Why in News?

• The long-standing Kuki-Zo insurgency issue in Manipur has resurfaced.
• Recently, the Kuki National Organisation (KNO) and the United People’s Front (UPF) — umbrella groups of Kuki-Zo insurgents under the Suspension of Operations (SoO) pact — held talks with the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
• The core demand remains the creation of a Union Territory (UT) with a legislative assembly for Kuki-Zo inhabited areas, citing the impossibility of coexistence within Manipur’s administrative structure after the 2023 ethnic violence.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Background
• Key Developments
• Historical Context and Constitutional Argument
• Way Forward
• Conclusion

Background:

• Suspension of Operations (SoO) pact:
  • Initial signing: 2008 between the MHA, Manipur Government, and Kuki insurgent groups.
  • Objective: To maintain peace and allow dialogue for a political settlement.
  • Status: Periodically renewed, and renegotiated and reinstated (on September 4, 2025) with new terms ensuring -
    • Verification of cadres and deportation of foreign nationals.
    • Relocation of insurgent camps.
    • Inclusion of a new clause — “negotiated political settlement within the Constitution of India.”
    • Reaffirmation of Manipur’s territorial integrity.
• Ethnic violence (May 2023):
  • Triggered between Kuki-Zo tribals and Meiteis over land and identity issues.
  • Resulted in approximately 250 deaths and over 60,000 displaced persons.
  • This led to the Manipur Government refusing to extend the SoO pact (in February 2024), accusing Kuki groups of violating ground rules and instigating violence.

Key Developments:

• Demands by Kuki-Zo groups:
  • Creation of a UT with Legislature for Kuki-Zo areas.
  • Protection of traditional tribal land rights and authority of village chiefs.
  • Simplification of land registration and succession procedures, currently centred in Imphal.
  • Recognition of historical autonomy of Kuki-Zo hills.
• Centre’s response:
  • A. K. Mishra, North East Advisor to MHA, represented the Government, reiterating Centre’s sensitivity to Kuki-Zo grievances.
  • But creation of new Union Territories is not current policy.
  • Emphasised consultations with all communities in Manipur for a negotiated political solution.
• Other issues discussed:
  • Land, forests, customs, and development in tribal areas.
  • Confidence-building measures and governance reforms.

Historical Context and Constitutional Argument:

• Pre-Independence autonomy:
  • Kuki-Zo hills were not under the Manipur State Durbar before 1947.
  • Under British rule, these were “Excluded Areas” (Government of India Act, 1935), administered by the British Political Agent, not the Meitei King.
  • Traditional chiefs managed land, justice, and administration independently.
• Post-merger integration (1949):
  • Manipur’s merger with India led to centralised governance, ignoring tribal land tenure systems.
  • Compensation was paid to the Meitei King but not to Kuki-Zo chiefs.
  • The SoO groups argue that creating a UT within India would restore pre-independence autonomy, not promote secessionism.
• Constitutional arguments:
  • The Constitution allows Parliament to create UTs under Article 3, which gives the central government the power to directly administer these regions.
  • Arguments include -
    • Providing direct central government control for strategic importance (e.g., Andaman and Nicobar Islands).
    • Preserving cultural distinctiveness (e.g., Puducherry, Daman and Diu).
    • Ensuring better political and administrative management in areas with unique challenges (e.g., Delhi, Chandigarh), and
    • Providing special care for backward or tribal areas that are not yet ready for full statehood.

Way Forward:

• Inclusive dialogue: Continued engagement with both hill and valley communities to ensure lasting peace.
• Administrative reforms: Decentralised governance models like Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) could balance tribal autonomy and state integrity.
• Developmental focus: Prioritise infrastructure, education, and livelihood in tribal areas to reduce alienation.
• Land tenure reforms: Legal protection of customary land ownership while integrating it within constitutional frameworks.
• Confidence building: Ensure security, rehabilitation, and justice for victims of ethnic violence to rebuild trust.

Conclusion:

• The renewed Kuki-Zo demand for a UT with legislature underscores the deep-rooted ethnic and governance fault lines in Manipur.
• While the Centre remains firm on preserving territorial integrity, sustainable peace in Manipur will depend on balancing tribal aspirations with the unity and federal structure of India.