A coalition of senior rights activists and civil society leaders from Ukhrul district has called upon both the central and state governments to deploy anti-terror legislation and mechanisms against what they describe as ongoing terrorist activities in Naga-inhabited areas of Manipur. The group accused authorities of failing to apply existing national and international counter-terror frameworks to protect civilian populations, describing the situation as a crisis that has persisted for decades.
The activists articulated their concerns during a press conference held at the Ukhrul Press Club on Sunday, presenting a detailed critique of governmental inaction while tracing the origins and evolution of what they characterized as militant threats to Naga communities.
The press conference brought together several prominent figures, including human-rights activists, legal experts, and representatives of civil-society organizations, all of whom sought to draw attention to what they termed systematic failures in addressing security concerns in the state’s hill districts.
History of Unaddressed Violence
The speakers emphasized that India possesses an extensive array of anti-terror legislation that has remained largely untapped in addressing the security challenges facing Naga populations in Manipur. They noted that the nation has enacted a series of anti-terror laws over the past four decades, including the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Acts of 1985, 1987, and 1997, along with the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2002—which was repealed in 2004—and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967, substantially amended in 2019. The activists pointed out that these legal instruments exist alongside robust international cooperation mechanisms, including Joint Working Groups with countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, Canada, Russia, Israel, and various European Union states.
Despite these comprehensive frameworks, the speakers argued that such instruments have not been effectively deployed to protect Naga civilians in Manipur. This failure, they contended, represents not merely a legal oversight but a profound abandonment of constitutional obligations toward citizens residing in the state’s hill areas.
“We’re Being Terrorised in Our Own Land”
Senior human-rights activist Hungyohung delivered the most pointed criticism of governmental policy, alleging that armed Kuki.groups operating in the region have perpetuated a campaign of terror against Naga communities with apparent impunity. “We are being terrorised in our own land,” Hungyohung stated, drawing a direct parallel between the suffering of Naga populations and the rhetorical commitments made by national leaders to combating terrorism elsewhere in India.
According to the activist, these armed Kuki groups maintain cross-border linkages and have operated with what he described as backing or tolerance from elements within the Indian state apparatus. He traced the emergence of these groups to the 1990s, characterizing their evolution from modest beginnings into a sustained insurgency that has employed sophisticated tactics including guerrilla warfare, psychological operations, drone technology, and explosive devices. “These acts of terrorism continue to this day,” Hungyohung emphasized, rejecting any suggestion that the threat has diminished with time.
The senior activist directed his criticism at both the Manipur state government and the central administration in New Delhi, accusing both of failing to take the fundamental step of proscribing militant Kuki outfits as unlawful or terrorist organizations under existing law. “Our MPs and MLAs should have stood up and asserted that these armed groups are unlawful or terrorists,” he told reporters. “Because they are not speaking, we the people must stand up and insist the Government of India declare these groups terrorist organisations.”
He further alleged that perceived protection extended to these groups by authorities has left other communities exposed while simultaneously emboldening the militants, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of violence and intimidation.
Land, Identity, and Demographic Transformation
Beyond the immediate security concerns, the activists framed the dispute in terms of land rights and ethnic identity, arguing that these questions lie at the heart of the conflict. Hungyohung rejected assertions that Kukis are indigenous to the Naga-inhabited areas of Ukhrul district, describing them as historically more mobile populations and attributing recent demographic shifts to refugee movements from neighboring Myanmar. He characterized these changes as fundamentally altering land dynamics that had been stable for centuries.
“We are indigenous people, native to this land; the land belongs to us and we belong to this land,” Hungyohung declared, establishing what he described as an inalienable connection between Naga identity and territory. He opined that this framing positioned the conflict not merely as a law-and-order issue but as a existential question of survival for indigenous communities facing irreversible demographic transformation.
Dr. YL Mingthing, convenor of the Discussion Forum Ukhrul (DFU), provided historical and ethnographic context to support these claims. He described the state’s response to the complex ethnic composition of Manipur as “very, very helpless,” suggesting that governmental institutions have proven incapable of managing the intricate social dynamics of the region.
Dr. Mingthing emphasized that Naga tribes across the wider region—including the Konyak, Ao, Angami, Lotha, and Tangkhul communities—carry long-running grievances concerning land rights and governance that have accumulated over decades of neglect.
