14 organisations criticise MP Bimol Akoijam over Merger and NRC remarks

A coalition of 14 organisations in Manipur today launched a sharp criticism of Inner Manipur Member of Parliament Dr. Bimol Akoijam over his recent remarks on the state’s political status prior to its merger with the Indian Union and his comments on the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
Addressing a press conference at the office of the International Peace and Social Advancement (IPSA) in Keishamthong, Shanta Nahakpam, speaking on behalf of the organisations, alleged that the MP’s statements reflected a lack of understanding of key constitutional and historical frameworks.
Referring to Dr. Akoijam’s speech at a seminar organised by the All Manipur Bar Association at MSFDC on Saturday, Shanta contended that the MP misrepresented provisions of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and relied selectively on legal references to justify the merger of Manipur with the Indian Union. He argued that the Act not only restructured the legal framework established under the Government of India Act, 1935, but also served as a transitional constitutional basis.
He further stated that the question of the legitimacy of Manipur’s merger remains a subject of scholarly debate, and accused the MP of undermining academic discourse in the state by presenting a one-sided narrative. According to him, Dr. Akoijam failed to adequately address provisions of the 1947 Act, particularly Section 7(1)(b), which marked the lapse of British Paramountcy on August 15, 1947, thereby restoring sovereignty to princely states, including Manipur.
Citing multiple Supreme Court judgments between 1954 and 1993, Shanta asserted that the sovereign status of princely states has been recognised in various legal contexts, and warned that denying such status could call into question agreements entered into with the Government of India.
On the issue of the NRC, the organisations accused the MP of misleading the public by referring to an RTI response from the State Home Department stating that records of the 1951 NRC were unavailable. Shanta argued that the reply originated from the Directorate of Census Operations, Manipur, and not from a competent authority under the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.
He maintained that the MP, as a parliamentarian, should instead press the Centre to produce the 1951 NRC records for Manipur. He also referred to the 1954 administrative report of the Superintendent of Census Operations for Assam, Manipur and Tripura as evidence of the existence of such records.
The organisations reiterated their demand for updating the NRC in Manipur to identify illegal migrants prior to the conduct of future census exercises, stating that the issue remains central to safeguarding the demographic and political interests of the state.