Talk:Thangjing Hill

Contesting detail additions

Simon0117, I have accepted your deletion of the Khongjai expedition, for now. But this content is WP:UNDUE detail. If you disagree, please explain why it is needed.

Luwanglinux, It is unclear what the historical signficance of the deporation of one "Bamon" (I suppose Brahmin). Please find WP:SECONDARY sources that discuss the issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Simon0117, the material you added today is completely off-topic. There is no mention of Thangjing Hill in it at all. Please explain how it pertains to the topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Simon0117, you claim you can't remove a content which is mentioned a peered reviewed journal article. Yes, I can. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Whether the material is appropriate for the article needs to be decided through WP:CONSENSUS. The WP:ONUS for arguing for its inclusion rests on you. You have so far not made any effort to discuss any issue, but have been reverting the content to your preferred version. This constitutes WP:edit warring, and you can be blocked for engaging in it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Kautilya3, It will confuse people if we say about arrival of khongjai kuki refugees in lushai expedition without the previous context between between khongjai kukis and lushais. It should not be a problem for anyone since the content is sourced from a peered reviewed journal article. WP:CONDUCT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon0117 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for responding after all lthese days! There is no mention of "khongjai kuki refugees" on the page. They are called Kuki-Zo refugees. Neither is there any mention of "Thadou Kuki tribe". So, I don't understand what "confusion" you are talking about. Here is the content that you added:

The Thadou Kuki tribe initially settled in the Lushai and Chin Hills but were unable to withstand the advancement of Mizos(also known as lushais). They were gradually chased by lushais northwards to Cachar hills between 1840 and 1850 A.D. and the Thadous of Chin Hills were moved north into Manipur, where they settled in the southern region.

References

Your main project seems to be claim that the "Thadous of Chin Hills were moved north into Manipur" which is a bogus claim, but it doesn't belong in this page in any case. Recall that you had removed the well-sourced fact of Ching-Thang Khomba invading Khongjais in 1786, claiming that it was "irrelevant". Now, why are you adding dubious content about Khongjais here?

This source you are using is completely unsatisfactory. In the first place, you didn't even provide a WP:full citation. Even when I am able to locate the paper, it is a three-page summary and all the footnotes are missing! It is not clear who is the publisher of this journal. It has an editor-in-chief in Taiwan but the banner gives a phone number in India. We can take it to WP:RSN if you wish, but I am afraid this is a completely worthless source.

Finally, I should point out that you are continuing to edit war. The protocol we use is WP:BRD. When an edit is contested, you are expected to discuss it on the talk page, and achieve WP:CONSENSUS, before reinserting the disputed content in the page. Let this be your last warning. You have been informed about WP:discretionary sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3

Regarding Unsatisfactory Source, besides the already given peer reviewed journal artcle, the additional sources for the migration of the Thado people towards the southern region of Manipur after being pushed northward of Lushai Hills by lushais and then by the Sokte can be found below :

1) "The Lushais moved northward by about 1810 A.D. and the Thado were gradually pushed northward of Lushai Hills were similarly, conquered by the Sokte and were driven towards north into Manipur where they settled in southern region of Manipur. as mentioned in "THE LAND SYSTEMS OF MIZORAM, CHAPTER–I, Page 4 in official mizoram govt website.[1]https://landrevenue.mizoram.gov.in/uploads/files/historical-evolution-of-mizoram.pdf

2) "Distribution and Adaptation of the Mizos in North-East India" by T. John Chinliankap Zou, a Ph.D. thesis available on the Mizoram University Institutional Repository., Page 15

3) "Tribes of Mizoram" on the Tribal Tours in India website.

Regarding a bogus claim, but it doesn't belong in this page, this is the context of arrival of New Kukis in the southern region of Manipur. Also, the context of lushai expedition.

Finally, giving warning for adding content from a peered reviewed journal article is an act of WP:HARASS Simon0117 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

We can get to the issues of sources if and when we need to. But you haven't addressed the very first issue of relevance. The content you are trying to add, sourced or not, has nothing to do with the Thangjing Hill. You yourself have previously removed my content saying it was irrelevant. So, surely you understand what "irrelevant" means. Why are pretending that you don't? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Ukha Loikhai village

Kautilya3 I have not been able to access the full pages for the Bamon being sent as Loi to Thangjing Hill for now. So, I am ok with your deletion for now also please provide other scholarly sources for the claim of Thangjing Hill under control of Ukha Loikha Kuki village Chief. the term Ukha Loikha itself is a Meitei or Manipuri word meaning (" Ukha " under tree and Loikha "Under servant" ) and the reference used is self claim of a politician Paoleinlal Haokip🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 04:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the Bamon banishment is trivia and doesn't warrant mention in an encyclopedia. As for the Ukha village, I don't think you can call Paolienlal Haokip's statement "political". It is the elected legislator making a factual statement about one of his constituents to the Minister of Forests. We leave it to the Ministry to contradict it if it is false. Moreover, the factoid is corroborated by numerous sources, including the Anglo-Kuki War literature, e.g., Higgins went to the Thangting Hills to "punish the Ukha Kukis".(Guite, Fighting the White Men till the Last Bullet 2019, p. 47)

As for Ukha and Loikhai, it seems that they are two villages, which have merged. But Ukha has always been the more important village. Whether the names are Meitei names, I can't say. But there is no evidence of Meiteis being present in these locations in anything I have seen. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The claim of Paolienlal is political as his claims are contradicted by various other scholarly sources.

