Only the Kuki chiefs of Manipur cling to unconstitutional privileges

LB Singh
The customs and traditions of the Kukis of Manipur, and the Kuki-Chin tribes in the Chin State Region of Burma (Myanmar) and the Lushai Hill District of Assam (Mizoram) are generally the same. Before independence, the British recognized not only the hereditary Chieftainship in all the above places but also the Maharaja of Manipur.
India and Burma gained independence from the British on August 15, 1947, and January 04, 1948, respectively. In the Chin State Region of Burma, the hereditary Chieftainship was abolished by adopting a democratic form of Government on February 20, 1948, immediately after independence.
In the Lushai Hill District of Assam (Mizoram), the hereditary Chieftainship was abolished eight years after India’s Independence by implementing “The Lushai Hill District of Assam (Acquisition of Chiefs’ Rights) Act 1954 as amended in 1955,” and the administration of the Land and Land Revenue was passed to the hands of the District Council.
However, the people of Manipur got the assent of “the Manipur Hill Areas (Acquisition of Chiefs’ Rights) Act 1967, on June 14, 1967, long after independence. When the said Act was notified on June 20, 1967, about three hundred Kuki Chiefs protested the implementation of the Act. It may be noted that only the Kukis of Manipur protested the abolition of hereditary Chieftainship.
Even after celebrating the 79th Independence Day, the Kuki Chiefs are trying to cling to their unconstitutional privileges. The so-called Committee on Protection of Tribal Areas Manipur – Kuki Hills (COPTAM – KH) issued a rebuttal to my article, “Abolish the Kuki Chiefs’ Unconstitutional Privileges to Enable the Safe Return of IDPs,” published in the “Ukhrul Times” on December 12, 2025. The article was also published on the same day in “The Sangai Express” under the heading “Abolish the Kuki Chiefs’ privilegesto facilitate safe return of IDPs.” Eight key points highlighted by COPTAM – KH (shown in Italics) and my response are enumerated below:
1. Kuki Chieftainship is Constitutional: The Constitution of India protects tribal customs under Article 371- C, 13(3)(a), 29, and the Hill Areas Committee (HAC) Order, 1972. Kuki Chief is a recognized institution, integral to community governance, recognized by British authorities pre-independence.
The concept of Chieftainship/Rulership with special privileges is incompatible with the principles of democracy, equality, and social justice, and accordingly, it was abolished by the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of India in 1971. Therefore, the special privileges and authorities of the Kuki Chiefs are unconstitutional.
The Naga Chiefs are functioning democratically as the Ex Officio Chairman of the Village Authorities without the unconstitutional special privileges and authorities. It has not affected the tribal customs of the Nagas under Article 371-C, Article 13 (3)(a), 29, and the Hill Areas Committee (HAC) Order 1972.
The Kuki Chiefs rendered excellent service to the British by governing the respective villages, maintaining law and order, collecting House Taxes, etc. However, after the independence, the country became a Democratic Republic, and Chieftainship with special privileges is incompatible with the principles of democracy, equality, and social justice. The institution of Chieftainship in Mizoram was abolished as highlighted above. Then the administration of Land and Land Revenue passed into the hands of the District Council. Now, Mizoram is way ahead of Manipur in the survey and the documentation of land.
2. Kuki Chiefs are Not “Dictators”: Ethnographic and colonial records confirm chiefs exercise custodial authority, not absolute ownership. Their role is cultural, administrative, and protective,similar to other tribal systems in northeast India.
Kuki Chiefs are not a dictator by the true definition. However, the hereditary Kuki Chiefs practice an extreme form of autocracy, and a single leader has total control of land, executive, legislative, legal, and military power. The characteristics of a Kuki Chief are very close to those of a dictator. Capt. TH Lewin described the Kuki Chief as a dictator or President (The Hill Tracks of Chittagong, p-100).
