COCOMI rebuts UPF, KNO's misleading claim
Source: The Sangai Express

Imphal, November 17 2025: The Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI) has given a comprehensive rebuttal and clarification on the misleading claims made by UPF and KNO regarding the historical jurisdiction over the hill areas of Manipur and the question of Kuki ancestral land rights.

The claim made by the United People's Front (UPF) and the Kuki National Organisation (KNO) during their meeting with Home Ministry officials on November 6-7, 2025 in New Delhi that the hill areas of Manipur were never under the rule of the Maharaja of Manipur was a deliberate misrepresentation of historical and legal facts, specifically designed to justify the demand for a separate Kuki administrative territory, the COCOMI asserted in a memorandum submitted to the Prime Minister of India today.

On the contrary, historical records, the Manipur State Darbar Rules (1907), and post-independence judicial rulings (1963 and 1979) unequivocally affirm that the entire territory of Manipur, including the hill areas, remained under the continuous and lawful jurisdiction of the State and its successors, it pointed out.

The Kuki Presence in Manipur: A Colonial-Era Phenomenon

It asserted that the claim to ancestral land rights by Kuki groups in Manipur is fundamentally challenged by the historical timeline and the nature of their settlement, which was primarily a colonial-era phenomenon.

Colonial Settlement Policy

Kuki migration and settlement in the hill tracts of Manipur began around 1840 following the British victory in the First Anglo-Burmese War (1824-1826).This movement was not spontaneous but an outcome of a carefully calibrated British colonial frontier strategy designed to secure the volatile eastern frontier.

Geopolitical Engineering by McCulloch

Lieutenant Colonel William McCulloch, British Political Agent in Manipur (1844-1863), played a pivotal role.

His administration systematically settled Kuki villages to achieve three objectives - create a human buffer zone against raids from the Lushai Hills, bring extensive land under organised, revenue-generating agricultural use and employ the population as a source of labour and auxiliary forces (McCulloch.

Account of the Valley of Manipur, 1859) .

Lack of Pre-Colonial Continuity

The settlement was a deliberate act of geopolitical engineering.

This mid-nineteenth-century episode contrasts sharply with the continuous and well-documented habitation of Meiteis and other indigenous hill communities for over a millennium.

As both the settlement and the nomenclature are products of colonial policy, the Kuki claim to indigeneity foils to meet the fundamental condition of pre-colonial continuity required by definitions such as the UN's Martinez Cobo Working Definition.

The Term "Kuki": A Colonial Construct

A crucial dimension of this issue is the very origin of the term used to assert group rights:

Exonym, Not Indigenous: The designation 'Kuki' is not indigenous to Manipur.

It was 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 tracts.

Colonial Homogenisation: Prior to British intervention, these groups were identified by distinct clan or tribal names.

The homogenisation under the nomenclature 'Kuki' was a product of colonial ethnographic classification, not an indigenous evolution.

Assertion is Untenable: Consequently, the use of the term Kuki' as a foundation for asserting indigeneity or ancestral claims over land in Manipur is both historically and linguistically untenable.

Continuous and Undisputed State Jurisdiction Over Hill Areas (Historical and Legal Affirmation)

The claim by UPF/KNO is definitively refilled by documented historical records and binding legal precedents that confirm the integral nature of the hills to the Manipur State.

Manipur State Darbar Authority: 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 the Management of the State of Manipur (1907) explicitly established the Darbar as the administrative authority for both regions, managing land, forests, and taxation.

British officers and administrators consistently recorded that the forests and territories were the property of the Maharaja.

Post-Independence Legal Continuity

Upon Manipur's merger with India, the ownership of all such lands lawfully vested in the State Government.

This administrative and legal continuity was meticulously safeguarded by Article 372 of the Constitution, the Part C States Laws Act (1949), and the Merged States Laws Act (1949), which preserved the validity of all Darbar Notifications and Resolutions.

Judicial Affirmation of State Ownership: This legal framework was robustly upheld by the judiciary:

a) The Imphal bench of the High Court (1963) affirmed the general principle that the Darbar's rules, which governed the administration of the entire State, continued to remain in force after the merger.

b) The Gauhati High Court (1979) directly addressed the ownership issue, ruling that the entire territory, including the forest areas in the hills, was the property of the State, and that ownership had lawfully vested in the State Government of Manipur.

Usufructuary vs Proprietary Rights

The judicial rulings confirmed that tribal villages possessed only customary usufructuary rights for livelihood (e.g., jhum cultivation, grazing) within limited areas.

These practices were recognised for subsistence but never conferred proprietary ownership or control over the larger forest tracts.

These decisions prove that the entire territory of Manipur has remained under continuous and lawful governance by the State, legally invalidating any modem assertion of ancestral or independent rights over any part of the hill areas.

The assertion of indigeneity and ancestral land rights by the Kukis, as advanced by the KNO and UPF, lacks historical validity, legal foundation, and cultural authenticity.

Their identity is a colonial construct, and their settlement was facilitated by British policy sanctioned by the Manipur State authorities, the COCOMI asserted in their memorandum addressed to the Prime Minister.

It urged the Government of India and the Ministry of Home Affairs to dismiss these claims, which are ahistorical and contrary to the documented legal and administrative continuity of the State of Manipur.

Granting such demands would be an act of rewarding historically untenable claims, thereby undermining the territorial integrity and legitimate rights of the indigenous people of Manipur, it added.

Comment