The truth be told! The post from Pastor Hanumba presents the 1917–1919 events as a straightforward, heroic “Anglo-Kuki War” of anti-colonial resistance, complete with lengthy glowing quotes from British officers. Much of that framing is misleading or unsupported. 1. The quotes are largely unverifiable: The long passages attributed to Sir Robert Reid, C. Gimson, Major-General G.M. Waterfield, T.C. Hodson, Lt. Col. L.W. Shakespear and others (praising Kuki “organization and unity,” “extraordinary tenacity,” “fierce attachment to their land,” etc.) do not appear in the cited sources or in standard colonial records. The specific book titles listed are not standard historical works by those officers. Real contemporary British accounts describe a serious but localized “Kuki Rebellion” or “Kuki Rising” that was costly to suppress, not the polished tributes circulated in recent social-media posts. 2. How the rebellion actually started: The primary trigger was the British demand for labor corps for World War I. In early 1917, Kuki chiefs (including Chengjapao of Aishan, Khutinthang of Jampi, Pache of Chassad, and Ngullen of Khongjang) refused to supply men. They held councils, took oaths, and resisted house-tax and administrative interference. The burning of Mombi village by Political Agent J.C. Higgins in October 1917 escalated matters into open fighting. This was a real tribal uprising against colonial labor recruitment and policies, but it was not a coordinated “war of independence” by "a unified Kuki nation" against the British Crown in the sense later commemorations claim. 3. Chingakham Sanajaoba’s role as an early instigator: Sanajaoba, a Meitei figure who claimed ties to the Manipur royal family and sought power, played a documented early role in certain areas. He visited villages (including around Ukha and Henglep), told Kukis that British power was ending, promised lower house tax (from Rs 3 to Re 1), and urged action against the Maharaja’s orders. He was involved in the December 1917 raid on the Ithai toll station. In their later mercy petition, the imprisoned Kuki chiefs themselves blamed him. 4. Violence against Naga villages: While fighting the British, Kuki parties also raided neighboring Naga villages (especially Kabui/Rongmei, Chiru, and Tangkhul groups). Colonial reports document: - Early 1918: a series of raids killing 193 people and leaving 26 missing. - May 1918: raids causing nearly 100 killed or missing (examples: Pangang Chingmai Chiru – 21 killed + 5 missing; Khongakhul Kabui – 26 killed + 13 missing). - October 1918: attacks on about 20 Kabui villages under Tindong of Layang, with more than 85 killed. Additional incidents involved head-taking (e.g., Tintong’s raid on Awangkhul taking 30 heads). Some were retaliatory or linked to older feuds, but the scale of killings of non-combatants in Naga villages is recorded in British administrative reports and cannot be dismissed as incidental. 5. Surrender and petitions blaming Sanajaoba: By early 1919 the British had burned roughly 126 villages, destroyed food stocks and livestock, and applied sustained pressure. Leading chiefs surrendered or were captured. On 18 May 1919, 12 Kuki prisoners in Kohima Jail (including Chengjapao, Khutinthang, Pache, Ngulkhup, Tintong and others) submitted a petition to the Commissioner of the Surma Valley and Hill Districts. They wrote that they had “wrongfully fought with the Government on account of deceitful conduct of Manipuri Limbus and Ching Kamba Sana Chauba Singh,” that they had come to make peace themselves, and that they requested mercy and promised never to do it again. Most were released after about three years under a policy of clemency; the wider population faced fines and forced labor. The events from 1917 to 1919 were an authentic Kuki revolt against British labour recruitment and colonial rule. They included major military actions and authentic resistance. The social-media version from Kuki "thibaikon" exaggerates the size and cohesion of a “war,” fabricates or greatly embellishes British officer quotes, minimises or overlooks recorded attacks on "Naga villages", and "leaves out the chiefs’ post-defeat petitions that accused "Sanajaoba" and pleaded for mercy". The chiefs’ own words and colonial records reveal a more complex story than what the commemorative graphics and selective quotes imply.