Guwahati: The Kuki Organisation for Human Rights Trust (KOHUR) has issued a detailed formal rebuttal to a document circulated by the Media Cell of the Working Committee of the United Naga Council (UNC), rejecting allegations that the Kuki-Zo people are “foreigners” and disputing what it described as a “one-sided” portrayal of the ongoing ethnic tensions in Manipur.
In the nine-page statement titled “Formal Rebuttal”, KOHUR accused the UNC document of relying on “selective and discredited” colonial ethnography, misrepresenting constitutional provisions relating to Scheduled Tribe status, and omitting the deaths, abductions, and displacement suffered by Kuki-Zo civilians during recent violence.
The organisation stated that it was responding “on grounds of historical record, constitutional law, the published terms of binding agreements, and the verifiable factual sequence of events,” while asserting that it would not reciprocate what it termed “dehumanising vocabulary.”
Addressing historical claims, KOHUR rejected assertions that the Kuki-Zo people arrived in Manipur only during the nineteenth century as “rent-paying intruders” within Naga territories. Citing colonial census records, the Gazetteer of Manipur (1886), and writings of British officials including William McCulloch, R. Brown, and R.B. Pemberton, the organisation argued that the Kuki-Zo had long-established settlements across the hills of Manipur. It also referred to the Cheitharol Kumbaba, the royal chronicle of Manipur, claiming references to Kuki/Khongjai communities predated 1485.
KOHUR further challenged descriptions of the Kuki-Zo people as “wandering,” “vagrant,” or “mercenary,” stating that such characterisations were rooted in colonial-era stereotypes that modern scholars have rejected. The organisation noted that colonial literature had similarly applied derogatory descriptions to Naga communities, arguing that selective use of such language was historically irresponsible.
On the constitutional question, KOHUR asserted that Kuki-Zo tribes remain constitutionally recognised Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, and subsequent amendments. It maintained that “indigeneity” is not a legal criterion for Scheduled Tribe status and argued that no authority other than Parliament and the President could alter or revoke such recognition.
The statement also rejected allegations of a coordinated “demographic invasion” and accusations linking the Kuki community collectively to poppy cultivation. KOHUR contended that village growth statistics were methodologically flawed due to district reorganisation and traditional settlement patterns, while citing government eradication records to argue that poppy cultivation existed across multiple districts, including Naga-majority areas.
Regarding the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement involving Kuki armed groups, KOHUR described the pact as a tripartite ceasefire arrangement formalised in 2008 between the Government of India, the Government of Manipur, and Kuki umbrella organisations KNO and UPF. It said the agreement expressly prohibited offensive operations and association with other armed groups, rejecting UNC allegations that the SoO framework functioned as a “proxy” mechanism against Naga groups.
KOHUR also disputed the UNC’s portrayal of post-February 2026 violence as a one-sided “war of aggression” by Kuki militants. The organisation claimed that the conflict involved violence against Kuki-Zo civilians as well, citing killings in Ukhrul district, attacks on villages at Mullam and Songphal, and the ambush killing of three Kuki Christian leaders on May 13 while returning from a peace and reconciliation meeting in Churachandpur.
In its concluding section, KOHUR called for a judicially monitored impartial investigation into all incidents of violence between February and May 2026, including the Kotlen–Kotzim ambush of church leaders. It also urged publication of Joint Monitoring Group findings on alleged SoO violations and appealed for an end to collective characterisation of any community as “foreigners,” “aggressors,” or criminals.
“KOHUR affirms that every community in Manipur — Naga and Kuki-Zo alike — has suffered loss in this conflict,” the statement read, while expressing willingness to engage with all community bodies “on the basis of the verifiable factual record and a shared commitment to the safety and dignity of all peoples of the State.”
