DIMAPUR, MARCH 8 (MExN): The All Naga Students’ Association Manipur (ANSAM) has sought clarification from Lok Sabha MP Dr Bimol Akoijam and the Indian National Congress over statements made during various discussions, including a talk circulated on social media since January 14, 2026, concerning forest land in the hill areas of Manipur, the demand for Scheduled Tribe (ST) status for the Meiteis, and criticism of the constitutional safeguards governing the hill areas under Article 371C.
In a statement issued on March 8, the apex Naga student body in Manipur said that “in light of the sensitivity of these issues and their direct implications for the tribal communities of Manipur, the ANSAM is compelled to seek clarification from the honourable MP and the Indian National Congress party on several points which undermine the constitutional and historical rights of the indigenous tribal peoples of the State.”
The association noted that Article 371C of the Constitution of India was introduced during Manipur’s transition to statehood to provide special administrative safeguards for the hill areas. According to ANSAM, the provision was enacted to safeguard the rights of tribal communities over land, resources, culture and custom.
“Article 371C was necessitated and enacted to safeguard the existing rights of the tribal people of Manipur, particularly over their land, resources, culture and custom,” it stated. The provision, it added, also established the Hill Areas Committee (HAC) in the Manipur Legislative Assembly and assigned special responsibility to the Governor for the proper administration of the hill areas.
“The provision reflects a constitutional recognition of the distinct historical, social and administrative realities of the hill regions and the need to protect the interests of the tribal population,” ANSAM stated.
The student body further maintained that tribal leaders from Manipur had approached various courts in the country since India’s independence, culminating in the Supreme Court of India, which has “time and again affirmed that there is no government ‘khasland’ in the hill areas of Manipur and instead gave rulings that the land belongs to the people, as per records available since time immemorial as the indigenous owners of the land.”
“That is why compensation in the hills is mandatorily paid directly to the indigenous tribal landowners by all user agencies including the State as well as the Union Government,” it stated.
On land administration in the valley, ANSAM said that following the merger of Manipur with the Union of India in 1949, land in the valley became the property of the state and has largely been governed through statutory mechanisms under the Revenue Department.
“Thus, the valley areas are administered under formal land revenue laws, which are totally different from the customary land systems that prevail in the hill districts till date,” it added.
Given these historical and constitutional “realities,” ANSAM said statements suggesting that forest lands in the hill areas are open for claims by communities outside traditional tribal inhabitants raise serious concerns. “We demand your clarification whether you are speaking in your personal capacity, or do these statements that disregard the established legal, constitutional and administrative framework governing land and resource ownership in the hill districts of Manipur reflect the official position of the Indian National Congress?” it stated.
The association also questioned the demand for ST status for the Meiteis, asking, “How can such a progressive community with a claim of 2000-5000 years of existence desire to benefit from being an ST under the Indian constitution?” It further pointed to what it described as inconsistency in the Congress party’s position, noting that its leadership had supported stronger constitutional protections for tribal communities in other regions.
ANSAM sought a clear public clarification regarding the MP’s statements and position on Article 371C and on the rights of indigenous tribal communities over land and resources in the hill areas. The association said it “believes that clarity on these matters is essential in order to maintain trust, constitutional adherence, and peaceful coexistence among the peoples of Manipur.”
It added that the clarification should be issued publicly, stating that failing this, the organisation would be compelled to consider the MP and the party he represents “as an anti-tribal entity.”