The scholar attributed significant responsibility for current tensions to demographic pressures generated by recent arrivals and refugee settlements, some originating from the Chin Hills of Myanmar and from Bangladesh. He argued that these population movements have fundamentally undermined local peace arrangements and transformed the social fabric of communities that had maintained stable relationships for generations.
“Central security policies and the deployment of forces under the Home Ministry have not addressed Naga concerns. That is why we have grievances,” Dr. Mingthing stated.
Governance Failures in Hill Areas
Senior Advocate Daniel Ramsan, chairman of the Manipur State Commission for Social Care, expanded the critique to encompass broader governance failures affecting the hill areas. He highlighted the non-implementation of the Manipur Village Authorities in Hill Areas Act of 1986, which he noted covers roughly 2,500 villages across the hill districts. Ramsan explained that statutory provisions contained in that legislation, including the establishment of village courts under Section 19, remain unimplemented decades after the law’s passage.
“Till today there is no office established by the state government,” Ramsan disclosed, describing a situation in which village authorities in the hills are expected to perform administrative duties without the basic infrastructure that such responsibilities require. He noted that these authorities lack dedicated offices, functional courts, secretarial support, or compensation for their services—effectively operating in a governance vacuum despite clear legislative mandates.
The legal expert further pointed to constitutional and statutory provisions that grant special powers to hill area institutions. He cited Article 371C of the Indian Constitution and the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Area Committee) Order of 1972, which empower the state to frame distinctive laws concerning land, forest, and marriage specifically for hill-area communities. Ramsan asserted that these powers had not been exercised effectively, leaving hill communities without the legal frameworks necessary to govern their own affairs.
“We are maintaining our land and forest without land law, without forest rules,” he observed. “How can we progress?” The advocate urged the state government to enact and implement the relevant rules and to extend legal recognition to customary marriages that currently exist outside formal legal structures, leaving families vulnerable to arbitrary disruption.
India’s Counter-Terror Resolve
The activists drew a pointed comparison between the government’s response to terrorism in other regions and its apparent inaction in Manipur. Hungyohung recalled the terror attack in 2025 at Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir, in which more than 20 tourists—most of them foreign nationals—were killed. He noted that Prime Minister Narendra Modi responded by ordering a surgical strike deep inside Pakistan in what was characterized as a decisive response to state-sponsored terrorism.
“We agree with his accusation that Pakistan sponsors terrorism,” Hungyohung stated. “But what makes us unhappy is that, while he accuses others on the global stage, within India he appears to be sponsoring terrorism in our land.”
The activist insisted on applying the same terminology to actors within India’s borders, declaring: “We call those militants terrorists. We call the Kuki militants narco-terrorists or Kuki terrorists because they have terrorised us severely, causing loss of homes, livelihoods, lives and threats to our children.”
Despite what he described as overwhelming evidence of terrorist activity, Hungyohung noted that the Government of India has not proscribed these Kuki outfits under existing anti-terror legislation. This selective application of counter-terror measures, he argued, suggested a discriminatory approach that failed to extend the same protections to northeastern communities that other Indian citizens receive as a matter of right.
Criticism of Security Forces
The senior activist also directed criticism at the Assam Rifles, one of India’s oldest paramilitary forces with a long history of operations in the northeastern borderlands. He alleged that the force has been shielding Kuki militants rather than suppressing them, creating a situation in which local populations have lost confidence in state institutions.
“People feel they must rise,” Hungyohung cautioned. “In the days to come, people may rise and confront not the Kukis but the Assam Rifles, because wherever Assam Rifles are deployed, Kuki militants operate and begin harassing and terrorising civilians. I foresee this confrontation happening very soon,” he warned, suggesting a growing breakdown in the relationship between security forces and local communities.
The press conference was also attended by other public figures, including DFU co-convenor LM Thanmi Shimray.
The speakers renewed their call for existing national counter-terror frameworks to be applied uniformly across all Indian territories and for the central government to take the formal step of declaring and proscribing outfits they described as terrorist organizations operating against Naga populations.
Until such action is taken, they warned, the cycle of violence and neglect would continue, with increasingly severe consequences for the peace and stability of Manipur’s hill districts.