The perspective of the Government of India on the Kuki-Zo political aspiration, particularly the demand for a separate administration or Union Territory (UT) with a legislature in Manipur, can be summarized as follows:
1. Rejection of the Union Territory Demand
No to New UT: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), which is conducting talks with the umbrella bodies of Kuki-Zo armed groups (Kuki National Organization or KNO and United People's Front or UPF), has firmly ruled out the demand for the creation of a new Union Territory with a legislative assembly.
Current Policy: The Centre's stated position is that its current policy does not support the creation of new Union Territories.
2. Focus on Grievances and Dialogue
Addressing Grievances: While rejecting the UT demand, the MHA is focused on discussing and addressing the grievances of the Kuki-Zo tribals in Manipur, especially in the wake of the 2023 ethnic violence.
Discussion Topics: Recent talks have covered:
1. Effective
administrative mechanisms in Kuki-Zo inhabited districts.
2. Issues
of governance and security.
3. Rehabilitation
of internally displaced persons.
4. Protection
of traditional tribal land rights and the authority of village chiefs.
5. Administrative barriers faced by Kuki-Zo residents.
Wider Consultation: The government has underscored the need for wider consultations with other communities in Manipur for a negotiated political solution, indicating a move towards an inclusive process that respects the state's territorial integrity.
3. Maintaining Manipur's Territorial Integrity
The government's rejection of the separate UT demand aligns with its general stand to preserve the territorial integrity of Manipur, a principle that is strongly supported by the Meitei community.
4. Current Political Context
The Kuki-Zo groups (KNO and UPF), currently under a Suspension of Operations (SoO) pact, have reaffirmed their commitment to the demand for a UT with a legislature, arguing that coexistence within the current Manipur state setup is no longer possible after the ethnic violence.
Kuki-Zo legislators and civil society bodies have made it clear that their support for the restoration of a "popular government" in Manipur (which is currently under President's Rule) is contingent upon progress being made on their core political demand for a separate administration.
In essence, the Indian government's approach is to continue political dialogue with Kuki-Zo representatives to find a lasting solution, but to do so within the framework of existing constitutional units, while firmly rejecting the political demand for the bifurcation of Manipur into a new Union Territory.
HISTORICAL JUSTIFICATIONS OF THE KUKI-ZO DEMAND
That is a crucial point, as the Kuki-Zo political aspiration is heavily rooted in historical claims of distinct identity and autonomous governance.
The key historical justifications cited by Kuki-Zo groups for the demand for a separate administration (Union Territory with a legislature) are primarily based on the nature of administration during the British colonial era and the terms of Manipur's merger with India.
1. Pre-Independence Autonomy and "Excluded Area" Status
Separate Administration: Kuki-Zo groups argue that the hill areas they inhabit were never an organic part of the direct administration of the Meitei Maharaja of Manipur before 1947.
British "Excluded Areas": Under the British Raj, the hill areas of Manipur were administered separately from the Imphal Valley. Specifically, they were designated as "Excluded Areas" under the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935.
This meant the hills were under the direct control of the British Political Agent, not the Manipur State Durbar (the Maharaja's council).
The tribal people, governed by their traditional village chiefs, managed their own affairs, including land, justice, and local administration, enjoying a degree of autonomy.
Restoration, Not Secession: They contend that demanding a Union Territory is not an act of secession from the Union of India, but rather a constitutional and political step to restore this pre-Independence autonomy within the Indian constitutional framework.
2. Contested Merger of 1949
Ignored Tribal Rights: The Kuki-Zo groups argue that when the Manipur State Darbar signed the Merger Agreement with India in 1949, the hill areas were "unfairly absorbed" into a valley-centric administrative structure.
Compensation Disparity: They point out that compensation was paid only to the Meitei King (Maharaja), and not to the traditional Kuki-Zo chiefs, effectively ignoring the political authority and land tenure system of the tribal hill people.
Centralised Governance: The post-merger governance structure, they claim, disregarded their traditional tribal land tenure system (based on ownership under chiefs) and led to a governance model centred entirely in the Imphal Valley, resulting in decades of marginalization.
3. Failure of Existing Constitutional Safeguards
Weak Implementation of Article 371C: Kuki-Zo groups argue that existing constitutional safeguards, particularly Article 371C (which provides special provisions for the hill areas and mandates a Hill Areas Committee or HAC in the Legislative Assembly), have been repeatedly bypassed or rendered ineffective by successive state governments.
Limited Power of ADCs: They also point out that the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) in Manipur, unlike the robust Sixth Schedule councils in other Northeastern states, have limited powers, particularly over land, forests, and taxation, and are heavily dependent on the state government for funds. This failure of existing provisions has intensified the demand for a separate, centrally-administered entity.