• Perhaps, originally the capital of Moirang was at Thangjing hill, then it was at Ngangkha where Thangjing was installed as the king
• Kapo Nungkoitongpa maiden was given inmarriage to the king of Thangching.4 They opened up the road to Makak. Lairikyengpa Aaton and others left for Makak. They completed (the road) from Wangthonpi to Hoitraopi.....Thangching here refers to the principality of Moirang

I doubt British author used the word Thangting (a relatively invented new term by Kuki first seen from their book called Zalengam ) instead of ThangChing or Thangjing but the point is the claim of Thangjing hill came under control of Ukha kuki village chief is a vague one that is contradicted by various other sources, it the the content I removed 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 17:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see where it is "contradicted". Paolienlal Haokip says the chief of Ukha has a "settlement officer" report, which would at best imply happenings since 1891. Your sources are not talking about this time period at all. So, no contradiction.

Secondly, Saroj Nalini Parratt seems to be making it clear that "Thangching" was used for the principality of Moirang. So you can't attribute all such mentions to the Thangching Hill.

The spelling "Thangting" was the one used in the source I cited, Guite. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You have repeatedly added a disputed claim without having a WP:CONS that too for history section

This line Eventually the Thangjing hill came under the control of Kuki Chief I do not find supportive or inline with any scholarly source. KNO claim is contested here again by a group As for the Khagemba giving sacrifices to Thangching hill, I mentioned it for the historical event in 17th Century which is very much appropriate in the history section although the words can be modified a little. Since we are discussing history of Thangjing hill, lets follow WP:NPOV and we should dicuss its historicity before the advent of British in Manipur as well and in order of time period The hill where Thangjing Koirel Lai settled for some time came to be known as Thangjing hill till todayp-148

The Thangjing Koirel Lai Mentioned here is related with Moirang Kangleirol or folktale of Moirang

The source that use Thangting spelling claim as if Kuki Chief were independent from Manipur kingdom but this source contradict it again

The following is a list of hills and mountains within Manipur territory; the approximate height of some of them along the line of road between Kachar and Manipur are added:- ...South-1 ThangChing 2 Khong Sungkul... p 4-5

🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 19:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I "repeatedly" (actually twice) added the content because you didn't provide valid objections. First you said you needed more sources, which I provided. Second, you said it was "contradicted". I showed you that it wasn't. It is seems that you dislike Paolienlal Haokip. It is not my problem. He is an elected legislator, and he made a factual statement in a letter to the Minister. If he is wrong, the Minister needs to say so. The factual statement in question is:

The MLA said that so far as the Thangjing Hills are concerned, the Chief of Ukha (Loikhai) has clear orders of the settlement officer, excluding the land belonging to Loikhai village, which includes Thangjing Hills, from the Churachandpur Khopum Protected Forest.

That was more than a year ago. Did you see a refutation from the Minister?

The line Eventually the Thangjing hill came under the control of Kuki Chief comes from the historical context. Every British administrator that wrote about Manipur said that that entire area was Kuki territory. Here, for example, is Brown, Statistical Account:

General locations of the Hill Tribes.—Although no abrupt boundary line can be drawn between the tracts of country occupied by the two races of Nagas and Kukis, it may be taken for granted that a line drawn about a day's journey south of the Government road, or even at the present day less, running east from Kachar to the Manipur Valley (about 24° 70' north latitude), would represent the boundary which separates the two races, the Nagas lying to the north of this line, the Kukis to the south.

No British administrator ever said that any Meiteis lived anywhere in the hills, except when they had to take refuge from Burmese occupations.

The only question then is whether this particular hill was excluded from Kuki territory on account of its religious significance etc. Paolienlal's information shows that it was not excluded.

The CPPKT group that you mention didn't provide any information that contradicts this factual position. They only asked the government to "clarify" it.

I will pick up the problems with your new conten tin a separate section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thangjing Hill is very much included within the Churachandpur Khoupum - protected forest since a long time [2]

This is one among the proof of declaration by Ministry

The Manipur Forest Department issued a clarification that K. Songjang village is a new settlement established in 2021, much after the notification of the Protected Forest in 1966, and, violates state forest conservation laws.

[3] it was declared through legal official notice way back in 1966. It seems like KSO and Paolienlal claim are defying govt order or legislative rules and they seem to be confused with Manipur State prior to joining Independent India and Manipur State of India. They are alleging something about a 1912 agreement signed by President, Manipur Darbar of British colonial period.

