By: Addie Chiphang
The debate over the proposed implementation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Manipur has entered a critical phase, particularly for the indigenous hill communities whose history, customary institutions and relationship with ancestral land predate modern administrative boundaries. For the Naga communities of Ukhrul and other hill districts, the issue therefore cannot be reduced to a simple question of documentation. It must be approached through the larger framework of citizenship, indigenous rights, customary land ownership, demographic protection and constitutional safeguards.
At its core, an NRC is intended to establish who is legally entitled to Indian citizenship. The Union Government has clarified that citizenship is governed by the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the rules made under it. The NRC exercise undertaken in Assam was a special process: the Assam NRC originated from the 1951 register, while its updating was carried out under specific legal provisions and the Assam-specific framework, including the March 24, 1971 cut-off.
That history is important because the Assam model cannot simply be transplanted onto Manipur without addressing Manipur’s distinct constitutional, historical and social circumstances.
For the indigenous Naga communities of Ukhrul, the central concern should be clear: citizenship verification must not become ethnic profiling, nor should an administrative exercise unintentionally undermine the rights of communities whose customary systems have governed land, village administration and social institutions for generations.
1951: A Reference, Not an Automatic Answer
There is growing discussion in Manipur over using historical records, including 1951 records, to establish indigenous status. But a responsible policy must distinguish between citizenship, indigenous identity and customary land rights.
These are related issues, but they are not identical.
The absence of a person’s name in a particular historical register should not automatically be interpreted as proof that the person or community is an outsider. Rural communities historically depended on oral traditions, village records, customary authorities and community-based institutions rather than extensive modern documentation.
This is particularly important in the hills, where administrative changes and limited access to government record-keeping have shaped the availability of documentary evidence.
Therefore, any verification mechanism must recognise a broad and legally valid range of evidence and provide an effective opportunity for affected persons to establish their citizenship.
Naga Customary Institutions Must Be Protected
For Naga communities, land is not merely an economic commodity. Village institutions, customary practices and traditional relationships with ancestral territory form an essential part of community life.
Consequently, an NRC exercise must not be allowed to weaken customary land systems or traditional village institutions.
The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils framework itself recognises the distinct administrative character of autonomous hill areas. Any future citizenship-verification mechanism affecting the hills should therefore be implemented with meaningful consultation with legitimate indigenous institutions and local communities.
Village authorities, customary bodies and recognised civil society organisations should have a meaningful role in documenting historical community records and assisting residents who may lack conventional paperwork.
Documentation Must Not Become a Trap
One of the greatest dangers in any large-scale citizenship exercise is the assumption that every genuine citizen possesses a perfect documentary trail.
A person may have been born in a remote village where birth registration was unavailable or irregular. Families may have lost records through fire, displacement, conflict or natural disasters. Names may also have changed through differences in spelling, transliteration or clerical recording.
Such circumstances should not automatically place genuine citizens under suspicion.
The process must therefore be transparent, accessible and humane. People should have adequate notice, assistance in preparing documents, opportunities for correction, and an independent mechanism for appeal.
NRC, Census and Delimitation Are Different Exercises
Another crucial safeguard is maintaining a clear legal distinction between NRC, Census and delimitation.
An NRC concerns citizenship. A Census is a population enumeration exercise. Delimitation concerns the determination or readjustment of electoral constituencies.
These processes may interact indirectly, but they have different legal purposes.
The statutory framework governing delimitation in Manipur has historically linked constituency delimitation with census figures and constitutional provisions. Therefore, any attempt to combine citizenship verification, population enumeration and political constituency restructuring without clear legal separation could create serious public anxiety and undermine confidence in the process.
For Naga communities, this distinction is especially significant because demographic data can have consequences extending beyond administration into political representation.
An Inclusive Naga Position
The Naga position should neither be driven by fear nor by hostility towards any community. It should be principled, constitutional and rights-based.
Nagas can support a lawful mechanism for identifying citizens and addressing illegal immigration while simultaneously demanding safeguards for indigenous communities.
That means insisting on:
- No ethnic profiling or collective targeting.
- No automatic rejection of genuine citizens for lack of old documents.
- No assumption that 1951 records alone determine indigenous identity.
- Recognition of customary land and traditional institutions.
- Meaningful participation of Naga representatives in verification.
- Independent review and accessible appeals for disputed cases.
- Protection of vulnerable families, women, elderly persons and displaced communities.
- A clear legal separation between NRC, Census and delimitation.
The Union Home Ministry currently maintains that citizenship matters are governed by the Citizenship Act and related rules, while the legal framework concerning foreigners and immigration is administered through the appropriate statutory mechanisms.
For Manipur’s hill indigenous peoples, the objective should therefore be neither exclusion nor discrimination. It should be lawful citizenship verification accompanied by firm protection of indigenous rights.
The Naga communities of Ukhrul and the wider hills must approach the NRC question with unity, constitutional awareness and historical consciousness. The demand should be simple but powerful:
Verify citizenship. Protect indigenous peoples. Preserve customary institutions. Respect ancestral land. Keep Census, NRC and delimitation legally distinct.
A credible NRC in Manipur can succeed only if it commands the confidence of the people. For the Naga communities, that confidence will depend not merely on who is counted, but on whether the process respects the history, dignity, rights and institutions of the indigenous peoples who have called these hills home for generations.
