HISTORY OF CHURACHANDPUR "The Story behind Songpi, Churachandpur and Lamka" kiti article Ginza Vualzong, Admn, Zogam.com in ana sutna chunga ka donbut na anahi.

~🇰🇦 Updates:~

HISTORY OF CHURACHANDPUR

"The Story behind Songpi, Churachandpur and Lamka" kiti article Ginza Vualzong, Admn, Zogam.com in ana sutna chunga ka donbut na anahi. 

--------*****------

In response to Ginza’s article “The Story behind Songpi, Churachandpur and Lamka”.

The article was a well manipulated, twisted wisely and purposely skipping the important facts with the intention to convince the ignorant minds of the general public (of Churachandpur) that the original name of Churachandpur was Lamka.

In the first para of the article he says that- “Lamka and Churachandpur are two different locations..… The real Churachandpur is a Hillock 15 km west of Lamka, which was previously known as Songpi”. His above statement is exactly in conformity with the historical record of the saga of Churachandpur, how and why the name came to be known as Churachandpur from Songpi. His statement also explicitly reflects that Lamka has no place in the history of Churachandpur. He is also true that Churachandpur and Lamka are at different places of location. Now my big question is why in spite of knowing and fully aware of the history, still trying his best to conceal the fact and asserted that the original name of Churachandpur was Lamka. The statement in his article itself is the proof that Lamka is neither the original name nor has any relevance in the origin of the name Churachandpur.

It is a mockery, trying to elucidate the present condition with the assertion of taking inference from the past happening without knowing the exact established linked between the two events is bound to distort the historical facts and likely to mislead the general public.

Due to unavailability of enough resources at hand, I am not in a position to precise the time & year, when the Songpi village was established. However, taking account into few events during those days such as boundary dispute between the Chiefs of Songpi and Singngat, I may not be wrong to assume that the Songpi village was as old as Singngat village. Singngat village was established in 1800s.

Anyway keeping aside the events beyond what I could share, let me begin from the year 1919. By the order of Sir Nicolas Beatson Bell, C.C of Assam, Songpi Sub-Division was established on 16 October 1919, with its Headquarters at Songpi. An ICS officer, B.C Casper, was the first Sub Divisional Officer at Songpi. It was basically the outcome of Kuki Rebellion (1917-1919) that the British felt the need to control the Hills by establishing administrative headquarters. Not a single village was there in the present CCPur town area during those days except few villages viz: Khopibung, Gelmol, Bijang, Teiseng and Songpi at the surrounding area. The boundary of Songpi village was extended till Paldai Lui (near Singngat) in South, Tuila river in South-West, Koite river in the North and Khuga (Tuitha) river in the East. It is clear that the whole area of present ccpur town was under the authority of Songpi Chief. Never imagine that the plain area was something like an unknown Island, belonging to none.

Songpi to Churachandpur: It was in 1921 when the then SDO, B.C Casper, hosted a feast to welcome back the Labour Corps returning from France and on the occasion, the Maharaja Churachand Singh of Manipur was invited as a Guest of Honor. As a sign of remembrance and in honor of the Maharaja Churachand’s visit, the name Songpi Sub Division was changed to Churachandpur Sub Division. Therefore, we are totally wrong to assume that Songpi was renamed as Churachandpur due to Meitei’s mala-fide intention of divide and rule policy, as stated in his article. The simple fact is that the changed was done by the British not by the Meiteis. “On that occasion Songpi was renamed to Churachandpur..” he says. He is very much aware that Songpi was changed to Churachandpur but how come they keep claiming the old name of Churachandpur was Lamka or its original name was Lamka? By the time Songpi was changed to Churachandpur the so called Lamka village was not at all existed. So Lamka can never have a place whenever the history of Churachandpur is cited. They further asserted their claim in citing few instances like changing Mumbai from Bombay, Bengaluru from Bangalore. Don’t they understand that all those changed were made due to their historical alignment? So, the same can be in the case of Churachandpur. If it is supposed to be changed to its old name, it should be Songpi. No denying of the fact.