The student organisation said the notification of 1966 declaring the extent of the boundaries of the Churachandpur- Khoupum Protected Forest was “arbitrarily done since the declaration had covered vast individual village land which is owned by the village chief or the villagers since eons ago. The Village Chiefs could also produce documents dating back to 1918 signed and issued by the President, Manipur Durbar”. [4] Thangjing hills significance for Moirang people and Meitei as a sacred mountain and origin story for Moirang tribes has ample historical proofs. Meitei are a mixed of several tribes or clans and their ancestors once lived in the mountain of Manipur including Thangjing Koubru etc and Meitei worship ancestor

I am saying this because it seem like you are saying Meitei never settled in Mountains of Manipur [5] 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 15:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding territory or area inhabited by Meiteis we can refer to Hodson's book The Meitheis as well

The Native State of Manipur lies between Latitude 23° 50r and 25° 30' North and Longitude 93° 10' and 94° 30' East, and consists of about 7000 square miles of hill territory, and of 1000 square miles of level country forming the broad valley, to which the Manipuris have given the name Meithei Leipak, or the broad land of the Meitheis

and the map [6] given in the book as area inhabited by Meiteis, I think overlap with the location of Thangjing hill

Please maintain WP:INDENTATION. It is becoming hard to figure out where your comments begin and end. Also proper citations will help instead of plain urls.

Paolienlal Haokip said that the the lands belonging to the Loikhai village were excluded from the Churachandpur-Khopum forest. None of your sources say otherwise. Please focus on the issue at hand, and don't waste time on useless tangents.

You keep claiming it is "contradicted" by this or that. They don't cut it. In order to contradict it, you need a source that says that the Loikhai village was not excluded from the Churachandpur-Khopum forest. Do you have any such source? If you have it, please provide it. If you don't, rest your case. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Contested topic is the claim of Kuki village chief of Ukha as owner of Thangjing Hill

Eventually, the Thangjing Hill came under the control of the Kuki chief of Ukha

this is the line I am saying is contradicted by many other sources

Forest Department, Manipur has informed that the department has initiated mass tree plantation drives at Kanglatongbi-Kangpokpi Reserved Forests (Koubru Hills), Churachandpur-Khoupum Protected Forest (Thangjing Hills), catchment of Singda Dam and other places of the State under the aegis of Chief Minister N Biren Singh and Forest Minister Th Biswajit Singh. In a release, Dr Aditya K Joshi, IFS, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & HoFF, Government of Manipur stated that the mass tree plantation drive shall be intensified across the State till August 31, 2022 during which the Government is planning to plant more than 75 lakh seedlings in the forest areas with the assistance of various CSOs, voluntary agencies, NGOs, youth clubs and students.

[7]

Churachandpur- Khoupum Protected Forest was notified under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 by the Government of Manipur with a well-defined schedule of boundaries vide Notification No. 55/10/66-M (2) dated 17.09.1966 and Manipur Extra Ordinary Gazette No.124-EI00 dated 21.09.1966

[8]

• As you have claimed this is unverified you should provide the reference that say Thangjing hill is excluded from Churachandpur-Khoupum protected forest

Once Notification of the Protected Forest has been issued, no fresh right can be acquired and activities such as quarrying of stone or the burning of Lime or Charcoal or the collection or subjection to any manufacturing process or removal of any forest produce and breaking up or clearing for cultivation, for building, for herding cattle or for any other purpose is prohibited in such Protected Forest as provided under Section 30(C) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

[9]

• This legislation that came into force in 1966 again nullifies the claim that Thangjing hill is under the ownership of any person or chief 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 02:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Lastly, the present form of article really lacks WP:NPOV and WP:CONS , please revert yourself and edit again or I should take this to admins as well 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 03:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

You are free to take it to the admins. Your objections to my content are also based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, just as your own content is based on #OR and SYNTHESIS.

• The first quote above talks about "Thangjing Hills", which is the entire mountain range, not just the particular hill we are talking about. There are dozen hill villages in those hills. Their lands cannot be included in the protected forest. So, you can't synthesize a claim that "this particular peak" is included in the protected forest.
• The second and third quotes don't mention "Thangjing Hill" or "this particular peak". They are tangential to the issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• There is not a single secondary scholarly source that states Kuki Village Chief of UKha is the owner of Thangjing Hill ( particular sacred peak or the entire Mountain range ) You have used the press statement of a politician and KSO ( a kuki student organisation ) as historical fact.
• Paolienlal Haokip's statement

  The MLA said that so far as the Thangjing Hills are concerned, the Chief of Ukha (Loikhai) has clear orders of the settlement officer, excluding the land belonging to Loikhai village, which includes Thangjing Hills, from the Churachandpur Khopum Protected Forest.

  can't be term as factual truth, his claim about the order issued by settlement Officer was neither verified nor produced at the time of reporting by the source you use as reference for historical fact.
• You have yourself stated

  The first quote above talks about "Thangjing Hills", which is the entire mountain range, not just the particular hill we are talking about. There are dozen hill villages in those hills. Their lands cannot be included in the protected forest. So, you can't synthesize a claim that "this particular peak" is included in the protected forest.

  i.e Thangjing Hills as the entire mountain range so Paolienlal Haokip Statement is not only about Ukha village only

• At best it should be Kuki claimed Thangjing Hill owner is Kuki Chief of Ukha village

• The first quote from Sangai Express Newspaper mentioned Thangjing hills as synonym to Churachandpur-Khoupum Protected Forest whether it be the entire mountain range or the specific peak of sacred hill. So your allegation of my content as #OR and SYNTHESIS is not true.

The discussion session also strongly condemned the press statements issued by Saikot MLA Paolienlal Haokip and KSO Henglep on May 14.Further, the gathering drew attention of the government so as to take up action against those particularly the Kuki people who paid refugee tax till 1968 for imposing restriction on entry of indigenous people in any part of Manipur.

