Manipur finds itself at a political crossroads where its own concerns over illegal immigration, demographic changes and protection of indigenous identity appear to be colliding with a national political campaign against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The question that deserves serious consideration is simple: Why should Manipur join the protest organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and supported by the INDIA bloc in New Delhi against SIR when civil society organisations in the state have been demanding effective measures to identify illegal migrants and protect the rights of indigenous people?
The demand raised by various organisations in Manipur for updating the National Register of Citizens (NRC), using 1951 as the base year, before conducting the Census and delimitation is not merely a political slogan. It reflects deep-rooted apprehensions about undocumented migration, changing demographic patterns and the long-term implications for the political and cultural identity of the indigenous population. The organisations have repeatedly urged the Government of India and the state government to recognise these concerns and establish a credible mechanism for identifying genuine citizens and detecting illegal immigrants.
Against this backdrop, the opposition to SIR in New Delhi raises an uncomfortable question for Manipur’s political leadership and civil society. SIR is intended to ensure the integrity of electoral rolls by identifying eligible voters and removing names that do not satisfy the legal requirements, including those of foreign nationals who are ineligible to vote. If Manipur is genuinely concerned about the possibility of non-citizens finding their way into the electoral system, should it not welcome a transparent and effective verification exercise?
There can certainly be legitimate objections if the SIR process results in the wrongful exclusion of genuine Indian citizens. No democratic exercise should deprive eligible voters of their constitutional rights through arbitrary procedures. Such shortcomings must be challenged and corrected. But opposing the entire exercise is a different matter.
For Manipur, the issue is particularly significant. The state has witnessed prolonged conflict, displacement and heightened anxieties over demographic changes and cross-border movement from Myanmar. Its indigenous communities have repeatedly expressed concern that failure to identify undocumented migrants could have consequences extending beyond electoral politics to land ownership, political representation, employment and cultural survival.
Why, then, should the people of Manipur identify themselves with a campaign against SIR without first examining whether the exercise could serve some of the very objectives for which their own CSOs have been agitating? If the removal of ineligible foreign nationals from electoral rolls is a legitimate objective, Manipur should be demanding stronger safeguards and more effective implementation, not joining a blanket opposition to electoral verification.
This does not mean that SIR can replace NRC. The two exercises have different legal purposes. SIR determines eligibility for registration as a voter, whereas NRC concerns the identification and registration of citizens. Even a successful SIR cannot establish the citizenship status of every person residing in Manipur. The CSOs’ demand for an updated NRC therefore remains a separate and important issue.
But the more troubling question is directed at the Government of India. Why has the Centre failed to provide a clear and convincing response to the persistent demand of Manipur’s civil society organisations? Why should a state that shares an international border with Myanmar and has repeatedly raised concerns over undocumented migration have to continue agitating for a credible verification mechanism?
Manipur’s CSOs must maintain an independent position based on the state’s interests rather than allowing national political alignments to determine their course of action. Their responsibility is to protect the rights of indigenous people while respecting constitutional safeguards and ensuring that no genuine Indian citizen is unfairly targeted.
The people of Manipur do not need to oppose every initiative supported by the ruling establishment, nor do they need to endorse every campaign led by the national opposition. What they need is clarity about their own interests.
If Manipur demands the detection of illegal migrants, it cannot logically oppose a lawful exercise intended to remove ineligible persons from electoral rolls. And if the Government of India is committed to protecting indigenous communities and the integrity of democracy, it must stop treating Manipur’s NRC demand as an inconvenient political issue. The question is no longer whether Manipur’s concerns deserve attention, but why the Centre continues to keep them waiting.