When will IDPs from Moreh, Churachandpur and Kangpokpi return to their ancestral homes?

The Manipur government, under President’s Rule has unveiled a three-phase plan to rehabilitate internally displaced persons (IDPs) by December 2025, aiming to close all relief camps (around 350) in the State and provide around ₹3 lakh to rebuild homes. Yet, a sobering statement by Chief Secretary PK Singh, on 4 July 2025, reveals a harsh truth: around 10,000 IDPs, predominantly Meitei, from Moreh, Churachandpur, and Kangpokpi may not return to their ancestral homes even after the deadline due to ongoing insecurity. 

This delay aligns disturbingly with demands from the Kuki Organisation for Human Rights (KOHUR), which declared that “No Meitei will be allowed to settle in Moreh, Churachandpur, and Kangpokpi," and subsequently letters filled with lies and factual errors has also been sent to Chairman of the National Commission for Schedule Tribes and the President of India. As IDPs plead to reclaim their homes, their voices are drowned out by opposition, illegal land grabs, and fears of economic ruin. From a Kangpokpi Meitei family facing a baseless FIR to valley protests demanding basic rights, the path to rehabilitation is fraught with challenges. When will these displaced families return to their ancestral lands, and how can Manipur heal without succumbing to greed and division?

The plight of Meitei internally displaced persons highlights their urgent need to return to their ancestral homes, as they often lack alternative residences and are deeply tied to their lands in places like Moreh, Churachandpur, and Kangpokpi. In contrast, many Kuki families, as per reports, own multiple homes, such as in Game Village, Langol, and Sangaiporou in Imphal, Churachandpur, or Kangpokpi, reducing their immediate urgency to return to Imphal. Furthermore, a significant number of Kuki IDPs have demonstrated the ability to settle outside Manipur, finding refuge in states like Mizoram, Meghalaya, and Delhi, where they have established support networks. This disparity highlights a critical distinction: Meitei IDPs’ return to their ancestral lands represents an asset to the region’s stability and cultural continuity, unlike Kuki IDPs, whose rehabilitation may be less pressing due to their broader options. Consequently, civil society organizations and political leaders must prioritize the rehabilitation of Meitei IDPs, leveraging this urgency in negotiations with the administration to ensure their swift and dignified return. 

The rehabilitation plan faces fierce resistance from CSOs in Kuki-dominated districts stance risks entrenching ethnic segregation, undermining the government’s goal of closing relief camps. Congress leader Dr. Lamtinthang Haokip has fueled opposition, tweeting on July 4, 2025: “Forced resettlement of IDPs without addressing the underlying issues is unlikely to bring any intended solution. In fact, this may rather invite more confusion and pressure, and likely to escalate more tensions. ” His rhetoric risks discouraging IDPs and emboldening factions profiting from unrest. 

Relief camps across Manipur are a grim reminder of the violence that uprooted thousands. Meitei IDPs face a harsh reality, refugee in their own lands. The 10,000 displaced from Moreh, Churachandpur, and Kangpokpi, may remain in limbo post-December 2025. The government’s proposal of prefabricated houses offers little comfort. Thounaojam Romen, a Meitei trader from Moreh, told “A prefabricated house is just another camp, not my home. My shop, my life, is in Moreh.” Abung, a Meitei from Churachandpur now in a Bishnupur relief camp, shared: “I had a thriving grocery business. This is better than a camp, but it’s not the freedom of my own home.” The fear of prolonged displacement, while others return, is palpable.

In Kangpokpi, a Meitei family from Charhazare Meitei Leikai, now in Sekmai Relief Camp, faces a different kind of injustice. They condemned an irrelevant FIR filed against them by certain Kuki individuals, falsely claiming their properties in Kangpokpi were not destroyed and denying their ownership. The family, led by Thokchom Sanatomba, presented computerized land pattas, voter IDs, and Aadhaar cards as proof, asserting their ancestral ties to Charhazare. “This FIR is an attempt to erase our existence,” Sanatomba told. “We’ve lived there for generations. How can they deny our home?” The family has appealed to authorities for justice, fearing the loss of their ancestral land to baseless claims. Such incidents highlight the weaponization of legal processes to obstruct rehabilitation, deepening the pain of displacement.

For Kuki IDPs, the conditions are dehumanizing and equally harrowing reality. Lhingneikim, a 45-year-old widow displaced from Imphal to a Churachandpur relief camp said, “The camp is no life. We sleep on thin mats, share one toilet with dozens, and live on handouts. My home in Imphal was burned, but it’s still my home—my ancestors’ land. I want to go back, rebuild, and live with dignity.” Manglun Haokip, a 32-year-old farmer from Kangpokpi, shared his woes: “My fields, my house—everything is gone. The camp keeps us alive, but it’s not living. I’d rather face the risks and return than stay here forever.” Their voices capture a universal longing to escape the indignity of camp life and reclaim their roots. But when asked are you happy with the decision of the Government for rehabilitation plann of IDPs, none of them see any sign of happiness. One statement which is common to IDPs staying either in Kangpokpi or Churachandpur is that, "We will follow the instructions of our leaders." Who are their leaders, is it the CSO, the Militants or the Politicians? 

