The Meitei (Meetei) Tribal Union (MMTU) has slammed Inner Manipur Member of Parliament Bimol Akoijam over his recent remarks concerning the identification of illegal immigrants and the proposed updating of the National Register of Citizens (NRC), alleging that such statements are misleading and could disrupt legally established processes.
In a statement issued by Takhelambam Parijat Meitei, Secretary (Organisation) of the union, it was asserted that political leaders and parties must exercise caution when addressing sensitive and legally governed matters such as the identification of illegal immigrants. He maintained that the process is guided by the rule of law, and any public statements lacking legal grounding risk creating confusion and misinforming the public.
Providing a legal and historical context, Takhelambam Parijat Meitei stated that the question of whether an NRC exercise had been conducted in Manipur should be examined in relation to the 1951 Census carried out under the Census Act, 1948. He argued that the data collected during that period effectively constituted a foundational citizens’ register, as it recorded key personal details and classified the population into categories. With technological advancements, he added, such records could now be digitised and expanded systematically.
Referring to the Citizenship Act, 1955, he stated that citizenship in India is determined strictly in accordance with statutory provisions. Drawing a parallel with Assam, he noted that the NRC there was updated based on the 1951 register, with 1971 adopted as the cut-off year under the Assam Accord. He further pointed out that amendments introduced in 2003 provided for the updating of the NRC under specific rules, while the identification of illegal foreigners falls within the jurisdiction of Foreigners Tribunals constituted under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
He asserted that any initiative to update the NRC in Manipur must be anchored to the 1951 records and structured to categorise residents into distinct groups, including Manipur citizens, Indian citizens, and foreigners. According to him, this has gained added relevance following the enforcement of the Inner Line Permit system in the state, which regulates the entry and stay of non-residents.
The union leader also referred to historical patterns of migration into Manipur, acknowledging that various communities from outside had contributed to different phases of the state’s history. However, he maintained that there is a clear distinction between indigenous populations and migrants. He stated that those who entered Manipur prior to 1951, including groups that migrated from Burma during the 1840s, may be regarded as citizens, while those who entered after 1951 or in violation of existing laws should be treated as illegal immigrants.
Citing specific instances, he claimed that sections of Paite, Kuki, and Hmar communities had entered Manipur from Myanmar at different periods, in some cases with administrative support. At the same time, he alleged that continued inflows over the decades have contributed to demographic changes and increased pressure on land, particularly in hill districts. He further claimed that significant tracts of land have come under the control of such migrants, raising concerns about long-term implications for the state.
Takhelambam Parijat Meitei also alleged that demands for separate administrative arrangements within Manipur are being driven by such migrant groups, and cautioned that these developments pose a challenge to the interests of indigenous communities. He criticised what he described as “vote-bank politics,” alleging that electoral considerations have resulted in the protection of illegal immigrants, thereby intensifying the issue.
On the international aspect, he observed that India is not a signatory to the United Nations Refugee Convention, and suggested that policymakers should explore the feasibility of evolving legal mechanisms, including possible extra-treaty arrangements, for the identification and deportation of illegal immigrants in line with domestic laws. He also referred to the experience in Assam, noting that many individuals identified during the NRC process are yet to be deported, reflecting the complexities involved.