Lalchukla
Lalchukla | |
|---|---|
| Born | Jampui Tong, Hill Tipperah |
| Died | |
| Occupation | Paite chieftain |
| Years active | 1843-1845 |
| Known for | Kachu-Bari raid of 1844 |
| Criminal charges | murder, rioting |
| Children |
|
| Father | Laroo |
| Relatives | Botai (Brother) |
Lalchukla was a chief of the Paite tribe. He is known for being one of the earliest chiefs to interact with the British through raiding. Lalchukla was a close associate of Hill Tipperah in following the diplomacy of his father Laroo. Lalchukla's raid of Kachu Bari saw British retaliation which led to him being caught. His trial was under English common law, and he was sentenced to life in captivity with deportation.
Anglo-Lushai Relations
[edit]After the death of his father, Chief Laroo, Lalchukla, as the eldest son, succeeded him in chieftainship. Subsequently, on the night of 16 April 1844, Lalchukla established a raiding party armed with muskets and weapons.[1] The party was estimated to be as large as 200 Paite raiders.[2][3] The party descended upon the settlement of Kachubari In Sylhet. The resulting raid saw many individuals captured and up to 20 heads taken.[1] Further damage included the burning of houses and the razing of the entire village.[2] Cultivators refused to return to their settlements on the borders without an increase in police and armed forces for this reason.[3]
The nature of the raid prompted British authorities such as Sealy, the maigstrate of Sylhet, to conduct an investigation. The results showed that Lalchukla and his relative Botai were responsible.[1] The British authorities officially filed the incident as a ritual to procure a chieftain's funeral as Lushais did practice headhunting. The authorities based this off of eye witnesses who saw the ritual drying of Laroo's corpse in the house courtyard.[4][2] Mackenzie described the reasoning as the traditional Lushai practice was for a chief to be accompanied by servants in the afterlife, which meant requiring captives from raiding to fulfil the number of heads to assure a good afterlife.[5]
Lalchukla was under the territory of the Raja of Tripura at the time. Krishna Kishor Manikya was held accountable for the misconduct of the tribes under his nominal control. Since Lushai tribes offered commodities such as elephant tusks as tributes, they were seen as tributaries to Tripura and hence responsible.[4] British officials originally suspected the Krishna Manikya's statement that he had no control over the tribes. They assumed that Krishna Maniyka enabled the raid by Lalchukla for the purpose of settling a dispute over territory.[3] Krishna Manikya failed to answer to the British for Lalchukla's crimes as the kingdom of Tripura lacked de-facto control over the Lushai-Kuki tribes.[2] To restore the confidence of the Manipuri villagers and labourers, the British decided on a policy of urgent punishment for the raiders. Upon further investigation, despite being a tributary to the Tripura Kingdom, the British designated the Paite tribes as de-facto independent. This led to a cessation of increased cooperation with Krishna Kishor Manikya.[6]
Both the British and the Tripura kingdom were focused on bringing the raid to justice. Krishna Kishor Manikya offered to open up a channel for negotiation and resort to armed intervention if Lalchukla refused to do so. The British disagreed with the need for armed intervention. Further investigation revealed that several traders from Lalchukla's village would make trips to markets and bazaars in the plains. However, the vendors and villagers would cheat and attack the traders prompting tensions between Lalchukla and the settlement. The court dismissed the testimony despite Krishna Manikya's efforts to place weight in it.[7]
Sealy encouraged a deadline by which Krishna Manikya would intervene with his forces as a punitive expedition. If Lalchukla were not handed over by 1 December 1844, a military expedition would be started. Krishna Manikya voiced his concerns about the heavy rainfall seasons and the feasibility of a successful expedition, which was unsuccessful. The government of Bengal established a military expedition under Captain Blackwood. Lalchukla's own cousin, Lalmee Singh, even participated in the punitive expedition against him with cooperation from Sealy. Lalmee Singh provided translators and guides to help Blackwood. Krishna Manikya provided coolies and logistics, such as food, to aid Blackwood's expedition.[8] Krishna Manikya followed British orders but refused deep in the expedition when asked to aid in capturing Lalchukla, preferring instead to capture Botai and leaving Blackwood's column to fight on their own.[9]