In 1930 Phungkhothang and Zenhang founded the two villages viz. Hiangtam and Bijang Loubuk. It was not like an Island discovered by some adventurers in old stories or in movies. It was very much within the territorial authority of the Chief of Songpi village. Isn’t it a mockery that in spite of knowing the background detail they still keep asserting that the land was unoccupied, undiscovered and belonging to none but the two mentioned names. In fact the valley part was unoccupied only because it was a malaria infested area and they feel safer of being residing in the hilly side. How can Ginza Vualzong say that “At that time when they established this twin villages there were no other villages nearby…”. If that is the case then can he explain how Zenhang lamka was called Bijang Loubuk? If no villages were nearby where did the Bijang Loubuk come from?? Doesn’t he know that the residents of Zenhang Lamka still cast their vote in the name of Bijang Loubuk? (Electoral Rolls-www.ceomanipur.nic.in) While the villagers of Zenhang Lamka still cast their votes in the name of Bijang Loubuk village how can they manage to challenge that they were the first settlers of the area. This is something I fail to understand but on the other hand I really appreciate their guts.

The underlying intention was to claim that they were the first settlers and the land does not belong to none but them. Initially the occupation of the area by Phungkhothang and Zenhang was not an intention to set up villages but wet rice cultivations, which was also very much encouraged by the British. Thus, the then SDO gave permission to reside and use the land for wet rice cultivation. But later when more household joined Zenhang and Phungkhothang then they began submitting petitions requesting the SDO for recognition of separate villages, this led to a misunderstanding with the Songpi Chief, Pu Hemthong. However, the matter was resolved by the State Darbar in 1942. Some lines may be reproduced for reference as under-

“In view of the large number of villages situated in the reserve I held that it was impossible to fix boundaries for each village and disposed of several of the petitions accordingly. I soon realized however that some sort of settlement would have to be made to deal with claims for Ukok and Lousal. …………….Mata Moltam was allowed to settle in the reserve some five years or so ago to cultivate wet rice until last year. Mr. Duncan’s ordered exempting Mata Moltam from payment of Lousal is therefore cancelled. Other villages who have no rights in the hills are Lingsiphai, Ngathal, Phailen Dala, Hengtam Lamka and Rengkai. All these villages were allowed to settle in the reserve to cultivate wet rice and have neither earned nor been given rights to cultivate in the hills without payment of Lousal. All the villages in the old Haokip reserve boundaries will be allowed wood for their own use i.e. for firewood and for house building purpose. *Lousal will be limited to 8/- per jhum inform all villages concerned (The Haokip Reserve in Churachandpur vide Misc. Case No. 1941-42, Manipur State Form 11-9 (Judicial); Sd/- T.A Sharpe, ICS, P.M S.D (Hill) Dt. 6.05.1942 Manipur).

Mission Compound in Songpi: It was in 1930, the same year when Phungkhothang and Zenhang start settling in the plain area, the NEIG Mission founded it’s Headquarters at Songpi. They occupied the vacant quarters at Songpi after taking due permission from Maharaja Churachand Singh. After the NEIG Mission started their activities by setting up schools and church, the place came to be known as Mission Compound. It is totally wrong to say that Songpi was changed to Mission Compound as Pu Semthong had sold all his land and rights to the NEIG Mission, as stated by Ginza. The money taken by Pu Semthong, the Chief of Songpi was only for a piece of land where the Mission established school and church. It is also totally wrong to depict that he sold his village to the Mission. Whenever a Missionary established its headquarters somewhere, we call the place a Mission Compound. To cite a few, when the NEIG Mission Headquarters was in Lakhimpur the place was called Lakhimpur Mission Compound. The American Baptist established its Headquarters in Kangpokpi and came to be known as Kangpokpi Mission Compound. Can you say that Lakhimpur was changed to Mission Compound and Kangpokpi too?? If so, you are totally wrong. Citing the most recent one, the EOC Mission set up its headquarters or secretariat at Hebron Veng in D. Phailen and later this place came to be known as Compound Veng to the locals. Can you say that Compound Veng was not in D. Phailen or D. Phailen is changed to Compound Veng? It is a hidden agenda with a political motive to deliberately avoid using Songpi or to acknowledge the land of Songpi. The Mission Compound in Songpi was not at all a different village but under the Songpi Chief.

