Historical & Legal Status of Manipur Hill Areas: COCOMI Memo 2025

MEMORANDUM

THE HISTORICAL AND LEGAL STATUS OF MANIPUR'S HILL AREAS
November 17, 2025

TO:

The Hon'ble Prime Minister of India

FROM: Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI)

SUBJECT: Comprehensive Rebuttal and Clarification on Misleading Claims by

UPF/KNO Regarding the Historical Jurisdiction Over the Hill Areas of

Manipur and the Question of Kuki Ancestral Land Rights.

Hon’ble Prime Minister,

This memorandum is submitted to provide a comprehensive rebuttal to the recent statement

made by leaders of the United People's Front (UPF) and Kuki National Organisation (KNO)

during their meeting with the Home Ministry Officials on 6 and 7 November, 2025 in New

Delhi. The assertion that the hill areas of Manipur were never under the rule of the Maharaja

of Manipur is a deliberate misrepresentation of historical and legal facts, specifically designed

to justify the demand for a separate Kuki administrative territory; 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.

1. The Kuki Presence in Manipur: A Colonial-Era Phenomenon

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 into 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.
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 fails to meet the fundamental condition

of pre-colonial continuity required by definitions such as the UN’s Martínez Cobo

Working Definition.

2. 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 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.

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

The claim by UPF/KNO is definitively refuted 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 Manipur 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 modern assertion of ancestral or

independent rights over any part of the hill areas.

4. Conclusion

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.

We respectfully urge 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.

Yours faithfully,

(Khuraijam Athouba)
Convenor, COCOMI, Manipur

Copy to:

The Hon'ble Union Minister of Home Affairs, Government of India
Shri AK. Mishra, Advisor (North East) to the Ministry of Home Affairs