As Blackwood's expedition travelled into the Lushai Hills, it met no resistance. On December 9 1944, Blackwood reached Lalchukla's village. Lalchukla was unprepared because he had been negotiating with Krishna Manikya and didn't anticipate the British would form a punitive expedition. Lalmee Singh sent Lalchukla his messengers with an invitation to surrender. Lalchukla accepted on the condition he would surrender in his village at his zawlbuk and not the British encampment. Blackwood held little trust for Lalchukla to receive him in his settlement after no resistance.[9] He subsequently sent messengers urging him to surrender, or his houses and grain storage would be burnt down.[10] Blackwood promised Lalchukla would not be ill-treated.[11] Lalmee Singh intervened as a messenger and assured Lalchukla that he would not be put to death or kept in captivity. However, Captain Blackwood was not made aware of this assurance.[12] Lalchukla surrendered and brought a minor girl who was the only survivor of the Kachubari raids.[10]
Lalchukla's testimony claimed revenge as his chief motivator for the raid. His father, Chief Laroo, had been killed by the two Manipuri princes, Ram Singh and Tribonjit Singh.[10] The two princes were empowered by the British to check Lushai-Kuki incursions and raids.[2] The two princes who wished to overthrow the Manipur king and take the throne overran the territory of Chief Laroo out of spite, who refused to help them. Laroo had refused requests for manpower and money to aid their campaign in overthrowing the king. In the campaign, Laroo was tortured and killed.[2][13] Deputy Commissioner of Cachar, Edgar in his notes of a tour of the Lushai Hills, suspected that Lalchukla raided on orders of Mungpira and was spinning a false narrative to defend him.[12] Lalchukla claimed he did not realise that Kachubari subjects were British subjects. Lalchukla was advised by Blackwood to bring his raiding party and surrender in Sylhet. Lalchukla agreed to come to British authorities on the condition that his life would be spared. Lalchukla was received in Sylhet on 25 December 1844 with the other raiders involved. Lalchukla was charged under Regulation VIII of 1829.[10]
In court, Lalchukla stated he did not personally participate in the raid of Kachubari but did direct it to avenge the death of his father. Lalchukla was charged with murder and sentenced for life. This led to Lalchukla being deported from his settlement for the remainder of his life. Botai was set free in comparison.[14][15]
Biography
[edit]Early Life
[edit]Lalchukla was the son of Laroo (Lalrinha). His early life is not documented until his father's death in 1843 from a manipuri invasion, which prompted him to inherit chieftainship. He had a sister named Pibuk who was the mother of the chief Sukpilal.[16]
Marriage and children
[edit]Lalchukla held concubines and wives. His eldest son was Murchuilal (recorded as Gnurshailon by the British). After Lalchukla was deported to Sylhet and mandated to live in exile in the outhouse of Zamindar Ali Amzad, Murchuilal accompanied him for the first few years. Lalchukla's son would also marry the sister of Sukpilal, Banaitangi.[16]
Death
[edit]Lalchukla's death is not recorded, but he remained in Sylhet under Ali Amzad for the rest of his life. Regarding notes recorded by Deputy Commissioner Eddgar in his tour of 1871, Lalchukla was reported to be alive and in custody.[17]
References
[edit]- ^ a b c Chatterjee 1985, p. 13.
- ^ a b c d e f Chatterjee 1995, p. 118.
- ^ a b c Mackenzie 1884, p. 289.
- ^ a b Chatterjee 1985, p. 14.
- ^ Mackenzie 1884, p. 288.
- ^ Chatterjee 1985, p. 15.
- ^ Chatterjee 1985, p. 16.
- ^ Chatterjee 1985, p. 18.
- ^ a b Chatterjee 1985, p. 19.
- ^ a b c d Chatterjee 1985, p. 20.
- ^ Chatterjee 1995, p. 119.
- ^ a b Mackenzie 1884, p. 427.
- ^ Chatterjee 1985, p. 23.
- ^ Chatterjee 1995, p. 22.
- ^ Mackenzie 1884, p. 290.
- ^ a b Chatterjee 1995, p. 137.
- ^ Mackenzie 1884, p. 422.
Sources
[edit]- Chatterjee, Suhas (1985). Mizoram under British Rule. Delhi: Mittal Publications.
- Chatterjee, Suhas (1995). Mizo Chiefs and the Chiefdom. New Delhi: Mittal Publications. ISBN 81-85880-72-7.
- Guite, Jangkhomang (September 2014). "Colonialism and its Unruly? The Colonial State and Kuki Raids in Nineteenth Century Northeast India". Modern Asian Studies. 48 (5): 1118–1232. doi:10.1017/S0026749X12000674. Retrieved 23 November 2024.
- Mackenzie, Alexander (1884). History Of The Relations Of The Government With The Hill Tribes Of The North-east Frontier Of Bengal. Calcutta: Home Department Press.<
- Nag, Sajal (2008). Pied Pipers In North-East India: Bamboo-flowers, Rat-famine and the Politics of Philantropy. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers & Distributors. ISBN 81-7304-311-6.