1891, the administration of Manipur was taken over by the British. They continued to administer the hill areas directly even after establishing a form of native rule in 1907. They justified this hill-valley administrative divide on their plea that the peoples were different. Scholars believe this divide had far-reaching effects on the relation of the hill-valley peoples." Tms369 (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
@Tms369, the quote "The hill territory which formed nine-tenth of the total area of Manipur, with practically no roads and in most parts consists only of jungle tracts passable only by travelers on foot, had been placed in the hands of the vice president of the durbar (The English I.C.S officer as previously mentioned). This officer, who was already over-burdened with his duty in the durbar failed to keep himself in touch with the people in the hills. As a result, the British officers failed to get in touch with the hill tribes..." is very clear that (1) the administration in the hills was held by the British officer and not by the rajah, and that (2) the hills were inaccessible, and "administered" only in name. I have come across other references that claim the Naga and the Kuki regions follow their own customary laws of administration and land ownership (which are different among themselves) and which are not based on individual ownership models that the Imphal valley (and the Indian state) follow.[3] So the non-state condition that existed in the pre-colonial period continues to some extent even today.
Your most recently cited quote reinforces Haokip's claim on Zomia rather than oppose it. (WP:V, WP:RS) Therefore, there is no need to remove it. (appended) 13:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Chaipau (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
@Chaipau - you are the same editor in the other topic who ran away. I had to go to another editor on another topic because of that. Tms369 (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
And you still haven't addressed the issues I raised in the other topic you ran away from @Chaipau Tms369 (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Can I get a response please? @Kautilya3 Tms369 (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Your proposed text is full opinions disguised facts. Since you didn't include any citations, it is not even clear whose opinions these are. See WP:CLAIM for how to avoid using loaded terms. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
All of the excerpts came from Dena's book (except for Sitlhou's). Very well, I've edited my comment to your suggestion- added citations and removed the indirect quotes. Tms369 (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I would prefer to settle this discussion here. Tms369 (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Haokip, Thongkholal (September 2017), "Dereliction of Duties or the Politics of 'Political Quadrangle'? The Governor, Hill Areas Committee and Upsurge in the Hills of Manipur", Indian Journal of Public Administration, 63 (3): 456–474, doi:10.1177/0019556117720606
  2. ^ Thongkholal Haokip, Loath to share power, The Statesman (India), 30 August 2021.
  3. ^ "Tribal peoples in Manipur have been maintaining their commons under customary law. Interacting with outsiders has always led to the contestation of their customs, traditions, and beliefs. Tribal societies continue to administer their villages under customary law on the tenet of equity. Their law has even resisted the policies of Manipuri kings and the British administration. In the present day, tribal customary law stands challenged by the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960." Kamei, Richard (2018). "Tribal Land, Customary Law, and the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act". Economic and Political Weekly.

Hill administration under Meitei kings

What hill administration there was before the British is exemplified by statements such as these:

The hill administration was left to be managed basically by the tribal chiefs who enjoyed a considerable amount of autonomy and faced no direct intervention from the Meetei kings (Kshetri, p.3-4)

In the context of such literature that suggests the fuzzy territorial boundaries of the Manipuri kingdom, Oinam Bhagat has pointed out that territorial conquest and settlement of the hill areas was not a practice of the Meitei kings but subjugation and control of hill tribes was more in terms of their military defeats.... Loipotkaba is a practice wherein the conquered tribe mostly those in the vicinity of the valley who were otherwise not under the administration of the monarch would have to pay an annual tribute to the Meitei king failing which reprisals would be undertaken. (Kamei, p.74)

All this seems to say that collecting occasional tribute was all that the kings did, which doesn't qualify as "administration". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Ground reports from Churachandpur

Kalyan Deb, the EastMojo journalist who covered Churachandpur between 3 May to 6 May, was interviewed by a freelance group. The YouTube video can be found here. It is about an hour long and has an index. Some of the videos that formed his reports are also linked at the bottom. Worth listening to it in full. I will eventually write down some excerpts here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Here is another report from the ground: Who Gains? Who Loses?: Interim Reflections from Manipur, by a four-member team including Syeda Saiyidain Hameed. Chaipau (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC) (edited) 13:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Here is a article by Manorama Sharma. It touches on the breakdown of civility and civil society, especially the institution of the Meira Paibis. Some of the fractures and breakdowns of civil organizations is also touched upon in the earlier report. This probably will go into the long term impact section, which will has to be set up. Chaipau (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
The CPI(M) delegation that visited the state has reported that all Kukis have removed themselves from the valley. I have added this in the lead paragraph as representing the latest impact, to be updated later. The Hindu editorial is reporting that 10 Kuki members of Assembly did not attend the mandatory session which ended sine die within 48 minutes. Chaipau (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Table of incidents and events

I think we need a table of incidents and events, along with dates and links. This will be a good place to summarily track incidents and events. Help needed to compile it. I shall create a table here that can be transferred to the article. Chaipau (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea. But please start this in your user space and give us a link. Talk pages are really meant for discussions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2023

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Manipur_violence#Casualties_and_victims


Add in the article 15,000 Meiteis in 11 villages lost their homes in Churachandpur.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/entire-colony-razed-manipur-churachandpur-meiteis-at-crossroads-seek-justice-4370551 John Edgerlosy (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: No doubt there has been a lot of destruction of property on both sides. We need to wait for genuine stock-taking of all the damage before we can cover it in an WP:NPOV manner. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I also notice that the total non-tribal poulation in the Churachandpur subdivision was roughly 15,106 by the 2011 census.[1] So the figure of 15,000 houses having been destroyed doesn't seem accurate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


The article states 15,000 Meiteis whose houses in 11 villages in Churachandpur were destroyed in the unprecedented ethnic violence that began on May 3. The kautilya named editor is writing that 15000 houses. I also wrote 15,000 Meiteis. Why he is changing words? Nowhere I mentioned about 15000 houses. I don't know about number of house, but normally one house will have three to 6 members, so there is no question of 15,000 houses here. Unless you think each Meitei stays in one house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Edgerlosy (talk • contribs) 10:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, fine. Find the data about the tribals who had their lost homes too, and then we can think of how to present it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Thousands of Kukis residing in Imphal Valley have fled to tribal-dominated hills after ethnic clashes broke out in the northeastern state on May 3.- https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/kuki-residents-allegedly-evicted-from-homes-in-imphal-amid-ethnic-clashes-security-concerns-over-160-lives-lost-101693715482944.html

Thousands of troops have been deployed to restore order, while about 35,000 residents have fled their homes for the safety of ad-hoc army-run camps for the displaced. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/09/indian-villages-burned-ethnic-violence

Summary- In Imphal the Kukis were victims, in the hilly areas the Meiteis were victims- https://scroll.in/article/1048707/what-the-mobs-left-behind-in-manipurs-hills-burnt-homes-looted-shops-and-thousands-of-displaced — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Edgerlosy (talk • contribs) 16:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Churachandpur District Census Handbook (PDF), Directorate of Census Operations, Manipur, 2001, p. 42

Mentioning religion

There are lots of mention about Christian. 'Anti-Christian sentiment', 'Predominantly Hindu'.

