In the nine-page document the Kuki rights body cites colonial records, constitutional provisions, and official data to reject allegations that the Kuki-Zo are “foreign settlers” or outside India’s Scheduled Tribes framework.
PC Bureau
May 19, 2026 – The Kuki Organisation for Human Rights Trust (KOHUR), a UN Special Consultative Status holder since 2016, has released a detailed rebuttal accusing the United Naga Council (UNC) of circulating a “non-factual advocacy text” that distorts history, misapplies Indian constitutional law, and presents a selective casualty timeline in the ongoing Naga-Kuki tensions.
The Nine-page document, titled “Formal Rebuttal,” systematically dismantles eight major claims made in the UNC document point by point, drawing on colonial-era records, peer-reviewed scholarship, Manipur’s royal chronicle, government data, and the published terms of the 2008 Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement. KOHUR states it issues the rebuttal “in discharge of its mandate to defend the rights, dignity, and historical record of the Kuki-Zo people,” while extending condolences to all communities affected by the violence.
Historical Claims: “19th-Century Settlers” Narrative Rejected
KOHUR directly challenges the UNC’s assertion that the Kuki-Zo “came to Manipur in the 19th century” and were merely permitted to settle in “Naga homeland” by paying nominal tribute. The rebuttal cites:
- The 1881 Census (recorded in the 1886 Gazetteer of Manipur by Dun), which documented roughly 8,000 “Old Kukis” already long-resident, alongside later “New Kuki” arrivals — proving the community numbered in the tens of thousands well before any supposed 19th-century migration.
- Colonial officers William McCulloch (1859), R. Brown (1874), and R.B. Pemberton (1835), who described the Kukis/Khongjais as “originally not migratory” and “scattered over nearly the whole” of Manipur’s hill territory.
- The Cheitharol Kumbaba (Royal Chronicle of Manipur), which records interactions with the hill people later called “Kuki” from the earliest written period, predating 1485.
- An 18th-century British account (Major Michael Symes, 1795 embassy record) describing “Cookie” (Kuki) mountains encircling Manipur on three sides in 1763 — with no mention of Nagas.
KOHUR notes that land was granted to Kuki-Zo villages by the Manipur Maharaja as sovereign guard settlements, not leased from Naga chiefs, and no treaty or revenue record supports the UNC’s tribute claim.
Constitutional Status: Kuki-Zo Are Recognised Scheduled Tribes, Not “Foreigners”
The rebuttal firmly rejects the UNC claim that Kuki-Zo are “foreigners originating from Myanmar and the Chittagong Hill Tracts.” KOHUR points out:
- Kuki-Zo tribes (Thadou, Paite, Hmar, Vaiphei, Gangte, Kom, Aimol, Anal, and many others) have been listed as Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, and its 1956 Modification — a status held for nearly seven decades across Northeast India.
- Indigeneity is not a legal criterion for ST status; the Lokur Committee (1965) criteria focus on culture, isolation, and backwardness — not “first arrival.”
- Citizenship and ST status are governed by separate laws. No competent authority has reclassified the Kuki-Zo, and only Parliament and the President under Article 342 can amend the ST list.
Demographic and Poppy Cultivation Allegations Dismissed
KOHUR calls the UNC’s “demographic invasion” and “Zalengam” claims methodologically flawed. Village-count comparisons ignore district reorganisations since 2016 and the traditional Kuki practice of small, lineage-based hamlets that naturally subdivide. “Zalengam” is described as an ideological idea from a single writer, not an official Kuki-Zo demand; the community seeks only a Territorial Council or separate administration under Article 3 of the Constitution — fully within India’s framework.
On poppy cultivation, KOHUR cites the Government of Manipur’s own 2017–2024 remote-sensing eradication data showing destroyed acreage across both Kuki- and Naga-dominated districts, with Ukhrul (Naga-majority) ranking high. The rebuttal labels collective ethnic blame “a recognised marker of hate propaganda.”
READ: Only in Manipur—Killing, Mass Abduction, but No Probe, No Suspects, No Arrest
Suspension of Operations (SoO) Framework Defended
The UNC’s portrayal of Kuki armed groups under the 2008 SoO (signed by the Government of India, Government of Manipur, KNO, and UPF) as a “proxy” to suppress Nagas is called an inversion of the agreement’s terms. KOHUR highlights that the Ground Rules explicitly prohibit offensive operations, association with other armed groups, and any breach of Manipur’s territorial integrity. Cadres are confined to camps with weapons under double-lock arrangements; the Joint Monitoring Group (with government and security forces) has issued no finding of systematic proxy warfare.
Recent Violence (February–May 2026): Multi-Directional, Not One-Sided
KOHUR’s strongest rebuttal concerns the UNC’s two-phase timeline of “Kuki armed aggression.” The document provides specific counter-examples of Kuki-Zo victims omitted by the UNC:
- March 2026, Litan Sareikhong/Ukhrul: Two Kuki civilians (Thengin Baite and Thangboimang Khongsai) repairing a water pipeline were seized and killed after an initial drunken altercation and subsequent settlement by the Kuki side. Kuki-Zo released over 20 Tangkhul civilians unharmed.
- 24 April 2026, Mullam/Songphal, Ukhrul: Tangkhul militants allegedly launched a pre-dawn attack on sleeping Kuki villages, burning houses and killing two Kuki-Zo volunteers (Paominlun Haolai and Letlal Sitlhou) in self-defence.
- 13 May 2026, Kotlen-Kotzim “Zero Point”: Three Kuki Christian leaders (Rev. Dr. Vumthang Sithlou, Rev. Kaigoulun Lhouvum, and Pastor Paogoulen Sithlou) returning from a peace meeting in Churachandpur were ambushed and killed; four others injured.
KOHUR notes that senior security officials have acknowledged insurgent involvement across communities, that many FIRs name only “unknown miscreants,” and that the Kuki-Zo have borne a large share of displacement since May 2023.
KOHUR’s Call for Accountability and Peace
In its concluding section, KOHUR urges:
- A judicially monitored investigation by the National Investigation Agency or a Supreme Court-supervised Special Investigation Team into all February–May 2026 incidents, with priority on the 13 May church leaders’ ambush.
- Publication of all Joint Monitoring Group findings on SoO violations.
- An immediate end to collective ethnic labelling (“foreigners,” “aggressors,” “criminals”).
KOHUR reiterates its willingness to engage with the UNC and all communities “on the basis of the verifiable factual record and a shared commitment to the safety and dignity of all peoples of the State.”
The full rebuttal is available on KOHUR’s website (kohur.org). As ethnic tensions in Manipur continue, the document underscores deep divisions over history, land, and victimhood narratives more than three years after violence erupted in May 2023.