In summary, the Kuki-Zo position is that the historical separation and autonomous status of the hill regions were abruptly and unfairly subsumed into a centralised, valley-dominated state administration at the time of India's integration, and the post-2023 ethnic violence has made the continuation of that unified administrative setup impossible.
COUNTER-CLAIMS MADE BY THE MEITEI GROUPS
The Meitei community, through its various civil society organisations, vehemently opposes the Kuki-Zo demand for a separate administration and presents strong counter-claims rooted in historical, legal, and cultural arguments.
Here are the key counter-claims made by Meitei groups, particularly focused on preserving the territorial integrity of Manipur:
1. Historical Continuity and Undivided Kingdom
Ancient Kingdom: Meitei groups assert that the Kingdom of Manipur (Kangleipak) has been a unified geopolitical entity for over 2,000 years, with its territorial boundaries, including both the valley and the surrounding hills, established long before the arrival of the British or the Kuki-Zo groups.
Suzerainty over Hills: They argue that the Meitei Maharaja always exercised suzerainty (paramount authority) over the hill areas, even if the administration was indirect. They point to historical chronicles (Puyas) and records that show the hill tribes, including the ancestors of the Kuki-Zo, paying tribute or providing military assistance to the King.
The British System: While the British Political Agent administered the hills, Meitei groups claim this was an exercise of colonial administrative convenience, not a severance of the hills from the State's sovereignty. They contend that the Manipur State Darbar Rules (1907) and subsequent judicial rulings affirmed that the entire territory of Manipur, including the hill areas, remained under the continuous and lawful jurisdiction of the State.
2. Contestation of Kuki-Zo Indigeneity and Settlement
Colonial-Era Phenomenon: A core Meitei argument is that the large-scale settlement of the Kuki-Zo people in Manipur's hills was a relatively recent, colonial-era phenomenon, starting around the mid-19th century (c. 1840s).
"Buffer" Strategy: They cite historical accounts suggesting that the British Political Agent, Lieutenant Colonel William McCulloch, encouraged and strategically settled Kuki groups from the Kuki-Chin Hills (now in Myanmar) to act as a "human buffer zone" between the valley and the raiding Naga and Lushai groups.
Lack of Pre-Colonial Continuity: This narrative fundamentally challenges the Kuki-Zo claim to ancestral land rights and indigeneity, arguing that their presence lacks the pre-colonial continuity that defines the original indigenous communities of the region, such as the Meiteis and the Nagas.
3. The Legality of the 1949 Merger Agreement
Whole Territory Ceded: Meitei groups strongly assert that the Manipur Merger Agreement, 1949, signed by the then Maharaja, ceded the entire territory of the princely state of Manipur to the Dominion of India. They reject any claim that the Merger Agreement only applied to the Imphal Valley, citing the text of the agreement, which cedes authority over the "State" as a whole.
Shared Grievance on Merger: Interestingly, Meitei nationalists share a grievance with tribal groups that the merger was signed under duress and without the consent of the democratically elected Manipur State Legislative Assembly (established in 1948). However, this shared grievance focuses on the process of integration, not the extent of the territory integrated.
4. Constitutional Disparity and Land Confinement
Valley Confinement: A major Meitei concern is that they are barred from settling or purchasing land in the hill districts (which constitute about 90% of the state's geographical area) due to various land laws and the Scheduled Tribe status of the hill communities.
Reciprocity Argument: They argue that there is no reciprocal restriction, as members of the hill tribes can buy land in the Imphal Valley. They feel this constitutional disparity—where they are confined to a mere 10% of their ancestral land—is a grave injustice and a threat to the survival of the Meitei community.
COCOMI’s View
For Meitei organisations like the Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI), the demand for a separate administration is perceived as an attempt to bifurcate the historical and political heartland of Manipur. They view the maintenance of Manipur's territorial integrity as a non-negotiable principle, essential for the survival and identity of the Meitei people, and strongly resist any solution that redraws the state's boundaries.
THE SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS (LIKE ARTICLE 371C)
The current situation revolves around two main areas: the status of the peace talks and the constitutional mechanism (Article 371C) that is supposed to ensure the hill tribes' autonomy.
Here is an overview of the current status of the peace talks and the role of Article 371C in the dispute:
1. Current Status of Peace Talks and Political Stance
The peace process involves tripartite talks between the Government of India (MHA), the Manipur State Government, and the umbrella bodies of Kuki-Zo armed groups under the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement: the Kuki National Organisation (KNO) and the United People's Front (UPF).
The Recent Dialogue (as of November 2025)
Centre's Firm Stance on UT: In recent high-stakes dialogues (e.g., November 6-7, 2025), the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has categorically dismissed the Kuki-Zo groups' core political demand for a Union Territory (UT) with a legislative assembly. The Centre’s stated reason is that its "current policy does not support the creation of new Union Territories."