All Meiteis are not Hindus

Manipur violence is not about one community attacking Christians: Meitei Christian body Meitei Christian Churches Council held a demonstration in New Delhi to highlight their view that the conflict was between ‘Manipuris and illegal immigrants’-https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/manipur-violence-is-not-about-one-community-attacking-christians-meitei-christian-body/article67084159.ece


Remove our churches from SC petition: Meitei Christians tell Kuki groups-https://www.eastmojo.com/manipur/2023/06/11/remove-our-churches-from-sc-petition-meitei-christians-tell-kuki-groups/

This should be mentioned in the article. John Edgerlosy (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

What exactly should be mentioned? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2023

Ethnic tensions between Meitei and Kuki-Zomi people in Manipur

This is not a religion clashes. Churches belonging to a community is being destroyed by other community and vise versa. Rshnn (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bestagon ⬡ 00:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
It is clear that he/she requested Anti-Christian sentiment to be removed. I am still examining the issue. If you have any sources that analysed the anti-Christian aspects, please bring them forward. Preferably, WP:THIRDPARTY sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The ongoing violence is not due to anti Christian elements.
Manipur is inhabited by the Meiteis, Nagas, Kukis and Meitei Muslims. Nagas and Kukis and also Meitei converted to Christians practise Christianity. The Nagas are still living together with the Meiteis in harmony while the Meiteis Christians living in Churachandpur and other affected areas are driven out of their houses and staying in relief camps. Meiteis Christians are also a victim of this violence even though they are Christians. Their Churches are also burnt down by the Kukis.
So, please remove this ; Anti-Christian sentiment from this document.
I would also like to add here a big mistake from your part. Under Overview heading:
"After the rally in the Churachandpur town, when the participants from the Torbung–Kangvai area were returning to their homes, they are said to have faced a "counter-blockade" by the Meitei groups. This resulted in stone-throwing and arson of vehicles and properties. The Kangvai village was burnt down."
This is completely false. These are just false claims by the Kukis, we don't have any proofs or videos or photos of the buring of Kangvai village. If the village has been burnt down, would there be videos/photos uploaded atleast by someone. Internet ban wasn't there on 3rd May, 2023 and almost everyone has smart phones. So, this is a very blunt false claim. Gy9$y (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Please check the step by step happenings of the violence from a reliable source. Gy9$y (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not Hindu vs Christian

Both communities aren't fighting over religion. Both communities have Christian population. It was misled because of Hindu majority meiteis clashing with Christian majority kukis. The initial cause of this clash is not about religion but a war against drugs and illegal migration from Myanmar to Indian state of Manipur.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2023 (2)

Meeteitruth (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

"On 4 May, fresh cases of violence were reported. The police force had to fire several rounds of tear gas shells to control the rioters."

Please change this to :

"On 4 May, fresh cases of violence were reported. The Police and Army forces had to fire several rounds of tear gas shells to control the Meitei mob in the valley area.

The Central forces nor the State forces has never fired a single tear gas to the Kuki mobs even to this day during this violence. "

Why are they protected so much? Gy9$y (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2023

Hi,

Please refer to the topic, "Violence FIRST erupted in the Kuki dominated area, Churachandpur"

I have given two urls in this topic. Please refer and edit. The author hasn't replied to my topic

Thanks Gy9$y (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Please establish WP:CONSENSUS before filing edit requests. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2023

Either in top section or in casualties and victim section add this.

This is about homes destroyed.

1,988 Meitei homes, 1,425 Kuki homes, 325 temples and 221 churches destroyed- https://www.indiatodayne.in/manipur/story/manipur-files-1988-meitei-homes-1425-kuki-homes-325-temples-and-221-churches-destroyed-569676-2023-06-02

The church and temple is already mentioned but details of homes destroyed is not mentioned. John Edgerlosy (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is official data (WP:PRIMARY). We need more corroboration. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Latest Govt data on lives and property losses

In the first para, the data on lives and properties lost can be perhaps updated as Manipur Police held a press conference on Sep 15.

On September 15, 2003, Manipur Police held a press conference in which IK Muivah, IGP Operations announced that 175 people have lost their lives; 1,118 people have been injured and 32 people were reported missing since the violence broke out. He also stated that 5,132 cases of arson took place, in which 4,786 houses have been burnt and 386 religius structures - 254 churches and 132 templates -  have been vandalized.

https://indianexpress.com/article/north-east-india/manipur/manipur-violence-deaths-houses-burnt-police-8941007/

https://www.timesnownews.com/india/175-killed-4786-homes-set-ablaze-manipur-police-data-sheds-light-on-scale-of-conflict-article-103683991

https://thewire.in/government/manipur-death-toll-violence-missing-arms Lairencha (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

{{Edit request}} Add about - "2 Meitei students killed"

Add this

103.251.217.210 (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: There were about 200 people killed in the violence. Individual details about some of them may be added in due course, but we can't just highlight one case. It would be WP:UNDUE. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I think this deserves a mention in the Recurrent violence section as protests by thousands of students in school uniforms happened for the first time. This incident caused mass media coverage across India and globally after a relative calm. The Internet ban was reimposed. For the first time, a CBI team led by Special Director, Ajay Bhatnagar, arrived in Manipur.
[14]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BFbBSzsdrI
Lairencha (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the current blow-up in Imphal does need to be covered. Please feel free to suggest text to add, along with citations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
On 25 September 25, photographs of two Meitei students, Phijam Hemjit (20 years old) and Hijam Linthoingambi (17 years old), surfaced on social media. They were residents of Tera Tongbram Leikai in Imphal and had gone missing on June 6.[15] One of the photographs showed the two students siting in a forest area with two armed men at the background.[16] Another photograph showed the lifeless bodies of the two students lying on the ground. In the following days, students in Imphal protested against the killing of these two students. Manipur Police and Rapid Action Force were accused of resorting to use of excessive force, tear gas, and pellet guns. [17] Hundreds of students were injured in the protests. Among the injured were a student who had more than 40 pellet bullets on his skull, another student whose shoulder was shattered by pellets allegedly fired from a closed range, and a third student who got blinded in one eye. [18] [19][20][21] [22] On 28 September, the Manipur government constituted a committee to verify the complaints of alleged excessive use of force on protestors by security forces.[23]  The protests also led to the govenment banning mobile internet again till October 6. [24] The internet ban was earlier lifted after five months on September 23.[25]
On September 30, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) arrested a man from Churachandpur for being part of a "transnational conspiracy by terror outfits based in Myanmar and Bangladesh to “wage war” against the Government of India by exploiting the current ethnic unrest in Manipur. [26] [27] [14] On October 1, the Central Bureau of Investogations (CBI) arrested four people from Churachandpur for the killing of the two Meitei students. [28][29][30] The arrests led to Indigenous Tribal Leaders Forum (ITLF) in Churachandpur calling for a shut down of the district.[31] The NIA and CBI have refuted accusations of being high handed and said no partiality have been shown against any community and the rule book of the Indian Penal Code jas been abided by. [32] Lairencha (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Please review "Violence" section of "Manipur" page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manipur Cherry.pick.wiki (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Disinformation must not be used.