In 1933 the Manipur hill administration was re-organized. Circle office was opened again at Churachandpur in 1945. Shri Pearson and Thangkhopao Kipgen inspected the place for its headquarters. The old headquarters, Songpi, being already occupied by NEIG Mission and thinking it more convenient and economical to occupy the abandoned quarters of the British army during World War II at Hill Town, they shifted the headquarter to Hill Town. Thangkhopao Kipgen was the first Circle Officer (C.O) of the new Churachandpur. It was not due to the poor condition of the Songpi Headquarter as stated by Ginza but just because it was occupied by the NEIG Mission. And the new Headquarters, Churachandpur, was not in Lamka rather it was in Hill Town. At any point of time, Hill Town never came under the Chieftainship of Phungkhothang or Zenhang (the so called chief of Lamka) but having a separate Chief, Pu Dongjakai Gangte. So, one will be totally wrong to say that the new headquarters was shifted to Lamka. Instead the headquarters was shifted to Tuibong not Lamka. Tuibong is again under a separate chief, which was never under the chief Zenhang or Phungkhothang. In other words, Hill Town and Tuibong were never part of Lamka. So in the history of Churachandpur, Lamka never occupied a significant position. In his article he wrote how Lamka became the District Headquarters. I wonder when Lamka was the Headquarter of Churachandpur. Did he call Hill Town and Tuibong as Lamka? If so I will be much appreciated if he can explain to us when Hill Town and Tuibong chiefs sold their village to Lamka village.

The popularity of Lamka village is due to the fact that it is the central part of Churachandpur town, a business hub and its population and market expand rapidly. Taking political advantages out of this situation, knowingly or unknowingly, some began to claim villages like Sielmat, Bijang, Rengkai, Hill Town, D. Phailen, Bungmual, Tuibong etc. as once part of Lamka. But the fact is that they were never part of Lamka at any point of time.

To sum up, it is wrong to say that Churachandpur Headquarters was shifted to Lamka. It was not Lamka but to Hill Town and later to Tuibong, both were never part of Lamka. So it will be wise to stop asserting on the wrong side of history and be rather acknowledged what is Lamka and what is not. Bangalore was changed to Bengaluru, Bombay to Mumbai. It was done only due to its certain historical attachment. In case we fail to link with the historical attachment it is more rational to take the name of its headquarters like Senapati, Chandel and Ukhrul. Some cited that Lamka is more popular than any other villages in Churachandpur. Ok that’s true, I agree. But Dimapur is much popular than Kohima, the state capital of Nagaland; Guwahati is much popular than Dispur the state capital of Assam. Did anybody say that all these names should be changed because of its popularity sake? Can any of you enlighten me that the name of any city or place in India is changed only for its popularity sake? All the changed made so far were done on account of its historical attachment. And in Churachandpur context the historical attachment is only to Songpi, and at present condition it is with Tuibong. So, if any attempt is made to change the existing name it will be wiser and more logical to re-name it as Songpi District.

Dated: Mandalay, 31st March 2015.

Reference:

1. "A brief History of Churachandpur" (a Magazine published by DRDA, Churachandpur-2008) by Dongzakai Gangte, Chief of Hill Town.

2. "Suongpi Tlaitlanah" by L. Keivom, IFS Retd.

3. "Zoram Khawvel-2 (1993) by L. Keivom, IFS Retd.

4. The Haokip Reserve in Churachandpur Vide Misc. Case No. 1941-42. Sd/ TA Sharpe, ICS

5. Judgement on "State of Manipur V/s Sokhojam Haokip", High Court of Guwahati, 24 Aug 2011.

⚫

Khochungte Awgin