[10] Both KSO and Paolienlal press statement are similar to this legal allegation of kuki people as refugee who paid refugee taxes to Govt till 1968 by The Committee on Protection & Preservation of the Historical Rights of Koubru & Thangjing Hill Ranges --🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 05:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Also you seem to omit this quote by the politician Paolienlal

  “The traditional pilgrimage rights of one religious community need not conflict with the land rights of another, merely requiring harmonious attitude and mutually respectful engagement”

  Here he seem to allege politicial view that Meiteis have no land right in the hills of Manipur which is again a contested topic. Meitei are without a doubt indigenous people of Manipur and Manipur land form is 90% hill and mountain. Manipur Kingdom was synonym with Meitei kingdom as the land was historically ruled by Meitei kings .🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 05:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• It may be mentioned that the villagers of Valpakot and Sielmat blocked all the entrance and exit points of the village to show their resentment and repudiation against surveys being carried out in their village on April 11 and 13.The survey team led by Tuibong SDO Jangminlen Lupho and Churachandpur ADM S Thienlaljoy Gangte could not go ahead with the survey as the villagers, along with various civil society organizations, strongly opposed the survey......Meanwhile, the officials had informed the agitating student groups that they were instructed to cross-check the geo-coordinate points of the Khoupum Protected Forest area.

  [11]
• It seem even Govt officials were blocked from survey of Churachandpur-Khoupum protected forest area --🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 06:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to decide "land rights" based on historical kingdoms. I suggest that you drop this line of argumentation. Land rights and such need to be decided in courts of law. If there are reliable sources covering such disputes (not claims by the interested parties), then we might report them on a suitable page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Kuki village’s claim over Thangjing Hills ‘concocted’, says Manipur govt.; fresh inquiry under way.....Responding to the outfit’s statement, the Department of Forests, Environment, and Climate Change of the Manipur government on Monday issued orders through the Governor, dismissing the claims made by the LS and the village chief of Ukha Loikhai, one of the Kuki-Zomi villages nearby even though it said that inquiries in this regard were still underway. The orders said that the notification that had put the village out of the jurisdiction of the Churachandpur-Khoupum Protected Forests had been cancelled in 2022, thus putting it inside its limits and qualifying it as an encroachment on protected lands. The State government continued that a fresh inquiry regarding the village’s status had already been initiated.

  [12]

• "Self-Proclaimed Village Chief's Claim On Protected Site Fabricated, Concocted": Manipur Government "The present-day Thangjing hill range falls within the Churachandpur-Khoupum protected forests... The present-day Ukha-Loikhai settlement falls within the boundary of this protected forest," the Manipur government said in a statement on Monday

  [13]

I hope this topic of Ukha village as ownership of Thangjing Hill (as narrated in this article current version ) can be nullified with this Official Manipur Govt clarification 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 03:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Official notifications have no value for Wikipedia, especially ones as confused as this. The chief and Paolienlal Haokip said they have the settlement order. The government says they have cancelled the settlement order. But new "enquiries" are on the way. Note that The Hindu mentions two enquiries, one by the state government and another by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. If and when these enquiries are concluded, and agree with each other, then we will have somehting more substantial. There are also writ petitions in the High Court initiated by the K. Songjang people. I will of course add an attributed mention of the government's statement.

The big picture

Luwanglinux, I think you are getting caught up in too much of detail and are missing the big picture. There is substantial evidence that the top of the Thangjing Hill was inhabited for a long time. Koirengs lived there, who apparently named the hill as "Thangching", and then participated in the formation of the Moirang community. The Chirus have a tradition of having lived there. The Kabuis also have tradition of having lived there, according to McCulloch.

But by the time the British arrived on the scene (around 1830), there is only mention of "New Kukis" (mostly Thadous) living there. There are ample mentions of these Kukis during the Anglo-Kuki War (1917-1919). As many as three battles were fought there, and the Kukis were driven out to the forests. This is the sense in which "Eventually, the Thangjing Hill came under the control of Ukha". At the time of the war, Ukha and Loikhai were separate villages, but now they have merged and the chief of Ukha controls both of them.

The chief of Ukha has the documents of the settlement officer. And, Paolienlal Haokip, being a responsible elected legislator, has corroborated the claims and mentioned the documents. I do not accept your claim that this was a "political statement". He has made this mention in a letter written to the Government minstry, and the ministry has not contradicted the claim in over a year. So, we take it as verified. If and when some authority disputes then we would reconsider. Sapamcha Jadumani and his CPKPT are activists and they haven't provided any information other than nationalistic rhetoric and propaganda. (What is "refugee tax" for instance?) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed revision

I intend to revise the currently disputed paragraph as follows:

By the time British Raj arrived in Manipur (c. 1830), the area around the Thangjing Hill was inhabited by New Kukis (called "Khongjais" by Manipuris). Two villages are mentioned in this context: Ukha, on the western slopes of the Thangjing Hill and Loikhai closer to the top. The larger village, Ukha, is mentioned in the Gazetteer of Manipur as being at an elevation of 3,500 ft (1,100 m) above the sea-level, with a population of 150 people belonging to the "Changput subdivision of the Kongjai Kuki tribe". Its current population per 2011 census is 418, and the elevation on modern maps is 1,500 metres.