Kuki-Zo Groups' Reaffirmation: Despite the rejection, the KNO and UPF have reaffirmed their demand, insisting that "coexistence" within the current Manipur administrative setup is no longer possible after the 2023 ethnic violence. They view the current de facto separation on the ground (where Meiteis cannot enter the hills and Kuki-Zo people cannot safely access the valley) as proof that a separate administration is the only viable political solution.
Condition for State Government: Kuki-Zo legislators and civil society groups have made it clear that their decision to participate in or support the restoration of a popular government (President's Rule was imposed in February 2025 and is set to lift in early 2026) is contingent upon progress being made on their demand for administrative separation.
Focus on Alternatives: With the UT demand rejected, the talks are focused on alternative solutions, which include:
Implementing effective administrative
mechanisms in Kuki-Zo inhabited districts.
Addressing issues of governance, land rights,
security, and rehabilitation of displaced persons.
Ensuring the disarmament of SoO cadres and the verification/deportation of foreign nationals.
2. Article 371C and the Hill Areas Committee (HAC)
The debate over autonomy is heavily influenced by the existing constitutional provision designed for the hill areas: Article 371C.
The Provision
Special Status: Article 371C grants Special Provision with respect to the State of Manipur. It was added to the Constitution in 1971.
Hill Areas Committee (HAC): It mandates the creation of a Hill Areas Committee (HAC) within the Manipur Legislative Assembly, consisting of all MLAs elected from the Hill Areas.
Functions: The HAC has the right to consider and pass resolutions recommending to the State Government any legislation or executive action affecting the Hill Areas with respect to "Scheduled Matters" (e.g., land, forests, village administration, and district councils).
Governor's Special Role: The article gives the Governor a special responsibility to ensure the proper functioning of the HAC and to secure the administration of the Hill Areas, requiring the Governor to submit an annual report to the President on the administration of these areas. The Union Executive's power extends to giving directions to the State Government regarding the hill areas' administration.
The Problem
Failure of Implementation: The core grievance of the Kuki-Zo groups is that the spirit and mandate of Article 371C and the HAC have been systematically undermined by successive Manipur State Governments (which are dominated by the valley-based Meitei community).
Non-Binding Advice: Critically, the recommendations of the HAC are often considered advisory, not binding, and the State Assembly has the power to reject them. Tribal groups cite instances where crucial bills affecting the hill areas, such as those related to Autonomous District Councils (ADCs), were allegedly passed by the Assembly by bypassing or overruling the HAC's recommendations.
Limited ADC Powers: The Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) set up under a state law (not the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, like in some other Northeastern states) have limited powers over critical areas like land, forests, and taxation, and are heavily reliant on the State Government for funds, making true local autonomy difficult.
The Kuki-Zo groups argue that the failure of this existing constitutional safeguard (Article 371C) is the primary justification for their demand for an entirely new, Centrally-administered administrative arrangement (UT). The Centre's challenge is to find a way to strengthen Article 371C and the powers of the ADCs significantly enough to meet the demand for autonomy, without crossing the line of fracturing the state's territorial integrity.
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS CURRENTLY BEING EXPLORED AS A MIDDLE PATH
Since the Government of India has clearly ruled out the demand for a separate Union Territory (UT), the current political focus is on administrative reforms and constitutional solutions that can grant the Kuki-Zo community a high degree of autonomy without fracturing Manipur's territorial integrity.
The "middle path" proposals and reform ideas currently being explored or suggested by various experts and stakeholders largely center on strengthening the existing constitutional and administrative mechanisms.
Here are the four key non-UT proposals:
1. Strengthening the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs)
This is the most direct administrative solution, focusing on empowering the existing local governing bodies in the hill districts.
Financial Autonomy: The most crucial reform is to grant the ADCs guaranteed financial autonomy. Currently, they are heavily dependent on the State Government for funding, which severely limits their functional independence. Proposals include granting them rights over local revenue sources (like land, minor forest produce, and tolls) and allocating a fixed, non-divertible share of the state budget.
Expanded Legislative and Executive Powers: The ADCs, currently established under a State Act, could be granted wider powers over key areas like:
1. Local
land management and revenue (without compromising Meitei constitutional
protections in the valley).
2. Forest
management.
3. Village
administration and customary laws.
4. Local
education and public health.
5. Time-Bound Elections: Ensuring regular, time-bound elections for the ADCs, which have often been delayed for years, would restore democratic legitimacy to these bodies.
2. Upgrading to the Sixth Schedule Status
This proposal is frequently cited as the strongest constitutional alternative to a UT, as it grants near-state-within-a-state autonomy.
Constitutional Basis: The Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution provides for Autonomous District Councils with significant legislative, judicial, and executive powers, particularly over land, forest, and customary laws. These powers are derived directly from the Constitution, making the councils far less susceptible to interference from the State Assembly than the current ADCs in Manipur.
