Rejoinder: Misuse, Distortion, and Delegitimisation of the Scheduled Tribe Status of the Kuki People of Manipur
Dec 5, 2025: This legal rejoinder is issued in response to recent public statements, media reports, and politically motivated narratives attempting to portray the Kuki people as "illegal immigrants" and using manipulated census interpretations to question their legitimacy. These claims are constitutionally unsustainable, legally impermissible, historically false, and communally dangerous.
1. The Kuki People Are Constitutionally Recognised as a Scheduled Tribe Since the 1950s:
Under the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950, as amended and applied to Manipur, the Kuki tribes - comprising associated clans - were formally recognised as ST Nomenclature "Any Kuki Tribe" in the Scheduled Tribes list of Manipur since the 1950s.
1.1. Article 342: ST Status Cannot Be Challenged by Anyone except Parliament:
Article 342(1) - (2) provides: (1) The President notifies the communities deemed Scheduled Tribes. (2) Only Parliament may include or exclude any tribe from the list. (3) No State Government, civil organisation, pressure group, or private individual has authority to question or alter ST status. Thus, calling the Kuki people "illegal immigrants" or "non-indigenous" is constitutionally meaningless and legally void.
1.2. Mischaracterisation of an ST Community is a Legal Offence:
Branding a Scheduled Tribe as "foreigners" or "illegal migrants" constitutes: (1) Intentional humiliation and insult (SC/ST PoA Act, 1989 — Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)), (2) Creation of a hostile environment, (3) Discrimination based on tribe (prohibited under Articles 15 & 17). These narratives therefore carry legal liability.
2. Historical Census Data Proves Natural, Long-Term Growth of the Kuki Population:
Contrary to sensationalist allegations, official records from 1881 to 1951 show normal demographic growth. According to the Gazetteer of Manipur (1886) and Census of India: (1) 1881: 25,384 (2) 1901: 28,000 (3) 1911: 44,431 (4) 1921: 66,255 (5) 1931: 79,066 (6) 1951: 1,00,748 This 70-year pattern reflects: (1) normal population growth, (2) expanded enumeration after 1901, (3) improved administrative reach to hill areas, (4) reduction in mortality and conflict-related displacement. The demographic table published in The Sangai Express also confirms similar long-term growth in both Kuki-Chin and Naga communities, disproving claims of abnormality. Early censuses under-enumerated hill tribes due to terrain, conflict, administrative gaps, and incomplete village listings. These undercounts should not be misused to attack ST legitimacy.
3. MLA Representation Has No Connection to Immigration:
Attempts to link the rise in Kuki MLAs with "illegal immigration" are analytically and legally flawed. (1) Manipur achieved full statehood only in 1972, when hill representation structures expanded. (2) Constituency-based electoral representation - not population size - determines the number of MLAs. (3) Equal representation today (10 Kuki-Chin and 10 Naga MLAs) reflects democratic inclusion, not demographic manipulation. Democracy, not immigration, explains political participation.
4. Delegitimising a Constitutionally Protected Tribe Undermines the Constitutional Framework:
The Scheduled Tribe framework protects: (1) Indigenous identity, (2) Customary land governance, (3) Social and economic empowerment, (4) Cultural continuity. Attacking an ST community through misinformation: (1) violates Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, 342, (2) contradicts Article 371C (special protection for Manipur hill areas), (3) threatens tribal autonomy, (4) and disturbs peace and inter-tribal harmony. Such acts may attract legal consequences under: (1) SC/ST PoA Act, (2) IPC provisions on promoting enmity (Sections 153A, 505(2)), (3) and constitutional sanctions by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes under Article 338A.
5. Long-standing Pre-Constitution Recognition of Kuki Presence:
Colonial records (1826–1947) consistently document: (1) Kuki chieftainship systems, (2) clan-based territorial jurisdiction, (3) significant participation in administration and defence (e.g., Anglo-Kuki War 1917–1919), (4) Continuous settlement in the hill tracts. These records decisively negate any portrayal of the Kuki people as recent arrivals.
6. Demand for Institutional Action against Hate Narratives:
Given the repeated misuse of census data and public attempts to delegitimise a constitutionally recognised Scheduled Tribe: We seek: 1. Immediate intervention of the NCST under Article 338A. 2. Public clarification by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs and Ministry of Home Affairs affirming ST status of the Kuki tribes. 3. Criminal action against individuals or bodies spreading defamatory claims. 4. Advisories to media outlets against publishing unverified demographic insinuations.
The Kuki people's identity as a Scheduled Tribe of Manipur since the 1950s is constitutionally final, historically verified, and legally untouchable except by an Act of Parliament. Using manipulated census narratives to challenge this status is: (1) constitutionally impermissible, (2) historically dishonest, (3) legally punishable, (4) And socially destructive. Such claims must be firmly rejected, legally countered, and institutionally redressed.