Notes

References

I hope this meets with your agreement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes this is better 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)}

🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 08:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

OR and SYNTHESIS

Luwanglinux, I have just done a huge revert because you are going on adding loads of dubious content which doesn't verify. For example, this in the lead:

This mountain peak is a part of the Churachandpur-Khoupum Protected Forest which was declared by Government of Manipur in 1966 under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927

References

Which of those sources said "this mountain peak" is included in the reserved forest?

And, why are you adding Plain url citations as if you are a newbie editor? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I have modified the plain url citations soon after 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 03:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Dubious history

The Thangjing Hill is much associated with Ancient Moirang people and its origin. Thangjing Koirel Lai is the first king of Moirang and the name of the mountain Thangjing Hill is derived from his name.In the 17th Century King Khagemba offered sacrifices in this sacred hill for the prosperity of his Kingdom.

References

• Where does Saroj Nalini Parratt say anything about the "Thangjing Hill"?
• Citation 2, for which we have only a snippet view, says "Perhaps". Are there any structures on the Thangjing Hill to suggest that it was an old capital? At 2,000 metres above the sea level?
• Where do citations 2 and 3 say that the Thangjing Hill is named after Thangjing Koirel Lai?
• Are citations 3 and 4 works of history?
• Does citation 5 say sacrifices were offered at the "hill"?

All this is very poor quality editing! You are filling up the page with dubious legends and folktales. If this continues, I need to escalate this to the admins. You have been alerted to the WP:ARBIPA sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

They inspected the area of Sikong. Kapo Nungkoitongpa maiden was given in marriage to the king of Thangching.They opened up the road to Makak. Lairikyengpa Aaton and others left for Makak. They completed (the road) from Wangthonpi to Hoitraopi. 1 Phura Laiyum: Phura the lai’s house. The term phura is also used by the Burmese for shrine. Phrase used for the first time. 2 A change in the style of recording. This is the beginning of stating the months when the events took place.3 Leima Khubi ta kai: Leima Khubi: the Meetei king’s fourth and fifth wives were titled as Leima Khubi elder and Leima Khubi junior. As any of the wives could be promoted to the throne or demoted from it, each of them is referred as Leima, or queen. Taipompi, whose birth was recorded at the beginning of this king’s reign, was taken by the king, who was over forty years, as one of his wives and was promoted to the position of Leima Khubi. 4 Thangching: the lai of Moirang. Thangching here refers to the principality of Moirang.

• Thangching here is not the person its the place, the meitei word ching itself mean hill

For instance, Thangching, Marching, Koubru, and Langmaiching/ Nongmaiching are some of the prominent hills in Manipur. But they are not considered merely as hills. Rather, they are regarded as Gods who are guardians of the four directions. Thangching, Marching, Koubru, and Langmaiching/ Nongmaiching are regarded as deities who pervade in the four directions. People pray to them for their safe return and long life. During the reign of Meidingu Khagemba12 in the 17th century, all the Guardians of directions were worshipped by sacrificing hundreds of animals like buffaloes, goats, sheep, cows, ducks, cranes, pigeons, hens, pigs, and dogs. The ritual of worship also includes fruits and flowers of various kinds. These sacrifices were made for prosperous and long life of the people

• I wrote the sacrifices were offered in the hill based on this

The close association of the Meiteis with nature and the forest can be alluded to from the Lai Haraoba festivals. Relatedly, the Puyas have played a significant role in ascertaining an oral mnemonic structure of the Meitei community. A very important religious and social festival of Manipur is the Lai Haraoba festival where the revered ancient spirits, Umang Lais are venerated. The religious rites, rituals and cultural practices of the Lai Haraoba festival have been recorded in the Puyas, Lai Khunta Lon, Leithak Leikharon and Panthoibi Khongkul.The Meiteis believe in ancestral worship in the form of the revered Umang Lais in the forest areas. There are around 365 Umang Lais in Manipur. To please the Umang Lais, Lai Haraoba is performed every year to honour and gain their favour. Sacred groves spread over a wide ecosystem, are well preserved due to their religious and cultural significance. These sacred groves abound not only in religious significance but also showcase the innate relationship between humans and nature. The Meiteis believed that the disturbance of the sacred grove would draw wrath of the Umang Lai. So, cutting trees and forests is prohibited in and around the sacred groves. The Meiteis believed that non-human forms like trees and plants have souls. So, if one has to cut trees or plants for some purpose,one should do so by making some offerings to show reverence to the non-human forms.

[14]

• This also shows Meitei worship ancestor and pray to the sacred places like the forest in mountain of Thangjing

🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 03:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

"Thangching" or "Thangjing" is the name of three entities:

• a hill (the present topic)
• a deity
• a mythical ancestor or the Moirang people.

In the first quote (Parratt), the author has specifically said that "Thangching" refers to the principality of Moirang (possibly based on its mythical ancestry). There is no mention of the hill.

In the second quote, the deities ("Gods") are worshipped. There is no mention of the king worshipping the hills directly. In the later part of the same paragraph, which you omitted, the author says Khabru, on the north-west, the meeting place of the spirits, and thither annually, in olden times, the Raja used to go in state to propitiate the deity. Since the Raja used to "go" there, this can possibly be interpreted as going to the hill. But there is no such mention of Thangching. We only know that the "God" was worshipped.

