The Road to Freedom: The Call for a Political Solution for the Kuki People
By:-
By:-
Mr. Seilalmuon Haokip
Info & Publicity Secretary, KSO Bangalore
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen,
Respected Church leaders, Kuki Inpi Karnataka (KIK) leaders, and KSO-Bangalore leaders,
I extend my heartfelt gratitude for the opportunity to address this gathering today on a matter of immense importance: "The Road to Freedom: The Call for a Political Solution for the Kuki People."
Why does the road to freedom for the Kuki people necessarily mean a political solution?
Because what we face is not just a crisis of governance—it is an existential crisis. Two years ago today, the dominant Meitei community massacred our people in broad daylight—not because we opposed their demand for Scheduled Tribe status, but because we stood in the way of their ambition to seize our ancestral land.
This agenda had been pursued through various covert strategies even before the inception of Manipur's statehood in 1972. It was only two years ago today that we fully recognized their hidden intentions.
With that in mind, I want to highlight two key modus operandi used by the Meitei community: the salami slicing policy and the zero-sum game.
The salami slicing policy refers to achieving a larger goal through incremental, almost imperceptible steps—making it hard to detect. A zero-sum game is when one group's gain comes at the direct loss of another.
Let us now examine how these strategies have been used by the Meitei community to influence and manipulate the hill tribes of Manipur:
1. Non-implementation of Article 371C (27th CAA, 1971):
Article 371C provides for self-autonomy for the hill tribes of Manipur, but it has never functioned effectively. The Manipur Hill Areas District Council Act operated only during brief periods: from 1973 to 1988, and again from 2010 to 2020. While the Government of India Act, 1935, provided the 5th and 6th Schedules for tribal protection, Manipur's hill tribes were excluded. We were instead placed under a vague "special provision," which, sadly, could not protect us.
2. Violation of the MLR & LR Act, 1960:
In 1890, British political agent Maxwell imposed a higher house tax on hill dwellers—Rs. 3 per homestead, while the valley paid only Rs. 2. Colonel J. Shakespeare later demarcated Kuki tribal lands and gave pattas to village chiefs, legitimizing their land rights. Under the MLR & LR Act, 1960, if a Kuki chief failed to pay house tax, his land was seized—even if his people had lived there for generations.
The Kacha Nagas follow democratic chairmanship, while the Kuki people remain under a feudal system of chieftainship. It is more difficult to seize Kuki land from chiefs than Kacha Naga land, due to differing governance systems. However, the Meitei-dominated government declared Kuki-majority hill towns like Moreh, Jiribam, and Kangpokpi as municipal areas—yet did not do so in Kacha Naga areas. The target was clear: the Kuki people. They even acted clandestinely with the District Administration, bypassing the Hill Area District Council altogether.
3. Violation of the Forest & Wildlife Act of India:
The Meitei government declared regions like Kailam Wildlife Sanctuary and Khoupum Protected Forests without the consent of the tribal people.
4. Violation of the Manipur Historical and Archaeological Sites Act:
Tribal lands such as Thangting Mountain and Simtongbung Mountain were arbitrarily declared as Meitei historical sites.
5. Violation of the Delimitation Act, 2002:
Hill areas are entitled to three additional MLAs, and the valley should lose three—but this change has been blocked to this day.
6. Violation of Reservation Rules:
The principles of positive discrimination and affirmative action have been ignored in our case.
7. Budget Disparity:
Hill districts receive funding in double-digit crores, while the valley receives four-digit crores. This is clear economic injustice.
8. Demand for Scheduled Tribe Status by the Meiteis:
As referenced in Milind vs. State of Maharashtra (2000)—it states that only the President has the power to grant ST status to a community, not the state government or the High Court. Nevertheless, the Manipur High Court declaring Meiteis eligible for ST status is a strategic attempt to erode tribal safeguards, and it sparked the Manipur mayhem.