If using disinformation and manipulated information. It will make bias article to degenerate its authentic values especially for the matter viz. "2023 Manipur Violence" We must analyse with all dimensions not from only one side. Dr. Zhivago111 (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Manipur Violence 2023 is not a religious conflict

Reference: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/manipur-violence-is-a-tribal-conflict-not-a-religious-one-bjp-quotes-christian-priest/articleshow/102214962.cms?from=mdr

Request: Please remove "Anti-Christian sentiment" from "Caused by" section Cherry.pick.wiki (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes 👍 117.211.220.140 (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Requesting to @Okenkhwairakpam, @Kautilya3, @Chaipau who are major contributors for the page. Cherry.pick.wiki (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support

103.251.217.210|103.251.217.210 (talk)

Reference: https://epaper.thesangaiexpress.com/index.php?edition=Mpage&date=2023-10-07&page=1

unsigned comment added by Dr. Zhivago111 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Stating "Anti-Christian sentiment" as a cause behind the violence does not imply that it is fundamentally a religious conflict. There can be multiple factors that drive a conflict.
Also, the Imphal-based press sources need to be used with care after the Editors' Guild report. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Logically, for a common individual will think wrongly to see 'anti-Christian sentiments' especially non-native people (Non-Manipuri) around the world who don't understand the root cause of violence. At some extent, it'll mislead people who read the article. And the citations 1&2 contained in 'anti-Christian sentiment' seem to be unnecessary as even the members of United Nations "experts" and European Parliament who have never too much visited in India. I wondered why their opinions (little knowledge of Manipur) override ours. Let our impartial statements alone justify the matter. We assumed that 'anti-Christian sentiment' wasn't inserted from the narratives of both communities but only one side. It's so obviously depicted. Dr. Zhivago111 (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Reference: Manipur violence 2023 is not religious war. [33]. [[User:Dr. Zhivago111|Dr. Zhivago111] (talk), 10:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "ours". "We" are not reliable sources. Please check the definitions given on that page. If you are expecting Wikipedia to reflect your knowledge or your opinions, I am sorry, it won't work.
There are five citations given for "anti-Christian sentiment" at present. None of them is UN or European Parliament. (The UN would definitely count as a reliable source. How they get their information is not our business.)
Here is what Babloo Loitongbam said on 10 May [34]:

But, this time, there is a new kind of civil society organisation, such as Arambai Tenggol and Meitei Leepun, which have injected a new form of militancy in the people, similar to the RSS. Today, there is no church standing in the valley [He corrected this statement recently]. In the name of the Meitei-Kuki tension, perhaps a Hindutva cause has been camouflaged. ... Temples have also been attacked by the Kuki people. But the kind of widespread level of attacks on churches and attacks on innocent civilians being carried out by the Meitei is unprecedented.

Everybody commenting on the conflict in every country knows how many churches have been burnt down. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I mean 'we/ours' means authoritative sources of Imphal based press and some national news agencies which are impartial & unbiased. Is it correct to ignore all their information/news published by them? I mean Indian by birth will know India & American by birth will know the USA vividly except diaspora at early stages of life. Even Babloo Loitongbam corrected in media for his own mistakes recently to mention falsely Arambai Tenggol, Meitei Leepun & churches in Imphal areas when he was not in Manipur while interviewing with 'NewsClick'. Even Editors' Guild of India's report was criticised by CM Biren Singh,Manipur & others which is contradictory to the ground reality. Anyone knows how many temples & shrines had been marred also. World knows Kuki miscreants burnt down churches of Meitei Christians. Is there any reason to give more exaggeration of suffering of kuki people than Meitei people. That's problem of media handled by wrong people with false information. Dr. Zhivago111 (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
When you comment on sources asking for higher or lower weight for certain kinds of sources, those arguments need to be based on Wikipedia policies for WP:RS. They can also be based on other RS that comment on these sources. But they can't be your own opinions about what is "authoritative". We will completely ignore your personal opinions. So, you need not bother airing them again.
As for Babloo Loitongbam and Th. Brinda, if and when we use them as sources, we will use WP:In-text attribution, and we will add that they retracted those statements under duress. You would be wrong to think that their retractions neatly cancel out their earlier statements. CM Biren Singh (just as any other politician) is not a reliable source. So, his comments carry no weight. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
As for local vs global sources, there is a tradeoff. The local sources have more domain knowledge, but they are also susceptible to manipulation by pressure groups and authorities. In the present context, Imphal-based sources are pretty much useless because it is clear that they are almost entirely subject to local pressures (even if they had any desire to be impartial), and the Editors Guild report confirms that. See, e.g., Journalists in Manipur wrote ‘one-sided reports’, says Editors Guild fact-finding team, Scroll.in, 3 September 2023. The FIR filed against them increases thevalue of the report rather than decreasing it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I am not arguing with you. It's the monkey business. From here we'll never determine everlasting solutions of this violence. But I'm trying to reveal only the truth. I expect your response of thinking as inferior, underestimation & miscalculation of Imphal-based press & media. How dare you say that without a little knowledge of code of ethics and principles of Journalism. Always try to remember that "THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS IS NOT A LICENSE TO ABUSE". WIKIPEDIA is not absolute and infallible. It's just a piece of limited knowledge. We never consider it as the best axiom. Thanks. Dr. Zhivago111 (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Some of the journalists in Imphal who spoke to DW said the editorial positions of major valley newspapers and cable news channels were "biased." They requested anonymity because they risk being targeted by their organizations or other outfits affiliated to the Meitei community.[35]

You are welcome to take it to WP:RSN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I never agree with DW reporting about 'fake news of Meitei woman gangraped by Kuki miscreants'. It's not fake news, but bitter truth. How can a girl/woman cater false information of rape about herself in social media? Despite her dignity and social stigma, she bravely spilled the beans. Are you going to tell them Imphal-based press's fake & disinformation news? Here under are published by renowned national newspapers about meitei woman gangraped by kuki miscreants:
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/woman-alleges-gang-rape-in-manipurs-churachandpur-police-register-case/article67179096.ece
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/manipur-violence-updates-meitei-woman-gangraped-by-kuki-miscreants-11691655764054.html
https://www.deccanherald.com/india/manipur/manipur-meitei-woman-file-complaint-of-alleged-gangrape-by-kuki-miscreants-victim-taking-shelter-in-relief-camp-2642932
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/manipur-news-when-i-finally-managed-to-get-up-meitei-woman-files-zero-fir-alleging-gang-rape-on-3-may-11691659186670.html Dr. Zhivago111 (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Why do you intentionally ignore the above information? Is it the example of impartial & unbiased Wikipedian? Please insert as citations neutrally in the 'methods section___ Mass rape' of Meitei woman gangraped by Kuki miscreants in Churchandpur on 3rd May 2023.
Sooner or later 'Truth always triumphs'. #Satyameva Jayate is the national motto of India which is come from Mundaka Upanishad.
It portrays that we firmly uphold the truth.
Always stand for the truth. Dr. Zhivago111 (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
DW is not talking about this case, but rather about the verified misinformation. See this article for more coverage. And BOOM did a fact-check article proving it to be fake. There are tons and tons of fake stories put out by the Meitei, many of which were fact-checked by BOOM on their web site.
As for your Bijenti Devi of Khumujamba case, it is not "information", but an allegation. You need to know the difference. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Violence FIRST erupted in the Kuki dominated area, Churachandpur

During the violence on 3 May, residence and churches of the mostly Kuki Tribal population were attacked in the non-tribal areas. According to the police, many houses of the tribal population in Imphal were attacked and 500 occupants were displaced and had to take shelter in Lamphelpat. Around 1000 Meiteis affected by the violence also had to flee from the region and take shelter in Bishnupur.

This paragraph says that violence was first started by the Meiteis in Imphal which is absolutely false. It all started in Churachandpur after which the Meiteis had to flee for their lives leaving behind their burning houses and properties. After news of the violence in Churachandpur spread, Violence erupted in Imphal.

Violence was observed in Churachandpur, Kakching, Canchipur, Soibam Leikai, Tengnoupal, Langol, Kangpokpi and Moreh while mostly being concentrated in the Imphal Valley during which several houses, places of worship and other properties were burnt and ... Violence was observed in Churachandpur, Kakching, Canchipur, Soibam Leikai, Tengnoupal, Langol,

It was first and foremost observed in CHURACHANDPUR and it was started right after the rally. Please state this first to be more transparent.

