COCOMI counters Kuki-Zo claims on ‘misinterpreting’ Manipur’s history

Imphal: The Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI) has submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister, alleging that two Kuki-Zo umbrella outfits misinterpreted the history of Manipur during the recent two-day talks in New Delhi.

The memorandum asserts that historical evidence, including references from the Manipur State Darbar Rules of 1907, clearly shows that the Manipur State administered both the valley and the hill areas.

It added that the British ruled Manipur from 1891 to 1947, and that post-Independence legal continuity emerged through court judgments in 1963 and 1979, which recognised the State’s authority over forests and other lands in the hill districts.

COCOMI submitted the memorandum to counter the allegations made by the Kuki-Zo groups.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) held talks with representatives of Kuki-Zo armed groups under the Suspension of Operation (SoO), the Kuki National Organisation (KNO), and the United People's Front (UPF) on November 6 and 7, 2025.

During the meeting, the Kuki-Zo representatives reportedly told A.K. Mishra, the MHA interlocutor, that the Kuki-Zo hills were never under the control of the Manipur State Durbar before Independence.

They also argued that under British rule, Kuki-Zo lands and other tribal areas were classified as “Excluded Areas” under the Government of India Act, 1935, and were administered directly by the British Political Agent rather than the Meitei king.

According to their claim, Kuki-Zo governance rested with traditional chiefs, who exercised complete control over land, justice, and local affairs.

The memorandum, signed by COCOMI convenor Khuraijam Athouba, further states that the term “Kuki” itself emerged during the colonial period as an administrative classification rather than an indigenous identity, weakening the basis for contemporary assertions of indigeneity.

COCOMI also argued that customary rights over land and forests exercised by tribal communities were historically usufructuary in nature, meant for livelihood and use, and did not constitute proprietary ownership under the legal framework of the time.

Against this backdrop, COCOMI urged the Government of India to dismiss what it termed “ahistorical claims,” stating that accepting such demands would undermine the territorial integrity of Manipur.