Sacred Hill Sites Become New Kuki-Meitei Flashpoint in Manipur

With a December 28 rally by Meitei groups expected to mobilise large numbers, the dispute over Koubru and Thangjing risks deepening ethnic tensions in a state already grappling with prolonged unrest and fragile peace efforts

BY PC Bureau

December 27, 2025 — With ethnic and cultural assertions intensifying in Manipur, the Committee on Protection of Tribal Areas Manipur–Kuki Hills (COPTAM-KH) has issued a comprehensive rebuttal to Meitei claims over the hill sites of Koubru (Koupulu) and Thangjing (Thangting). The rebuttal comes on the eve of a planned mass rally on December 28 by Meitei organisations demanding access for pilgrims to these sacred hills.

The dispute reflects deeper contestations over territorial rights, historical narratives, and constitutional safeguards for tribal land in Manipur. The Kuki body’s statement strongly challenges recent state action and claims that the Meitei groups’ position not only undermines tribal autonomy but also misuses heritage law to alter long-established boundaries.

Background: Rally Call by Meitei Organisations

Earlier this week, the Committee on Protection and Preservation of Historic Rights of Koubru and Thangjing Hill Ranges (CPPKT) announced a mass rally scheduled for December 28. The event, backed by multiple Meitei civil society groups, clubs and cultural organisations, aims to assert Meitei pilgrims’ right of access to the Koubru and Thangjing hills, which are considered sacred in Meitei spiritual tradition.

According to CPPKT, the rally will begin at Ibudhou Thangjing Laishang and conclude at the H. Nilamani Ngangkhalampak Sports Complex in Bishnupur district. Organisers allege that access to the sites has been obstructed due to what they term the “occupation” of these hills by armed Kuki elements, and express dissatisfaction with the Government of Manipur’s handling of public assurances regarding pilgrimage access.

CPPKT also claims that previous pleas to administration — including memoranda submitted to the Governor requesting safe pilgrimage arrangements — have not been honoured, fuelling frustration and mobilisation among Meitei groups ahead of the Sajibu festival period next year.

READ: Congress Plans Nationwide Stir Against VB-G RAM G Act

COPTAM-KH’s Rebuttal: Core Legal and Constitutional Assertions

In a detailed press release, COPTAM-KH rejected the premise of Meitei claims and the mass mobilisation’s justifications on several grounds — constitutional, historical, procedural and territorial.

1. Constitutional Safeguards: Samatha Doctrine

COPTAM-KH invoked the Supreme Court’s Samatha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) ruling to underline fundamental protections for tribal land in Scheduled Areas:

• Tribal land is inalienable and cannot be transferred, leased or taken over by non-tribals, private entities, or the State.
• The State cannot circumvent this prohibition indirectly through labels such as “heritage”, “public purpose”, “development”, “forest”, or “protection”.
• Customary law, traditional possession and chieftainship jurisdiction are legally enforceable rights, not mere administrative concessions.
• Any colourable exercise of power disguising land alienation under culture or conservation pretexts is constitutionally void.

COPTAM-KH argues that reclassifying tribal territory as “protected” on cultural grounds effectively disenfranchises customary tribal ownership and contravenes these settled legal principles.

2. Contesting the 2020–2022 Notification Process

The committee claims that the government’s process of declaring Koubru and Thangjing as “protected sites” was procedurally flawed and unconstitutional:

• The original Manipur Gazette Notification No. 275 dated December 1, 2020 was allegedly circulated digitally during the COVID-19 lockdown without physical posting near the actual sites, violating Section 4(1) of the Manipur Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1976.
• Affected tribal villages were not given an effective opportunity to object, which the law requires.
• Formal objections raised by village chiefs from Saitu, Tujang-I, Ukha-Loikhai, and Gothol were dismissed, with the state citing a “No Objection” from the Forest Department — an authority, COPTAM-KH says, that has no jurisdiction over tribal land.

According to the body, these procedural defects render the notifications void ab initio and a product of “procedural fraud and colourable exercise of power”.

3. Koubru and Thangjing: Judicially and Historically Recognised Kuki Territories

COPTAM-KH detailed territorial demarcations from colonial and pre-Independence records that it says conclusively establish both hills as part of Kuki ancestral territory:

• Koubru (Koupulu): Lies entirely within the traditional domain of Saitu village in Kangpokpi district. Boundaries recorded in the 1946–47 Manipur State Darbar ruling, based on British maps from 1907, affirm its place in Kuki chiefdom territory well before post-Independence religious claims.
• Thangjing (Thangting): Falls within customary lands of Ukha-Loikhai and Gothol villages in Churachandpur district, forming part of Haokip Reserved Land as recorded in colonial revenue and boundary records dating to 1907.

These records, the committee asserts, leave “no ambiguity” about the hills’ association with the Kuki community and not with valley-based territorial claims.

4. Colonial-Era Descriptions and Historical Continuity

COPTAM-KH reinforced its position using British-era archival references, including the Indian Historical Records Commission proceedings (1925), which described Manipur as a “valley enclave surrounded by large tracts of Kuki mountains”. Earlier accounts from 1763 by a British commander also depicted the region in similar terms — reinforcing the argument that Kuki hill territory predates valley-centric sacred narratives.

The committee said that portraying Koubru and Thangjing as sacred valley deities’ sites represents retrospective cultural projection, unsupported by revenue maps, adjudicated boundaries or customary possession by valley communities. According to COPTAM-KH, such narratives function as tools of territorial expansion rather than genuine heritage preservation.

5. Alleged Constitutional and Legal Violations

COPTAM-KH listed multiple constitutional defects it says are inherent in the protected site declarations:

• Violation of Article 371C for failing to consult the Hill Areas Committee.
• Violation of Article 300A, amounting to deprivation of tribal property without due process or compensation.
• Jurisdictional incompetence, since the Forest Department has no authority over tribal land.
• Misuse of heritage law to alter land control rather than protect historical monuments.

The committee characterised the government’s declarations not as heritage preservation, but as constitutional trespass that undermines tribal autonomy and erodes legally protected protections guaranteed under Article 371C of the Indian Constitution.

Warning and Call for Compliance

In closing, COPTAM-KH warned valley-based organisations and state institutions against further attempts to reclassify tribal hill areas under cultural or administrative pretexts. The organisation emphasised that tribal jurisdictions are not extensions of valley administrative or cultural domains, and that overriding tribal land rights without consent and constitutional compliance is unlawful.

The group reiterated that respect for tribal territorial integrity is not optional — it is a binding constitutional obligation. Any further unilateral notifications or symbolic declarations, it said, would invite judicial scrutiny and constitutional intervention.

Outlook and Potential Impact

The contrasting assertions by Meitei cultural organisations and COPTAM-KH reflect ongoing contestations over identity, heritage and land rights in Manipur. The mass rally planned for December 28 could further sharpen these tensions, bringing both historical grievances and legal arguments into the public sphere.

Whether these disputes are resolved through dialogue, judicial intervention or political negotiation remains to be seen. But for now, the Koubru–Thangjing controversy underscores the complex interplay of constitutional law, customary rights and ethnic narratives in shaping Manipur’s socio-political landscape.