This prompted protests, mostly by Kuki student groups, which were met with violence and by early May, it had escalated into all-out violence. In the state capital, Imphal, Meitei mobs began targeting Kuki homes and attacked Kuki people who tried to flee the city for the hills, where they control much of the land. Kuki villages were also burned to the ground by Meitei militias numbering in their hundreds, sometimes thousands. (The Guardian)

It all started on May 3 when a tribal solidarity march organised by tribal civil society bodies in Churachandpur turned violent. The purported cause for the clashes appears to be the dominant and politically stronger Meitei community’s demand for ST status. (Outlook)

-- Gy9$y (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

How the violence started is mired in confusion because there were very few news reporters in the area. Nothing can be stated with confidence without analysing all the available sources. We cannot make definitive statements based on wordings here and there. Please note that Sangai Express, an Imphal-based newspaper, which had reporters/correspondents in all the districts published this under the Moirang section:

It is reported that the properties were torched for launching a counter agitation against the Solidarity March of ATSUM.... Later, a large number of people from Churachandpur side stormed towards Bangla and Torbung along Tiddim Road and destroyed several shops.[1]

The Indian Express reported later that two people were killed in Kangvai between 2 and 3 pm.[2] These are the first killings as far as we know.
Please provide WP:full citations for all sources you cite, and place quoted text in "talkquote" blocks just like I have done above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
It is reported that the properties were torched for launching a counter agitation against the Solidarity March of ATSUM.... Later, a large number of people from Churachandpur side stormed towards Bangla and Torbung along Tiddim Road and destroyed several shops.
First line... counter allegations were launched by Meiteis. Please read carefully. So who torced the properties first?
2nd line ...a large number of people from Churachandpur..these are the kukis who came from churachandpur and destroyed shops in Torbung bangla.
Two dead bodies.. not mentioned specifically from which community.
Kindly refer the news articles I mentioned in the previous reply.
There are many versions of the violence. Please read them carefully and not stick to just your preferred news articles. Gy9$y (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a debating shop or social media. You need to be clear and specific about what claims you are making and what changes you are requesting.
The claim you made in the title of this section is contradicted by the ground report from Sangai Express. The Imphal Free Press, which also filed a ground report from the area, agreed: There were no reports of any untoward incident till 1 pm.[3] It was later learnt that some forest beat offices were set fire to in Churachandpur. They were not incidents of communal violence. The communal violence occurred at the villages of Kangvai, Torbung and later Bangla, which are about 7-10 km north of Churachandpur. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Please refer this article.. latest from Sangai Express and kindly make the changes.
https://www.thesangaiexpress.com/Encyc/2023/9/24/By-Our-Staff-ReporterIMPHAL-Sep-23-Churachandpur-district-the-epicentre-of-the-violent-conflict-between-M.html
This is a report after months of research. Gy9$y (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:NEWSORG are not considered reliable sources for "research", but only for "news", i.e., for reporting informatioin that they see, hear and observe. I will read it, but I don't expect it to give much WP:WEIGHT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I have now rewritten the initial riots section, which took me also "months of research". Most of the national and international media outlets just got their 3-May information from PTI and ANI newsfeeds from Imphal. This report[4] published in The Hindu is typical. The lead image and the embedded ANI video (published at 3:17 pm on Twitter) represent the Kangvai village (visible within the video), but they were mislabelled as "Churachandpur". As per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, pretty much all the reports filed from Imphal in that time period should be discounted for inaccuracy (could be misinformation or disinformation, which is rampant in this conflict).[5] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I ran into this interesting tidbit:

The police told PTI that during the march in the Torbung area of Churachandpur district, an armed mob allegedly attacked those belonging to the Meitei community. This led to retaliatory attacks and the situation turned volatile across the state.[6]

So, misinformation wasn't accidental or erroneous. It was actively generated by the state police itself! The PTI faithfully issued this misinformation for the whole country.[4]

It is clear that it is misinformation because there was no march in Torbung at all. It was entirely within the Churachandpur town, as described by three separate local newspapers: Imphal Free Press, Sangai Express and EastMojo.

Secondly, ANI published a video at 3:17 pm (linked from The Hindu story), showing the violence starting at Kangvai. (India Today published testimony claiming that this happened around 2:30 pm,[7] corroborated by EastMojo journalist[36]) The video also shows the mob accompanied by police who apparently arrived in two separate vans, and we can also see a police officer arrive on a motor cycle. The mob was completely non-plussed, and continued their vandalism unhindered and undisturbed.

It was only after the distress calls from Kangvai went out that the Kuki groups came down from Churachandpur, as per India Today testimony. The police must have known all this, since they later revealed that two dead bodies were "discovered" at Kangvai. But they chose to paint a wrong picture calling it the "march". This also explains why almost all journalists even today believe that the violence started "during" the march/rally. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Initial riots section

@Kautilya3
"a counter-agitation in the surrounding valley areas (Moirang subdivision), where houses were torched by Meitei groups...
"These events caused a large number of Kuki-Zo people from Churachandpur side to rush to the clash site and participate in the clashes, including the burning of the Bangla village in Churachandpur district."
-The source cited makes no mention of these. In fact, it mentions the opposite: "Several houses, shops and vehicles have been torched at Torbung, Bangla, Kangvai and Phougakchao Ikhai situated along the adjoining areas of Churachandpur and Bishnupur districts. It is reported that the properties were torched for launching a counter agitation against the Solidarity March of ATSUM."
Also, your other arguments for your synthesis (there's no other way of putting it) are extremely weak.
-The ANI video timestamp shows 7:47pm. Where is your source that says it happened at 3.17pm?
-We can't use testimonies here.
-We can't use Chongloi's and K.K.Suan's articles, the same way we can't use Pramot Singh's articles, if any. Tms369 (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
It looks like I got the time of the video wrong. But the other two sources have 2:30 pm recorded.
I will address the "Meitei groups" issue later.
The source cited has this line:

Later, a large number of people from Churachandpur side stormed towards Bangla and Torbung along Tiddim Road and destroyed several shops.

Can you explain what you mean by "it mentions the opposite"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I am referring to the arsonists.
Several houses, shops and vehicles have been torched at Torbung, Bangla, Kangvai and Phougakchao Ikhai situated along the adjoining areas of Churachandpur and Bishnupur districts. It is reported that the properties were torched for launching a counter agitation against the Solidarity March of ATSUM.'
The only group explicitly mentioned in the article to have torched houses were those supporting ATSUM, i.e. groups from the Kuki-zo community. Yet it has been attributed to the Meitei group. This is a glaring mistake.
Tms369 (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
The agitators overpowered the locals and began attacking the Forest office at Phougakchao Ikhai before they were dispersed by the police who fired rounds of tear gas shells and resorted to blank firing. Reportedly, agitators coming from Churachandpur side also shot some rounds in retaliation and set on fire at least six houses and vehicles including a van, Maruti Alto, Honda Activa and two heavy vehicles (JCB) at Phougakchao Ikhai.
The meitei groups seem to have been credited for organising the counter-blockade. They also participated in the stand-off which resulted in stone-pelting between the two groups. But the arsonists are pointed out as "Churachandpur side" or supporters of ATSUM.
I therefore suggest improvement of the lines:
"Reports were received of a counter-blockade at Torbung near the Bishnupur–Churachandpur district border, and a counter-agitation in the surrounding valley areas (Moirang subdivision), where houses were torched by Meitei groups. Two dead bodies were discovered in the Kangvai village and tyres were burnt at the base of the Anglo-Kuki War Memorial gate at Leisang as an apparent provocation.
After the reportedly peaceful rally in the Churachandpur town in which 100,000 people participated, as the rallyists from the Torbung–Kangvai area were returning to their homes, they faced the "counter-blockade" by the Meitei groups. This resulted in stone-throwing and arson of vehicles and properties. The Kangvai village in the Bishnupur district was burnt down. These events caused a large number of Kuki-Zo people from Churachandpur side to rush to the clash site and participate in the clashes, including the burning of the Bangla village in Churachandpur district."''
I suggest the removal of the first paragraph since the mention of counter-agitation is made redundant by the second paragraph. My suggestion would be something along the line of:
"After the reportedly peaceful rally in the Churachandpur town in which 100,000 people participated, as the rallyists from the adjoining areas were returning to their homes, they faced a "counter-blockade" which had been organised by the Meitei groups in support of their ST demand. This resulted in stone-throwing which later escalated to vehicles and properties being targeted. Tyres had also burnt at the base of the Anglo-Kuki War Memorial gate at Leisang by unknown miscreants. These events caused a large number of Kuki-Zo people from Churachandpur side to rush to the clash site and participate in the clashes, which resulted in several houses, shops and vehicles being torched at Torbung, Bangla, Kangvai and Phougakchao Ikhai situated along the adjoining areas of Churachandpur and Bishnupur districts." "'' Tms369 (talk) 06:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