The third quote, from a newspaper op-ed, written by a Professor of English and Foreign Languages (not a historian), again needs WP:SYNTHESIS to connect to the present issue. Elsewhere in the article, the author talks about Lord Thangjing, the presiding deity of Moirang, which is an explcit reference to the deity.

Once, nothing in these sources or quotes, validates the content you claim. I asked you to make a separate "religious significance" section, which you refused. Why you want to insert religion discussion into the history section is unfathomable! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• In Moirang Ningthourol Lambuba, a chronicle of the Moirang rulers, it is mentioned that Thangjing Koirel Lai, the founder of the Moirang principality, while inhabiting on the hill now known as Thangjing hill after his name, paid a visit to the plains where the aristocratic Bangals inhabited by riding on horse.

  [15]
• what I wrote are not WP:SYNTHESIS, it all comes from historical context

  In January and February 1872, during the expedition against the Lushais, some 619 captives were rescued, and 2,112 refugees came to seek Maharaja's protection and settle in Manipur. As to the captives rescued, they are all Khongjai Kukis and subjects of Manipur,.....The whole of the above have been settled by the Maharaja in the Thangching range of hills and valley south west of Moirang, have had lands alloted to them, and arrangement have been made for their future safety and protection

• Thangjing Hill and its significance with Moirang and Meitei people is not only of religious importance ----🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 06:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Ningthourol Lambuba, as interpreted by a modern scholar, is already discussed in the first paragraph of the History section. We cannot directly quote or describe ancient documents that freely mix folklore, religous beliefs and mythology. That is not WP:RNPOV. We can only summarise what WP:SCHOLARSHIP say about them.

The 1872 refugee settlement is also covered in the History section. I don't understand what point you are making about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Kautilya3 Moirang principality itself is a very old one (some believed it to be of 1000AD while some believed it to be be of BC period ) , the point I am making is the importance of Thangjing Hill in the development of Moirang people and their kingdom (its a historical kingdom ) , the Kuki is a termed coined by British and it is not a single tribe rather a mix of tribes, the popular term kuki-zo includes even natives of Myanmar but those native tribes of Myanmar were not related with the formation of Manipur Kingdom as natives. Koireng tribes are without a doubt a native group of Manipur but Chin ethnic or tribes of Myanmar are not native of Manipur. You have rightly pointed out Kabui too settled at Thangjing Hill range , Moirang tribes too have settled there which is probably the reason this sacred hill is being contested when someone (kuki-zo) claimed ownership of land right , it is also an undeniable facts a lot of other kuki tribes (not native tribes of Manipur) from Myanmar entered Manipur as refugees. The present narrative of this article is POV in favour of the kukis as a whole irrespective of being native or non native of Manipur 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 06:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

There are no written records for the hill tribes. So there is no way to decide who is "native" and who is not "native". Historians have made various claims, but there is no consensus. What information is available from Cheitharol Kumbaba is documented in this excellent article from the Kuki Research Forum of scholars. I suggest you study it carefully. Cheitharol mentions Koirengs in 1404, Kyangs (Chins) in 1467, and Khongjai in 1508.

Neither is there anything fixed called "Manipur" or "Myanmar". The present borders were fixed only between 1890 and 1910. Before that time period, the tribes moved as the need arose. Nobody stopped them. It is not fruitful to engage in discussions about those movements. After India's independence, we have a citizenship law, and the constitution guarantees equal treatment of all citizens. The people inhabiting the hills have the same rights as the Meiteis do, no matter where they came from and when they came. In fact, they have more rights due to their Scheduled Tribe status. Their lands are protected too.

It is fine to write about the "importance of the Thangjing Hill in the development of Moirang people". But you need authentic historical sources, such as, for example Gangmumei Kamei's book. The random books you are looking up on Google or archive.org are wishy-washy folklore books. They are not WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Other edits

Looking at the the other edits I ended up reverting:

• I see some POV detail added about the 2010 incident. That newsreport, if I can even call it that, from Sangai Express (written in Imphal!), it is so obviously one-sided that it is ridiculous. The perpetrators had heard that some 4/5 girls were abducted. What nonsense! There is nothing of that kind reported in either The Telegraph or The Hindu.[16].
• Then there is an expansion of the tree plantation incident based an op-ed in the Imphal Free Press. IFP claims that the Chief Conservator of Forests initiated the tree plantation! If so, why isn't there a regular news report that says so? The Kukis, on the other hand, said that gun-toting Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha activists went to do tree plantation and bullied the villagers.[17].
• You inserted "KSO claimed", which is not permissible per WP:CLAIM.
• "Notably, Forest Department intensified". Sounds like Government propaganda. But you never bothered to mention that the Kukis were doing it already.[18]

On the whole they were all WP:POV edits. And, you claim that you are making it WP:NPOV? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC).

• As you have said this The perpetrators had heard that some 4/5 girls were abducted is not my OR neither do I write the article this way.

• Tension is mounting between tribals and non-tribals following the killing of two youths who misbehaved with a woman devotee in a village in Churachandpur district on Saturday night. Police are patrolling all trouble-prone areas, and paramilitary forces are kept in readiness.

