As Manipur grapples with multi-ethnic violence, with recent Naga-Kuki clashes that killed six Naga civilians in Senapati district, a notable political alliance is quietly taking shape in the backdrop, signalling a closer convergence between the Meitei and the Naga community over shared territorial-political aspirations and continuing conflicts with the Kuki-Zo community. This emerging alliance has manifested in joint protests, public meetings and joint committees, framed by participants as a common fight of ‘indigenous communities’ against ‘outsiders’, driven by shared concerns over perceived illegal immigration, land encroachment, poppy cultivation and militancy-related issues. According to Ashang Kasar, convenor of the Native People’s Committee, Manipur (NPCM), a joint Meitei Naga civil body formed on May 26, the alliance was formed in response to the Kuki people’s demand for a separate administration to safeguard their illegal immigrants and ‘so-called’ refugees.
Kasar stressed historic primacy: ‘The Nagas and the Meiteis are the first settlers in the state of Manipur; they are the only indigenous people and the owners of the Manipur state; the others came later.’ He tied this to illegal immigration figures, claiming that there has been an influx of Kuki immigration from 1500 in the 1950s from Myanmar, which, according to him, has increased to ‘more than three lakhs’ in the state. ‘We want to deport this,’ he added. Santa Nahakam, spokesperson of the Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI), the apex body of the Meiteis, echoed Kasar’s remarks, stating that it is a common fight for both the communities. Nahakam stated that the mobilisation is not against any Kuki group, but against what he called the ‘Narco terrorists’.
However, he maintained that the common Kukis are under their influence. Dr Kham Khan Suan Hausing, a leading expert on ethnopolitics in Northeast India and Professor of Political Science at the University of Hyderabad, noted that the Meitei-Naga alliance is built on a longer political alignment and propaganda, which even predate the 2023 conflicts. He suspected that former CM Biren Singh had a role in ‘building an entente between the Meiteis and Nagas and realigning their strategies.’ Prof Hausing critiqued the premise of defining indignity through ‘first occupancy’, arguing it was ahistorical and conceptually difficult to establish who the original settlers were. ‘This attempt to draw a distinction between the so-called indigenous and non-indigenous communities goes against the grain of historical records,’ he said, adding that multiple waves of migration across the Northeast made such claims difficult to sustain. ‘If you try to apply this across the board in the Indian subcontinent, the idea of indignity is going to fall flat.’ He also questioned claims of a large-scale influx of illegal immigrants from Myanmar, saying there was ‘no reliable empirical evidence’ to support such assertions. ‘The idea of otherising the Kukis has been put into political service by the former chief minister Biren Singh and his majoritarian politics; suddenly, since 2019, we have an aggressive stance on trying to otherise Kukis with a very exclusive political discourse.’ Kasar suggested NRC as the path: ’Although the Kukis are outsiders, there is some condition.
Nagas and Meiteis are demanding the updation of the NRC with base year as 1951 or 1961; if it reflects that some Kukis were there before this year, then we don’t object to it; they will be included.’ He, however, noted, ‘Once NRC is updated, there will be no Kuki picture in Kangpokpi, Moreh and Chandel districts.’ Hausing questioned the practicalities of such an exercise: ‘As per RTI, Manipur does not have census data or the various village directories of 1951 or 1961. Much of the political narrative around NRC has been insistent on using those records as the baseline. But how can that be sound legal documentation when the documents themselves are conspicuous by their absence?’ He argued that such an NRC would rest on ‘imaginative presumptions.’ ’Such a political project is uncalled for.
It is potentially very dangerous,’ he added. The emerging Meitei-Naga alignment has strongly pushed for abrogation of the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreements with Kuki armed groups, viewing them as enabling militancy, village expansion, and narco activities. COCOMI explained that the common Kuki folks who were living or residing with them for ages are now being controlled by narco-terrorists, or SoO groups.
Even some of the non-SoO groups are involved, taking control of indigenous villages or native villages and engaging in poppy cultivation. Kuki Inpi spokesperson challenged the rhetoric of narco terrorism as pointless, stating ‘all communities in Manipur have militant groups, and all communities engage in narcotics-related activities.’ He clarified that the Kuki-Zo civil bodies have consistently appealed to their people to refrain from poppy cultivation and other narcotics-related activities, extending full cooperation to the law enforcement authorities in controlling this menace. The Kuki-Zo community’s political exclusion has become increasingly institutionalised, according to Prof. Hausing.
He argued that the institutional political exclusion of the Kukis is almost near complete, describing the trajectory as one towards ‘an ethnocracy of sorts.’ However, for NPCM, the convergence is only expected to deepen, with plans to expand to multiple district-level public meetings to mobilise both the communities before jointly submitting a memorandum to the Prime Minister and Union Home Minister on issues concerning indigenous identity, land rights and cultural protection. Kasar said that the committee would expand to multiple district-level public meetings to mobilise both the communities before jointly submitting a memorandum to the Prime Minister and Union Home Minister on issues concerning indigenous identity, land rights and cultural protection. ’Earlier, the Nagas and the Meiteis used to meet the government separately. This time, we are going together.
There will be an impact,’ he said. Whether the alliance endures, however, remains uncertain. Hausing noted that the strategic alliance is ultimately built on the backdrop of internal contradictions and conflict between the Meiteis and the Nagas themselves.
Meiteis’ uncompromising insistence on territorial integrity clashes with Naga aspirations for Greater Nagalim, while the Meitei demand for ST status might put even the Nagas ‘on the firing line.’ He emphasised that ‘Somehow, somewhere down the line, this internal contradiction between the political projects would become evident. It would unravel itself.’