As I said I will address the "Meitei groups" issue later. For now, we are looking at The Sangai Express newsreport, Moirang section. It says properties were torched for "counter agitation". You claim this means "the opposite" of Meitei groups? What exactly does that mean? Who is the opposite? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"properties were torched for launching a counter agitation" . It clearly means the opposite side of the Meitei groups, i.e. the Kuki zo groups.
You are free to put the "meitei groups" when you address the issue. Right now, there is nothing to back it up. It should be removed. Tms369 (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Please explain your logic. How does counter agitation against the Solidarity March of ATSUM mean the "opposite side of the Meitei groups"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
It is reported that the properties were torched for launching a counter agitation against the Solidarity March of ATSUM.
The properties were torched in retaliation of the counter agitation. It was hence kuki-zo groups burning the properties, not the meitei groups. So, the opposite of what is presented in this article is true. What is your logic and justification for this? Tms369 (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
My understanding of the properties were torched for launching a counter agitation against the Solidarity March of ATSUM is that they were torched for the sake of launching a counter agitation. If they wanted to convey your meaning, they would have said "in retaliation to" or "in response to", " in opposition to" or some such thing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
What kind of a blockade "launches" with the burning of houses?
Reports about a clash between people who had imposed a counter-blockade at Torbung and those returning from the rally started doing the rounds at Torbung.The stand-off that initially started with pelting stones soon escalated with vehicles and properties being targeted. Violence and arson rapidly engulfed the neighbouring Kangvai area as people were seen leaving their homes and running into an open field. With people rushing towards the clash site, it soon turned to arson.
There was an intense confrontation between the supporters of ST demand for Meetei/Meitei and the rallyists and they pelted stones, used slingshots against each other in the evening. Later, a large number of people from Churachandpur side stormed towards Bangla and Torbung along Tiddim Road and destroyed several shops. The agitators overpowered the locals and began attacking the Forest office at Phougakchao Ikhai before they were dispersed by the police who fired rounds of tear gas shells and resorted to blank firing. Reportedly, agitators coming from Churachandpur side also shot some rounds in retaliation and set on fire at least six houses and vehicles including a van, Maruti Alto, Honda Activa and two heavy vehicles (JCB) at Phougakchao Ikhai.
It explicitly states that there was initially a counter-blockade, followed by a stone-pelting standoff. Arson came later, after the stone peltings, when a "large number of people from Churachandpur side" rushed towards the clash site and overpowered the locals. What part of the article makes you think burning of houses came first? Tms369 (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Seriously, this is from a Churachandpur correspondent:
Reports about a clash between people who had imposed a counter-blockade at Torbung and those returning from the rally started doing the rounds at Torbung.The stand-off that initially started with pelting stones soon escalated with vehicles and properties being targeted.
It clearly states that Torbung, a meitei village, first saw the escalation of the stone peltings to vehicles and properties being targeted. The Moirang reporter goes into more details. So again, I ask you, what is your justification for saying meiteis started the house burnings? Tms369 (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Kangvai is a Kuki village.[8] The burning of houses (preceded by vandalism and looting) was carried out by counter agitation activists (not by "counter blockade" activists, who are known to be Meitei Leepun). According to The Wire, the counter agitators were "held up" at Kwakta till the 2pm timeframe (no explanation available) and then allowed to move forward to Kangvai and Torbung.[9] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Please address my perceeding question first along with the statement from the Churachandpur correspondent. It states that the targeting of properties first took place at Torbung, a meitei village. We can discuss Kuki-authored The Wire commentaries later. Tms369 (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
The Churachandpur correspondent wrote what they knew and the Moirang correspondent wrote what they knew. Neither of them is necessarily sacrosanct. The Churachandpur version tells us about the standoff near Torbung, where the district border is, and then Kangvai getting engulfed in violence and arson. Kangvai is about 1 km to the north.[10] Nobody said that it was the site of the "standoff". The burning of Kangvai is an independent event, unrelated to the standoff. Two people were apparently already killed in Kangvai. People had left their homes and gathered in a field, as per the Churachandpur correspondent.
I am afraid you are trying to apply your own WP:OR with half-baked knowledge. You have been imagining Kangvai to be a "Meitei village" that was burnt by Kukis! You need to take time off and go read the sources more thoroughly. And you also need to read the so-called "Kuki-authored" soures. Wikipedia' is not going to WP:CENSOR them. If you want to contest the reliability of any source, take it to WP:RSN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
The targeting of Kangvai houses is mentioned later, only after Torbung was first targeted - the stand-off (at Torbung) that initially started with pelting stones soon escalated with vehicles and properties being targeted.. The site of the initial violence and arson is pointed out to be Torbung by both Churachandpur and Moirang correspondents. This is the source you have used in your edit. There is no need for me to go to WP:RSN.
I have also not claimed that Kangvai is a meitei village. I have also not claimed that Kuki houses weren't targeted in retaliation. Please refrain from resorting to personal attacks and justify your edit objectively. Tms369 (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice that you had switched the discussion to Torbung. But why? It was Kangvai, "where houses were torched by Meitei groups" according to the present text, which you are contesting. And Kangvai is a Kuki village. You said the reality was "the opposite" of the present text, which doesn't make sense because Kukis can't be expected to set fire to their own village.
The sequence in the Moirang section of The Sangai Express article is
  1. Properties were torched for counter agitation. (Doesn't specify the locations, but Kangvai was listed already)
  2. Clash happened between the two sides. (No location specified, but we can imagine the district border)
  3. "Later", a large number of people from Churachandpur side stormed towards Bangla (Churachandpur district) and Torbung (Bishnupur district).
  4. These "agitators" overpowered the locals and reached Phugakchao (which is beyond Kangvai) and attacked the forest office.
The Churachandpur section gives a different sequence:
  1. Fire at the Ango-Kuki memorial gate.
  2. Clash between the two sides. (Again we presume the district border)
  3. Arson "rapidly engulfed" Kangvai. (This could be seen from a distance, as far as Bangla, at least)
  4. [Churachandpur] people rushed to the clash site and turned to arson.
In both the cases, Kangvai arson/torching precedes the Churachandpur people rushing to the site. The other differences are basically due to what knowledge was available on their side of the border.
The EastMojo reporter reports arson "towards Bishnupur" (e.g., Kangvai) at 2:30pm,[37] even before the fire at Anglo-Kuki memorial gate became known in Churachandpur. He only came to know of large-scale arson (certainly Bangla and possibly Torbung) around 6 pm.
I am compiling other sources mentioning Kangvai. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Several houses, shops and vehicles have been torched at Torbung, Bangla, Kangvai and Phougakchao Ikhai situated along the adjoining areas of Churachandpur and Bishnupur districts. It is reported that the properties were torched for launching a counter agitation against the Solidarity March of ATSUM.
The above is the lead paragraph of the moirang correspondent. I, kindly, suggest you re-read the article with the concept of news articles having lead paragraphs in mind. Your whole justification seems to be based around this misinterpretation.
There was an intense confrontation between the supporters of ST demand for Meetei/Meitei and the rallyists and they pelted stones, used slingshots against each other in the evening. Later, a large number of people from Churachandpur side stormed towards Bangla and Torbung along Tiddim Road and destroyed several shops.
This and the paragraphs the follow describes what actually transpired.
This reporting is corroborated by the churachandpur reporter:
Reports about a clash between people who had imposed a counter-blockade at Torbung and those returning from the rally started doing the rounds at Torbung. The stand-off that initially started with pelting stones soon escalated with vehicles and properties being targeted.
Both reports makes it obvious:
Clash at Torbung with stone-peltings by both groups, followed by, Properties being targetted at the clash site after a "large group of people from Churachandpur side" arrived.
The Churachandpur correspondent also reported that the there was a fire at the foot of 'Anglo-Kuki War' gate at Leisang village by miscreants before the clash. But they are as yet unidentified. Tms369 (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
The EastMojo reporter does not name Kangvai. He says there was violence which erupted at the border area at around 2.30pm. With "forest beat office being burnt down", "gunshots" and "tear gas shells". The moirang correspondent credits "a large number of people from Churachandpur side" for these events:
Later, a large number of people from Churachandpur side stormed towards Bangla and Torbung along Tiddim Road and destroyed several shops. The agitators overpowered the locals and began attacking the Forest office at Phougakchao Ikhai before they were dispersed by the police who fired rounds of tear gas shells and resorted to blank firing. Reportedly, agitators coming from Churachandpur side also shot some rounds in retaliation and set on fire at least six houses and vehicles
Like I said, I am not denying Kangvai was targetted later. But it does not precede all of these events. Tms369 (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand why you are reproducing text from Sangai Express again. I have read it thoroughly and summarised its contents in the 8 numbered bullet points above.If you disagree with those points, you need to state what your disagreement is.
I know very well that the coverage is quite unsatisfactory. But it is the only local newspaper that covered the situation at the border. So, we have to make the best of it. I am posting below various testimonials, which clearly corroborate the Moirang reporter's 4 points.
The East Mojo was absolutely clear that the phone calls at 2:30 (the time is the important bit here) were on the Bishnupur side. So, not in the Churachandpur district. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tribal Solidarity March takes ugly turn; houses, offices, vehicles burnt, The Sangai Express, 4 May 2023.
  2. ^ Deeptiman Tiwary (26 July 2023). "An arrest, crackdown and deep distrust: Manipur fire had been simmering for over a year". The Indian Express. ProQuest 2841943429.
  3. ^ Thousands march against ST demand in Manipur hill districts, Imphal Free Press, 3 May 2023. Updated 4 May 2023. 4:17am.
  4. ^ a b PTI, in eight districts of Manipur over tribal stir, The Hindu, 3 May 2023. 10:26 pm. (Updated 4 May, 4:59 am) ProQuest 2808794185
  5. ^ Journalists in Manipur wrote ‘one-sided reports’, says Editors Guild fact-finding team, Scroll.in, 3 September 2023.
  6. ^ Manipur issues shoot-at-sight order in ‘extreme cases’ after stir against ST status turns violent, Scroll.in, 4 May 2023. 12:01 pm. Updated 5 May 2023.
  7. ^ Yudhajit Shankar Das, Manipur violence: State is burning, but what is the decades-old fuel behind the fire, India Today, 8 May 2023.
  8. ^ Krishn Kaushik, Bunkers, sniper rifles: Deepening sectarian war in India dents Modi's image, Reuters, 28 July 2023.
  9. ^ Lien Chongloi, Dispelling Some Misleading Claims About the Violence in Manipur, The Wire, 27 May 2023.
  10. ^ Deeptiman Tiwary (26 July 2023). "An arrest, crackdown and deep distrust: Manipur fire had been simmering for over a year". The Indian Express. ProQuest 2841943429.