  You did not even bother to include the act of misbehaved with a woman devotee by the two victim kuki as if the women devotee is forgotten [19]

• The village chief of the Ukha Loikhai village was mentioned as the "rightful owner" of the Thangjing Hill, whose permission was necessary for any such efforts

  this is written like a historical fact while it is the press statement of KSO an involved party the KSO Henglep Block maintained that the chief of Loikhai village Thengmang Haokip is the rightful owner of Thangjing Hill and he has supporting documents to prove his authority over the which has been passed down from generations.
• Is the supporting document produced before public ? and why do KSO block a survey of Churachandpur-Khoupum protected forest which was declared by Govt in 1966 (I really doubt this claim of ownership )
• I am only stating the govt course of action as found from reference also you did not even bother to mention the forest official starting tree plantation drive in Thangjing instead you wrote something like this

  In May 2022, Meitei civil society organisations organised an unauthorised tree plantation on Thangjing hills. The Kuki Students Organisation (KSO) of the Henglep block raised the issue and barred the entry of "outsiders" into the hills without the permission of the village chief of the area

• Are these current narrative of the article WP:NPOV ? 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 07:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The issues in this subsection are those of POV, not OR: attempting to add unnecessary detail based on poor quality Imphal-based coverage. Even The Hindu report is from Imphal.

As for the Churachandpur-Khoupum Protected Forest, apparently the declaration was made in 1966, but nobody had heard about it till 2019-2020. The Kukis are contesting it as being "illegal" because procedures were not followed. There are court cases about it. So we don't need to discuss them here. Once I have enough information about the protected forest declaration and all its ramifications, I intend to add a section on it.

As to what happened during the "tree plantation" drive, we don't have a ground report, nor any authentic statement from a public official. When the article comes back from full protection, I will add moderate the "unauthorised" term with something more specific. The fact remains that the tree plantation was being carried out by BJYM activists in what the Kukis believe to be village lands. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding my barbs about "Imphal-based newspapers", Manipur is not a large state, and Churachandpur is the second largest town in the state. There is no excuse for a state newspaper not stationing a regular reporter in Churachandpur. As it happens, The Sangai Express is the only paper that has a "correspondent" (part-timer) in Churachandpur, and even they are not being utilised for covering the events in the Churachandpur district. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The silences

The Meiteis are claiming that the Thangjing Hill is sacred to them and that they have been worshipping it for ages. But the evidence is simply not there. The British were in Manipur for about 100 years, and they wrote elaborately about all kinds of minutiae. But they never wrote anything about the Thangjing Hill. The Gazetteer of Manipur just says there is a peak, and nothing more. Same with R. Brown. Hodson's The Meitheis is an elaborate book about the Meiteis. But it has nothing to say about the Thangjing Hill, except to speculate that it might have been named after God Thangjing. He could have also said that God Thangjing was derived from the Hill. He didn't. The reason would be that the hill played no role in the Meitei culture and beliefs. Only the God did.

Two Haokips wrote an article in the Sangai Express, and they say the annual pilgrimage was a recent phenomenon.

It is of recent phenomenon that the devout of Ebudhou Thangjing started trickling annually to the Thangting peak to pay obeisance and over decades this has attracted huge devotees, and hence the folklore and mythology long held dear in the minds of the devotees has now been afforded a facade of realism and derived antiquity by postulating that Ebudhou Thangjing worship always took place at the actual peak since ages.

So they say, the link between God Thangjing and the Hill Thangjing was least required until

the dawn of new consciousness about the need to dominate larger tracts of lands for one's community at the cost of the innocent tribal simpletons.

There was no rebuttal from the Meiteis. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This allegation of the two Haokips and you saying there was no rebuttal from the Meiteis is really incomprehensible , the British period was during high voltage hinduism in Manipur when even untouchability was practised by Meitei people and worshipping ancestor by Meitei tradition is performed by follower of Sanamahism which revived only recently and there are shrine of the dieties in such sacred hill including the Koubru and Thangjing hill . I doubt Meitei cosmology belief of Thangjing hill as right leg is of recent origin. Their is a concept of sacred water among Meiteis which are found only from such sites 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 07:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hinduism has nothing against animistic practices. Anyway, that is not our concern. If old beliefs that had been dead for centuries are being revived, it would be useful to add such information to the article. That would be genuine history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• The migration of the Brahmans is important to understand the gradual transformation of the Meitei religion form ancestral worship to Brahmanical faith....It is believed that the Meiteis were animists before the advent of Hinduism by many western and Indian scholars...

• Sanamahism may be described as the de-sanskritization of Meitei religion. It seeks to reclaim the traditional deities and the return of the Meitei to their traditional religion. While it is not anti-Hindu as such, (it does not try to convert non Meitei Hindu) its agenda is to the Meitei people from what it sees as a foreign and exploitative religion, and to encourage Meitei’s to renounce Hinduism for sanamahism. The Sanamahism may characterize as neo-traditional because it advocates a return to what is perceive as traditional to the Meitei. It does not present a new revelation, nor does it have prophets and charismatics who lay claim visions and divine voices. It is essentially an attempt at the recovery of national identity in the face of the threat of integration or absorption into the Indian sub-continent, and it focuses on religion as a way into the revival of Meitei traditional social and cultural values

  [20]

These show the revival of animism tradition among Meiteis that had been dead for centuries 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 04:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand Malem Ningthouja points out:

The British called Hinduism among Meeteis a fashion (McCulloch 1859, 18) because most were ignorant of the faith they professed (Dun 1992, 16). The deviations were found in the flexible caste rules and upward social mobility, indigenous food habits, continued worship of pre-Hindu deities, and engagement with indigenous religiosity, rituals, and priests and priestesses.