The Kuki Chiefs claim and behave as the owners of the entire village land, including the forest. They also claim compensation for the village land whenever affected by the Government projects. The Kuki villagers can’t acquire any heritable and transferable land rights and can’t lay claim to any land. The Kuki Chiefs can expel a villager from the village, and he can even allot land to outsiders. The villagers can’t even insist on the same Jhum plot in the next cycle. Therefore, they are not just the custodians of the village land.
In Manipur, the elder of the clan, “Rampao” in the case of Kabui Naga, can be considered as the custodian of land. The tenant, “Laopao,” once admitted to tenancy can’t be evicted by the “Rampao.” The tenants acquire heritable and transferable rights of use and occupation.
3. IDPs Can’t Return Due to Security Threats: Over 60,000 Kuki Adivasis and 20000 Meeteis were displaced due to targeted arson, State-sponsored violence, armed groups, and law enforcement failures. Blaming chiefs is a diversion from root causes.
The security of the Meetei and the Kuki IDPs returning to their respective original places is a serious concern. However, overall security of the IDPs returning to their original places can be improved by reconciliation, dialogues, promotion of Confidence Building Measures (CBM), mutual trust, and respect. One can’t improve the security situation by insisting on “Solution first, peace later.”
The IDPs living in the relief camps in subhuman conditions are the worst-affected people by the present crisis. Many of them have faced horrific situations, and some have lost their loved ones in the violence, leaving deep psychological wounds in their minds. However, IDPs from both communities have expressed their intense desire to return to their original places during the visit by various dignitaries, including the Manipur Human Rights Commission (MHRC) Chairperson, Justice UB Shah, MLA Y Khemchand, etc.
However, some people sitting in the comfort of their houses are trying to prevent free movement, CBM, promotion of mutual trust and respect, and return of IDPs, citing the deep wound by the present crisis. Those who can’t hear the desperate, legitimate cry of the IDPs are the people influenced by the militants who have been demanding a Separate Administration for many decades.
Some hereditary Kuki Chiefs, militants, poppy growers, and vested interests have exploited and misguided ordinary Kukis for many years. Therefore, they are responsible for their miserable conditions. However, they have instilled the fear-psychosis of land alienation and relentlessly whipped up the sentiments of the ordinary Kuki citizens with false propaganda of discontent and hatred against the State Government for ensuring the survival of the institution of hereditary Kuki Chieftainship and to garner support for a Separate Administration. They have deployed many helpless ordinary Kukis at their disposal to keep the Kuki and Meetei geographically separated during the present crisis to achieve their political objectives. The illegal migrants and the drastic increase in the number of villages ruled by the hereditary Kuki Chiefs are also some of the root causes of the present crisis.
4. 1967 Act Can’t Be Imposed: The dormant Act contradicts constitutional provisions, violates the Forest Rights Act (2006), and undermines the Samatha Judgement (!997) protections. Revival would strip ST communities of customary rights.
The Manipur Hill Areas (Acquisition of Chiefs’ Rights) Act 1967 can be implemented with the unwavering support of the Governor of Manipur and the Union Government. The abolition of the special privileges and authorities of the hereditary Kuki Chiefs without imposing uniform land laws does not violate the Forest Act (2006) and undermine the Samatha Judgement (1997). It would not have any adverse effect to the ST.
5. Poverty Blame Game is a Diversion: Underdevelopment stems from denied land compensation, illegal forest notifications, refused land Pattas, unequal welfare schemes, and structural governance failures impacting tribal areas.
If the number of hereditary Kuki Chiefs and the ordinary Kuki citizens under the poverty line are almost the same, one can call it a blame game. However, hereditary Kuki Chiefs are among the rich and the well-to-do people of Manipur. Therefore, the hereditary Kuki Chiefs, militants, poppy growers, and vested interests are responsible for the exploitation of the ordinary Kukis and their miserable condition.
6. Community Organisations are Democratic : CoTU, ILTF, KIM include elected youth, Church bodies, women’s groups, and civil society reps, representing diverse community voices, not “controlled by chiefs.”