Testimonials for Kangvai

  • K. K. Suan, The Indian Express, 5 May (op. ed.)

The immediate spark for the violence was provided by the retaliatory destruction of the Anglo-Kuki War Memorial Gate in Leisang and razing of Vaiphei houses in Kangvai village by Meitei mobs following the beating up of a Meitei driver...

  • India Today, 8 May, testimonial

"They only moved back only after Kukis from neighbouring villages and towns came to confront them. The initial violence was in Kangvai village. Police and commandos remained mute spectators and sided with them as they went about ransacking and destroying houses. Over 30 people have been injured," says Kelvin. According to the Kuki outfit member, the Meitei mobs returned again at 8pm and burnt houses in Kangvai, a village bordering the valley.

See the ANI video embedded in [The Hindu, 4 May]
  • Leon Chongloi, The Wire, 27 May ("analysis")

On May 3, while a peaceful protest was underway at the Kuki-majority Churachandpur town, news had reached the hill areas that the Anglo-Kuki Centenary Gate at Leisang-Monglenphai was set on fire by unidentified Meitei miscreants. According to eyewitness accounts, many Meitei volunteers who were held up at Kakwa [Kwakta] areas started moving towards Torbung and Kangvai areas and began torching Kuki houses. The first victim of that mob attack was Haopu Kipgen from Torbung Village; he was bludgeoned to death. The first casualty with torching of houses, therefore, was a Kuki.

  • The Telegraph, 29 May

“The violence we have seen since May 3 is primarily because of a conspiracy. Meitei volunteers led the first assault as they began torching Kuki villages in Kangvai,” a senior Kuki official in the Union finance ministry said.

These protest rallies were peaceful. Yet they were met with counter-blockades by various Meitei civil society organizations in various parts of the valley. Meitei miscreants burned down the Anglo-Kuki War (1917-19) Centenary Memorial Gate at Leisang village and beat up Kuki boys returning from a protest rally. Such incidents escalated into mob fighting. As the Meitei mobs burned down some Vaiphei-speaking houses in Kangvai village later, the ethnopolitical conflict spread like wildfire and transformed large parts of the state into killing fields.

  • India Today NE, 26 June

A Moirang resident who appeared to be a member of the Arambaitenggol posted a post thanking the group soon after the arson of Churachandpur's Kangvai and Torbung village near Moirang on May 3rd, 2023. (Most reporters are confused about the district affiliations of these villages.)

  • The Indian Express, 26 July

Things began to turn ugly around 2.15 pm that day after a tyre was seen burning along the plaque of the Kuki War memorial gate near Torbung, kilometers ahead of Churachandpur. Around the same time, police found two bodies in Kangvai village, a kilometre away from Torbung. Following this, massive crowds began building up on the Torbung-Kangwai stretch of the Imphal-Churachandpur highway.

(The clashes were happening at the south of Torbung, where the border is. They didn't extend to Kangvai)
  • The Indian Express, 26 July

Between 3 pm and 3.30 pm, police reported burning of houses in Torbung and Kangvai belonging to both communities. Around 3.30 pm, some churches in the largely Meitei district of Bishnupur were reported to have been burnt down. Around 5.30 pm, a clash between Meitei and Kuki people was reported in the areas between Bishnupur and Churachandpur.