If you are saying that god Thangching continued to be worshipped in his own special temple in Moirang, but somehow Hinduism blocked pilgrimage to his abode (the Thangjing Hill), it stretches imagination, especially because pilgrimages to hills are perfectly common in Hinduism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying pilgrimage to his abode is blocked but rather it is not popular amongst the masses. Hills and mountains were converter to cult of hinduism eg Nongmajing Ching to hinduised "Baruni Ching". NongmaiChing to Baruni You were asking about return of pre hinduism faith (ancestor worship) among meitei which has been dead for centuries, I was giving reference for that 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 02:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 19 February 2024

The Kabuis, a naga tribe, historically settled in Thangjing Hill, as evidenced by records dating back to the time of Moirang Ningthou Thangtek Soinaiba. Kabui Tomba, the chief of the Kabuis of Thangjing Hill, notably rescued Nongyai Chahui Leirongpanba and the people of Moirang from the threat of man-eater Paobilai, as recorded in Paobilai Nongkarol. Simon0117 (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a quotation from the source that supports the claim. Also, please explain how this source meets the requirements of WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Deactivating request pending discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

"During the time of Moirang Ningthou Thangtek Soinaiba,Moirang was in grave danger from a man-eater Paobilai.Referring to Paobilai Nongkarol , Kangjia states that it was Kabui Tomba, the chief of the Kabuis of Thangjing hill, who saved Nongyai Chahui Leirongpanba and the people of Moirang from Paobilai." as quoted from Hareshwar Goshwami, History of the People of Manipur, Page 230.

In another quotation from Lamalu Thaimei, History and Culture of the Kabui (Rongmei) People of North-East India, Page 15. Thesis Written for Department of History, Manipur University. 2002. "According to the theory of southern origin as recorded by McCulloch and R.Brown, Kabuis (Rongmeis) were originated from Thangching Hills (Thangjing Hills) "

The above content is WP:RELIABLE being written by a established historian with proper citation and can be WP:VERIFY from the historical record. Simon0117 (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I have checked your sources. The Hareshwar Goshwami doesn't give any citation for his claims, and it is not even clear which "historical records" are being talked about. I can't find any mention of Thangtek Soinaiba anywhere else. The second citation isn't talking about this at all. So I will delete that and summarise the first in an encyclopaedic fashion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

References

• Deactivating edit request as page is no longer protected. Please don't go back to edit warring over this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Controversial Claim

The Kuki-Zo tribes have historically lived around the Thangjing Hill.

This claim contradicts the historical record of kabui naga settlement in Thangjing Hill. Furthermore, clubbing of "old kuki" and "kuki-zo" is debatable. Refer to Manipur#Demographics Simon0117 (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Made-up claim

CLAIM: By the time British Raj arrived in Manipur (c. 1830), the area around the Thangjing Hill was inhabited by New Kukis (called "Khongjais" by Manipuris).

REFERENCE SOURCE: Brown, Statistical Account,1874,pp. 15–16: "Although no abrupt boundary line can be drawn between the tracts of country occupied by the two races of Nagas and Kukis, it may be taken for granted that a line drawn about a day's journey south of the Government road, or even at the present day less, running east from Kachar to the Manipur Valley (about 24° 70' north latitude), would represent the boundary which separates the two races, the Nagas lying to the north of this line, the Kukis to the south." [The "Government road", now called "Old Cachar Road", runs between Silchar and Bishnupur.

The claim that by the time the British Raj arrived in Manipur around 1830, the area around Thangjing Hill was inhabited by New Kukis (referred to as "Khongjais" by Manipuris) is not directly supported by the provided reference source. The source you mentioned, Brown's Statistical Account from 1874, discusses the geographical distribution of Nagas and Kukis in the region without specifically mentioning the population around Thangjing Hill during the early 19th century. For accurate WP:Verifiability of the claim, it's essential to reference WP:Reliable sources to establish the accuracy of historical claims. @Kautilya3 Hence removing this portion for now. Cybermeitei (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a discussion. Is your objection to the fact that Brown doesn't mention Thangjing Hill, or is it regarding the time disparity between 1830 and 1870? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The source does not provide specific information about the population of the area of Thangjing Hill at that time. The author is talking about a general idea with author himself saying no abrupt boundary line can be drawn between the nagas and new kukis. Cybermeitei (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

"Abrupt" means a clear dividing line, north of which one would find one tribe and south of which another tribe. Such "abrupt" boundaries rarely exist. In the middle there would be some mixed areas. But he also says "it can be taken for granted" that a day's journey south of the road, it was definitely a Kuki area. There are other sources that say that the boundary of the Churachandpur Subdivision (meant to be a Kuki-dominate area) is "approximated" by the road. In any case, for the Thangjing Hill itself, there was the Ukha village on its western slopes, which is documented in the Gazetteer. So I don't see why any question arises at all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• You have also deleted the description of the Ukha village. But you haven't explained that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)