Release by:
Committee on Protection of Tribal Areas Manipur (Kuki Hills)
COPTAM(KH)
Dec 5, 2025: This legal rejoinder is issued in response to recent public statements, media reports, and politically motivated narratives attempting to portray the Kuki people as "illegal immigrants" and using manipulated census interpretations to question their legitimacy. These claims are constitutionally unsustainable, legally impermissible, historically false, and communally dangerous.
1. The Kuki People Are Constitutionally Recognised as a Scheduled Tribe Since the 1950s:
Under the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950, as amended and applied to Manipur, the Kuki tribes - comprising associated clans - were formally recognised as ST Nomenclature "Any Kuki Tribe" in the Scheduled Tribes list of Manipur since the 1950s.
1.1. Article 342: ST Status Cannot Be Challenged by Anyone except Parliament:
Article 342(1) - (2) provides: (1) The President notifies the communities deemed Scheduled Tribes. (2) Only Parliament may include or exclude any tribe from the list. (3) No State Government, civil organisation, pressure group, or private individual has authority to question or alter ST status. Thus, calling the Kuki people "illegal immigrants" or "non-indigenous" is constitutionally meaningless and legally void.
1.2. Mischaracterisation of an ST Community is a Legal Offence:
Branding a Scheduled Tribe as "foreigners" or "illegal migrants" constitutes: (1) Intentional humiliation and insult (SC/ST PoA Act, 1989 — Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)), (2) Creation of a hostile environment, (3) Discrimination based on tribe (prohibited under Articles 15 & 17). These narratives therefore carry legal liability.
2. Historical Census Data Proves Natural, Long-Term Growth of the Kuki Population:
Contrary to sensationalist allegations, official records from 1881 to 1951 show normal demographic growth. According to the Gazetteer of Manipur (1886) and Census of India: (1) 1881: 25,384 (2) 1901: 28,000 (3) 1911: 44,431 (4) 1921: 66,255 (5) 1931: 79,066 (6) 1951: 1,00,748 This 70-year pattern reflects: (1) normal population growth, (2) expanded enumeration after 1901, (3) improved administrative reach to hill areas, (4) reduction in mortality and conflict-related displacement. The demographic table published in The Sangai Express also confirms similar long-term growth in both Kuki-Chin and Naga communities, disproving claims of abnormality. Early censuses under-enumerated hill tribes due to terrain, conflict, administrative gaps, and incomplete village listings. These undercounts should not be misused to attack ST legitimacy.
3. MLA Representation Has No Connection to Immigration:
Attempts to link the rise in Kuki MLAs with "illegal immigration" are analytically and legally flawed. (1) Manipur achieved full statehood only in 1972, when hill representation structures expanded. (2) Constituency-based electoral representation - not population size - determines the number of MLAs. (3) Equal representation today (10 Kuki-Chin and 10 Naga MLAs) reflects democratic inclusion, not demographic manipulation. Democracy, not immigration, explains political participation.
4. Delegitimising a Constitutionally Protected Tribe Undermines the Constitutional Framework:
The Scheduled Tribe framework protects: (1) Indigenous identity, (2) Customary land governance, (3) Social and economic empowerment, (4) Cultural continuity. Attacking an ST community through misinformation: (1) violates Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, 342, (2) contradicts Article 371C (special protection for Manipur hill areas), (3) threatens tribal autonomy, (4) and disturbs peace and inter-tribal harmony. Such acts may attract legal consequences under: (1) SC/ST PoA Act, (2) IPC provisions on promoting enmity (Sections 153A, 505(2)), (3) and constitutional sanctions by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes under Article 338A.
5. Long-standing Pre-Constitution Recognition of Kuki Presence:
Colonial records (1826–1947) consistently document: (1) Kuki chieftainship systems, (2) clan-based territorial jurisdiction, (3) significant participation in administration and defence (e.g., Anglo-Kuki War 1917–1919), (4) Continuous settlement in the hill tracts. These records decisively negate any portrayal of the Kuki people as recent arrivals.
6. Demand for Institutional Action against Hate Narratives:
Given the repeated misuse of census data and public attempts to delegitimise a constitutionally recognised Scheduled Tribe: We seek: 1. Immediate intervention of the NCST under Article 338A. 2. Public clarification by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs and Ministry of Home Affairs affirming ST status of the Kuki tribes. 3. Criminal action against individuals or bodies spreading defamatory claims. 4. Advisories to media outlets against publishing unverified demographic insinuations.
The Kuki people's identity as a Scheduled Tribe of Manipur since the 1950s is constitutionally final, historically verified, and legally untouchable except by an Act of Parliament. Using manipulated census narratives to challenge this status is: (1) constitutionally impermissible, (2) historically dishonest, (3) legally punishable, (4) And socially destructive. Such claims must be firmly rejected, legally countered, and institutionally redressed.
Release by:
Committee on Protection of Tribal Areas Manipur (Kuki Hills)
COPTAM(KH)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments not related to the topic will be removed immediately.