When they [the Kuki protesters] heard about attempted arson at a nearby memorial commemorating the Anglo-Kuki War of 1917–19, many attendees gathered at the spot. Others clashed with Meitei counter-protesters, who had been mobilised by Meetei Leepun, another militia that has cultivated close ties with the government, in the villages of Kangvai and Torbung. What initially began as stone-pelting soon escalated to the burning of houses, cars and businesses.

Interestingly, a Frontline article came up with a testimonial, which puts the Kuki arson later than the Kangvai arson:

Rajen Huirem (37) recollected that around 3.30 pm on May 3, 10-20 houses of Meiteis in Torbung village in Bishnupur district were burnt down by a mob.

Finally, you can listen to this very intelligent Meitei lady, who carefully noted down all the times involved.

I remember seeing the messages being circulated.

The messages were shared in Kuki language.

The message read, "Meiteis are burning our houses, and firing as well. Are you waiting for us to die? Come out immediately!"

It was around 3 at noon but before 4pm.

All this is a truly overwhelming corroboration for the Moirang correspondent's narrative. The violence was initiated by Meitei as an organised effort. TheANI video shows exactly how it started, along with police cooperation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding now a newsreport that just came to my attention: The Wire, 4 May

The miscreants’ act resulted in a clash between the villagers of Churachandpur and Bishnpur districts, around Kangvai locality where the majority population belongs to the Kuki tribal community. Locals told The Wire their houses were burnt, forcing dozens of them to rush to nearby forests for shelter and safety.

In retaliation, unidentified people attacked non-tribal neighbourhoods in Churachandpur district. To quell the violence, the police had to resort to firing teargas shells in the district.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This is awesome! Great work. Chaipau (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
The ANI video shows Kangvai homes being stoned, but the video is published at 7.47pm. So basically, out of 11 sources you yourself listed, only 3 seem to be supporting that "Meitei groups targetting Kuki-Zo homes in Kangvai" started the conflict:- the article from K.K. Suan, and the two testimonials from a Kuki resident in India Today and a "senior Kuki official in the Union Finance Ministry" in The Telegraph. And all 3 of them state the opposite of what both the Churachandpur and Moirang correspondents reported.
Here are the other sources supporting their reports:
A. Hussain, India Today

Violence erupted during the rally in the Torbung area of Churachandpur.

D.A. Sadokpam, The Wire

Though the rallies were held in all hill districts of Manipur, trouble started in the Torbung area near Churachandpur. The armed mob burnt down Meitei homes, who were in minority in that area, during the May 3 tribal solidarity march.

E-PAO, Chronicle News Service

Sources in Churachandpur district said that the rally ended peacefully at the peace ground. As the participants started to return home, some of the protestors found three unidentified miscreants in a white coloured Bolero torching the Anglo-Kuki War Memorial gate. People nearby gathered and put off the fire. In the meantime, unconfirmed reports of three youths of Churachandpur being beaten elsewhere came and it triggered the mob. Large number of protestors gathered again and marched towards Kangvai. They vandalised and torched several houses in Torbung and Kangvai area and also assaulted the residents... An other source said that large number of protestors came from Churachandpur town towards Torbung and Kangvai in the afternoon while vandalising and burning houses along the way.

B. Nepram, B. W. Schuchert, USIP

The violence began that same day, when reports surfaced that the Anglo-Kuki War Memorial Gate had been burnt down. This led Kukis to burn several villages inhabited by Meitei communities in Churachanpur, which in turn prompted retaliation by the Meitei

So what led Kuki groups to target meitei properties was the report of the Anglo-Kuki war memorial Gate being burnt down. This is pretty much written-in-stone after considering the fact-finding team's report given below.
Report by fact-finding team, The Wire:

Probing the two communities’ views on why the violence began, the report says that according to the Kukis, there was a “conscious attempt” to trigger violence by Meitei chauvinist groups, who they said torched the Anglo-Kuki War memorial at Churachandpur.

