Despite Centre’s vigorous efforts, complex issues delay Manipur solution
By Rabindra Nath Sinha
KOLKATA: Actions and reactions, depending upon the situation that keeps on evolving, distinguish the narrative of the ethnic conflict in Manipur. The ministry of home affairs (MHA) held meetings on November 6 and 7 with the representatives of United People’s Front (UPF) and Kuki National Organisation (KNO), which are the two umbrella outfits of 24 insurgent groups under the purview of the Suspension of Operation (SoO). The two-day talks qualifies to be reckoned as a significant engagement between MHA and the 24 “sort of recognized” Kuki-Zo insurgent groups, after the previous deliberations on September 4 last, when the defunct SoO was reactivated, much to the chagrin of the Meitei civil society organizations (CSOs), which are against the very concept of SoO which was introduced in the course of 2008.
The reactivation deal has new terms covering settlement within the Constitution, territorial integrity assurances, cadre verification, deportation of foreign nationals and camp relocation. SoO had provision for extension at pre-determined intervals. However, on February 29, 2024, that is, 10 months after the outbreak of ethnic violence on May 3, 2023 and by when Manipur’s law and order situation was at its worst, then chief minister N Biren Singh opted out of the tripartite SoO arguing that the groups within its purview were violating the ground rules.
[It may be mentioned that before May 3, 2023, these groups were demanding autonomous territorial councils under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. After violence intensified and the number of displaced persons continued to increase, they started raising the demand for UT status with legislature for the hill areas].
As mentioned at the outset that actions and reactions remain part of the Manipur narrative, it was now the turn of the Meitei CSOs to react and offer their version of the past ground realities and cite in support “historical timeline, relevant rules and judicial rulings”. In a memorandum dated November 17, 2025 to the Prime Minister, with copies to the Union home minister and A K Mishra, advisor (North-East) to MHA, the Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (Cocomi) has contended : “The assertion that the hill areas of Manipur were never under the rule of the Maharaja of Manipur is a deliberate misrepresentation of historical and legal facts” intended to justify the demand for a separate Kuki administrative territory. “On the contrary, historical records, the Manipur State Darbar Rules (1907) and post-Independence judicial rulings (1963 and 1979) … affirmed that the entire territory … , including the hill areas, remained under the continuous and lawful jurisdiction of the State and its successors”.
The claim to ancestral land rights by Kuki groups is challenged by the historical timeline and the nature of their settlement, which was primarily a colonial-era phenomenon. Under the colonial settlement policy, Kuki migration into the hill tracts began around 1840 following the British victory in the First Anglo-Burmese War (1824-1826). This was the outcome of a carefully calibrated British colonial frontier strategy designed to secure the volatile eastern frontier. A pivotal role in this geo-political engineering was played by Lt-Col William McCulloch, British political agent in Manipur (1844-1863).
Kukis were systematically settled in areas that gradually became villages to achieve three objectives – create a human buffer zone against raids from the Lushai Hills, bring land under revenue-generating agricultural use and employ the population as a source of labour and auxiliary forces. This mid-19th century episode contrasts sharply with the “continuous and well-documented habitation of Meiteis and other indigenous hill communities for over a millennium”, the memorandum to the Prime minister signed by Cocomi convenor Khuraijam Athouba has pointed out. Athouba has also said that the term ‘Kuki’ is a colonial construct, “an exonym applied by the British for administrative convenience to collectively describe a diverse group of clans and tribes inhabiting the Chin-Lushai Hills and adjoining areas.
The entire territory of Manipur – both hills and valleys – was always under the administration of the Kings of Manipur, the state Darbar and later, the state government. The rules for management (1907) explicitly established the Darbar as the administrative authority for both regions, managing land, forests and taxation. The British officers regularly recorded that the forests and territories were the property of the Maharaja. Upon Manipur’s merger with India, the ownership of all such lands lawfully vested in the state government.
The continuity was safeguarded by Article 372 of the Constitution, the Part C States laws Act (1949) and the Merged States Laws Act (1949). The legal framework was upheld by the Manipur High Court (1963) and the Gauhati High Court (1979). Therefore, the Union government should dismiss the Kuki claims to “indigeneity” and ancestral land rights, which are “ahistorical” and contrary to the documented legal and administrative continuity of the State of Manipur. Granting their demand would be tantamount to undermining the territorial integrity and legitimate rights of the state’s indigenous people, Cocomi has argued. (IPA Service)