9. Demand for Deletion of Kuki Tribes from the ST List:
This is a direct threat to our identity, our heritage, and our ancestral land.
This is why the road to freedom for the Kuki people must take the form of Article 239A, Part VIII of the Constitution—that is, a Union Territory with Legislature, following the Puducherry model.
Puducherry was incorporated under Article 2 through acquisition from the French in 1954. It consists of four regions spread across three states—yet it was clubbed together as one UT with Legislature due to its cultural uniqueness.
We, too, must protect our language, culture, and religion—and this model offers that path.
A Union Territory status in India can be granted based on cultural uniqueness, security, strategic importance, political necessity, and other special considerations.
Geopolitically, Manipur shares an international boundary with Myanmar. It holds strategic significance and requires heightened security. That gives the Government of India every reason to grant the Kuki people a UT with Legislature.
Under Article 3, Parliament has the power to: form new states, alter boundaries, rename states, or unite territories—as seen in the creation of Telangana and the conversion of J&K into UTs.
So we ask—why not carve out a Union Territory from Manipur for the Kuki people?
If Jammu & Kashmir was reorganized due to security, if Puducherry was granted UT status for cultural uniqueness, if Delhi and Chandigarh were reorganized for political reasons, and if Daman, Diu, Dadra, and Nagar Haveli were unified as one UT—then why not Kukiland?
India is not only the world's largest democracy—it also follows a model of asymmetrical federalism and upholds the supremacy of the Constitution. We know the Constitution contains the power to protect the rights of tribal people—including the Kukis.
We sincerely hope and urge that the Central Government will expedite and grant our political demand for a Union Territory with Legislature so that we may chart our future with dignity, autonomy, and peace.
Last but not least, we salute our fallen heroes for their sacrifices—so that future generations of Kukis might live free from Meitei oppression. May their sacrifice not be in vain.
The only way forward for the Kuki people to achieve justice is through a political solution in the form of a Union Territory with Legislature.
May God bless the Kuki nation!
Kakipah e.
Info & Publicity Secretary, KSO Bangalore
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen,
Respected Church leaders, Kuki Inpi Karnataka (KIK) leaders, and KSO-Bangalore leaders,
I extend my heartfelt gratitude for the opportunity to address this gathering today on a matter of immense importance: "The Road to Freedom: The Call for a Political Solution for the Kuki People."
Why does the road to freedom for the Kuki people necessarily mean a political solution?
Because what we face is not just a crisis of governance—it is an existential crisis. Two years ago today, the dominant Meitei community massacred our people in broad daylight—not because we opposed their demand for Scheduled Tribe status, but because we stood in the way of their ambition to seize our ancestral land.
This agenda had been pursued through various covert strategies even before the inception of Manipur's statehood in 1972. It was only two years ago today that we fully recognized their hidden intentions.
With that in mind, I want to highlight two key modus operandi used by the Meitei community: the salami slicing policy and the zero-sum game.
The salami slicing policy refers to achieving a larger goal through incremental, almost imperceptible steps—making it hard to detect. A zero-sum game is when one group's gain comes at the direct loss of another.
Let us now examine how these strategies have been used by the Meitei community to influence and manipulate the hill tribes of Manipur:
1. Non-implementation of Article 371C (27th CAA, 1971):
Article 371C provides for self-autonomy for the hill tribes of Manipur, but it has never functioned effectively. The Manipur Hill Areas District Council Act operated only during brief periods: from 1973 to 1988, and again from 2010 to 2020. While the Government of India Act, 1935, provided the 5th and 6th Schedules for tribal protection, Manipur's hill tribes were excluded. We were instead placed under a vague "special provision," which, sadly, could not protect us.
2. Violation of the MLR & LR Act, 1960:
In 1890, British political agent Maxwell imposed a higher house tax on hill dwellers—Rs. 3 per homestead, while the valley paid only Rs. 2. Colonel J. Shakespeare later demarcated Kuki tribal lands and gave pattas to village chiefs, legitimizing their land rights. Under the MLR & LR Act, 1960, if a Kuki chief failed to pay house tax, his land was seized—even if his people had lived there for generations.