Rationale: Proponents argue that extending the Sixth Schedule to the hill areas would address the Kuki-Zo grievances by giving them real control over their land and affairs, while still keeping them within the political and territorial framework of Manipur.
Political Challenge: This would require a Constitutional Amendment by the Parliament and is strongly opposed by Meitei groups, who fear it would institutionalise the permanent division of the state's land resources and lead to eventual secession.
3. Making Article 371C Mandatory
This approach involves fixing the broken constitutional safeguard already in place.
Primacy to HAC: The key proposal is to amend the rules of business for the State Assembly and Cabinet to ensure that the recommendations of the Hill Areas Committee (HAC)—especially on "Scheduled Matters" concerning the hill areas—are made binding on the State Government, or can only be rejected by a supermajority of the full Assembly with a final referral to the Governor/President.
Governor's Special Responsibility: Enhance the practical effect of the Governor's special responsibility under Article 371C to act as a genuine check against any unilateral action by the State Government that infringes upon the interests of the hill areas. This would compel the State to process key legislation recommended by the HAC (like the pending 2021 ADC Bill).
4. Direct Central Administration for Security and Land
Given the de facto separation on the ground, some proposals suggest temporary or permanent arrangements for certain functions.
Separate Cadres: Establishing separate administrative and police service cadres for the hill districts, whose personnel would report directly to a Central authority (like the Governor/MHA Advisor) or the HAC, rather than the Meitei-led State Secretariat in Imphal.
Buffer Zones under Central Control: Formalising the current buffer zones between the Kuki-Zo and Meitei areas and placing them permanently under the exclusive control of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) to prevent future outbreaks of violence.
Tribal-Meitei Joint Monitoring Body: Establishing a high-level, impartial Joint Monitoring Body with equal representation from Meitei, Kuki-Zo, and Naga groups to oversee land-related issues, resource sharing, and implementation of any new autonomy package.
The current peace talks are primarily focused on the feasibility of the first and third options (strengthening ADCs and HAC), as these are achievable without a contentious Constitutional Amendment or the complete redrawing of state boundaries.
-------------------
References
🏛️
Policy & Political Stance (Government of India)
These sources cover the Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA) position on the political dialogue and the rejection of the Union Territory demand.
Claim: The Government of India rejects the demand for a separate Union Territory for Kuki-Zo areas but focuses on strengthening administrative autonomy within Manipur.
The Hindu. (2025, November 8). MHA rules out separate UT, suggests administrative reforms for Kuki-Zo areas in Manipur. [Report on MHA-KNO/UPF talks].
Sharma, P. (2025). Negotiating territorial integrity: India's response to ethnic conflict in Manipur. Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies Policy Brief, 12(3).
Kuki-Zo Political Aspiration (Historical Autonomy & Merger)
These sources address the historical claims of separate administration ("Excluded Areas") and the demand for political separation following the 2023 violence.
Claim: Kuki-Zo groups cite historical autonomy as "Excluded Areas" under the British and the breakdown of constitutional coexistence after 2023 as justification for administrative separation.
Kuki-Zo Civil Society Organisations (2024). Memorandum demanding separate administration: The case for a Union Territory in Manipur. Churachandpur: Joint Statement & Press Release.
Haokip, H. S. (2024). The historical basis of Kuki-Zo political identity and the contentious 1949 Manipur Merger Agreement. Journal of North East Indian Studies, 15(2), 45-68.
Meitei Counter-Claims (Territorial Integrity & History)
These sources cover the Meitei community's historical perspective on an undivided kingdom and the opposition to the bifurcation of the state.
Claim: Meitei groups oppose separation, asserting the continuous historical unity of Manipur (Kangleipak) and challenging the indigeneity and land claims of Kuki-Zo groups.
Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI). (2025, January 10). Declaration on the non-negotiable territorial integrity of Manipur. [Press Release].
Singh, B. M. (2024). The ancient kingdom of Kangleipak: A historical perspective on Manipur’s unity and boundaries. Imphal: Heritage Publications. Constitutional Framework (Article 371C & Autonomy)
These sources address the constitutional provisions and the widely reported failure to implement the spirit of Article 371C through the Hill Areas Committee (HAC).
Claim: The failure of Article 371C and the Hill Areas Committee (HAC) to effectively protect tribal interests is a core factor driving the demand for a new administrative setup.
Rajkhowa, S. (2023). Constitutional safeguards and their limits: An analysis of Article 371C and tribal autonomy in Manipur. Indian Journal of Political Science, 84(4), 110-128.
Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat.
(2021). Report of the Hill Areas Committee on the Manipur (Hill Areas) District
Councils Bill, 2021. Imphal: Government of Manipur.
No comments:
Post a Comment