Nearly six years have passed since the military coup in Myanmar on February 1, 2021, triggered a massive humanitarian crisis, forcing thousands of people to flee across international borders. Sharing a porous 398-km international border with Myanmar, Manipur inevitably became one of the entry points for those escaping the violence. Since then, the issue of refugees and illegal immigration has repeatedly surfaced in political speeches, security briefings and public discourse. Yet, despite the seriousness of the matter, one glaring fact remains unchanged: the people of Manipur still do not know the actual numbers.
The State Government has consistently projected the influx of Myanmar nationals as a matter of security concern. Illegal immigration has been cited in debates over border fencing, the Free Movement Regime (FMR), demographic changes, law and order, narcotics trafficking and even the ethnic conflict that erupted in May 2023. If the issue is indeed as significant as portrayed, why has the government failed to place before the public a transparent and updated account of those who entered the state from Myanmar?
The questions are simple, legitimate and long overdue.
How many Myanmar nationals have entered Manipur since February 2021? How many have been officially registered? How many have undergone biometric identification? Where are they presently staying? How many are housed in relief centres? How many are living in villages or rented accommodation? How many have voluntarily returned? How many have been deported? Most importantly, how many remain in Manipur today?
These are not questions designed to provoke communal sentiments. They are questions that go to the heart of governance, border management and public accountability.
The Union Ministry of Home Affairs had directed the northeastern states to collect biometric and biographic details of Myanmar nationals staying illegally in India. The exercise was projected as an important mechanism to ensure that every foreign national entering the country was identified and documented. If that exercise has indeed been completed, where are the results? If it remains incomplete, why has there been no explanation?
What makes the silence more perplexing is that neighbouring Mizoram has periodically released official figures regarding Myanmar refugees living in the state. Authorities there have publicly disclosed the progress of biometric enrolment and registration. In contrast, Manipur—which has repeatedly described illegal immigration as a major security challenge—has offered no comparable transparency.
If the government possesses accurate figures, it should release them. If it does not, then it must explain why such crucial information remains unavailable after nearly six years.
A democratic government is accountable not only for the decisions it makes but also for the information it withholds. Public confidence cannot be built on assumptions or selective disclosures.
When security concerns are repeatedly cited to justify major policy decisions, the supporting facts cannot remain hidden indefinitely.
The issue also demands a balanced perspective. There is a clear distinction between people fleeing armed conflict and those entering illegally for other purposes. International humanitarian principles recognise the need to protect civilians escaping violence. At the same time, every sovereign nation has the right—and indeed the responsibility—to regulate its borders, identify foreign nationals, and ensure that those without legal permission are dealt with according to the law. These objectives are not contradictory. Effective border management depends on accurate documentation, transparent administration and credible public information.
The continuing opacity only deepens public mistrust. In a state already scarred by violence, displacement and competing political narratives, secrecy is counterproductive. Facts, not speculation, must guide public debate.
The Government of Manipur owes its citizens a comprehensive status report. It should disclose the total number of Myanmar nationals who entered the state since 2021, the number registered, the number biometrically enrolled, the number currently residing in Manipur, the number who have returned, and the number deported. Such data should be periodically updated and made available in the public domain.
Transparency is not a concession; it is a constitutional obligation.
Manipur has endured enough uncertainty over the past several years. The people deserve facts—not rumours, not political rhetoric, and certainly not silence.
Until the government answers these basic questions with verifiable data, one question will continue to haunt public discourse: Is Manipur’s border being managed through evidence-based governance, or has one of the state’s most sensitive issues been left to speculation and political convenience?