The Kacha Nagas follow democratic chairmanship, while the Kuki people remain under a feudal system of chieftainship. It is more difficult to seize Kuki land from chiefs than Kacha Naga land, due to differing governance systems. However, the Meitei-dominated government declared Kuki-majority hill towns like Moreh, Jiribam, and Kangpokpi as municipal areas—yet did not do so in Kacha Naga areas. The target was clear: the Kuki people. They even acted clandestinely with the District Administration, bypassing the Hill Area District Council altogether.
3. Violation of the Forest & Wildlife Act of India:
The Meitei government declared regions like Kailam Wildlife Sanctuary and Khoupum Protected Forests without the consent of the tribal people.
4. Violation of the Manipur Historical and Archaeological Sites Act:
Tribal lands such as Thangting Mountain and Simtongbung Mountain were arbitrarily declared as Meitei historical sites.
5. Violation of the Delimitation Act, 2002:
Hill areas are entitled to three additional MLAs, and the valley should lose three—but this change has been blocked to this day.
6. Violation of Reservation Rules:
The principles of positive discrimination and affirmative action have been ignored in our case.
7. Budget Disparity:
Hill districts receive funding in double-digit crores, while the valley receives four-digit crores. This is clear economic injustice.
8. Demand for Scheduled Tribe Status by the Meiteis:
As referenced in Milind vs. State of Maharashtra (2000)—it states that only the President has the power to grant ST status to a community, not the state government or the High Court. Nevertheless, the Manipur High Court declaring Meiteis eligible for ST status is a strategic attempt to erode tribal safeguards, and it sparked the Manipur mayhem.
9. Demand for Deletion of Kuki Tribes from the ST List:
This is a direct threat to our identity, our heritage, and our ancestral land.
This is why the road to freedom for the Kuki people must take the form of Article 239A, Part VIII of the Constitution—that is, a Union Territory with Legislature, following the Puducherry model.
Puducherry was incorporated under Article 2 through acquisition from the French in 1954. It consists of four regions spread across three states—yet it was clubbed together as one UT with Legislature due to its cultural uniqueness.
We, too, must protect our language, culture, and religion—and this model offers that path.
A Union Territory status in India can be granted based on cultural uniqueness, security, strategic importance, political necessity, and other special considerations.
Geopolitically, Manipur shares an international boundary with Myanmar. It holds strategic significance and requires heightened security. That gives the Government of India every reason to grant the Kuki people a UT with Legislature.
Under Article 3, Parliament has the power to: form new states, alter boundaries, rename states, or unite territories—as seen in the creation of Telangana and the conversion of J&K into UTs.
So we ask—why not carve out a Union Territory from Manipur for the Kuki people?
If Jammu & Kashmir was reorganized due to security, if Puducherry was granted UT status for cultural uniqueness, if Delhi and Chandigarh were reorganized for political reasons, and if Daman, Diu, Dadra, and Nagar Haveli were unified as one UT—then why not Kukiland?
India is not only the world's largest democracy—it also follows a model of asymmetrical federalism and upholds the supremacy of the Constitution. We know the Constitution contains the power to protect the rights of tribal people—including the Kukis.
We sincerely hope and urge that the Central Government will expedite and grant our political demand for a Union Territory with Legislature so that we may chart our future with dignity, autonomy, and peace.
Last but not least, we salute our fallen heroes for their sacrifices—so that future generations of Kukis might live free from Meitei oppression. May their sacrifice not be in vain.
The only way forward for the Kuki people to achieve justice is through a political solution in the form of a Union Territory with Legislature.
May God bless the Kuki nation!
Kakipah e.
~ KUKI NEWS
.JPG)
.jpeg)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments not related to the topic will be removed immediately.