The response to displacement varies starkly between Manipur’s valley and hill districts. In Imphal and other valley areas, Meitei IDPs have taken to the streets, staging sit-in dharnas to protest the lack of basic rights and amenities.  Hundreds gathered in Imphal, holding placards demanding their right to return to Moreh, Churachandpur, and Kangpokpi. “We’re not refugees in our own state,” said Laishram Priya, a protester in Imphal. “Give us our homes, not promises.” These demonstrations reflect frustration with the government’s slow progress and the uncertainty surrounding the December 2025 deadline.

In contrast, the hills—Kuki-dominated areas like Kangpokpi and Churachandpur—have seen little to no protest against authorities. Kipgen, a Kuki IDP in a Kangpokpi relief camp, narrated: “Even if the government tells us to return, we’ll manage somewhere else. The ₹3 lakh compensation won’t cover our needs. To start life again, a roof isn’t enough—we need furniture, crockery, basic necessities. It’s better to stay elsewhere than struggle with nothing.” Her resignation reflects a broader sentiment among Kuki IDPs: distrust in the rehabilitation process and fear that it offers survival, not dignity.

Rehabilitation is not just about homes—it’s about livelihoods. Meitei IDPs like Romen, who thrived in Moreh’s trade hub, face an uncertain future. Ningthoujam Bimol, a displaced shopkeeper from Churachandpur, said: “If I return, what do I do? My shop is gone, the market is shut.” Itocha, whose furniture shop in Moreh was looted and destroyed by Kuki mobs, shared: “The government’s initiative sounds good, but I’m not sure about implementation. How will we survive in Moreh if the market isn’t reopened? Our finances must be strong to restart, not dependent on authorities. We don’t want to beg.” He urged the government to reopen Moreh’s market, historically controlled by Meiteis, and ensure free movement by taking stringent action against those blocking National highways in the State. 

Kuki IDPs face similar economic fears. Haokip, a Kuki farmer displaced from Imphal to Churachandpur, informed: “Meitei groups have illegally occupied our paddy fields and farms in the valley. Even if we’re rehabilitated, what job will we do? Farming is our income. The authorities’ silence on these encroachments makes us doubt they’ll protect our lives.” Having bought a small plot in Churachandpur, Haokip plans to stay away from the valley for 2–3 years, intending to return only to sell his properties when normalcy returns. They are also waiting for a nod from their MLAs whether to return back or stay somewhere in Churachandpur rented house. These stories demands the need for economic revival alongside rehabilitation.

Those obstructing rehabilitation must face stringent consequences. Villages in Kuki-dominated districts resisting Meitei returns should be temporarily excluded from schemes like MGNREGS, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, healthcare programs, and job reservations until they cooperate. Similarly, those who oppose the rehabilitation mission in the valley must be dealt with severe laws. Illegal land grabs are a grave concern. There are reports that certain groups in the Imphal Valley and hill districts have seized IDP properties—fields, homes, and businesses. These encroachers must be evicted and prosecuted under IPC sections 441 (criminal trespass) and 378 (theft), or the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, to restore properties and deter violations.

The rehabilitation plan risks repeating the failure of Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s March 2025 appeal for free movement across Manipur’s highways, which collapsed due to blockades by armed groups and will power of the administration. The plan’s success hinges on addressing security concerns in volatile areas like Moreh and Churachandpur, where KOHUR’s stance against Meitei resettlement aligns with prolonged displacement. While 5,000 IDPs have returned to fringe areas, the 10,000 Meitei IDPs face uncertainty, with prefabricated houses offering little hope. Without addressing root causes, the plan could falter, leaving IDPs like Lhingneikim, Manglun, Haokip, Kipgen, Priya, Romen, Itocha, Abung and Bimol trapped.

The government must balance enforcement with reconciliation. Reopening markets like Moreh and providing economic support will enable IDPs to live with dignity. The voices of IDPs demand justice and opportunity, not just shelter. Punishing obstructionists and encroachers is essential, but heavy-handed measures without dialogue risk deepening divides. The rehabilitation of IDPs requires courage to ensure that peace prevails over greed and division.

The voices of Lhingneikim, Manglun, Haokip, Kipgen, Priya, Romen, Itocha, Bimol and Abung are a call to action. The government must act decisively to ensure IDPs return to their ancestral homes—not as refugees in prefabricated shells, but as citizens reclaiming their lives. Manipur’s future hinges on courage: the courage to confront greed, bridge divides, and prioritize peace over division.

The history of the 1990s Naga-Kuki clashes serves as a stark reminder of the enduring pain caused by the occupation of ancestral Naga lands by Kukis in areas like Moreh and Kangpokpi. These conflicts displaced communities and disrupted the deep-rooted ties of the Naga people to their heritage. To prevent such injustices from recurring, it is imperative that all internally displaced persons are enabled to return to their ancestral homes with dignity and security. A collective commitment to peace, mutual respect, and the resolute defense of ancestral lands against aggression is essential to ensure that history does not repeat itself, fostering a future where all communities can coexist harmoniously while honoring their rightful heritage.

(Names were changed to protect the identity of the IDPs for their safety.)