Unsurprisingly, torching of Kuki-zo Kangvai homes by Meitei groups features nowhere when reporting the cause.
All you have in support of that synthesised theory is the K.K.Suan article and the two testimonials. You are free to put this theory in your edit but credit these sources, not the presently used The Sangai Express article. At present it only highlights an inability to interpret a lead paragraph. Tms369 (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Dear sir, there are literally thousands of sources that have reproduced the Imphal narrative of how the violence started. Most of them even think that the violence started during the protest rally in Churachandpur, not after. They think so because the police headquarters in Imphal told them so. Even the ANI video was published, not to tell us the truth but to promote the narrative that the violence started in Churachandpur Town. We are saved from this propaganda only because there were three local newspapers that told us precisely where the protest rally was. So there is no need to rehash this propaganda all over again. We are talking about a country that ranks among the bottom 10% of the world for press freedom. (Knowledgeable journalists have told me that the newspapers require at least three sources to publish narratives of violent incidents, with one of them being the police. So no facts get published unless the police corroborate it.)
The Kukis do not have a newspaper of their own. So, good news sources have consulted responsible Kuki sources and experts to get behind the propaganda. India Today did this as early as 4 May. Both the Kuki and Meitei narratives are covered there. We can see that Meitei narrative was already propagandistic, e.g. "Kuki insurgents holding guns took part in the solidarity march", which is not corroborated by any of the reporters that covered the rally. The Meitei narrative was not based on knowledge, but social media misinformation.
Dhiren Sadokpam's article in The Wire is labelled as "Opinion". So it is not subject to editorial review. I think the author is a responsible writer. He isImphal-based and doesn't seem to understand the complexity of Kangvai, which is an almost entirely Kuki village, geographically in the Bishnupur district, surrounded by Meitei communities on all sides except the foothills. My text is attributing the attack on Kangvai to Meitei (around 2pm), and that on Torbung Bangla to Kukis (around 6pm).If Kangvai is a Kuki island in the midst of Meitei communities, Torbung Bangla is a Meitei island in the midst of Kuki communities. Sadokpam doesn't seem to know the difference. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
So you have no source backing up your claim other than K.K. Suan's article, and yet have dismissed all of the credible reporting, including the findings of the fact-finding team, as propaganda?
Kuki insurgents holding guns took part in the solidarity march
If you think this quote is propaganda, how do you explain this video? May be they are militants under SoO, may be they aren't, it isn't confirmed in the article. Either way they are kuki-zo militants armed with automatic weapons participating in a procession.
They also used these weapon against the police, as reported in The Sangai Express' article: Reportedly, agitators coming from Churachandpur side also shot some rounds in retaliation and set on fire at least six houses and vehicles.
Your edit it seems is nothing more than OR based on a couple of testimonials. You have absolutely nothing to justify this edit. Unless you present to the community an actual source, your edit is not NPOV and above all, not verifiable. Tms369 (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
K. K. Suan is an established scholar and the head of department of political science at a national-level university. Our policies allow us to treat him as a WP:RS even for self-published material (WP:RSSELF: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.). Here I am citing his interview in The Diplomat, a reputed international news magazine.
"This video" that you mention was just reproduced from social media. It doesn't state a time and place. Neither does the newpaper claim it knows the time and place. It is not clearly not the "Solidarity march", which had 100,000 people protesting. (Authentic videos available with EastMojo). Most importantly, you can see in this video huge clouds of smoke rising at a distance. So these "Kuki militants", as they have been branded, were going to address the arson that was taking place at Torbung-Kangvai. A Meitei association document mentions the location as the "S. Bualjang" village (the original name of Torbung Bangla) and gives the time as 3:32pm. Some Kuki people that I have talked to explained the shouts of the local people as meaning "our police has arrived". It alludes to the inaction of the state police at Torbung-Kangvai, who remained as "mute spectators", and the local people summoning their own "police". It indicates the breakdown of the state authority. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
If you feel so strongly that K.K. Suan's article is a reliable source, by all means, go ahead and credit the edit to that source. Why have you not done so? You are misinterpreting The Sangai Express reporting which makes it completely unverifiable.
The meitei organisation document states that the village seen in the clip is S. Bualjang village at 3.32pm. S. Bualjang is in Churachandpur, 15km from Torbung Bangla. Where are you getting your info that this village is Torbung Bangla? And even if that was the case, why would a meitei organisation use a kuki name instead of the meitei name?
Why have you resorted to "chasing smoke" seen in a clip? Especially when churachandpur had been witnessing arsony since the morning of that day?- The document states offices being burnt at 11:26am.
I do agree that there was a breakdown of the state authority- people are literally going around burning offices and carrying automatic rifles in broad daylight.
You mentioned in another talk page that you were going offline soon. Please, credit your edit to K.K. Suan's article instead of The Sangai Express article which will make it at least verifiable WP:V. Tms369 (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
We can't discuss unspecified social media posts to death here. Since you asked "how do you explain?", I explained it. That is the end of that discussion. It is clear that it was not the video of the "Solidarity march".
The Sangai Express article mentions Kangvai, which is corroborated by other sources. It also mentions other locations, which are not corroborated in the same way. All the sources are cited. And, more can be cited if necessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
These are the citations 79 and 80 in the current version.
I think I am now done with this issue. If you want to contest this further, I suggest an RfC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree to an RfC. This is going nowhere. Tms369 (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Timeline of events since 28th April, 2023 on e-pao.net. Its a very trusted and the very first online news website since a long time.
http://e-pao.net/epPageExtractor.asp?src=related_news.Violence_in_Manipur_2023_News_Timeline.html.. Gy9$y (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Detailing ethnic cleansing at Churachandpur
https://www.thesangaiexpress.com/Encyc/2023/10/4/By-Our-Staff-ReporterIMPHAL-Oct-3-On-May-3-Meitei-people-in-Churachandpur-district-were-unprepared-and-ca.html Gy9$y (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
https://www.thesangaiexpress.com//Encyc/2023/9/25/The-Sangai-Express-has-been-consistent-in-its-stand-There-should-be-no-confusion-over-this-The-first-match-s.html Gy9$y (talk) 06:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Finally, you can listen to this very intelligent Meitei lady, who carefully noted down all the times involved.... Video isn't available. About the ANI video... Listen to the conversation spoken in Manipuri. It was a retaliatory action. Get it translated from your Kuki brethren. Gy9$y (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Account suspended. Here is another copy. [38] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
That was fake news from Kukis instigating and encouraging the kuki youths to come out and fight the Meiteis. Msg came in around 3-4pm she has mentioned. She saw it on some Kuki's phone not on her phone.
---_-----
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARJzUBojSgg&si=RKmvuW6BjNB2J-bh
Kukis were already out on the roads with guns and sticks by 3:00pm according to this teacher. School got over at 2:30pm and the mob appeared just after school.
------------------
The Kuki's were already in fight mode since 28th April, 2023 setting the Open gym on fire which was to be inaugurated by the CM.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boLSuzeQDW0&si=AC8VBL3XmYMAAnqS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8LqVxr2BOA&si=OXmeCcyqKHyXZla8
--_---------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51DiGmTFIeU&si=jSbHQTIxuEUTXQan
Meiteis and Manipur commandos being overpowered in Torbung and they are going towards Kangvai. The guy speaking at 1:36 says: Right now, this the Torbung area. Huge numbers of tribal brothers coming from Churachandpur side are beating up Meiteis and destroying vehicles. Right now theres's a altercation going on between us. Request all Meitei brothers to rush towards Torbung area. They have outnumbered us. We the Meiteis are very less in numbers compared to them. They are driving us away and we are almost reaching Kangvai area from Torbung. Requesting the Meitei brothers to come to Kangvai and try to curb/control the violence by showing our unity.
---_----- Gy9$y (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


Villages

Map
About OpenStreetMaps
Maps: terms of use
1.5km
1mile
none
Triangle
.
Villages at the Churachandpur-Bishnupur district border

Villages in Manipur generally have separate settlements for Meitei/Kuki/Naga communities. They regard them as separate "villages" with different names (evn if by suffixing "Meitei", "Kuki" and "Naga" at the end). Their administrative structures would be different and the land revenue laws for them are different too. There may be a few stray people that live in the opposite side's village but not many.

  • Kangvai is a Kuki village in the Bishnupur district.
  • Adjacent to it on the north is Phugakchao Ikhai, which is a Meitei village. (You need to enlarge the map to see it.)
  • Torbung is mixed, i.e., it has separate settlements within it for Meitei and Kuki communities.
  • Bangla (or "Torbung Bangla") is a Meitei village in the Churachandpur district (going by Google Maps district boundaries). There is a small Kuki settlement in the middle of it, called "S. Boljang".
  • Leisang further south in the Churachandpur district is the location of the Anglo-Kuki War Memorial Gate. I believe this village is entirely Kuki,

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This map is awesome. But it could be improved by marking the start and end points of the Kuki march and then the points of confrontation and violence as given in the testimonials above. I had done some initial searches on Google Maps based on the initial May 4 reports from the Imphal papers, but I have not used {{Google Maps}} template before, so would be slow to create those annotations. Any help would be welcome. Chaipau (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
The march was in the Churachandpur town, some 10 km south of here. But, yeah, I get what you mean. That will be another map though. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a bit of trickiness with the Kangvai village. Even though geographically it appears to be in the Bishnupur district, it may be administratively in the Churachandpur district. In the 2011 census, there is a Kangvai village listed in the Churachandpur district in the census, but none in the Bishnupur district. This could have caused a "no man's land" problem for law and order. The Bishnupur police could claim it was not in their jurisdiction while the Churachandpur police couldn't access it anyway due to the blockade. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The border region of Bishnupur and Churachandpur districts have an amorphous character, administratively. Neither Meitei nor Kuki (land rights, etc.). I have come across this and shall look for the reference again. Chaipau (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The question of "S. Bualjang" village came up in the above discussion. I found some screenshots of maps I had saved in August.

  • The area on Bhuvan3D, India's satellite mapping site, with Survey of India data. Note the Torbung Bangla village marked as "Boljang", which is a simplified spelling of "Bualjang".
  • The area on Google Maps, with pointer "A" at the sericulture farm at the centre of the Boljang/Bangla village.
  • The address of the sericulture farm on Google Maps as it showed in early August. Note "Boljang" as the locality within the "Bangla" village. This has since been removed in the address. It currently states simply "Bangla". (When the Kuki burial site at the sericulture farm was being contemplated the village was called "S. Boljang").
  • Google maps currently shows S. Bualjang village as a small area within Kaprang (the southern part of the "Bangla" village).

It is possible that this is what the Meitei Association intended as the location of the AK-47s in their timeline document. But the geography in the video doesn't match this location. I think it matches the Tedim Road near the sericulture farm.

My conclusion is that Bualjang/Boljang was the original name of the village and the Meitei settlers of the area in recent times have changed it to "Bangla", and then added "Torbung" as a prefix. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023–2024_Manipur_violence/Archive_1&oldid=1196960669"