The Kuki National Organisation and United People’s Front have warned against conducting an NRC before the Census, rejecting a proposed 1951 cut-off and alleging it could be used to target the Kuki-Zo population.
BY Navin Upadhyay
New Delhi, September 10: Two umbrella organisations of Kuki-Zo armed groups under the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement with the Centre on Thursday renewed their demand for a Union Territory with its own legislature in Manipur, calling it the “only viable constitutional and political settlement” for their community, while warning that an NRC exercise before completion of the Census could be used to target Kuki-Zo people.
The Kuki National Organisation (KNO) and the United People’s Front (UPF) said there could be “no return to the pre-May 2023 status quo”, arguing that the violence and displacement since then had made the earlier political arrangement untenable.
The two organisations described the ethnic violence that began on May 3, 2023, as “state-sponsored ethnic cleansing” of Kuki-Zo people, an allegation rejected by Meitei organisations and state authorities.
Speaking to reporters in New Delhi, KNO leader Seilen Haokip and UPF leader Aaron Kipgen said the continuing violence was the result of what they called misplaced government priorities and an over-reliance on security forces to resolve a political conflict.
“In Manipur, you can hope to achieve lasting peace only through opening serious dialogue with Kuki-Zo groups about their political demands for a Union Territory. Security forces can’t bring peace in a state where one community has been historically traumatised and brutalised,” Haokip said.
Kipgen accused the Manipur government of failing to act against perpetrators of violence against Kuki-Zo people and questioned how the two communities could coexist without what he called accountability for attacks.
He referred to the Arambai Tenggol, a Meitei group that Kuki-Zo organisations have accused of involvement in attacks, and questioned the political response to allegations against its members.
READ: Adani Firm Gets Coal Block in Tribal Belt, Cong Cries Foul
“How could we expect to co-exist in a state where the Chief Minister himself gives a clean chit to a group like Arambai Tenggol, which was involved in rape and killing of our women, looting of weapons and attacks on security forces?” he said.
The leaders also displayed videos purporting to show armed members of Arambai Tenggol moving through the streets. Kipgen questioned why the group should be described as a cultural organisation when its leaders have faced serious criminal allegations.
The two organisations also criticised the recent security operation at a Kuki Liberation Army (KLA) camp in Kangpokpi, saying it violated the SoO framework.
“This is outrageous. According to the SoO framework, such raids were not allowed, and any inspection could take place only with the district police’s help. In this case, the police was not present and the KLA cadre was arrested,” Haokip said.
Kipgen alleged that several NSCN (IM) camps were operating in Manipur without similar action being taken against them.
“You expect us to turn a blind eye to such one-sided action against our boys. This is not going to happen,” he said, adding that the CRPF’s CoBRA unit could not expect to bring peace through force.
He said the political demands of the Kuki-Zo groups had to be addressed for a lasting settlement.
Why the groups now insist on a Union Territory
KNO and UPF said their earlier demand for a territorial council within Manipur was no longer adequate.
They cited the physical separation of the communities, destruction of homes and churches, large-scale displacement and what they described as the failure of the existing state machinery to protect Kuki-Zo people.
The groups want a Union Territory modelled on Article 239A, which provides for a Union Territory with a legislature, similar to the constitutional arrangement for Puducherry.
They said the proposed arrangement should protect hill land, customary practices, community rights, culture and identity while providing an elected government with legislative powers.
The groups stressed that the demand was not for secession from India, but for a constitutional political settlement within the Union.
The Centre has previously indicated that its current policy does not favour the creation of new Union Territories and has maintained that any political settlement in Manipur must take into account the interests of all communities.
The revised SoO agreement signed in September 2025 with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the then President’s Rule administration also upheld Manipur’s territorial integrity while allowing political dialogue to continue within the Constitution.
Census before NRC
The KNO and UPF also opposed an NRC exercise in Manipur before completion of the Census.
Their position comes days after the Manipur Assembly renewed its demand for an NRC using 1951 as the base year.
Senior Kuki-Zo leader and former bureaucrat W.L. Hangsing said the demand for a 1951-based NRC was politically motivated and linked to the impending delimitation exercise.
“If Census takes place, delimitation will follow. That will increase the number of seats in the hills by three. The Meiteis don’t want it,” he said.
Hangsing rejected the Assembly resolution on the 1951 cut-off and said the Kuki-Zo community would not accept such a decision.
“We are not going to accept any such decision of the government and may think of even boycotting the NRC,” he said.
The KNO and UPF leaders argued that a Census should precede any citizenship register, saying population and citizenship questions must be based on comprehensive and officially verified data.
They also argued that using 1951 as the sole baseline would disadvantage hill communities because many remote settlements had limited access to government offices and official enumeration at the time.
Meitei organisations and several Naga groups, however, have pushed for an NRC before the Census and delimitation, citing concerns over illegal immigration and changes in Manipur’s demographic composition.
The Centre recently deferred Census operations in Manipur amid protests and concerns over renewed tension.
Demand for protection of SoO cadres
The KNO and UPF also demanded an immediate end to what they described as harassment, intimidation and selective targeting of cadres covered by the SoO agreement.
They called for the Joint Monitoring Group overseeing the agreement to ensure the safety of designated cadres, prevent selective action and maintain transparent monitoring.
The organisations said cadres covered by the SoO pact were bound by its terms and that continued targeting would undermine the agreement and the political dialogue.
The two leaders said they remained committed to the SoO process and a settlement within the Constitution, but argued that the displacement and physical separation of communities since 2023 made a simple return to the old political arrangement impossible.
Their demands now place three issues at the centre of the Manipur peace process: a legislature-backed Union Territory for the Kuki-Zo areas, completion of the Census before any NRC and protection of cadres covered by the SoO agreement.
The demands, however, face major political hurdles, including the Centre’s stated reluctance to create new Union Territories, the Manipur government’s renewed push for a 1951-based NRC and continuing opposition from Meitei and Naga groups to any arrangement that could alter the state’s territorial structure.
“If anyone thinks they could scare or manipulate us, they’re living in a fool’s paradise. We are here to stay till we get a Union Territory for our people,” Haokip said.
Kipgen said the Centre’s delay in addressing the political demand was only prolonging the suffering of people on the ground.
“We hope that the Centre would realise that dragging its feet on this sensitive issue would only bring more misery to people on the ground. The formulation forwarded to Home Minister Amit Shah last year in September regarding our political demand through the SoO-MHA dialogue channel is still pending with him. We have not heard anything from him in one year,” he said.
“This shows the government thinks it could buy time. But at what cost?” Kipgen asked.