The language used in most press releases by CoTU, ITLF, and KIM is in the directive/diktat style, indicating that these organisations are under the control of the Kuki Chiefs.
7. Majoritarian Agenda is Misleading: Uniform land laws aim to erode Hill-valley separation, expand valley control, and dismantle Article 371-C protection, threatening tribal autonomy.
The article has not recommended the establishment of uniform land laws, as it can affect the natural traditional livelihood of many tribes. The wisdom of the ancient traditional irrigation system in the terrace fields at the high mountains with limited source of water, use of woodland as a fire-protection line for the homestead land, etc., needs to be studied and incorporated in the land laws.
On abolition of the special privileges and authorities of the hereditary Kuki Chiefs the land in the Kuki villages be temporarily kept under the administration of their respective Village Authority till the completion of survey and documentation in the individual name of the villagers or the land can be kept under the administration of the District Council, similar to the process adopted in Mizoram in the late 1950s.
8. Peace Requires Justice, Not Cultural Erasure: Safe IDP return needs neutral security, prosecution of perpetrators, rehabilitation, tribal autonomy restoration, and equal IDP treatment across districts.
The prosecution of perpetrators can be expedited by wholehearted support to the law-enforcing agencies from both Meeteis and the Kukis. Therefore, justice can be delivered faster if both communities promote mutual trust and respect and return to normalcy.
The special privileges and supreme authorities of the Kuki Chiefs with military power are the main cause of the aggressiveness of the Kukis towards other communities. The aggressiveness of the Kuki Chiefs led to a repeated cycle of violence, including the ethnic cleansing of the Nagas and the Meeteis from Moreh in 1992-3 and 2023, respectively. Abolishing the special privileges and authorities of the Kukis Chiefs would remove their aggressiveness and prevent future ethnic clashes with other communities.
Most Kukis and Meeteis know that the peaceful coexistence of all ethnic communities is the only way to ensure the well-being of future generations in Manipur. Most peace-loving Kuki citizens are living under the shadow of the guns of the militants, some in very remote areas where law enforcement agencies are not readily available. They can’t openly express their views and challenge the diktat of militants to maintain geographical separation from the Meetei and prevent free movement.
Since the Kuki Chiefs are the Commander-in-Chief of the village defense forces, and are responsible for dealing with the militants, some of them are generally responsible for obstructing free movement, CBM, and the return of the IDPs to their respective places.
There is also another alarming dimension, as the militants become more powerful and the nexus between them and the poppy growers becomes stronger, there is a very high possibility of them misusing the special privileges and the authorities of some weak Kuki Chiefs.
The ordinary Kuki citizens of Manipur do not enjoy the Fundamental Rights provided by the Constitution of India due to the unconstitutional privileges and authorities provided to the hereditary Kuki Chiefs. They are exploited and deployed by some Chiefs, militants, poppy growers, and vested interests to prevent free movement, reconciliation, CBM, return of IDPs, and restoration of peace and normalcy.
Abolishing the unconstitutional privileges and authorities of the hereditary Kuki Chiefs will enable the ordinary Kuki citizens to enjoy the freedom provided by the Constitution of India and pave the way for lasting peace in Manipur. Therefore, it is critically essential to abolish the unconstitutional special privileges and the authorities of the Kuki Chiefs. It will bring the beginning of the end of the present unfortunate crisis.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the people of the state, CSOs, and Meira Paibis should urge the Governor of Manipurto immediatelyinitiate the following measures:
· Forward a comprehensive report to the Government of India (GoI), on the sidelining of “the Manipur Hill Areas (Acquisition of Chiefs’ Rights) Act 1967, and its adverse effects on the people of Manipur.
· Obtain the approval of the GoI in principle for the payment of compensation on implementation of the said Act.
· Issue necessary directives to the concerned authorities to determine the exact number of officially recognized Kuki villages, the number ofhouse-tax-paying houses in those villages,and work out the financial implications for the implementation of the said Act.

The writer is a retired Captain of the Indian Navy.
Email ID: bimollaishram@gmail.com