The central issue that is pivoting the conflicts in Manipur is over land as far as the Naga-Kuki clash is concerned.
Share
Ngaranmi Shimray
The central issue that is pivoting the conflicts in Manipur is over land as far as the Naga-Kuki clash is concerned. In respect of the Meitei-Kuki clash, it is mainly on account of the Meitei’s fear of power shifting to the tribes on account of rapid demographic changes. The fight against illegal immigrants and drugs, stated by the Meiteis as the main cause of conflict, are peripheral issues that stoke the fear of losing political power.
The write-up by Kuki Chief Association Ukhrul (KCAU) is confined to the former issue concerning land. As far as the lands of the Nagas are concerned, the bulk of Kuki settlements fall under the category of landlord-tenant relationship. Kuki tenants were allowed to stay on payment of annual rent by Naga villages, and there are historical documents that prove such a relationship exists between them.
Following the altercation between some youths in Litan on the night of 7th February 2026 that resulted in the hospitalisation of a Tangkhul youth, the matter escalated rapidly to gun violence and torching of houses in that area. This was followed by blockade of the road to Ukhrul and kidnapping of travellers by Kukis from the Ukhrul road. The clashes have spread to Sinakeithei and Ringui areas since then, causing deaths on both sides. Clashes are continuing, but desertion of villages, despite houses being set on fire, did not happen as security forces are stationed in vulnerable Kuki villages in Tangkhul areas.
The Kuki Chief Association Ukhrul (KCAU), comprising 16 villages, has demanded on 29th April 2026 that the lands where their villages are situated be incorporated into Kangpokpi district. Such a proposition by the tenants who came as refugees from Burma (now Myanmar) to snatch away lands from the Naga landlords is preposterous. Some of these 16 villages fall on the road to Ukhrul, which is a lifeline to Ukhrul for the Tangkhuls, and it is unimaginable to think, even for a moment, that the Tangkhuls will countenance such a situation of losing their land to Kangpokpi district and allowing the strengthening of the stranglehold over road access to Ukhrul. The Tangkhuls have lived under the shadow of uncertainty of violence and disruption of free movement between Shangkai and Litan for decades, yet believing in peaceful coexistence, these Kuki villages remained untouched in the 1990’s Naga-Kuki ethnic conflict. In fact, many Kuki villages abandoned during the 1990 conflict were allowed peaceful resettlement based on Christian compassion.
The current demand of KCAU, to say the least, is treacherous and a stab in the back. It precludes negotiations and could be the biggest strategic blunder committed by the Kukis as it may result in hardening of stance and resolve by the Naga villages. The issue before the Nagas is twofold; one concerning ownership of land and the other ensuring safe road passage. The demand by KCAU is a frontal assault on both the issues for the Tangkhuls and could be interpreted as a declaration of war.
The Tangkhul areas have recently witnessed the voluntary relocation of half a dozen Kuki villages from Kamjong district to Kangpokpi district. It is widely believed that their decision to relocate, in the current context of heightened tension between the Nagas and Kukis, may have been influenced by their desire to live amongst their brethren in a more secure environment and improve their economic prospects. The voluntary relocation is a very balanced approach adopted by the Kukis villages in Kamjong district to de-escalate and disengage as the trust deficit between the Nagas and Kukis has touched rock bottom.
The options before the Kukis are clear. The demand of the KCAU amounts to "Stirring up a hornet's nest," and they may have to face the consequences now. The Chakhroma Angamis had expelled two Kuki elders from Mouva Kuki village in Nagaland as they had broken the agreement. It will not be surprising if the Naga villages invoke such provisions and expel the Kuki Chief from the village for violating the agreement by the act of attempting to snatch away land by demanding its incorporation into another district.
The choice of pursuing a path of confrontation and of disengagement in the current crisis under these circumstances is obviously for the Kuki chiefs to decide. The real character of the Kukis is now exposed fully for all to see. In this context, the fable of the “Camel and the Man in a Tent” comes to mind. The man has been pushed to his limit of tolerance, and he has no option now but to show the camel its place.