The Liangmai Naga Council, Manipur (LNC) has clarified that its decision to remain outside Zeliangrong organisations should not be interpreted as a rejection of ancestral ties or brotherhood with the Zeme, Rongmei and Inpui communities.
In a five-page clarification issued by Liangmai Duanwilo from Tamei on November 1, the Council said its position was rooted in the need to resolve organisational differences and ensure distinct tribal identity and representation, rather than severing historical and fraternal relationships with kindred communities.
Tracing the background of the issue, the LNC said the split between the Zeliangrong Union (ZU) and Zeliangrong Baudi (ZB) in 2010 had created confusion and division among the kindred tribes, with both organisations claiming to represent the apex body. It maintained that its decision to remain outside both organisations was intended to avoid taking sides until a unified and inclusive platform could be established.
The Council recalled that a Joint Working Committee comprising representatives of the Zeme Naga Council, Liangmai Naga Council, Rongmei Naga Council and Inpui Union, along with church leaders, was constituted at a meeting held at Nagaram Community Hall, Imphal, on August 30, 2010, to facilitate reconciliation between the two organisations.
Although consultations were held at Tamei, Tamenglong and Noney, a proposed meeting on September 7, 2013, at Tarung Community Hall, Imphal, could not proceed due to the absence of the presidents of ZU and ZB, the Council stated.
The LNC further referred to a joint meeting of representatives of the Zeme, Liangmai and Rongmei tribes, along with representatives from Ashalu, Makuiluangdi and Zailad regions, held at Dimapur on September 22, 2015. The meeting proposed restructuring the existing organisational framework to ensure distinct and autonomous representation of the three tribes, while establishing a common federation.
The position was subsequently reaffirmed at the Liangmai Naga Peoples’ Convention held at Konsaram on October 9, 2015. Under Declaration No. 3, the convention resolved to uphold the distinct recognition of the name Liangmai in accordance with its separate Scheduled Tribe status in Manipur and seek recognition in the official nomenclature of the United Naga Council (UNC).
The convention also resolved to maintain an independent organisational identity and non-affiliation with any Zeliangrong organisation, while supporting the formation of a common federal apex body comprising the Inpui, Liangmai, Rongmei and Zeme communities.
The Council said a similar position was adopted by the Rongmei community at its convention held at Tamenglong on January 9, 2018, which resolved that no Rongmei should join the Zeliangrong Union (AMN) or Zeliangrong Baudi (AMN) until a common nomenclature distinct from Zeliangrong was established.
It also cited a joint letter dated July 7, 2018, submitted by the presidents of the Rongmei, Liangmai and Zeme Naga Councils to the president of Zeliangrong Baudi (AMN), communicating their decision to dissociate from Zeliangrong organisations and their subordinate bodies.
Rejecting allegations that the Liangmai people had abandoned the Zeliangrong fold, severed ancestral relationships or violated the sacred covenant of Chukthoibo, the LNC described such portrayals as unwarranted misrepresentations of its position.
The Council maintained that the 2015 Konsaram declaration dealt with organisational affiliation, nomenclature and representation, and was neither a rejection of shared ancestry nor a denial of historical and fraternal bonds. It also cautioned against treating newspaper reports or public statements as evidence of an official resolution of the Council.
Reaffirming its position, the LNC stated that the Liangmai people shared deep ancestral, historical and fraternal ties with the Zeme, Rongmei and Inpui communities as descendants of Makuiluangdi, but maintained that such relationships were distinct from affiliation with any particular civil society organisation.
The Council appealed to all concerned to refrain from misrepresenting its position and called for differences over nomenclature, representation and organisational affiliation to be resolved through dialogue, mutual respect and a common understanding of shared history.