Kuki-Zo Insurgency Demands Union Territory Status

Recent talks between Kuki-Zo insurgent groups and the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) have focused on the demand for a Union Territory (UT) with a legislature for Kuki-Zo inhabited areas in Manipur. Despite a suspension of operations (SoO) pact signed earlier in 2025, the Centre has rejected this demand, emphasising the need for continued dialogue and consultation with all communities in the region.

Background of the Kuki-Zo Insurgency

The Kuki National Organisation (KNO) and United People’s Front (UPF) represent the Kuki-Zo insurgent groups. They signed an SoO pact with the Union and State governments in September 2025 to suspend armed conflict. However, ethnic violence in 2023 between Kuki-Zo and Meitei communities caused over 250 deaths and displaced more than 60,000 people. The insurgents now seek political autonomy as a solution to ongoing tensions.

Core Demand – Union Territory with Legislature

The Kuki-Zo groups insist that coexistence within Manipur’s current state structure is impossible. They demand a UT status with a legislative assembly to ensure self-governance. The groups argue that this demand is based on historical and constitutional legitimacy, citing that the Kuki-Zo hills were never under Manipur State’s direct control before Independence.

Government’s Stance and Dialogue Progress

The MHA, represented by North East Advisor A.K Mishra, stated that creating new Union Territories is not part of current policy. The government insists on consultations with all ethnic communities in Manipur before any political settlement. Talks are ongoing to seek a negotiated political solution within the Constitution of India.

Historical and Constitutional Justifications

The Kuki-Zo groups show that under British rule, their lands were ‘Excluded Areas’ governed by British Political Agents and tribal chiefs, not the Manipur Maharaja. Tribal governance was based on customary land ownership and local justice systems. Post-1949 integration of Manipur merged these hill areas into a valley-centric state, disregarding tribal autonomy and traditional rights.

Issues Raised in Talks

Discussions covered land rights, forest management, customs, and development. The groups urged the government to protect tribal land tenure and uphold the authority of tribal chiefs. They requested easing administrative hurdles like village chief succession and simplifying land registration, currently complicated by travel restrictions and insecurity in Imphal.

Implications for Regional Stability

The Kuki-Zo demand reflects deep-rooted ethnic and administrative grievances. The government’s refusal to grant UT status while promising continued dialogue puts stress on the complexity of balancing regional autonomy with state integrity. The ongoing conflict and displacement show the urgent need for equitable governance and security measures in Manipur.

Renegotiated Suspension of Operations Pact

The September 2025 SoO pact revised earlier terms, including security force verification of insurgent cadres and relocation of camps. It reaffirmed Manipur’s territorial integrity but introduced a clause for a negotiated political settlement within the Constitution of India. This marks a shift from previous demands for autonomous councils to a broader political framework.

Challenges Ahead

The path to peace requires addressing ethnic tensions, administrative reforms, and development disparities. Balancing tribal autonomy with state sovereignty remains challenge. Inclusive consultations and confidence-building measures are vital for long-term stability in the region.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Point out the significance of autonomy demands by tribal groups in Northeast India and how they affect regional stability.
2. Critically analyse the role of historical governance systems in shaping contemporary ethnic conflicts in state of Indias with diverse populations.
3. Estimate the impact of ethnic violence on internal security and development policies in multi-ethnic states like Manipur.
4. With suitable examples, underline the challenges and prospects of implementing negotiated political settlements within the Indian constitutional framework in conflict-affected regions.

Answer Hints:

1. Point out the significance of autonomy demands by tribal groups in Northeast India and how they affect regional stability.

1. Autonomy demands arise from ethnic identity preservation and historical governance distinctiveness.
2. They seek political and administrative control over land, resources, and cultural rights.
3. Such demands often stem from perceived marginalization within state-centric governance models.
4. Autonomy can reduce ethnic tensions by addressing grievances but may also fuel separatism if mishandled.
5. In Northeast India, multiple tribal groups with diverse aspirations complicate regional stability.
6. Failure to accommodate demands risks recurring violence, displacement, and disruption of development.

2. Critically analyse the role of historical governance systems in shaping contemporary ethnic conflicts in states of India with diverse populations.

1. Pre-colonial and colonial governance often involved distinct administrative units and customary laws for tribal groups.
2. British policies like ‘Excluded Areas’ recognized tribal autonomy, creating dual governance models.
3. Post-independence integration sometimes ignored these historical arrangements, causing alienation.
4. Disregard for traditional land tenure and local authority fuels ethnic resentment and conflict.
5. Historical governance legacies influence demands for autonomy or separate administrative units.
6. About these systems is crucial for designing inclusive political solutions respecting ethnic identities.

3. Estimate the impact of ethnic violence on internal security and development policies in multi-ethnic states like Manipur.

1. Ethnic violence leads to loss of life, large-scale displacement, and humanitarian crises.
2. It strains law enforcement and diverts security resources to conflict management.
3. Violence disrupts economic activities, infrastructure development, and service delivery.
4. It deepens mistrust among communities, complicating peacebuilding efforts.
5. Development policies must integrate conflict sensitivity and address root causes of ethnic tensions.
6. Prolonged violence undermines state legitimacy and hampers long-term regional stability.

4. With suitable examples, underline the challenges and prospects of implementing negotiated political settlements within the Indian constitutional framework in conflict-affected regions.

1. Challenges include reconciling diverse ethnic demands with territorial integrity and constitutional provisions.
2. Negotiations require inclusive dialogue among all stakeholders to build trust and consensus.
3. Example – Manipur’s SoO pact aims for negotiated settlement respecting constitutional limits but faces resistance on demands like UT status.
4. Balancing autonomy with state sovereignty demands flexible arrangements like autonomous councils or special status.
5. Prospects lie in confidence-building measures, protection of tribal rights, and development incentives.
6. Successful settlements can restore peace, promote inclusive governance, and encourage regional development.