Will Kuki CSOs’ Buffer Zones Derail IDP Resettlement?

On August 20, 2025, Angom Yumjao, a 50-year-old Meitei from Sekmai Makha Leikai, found himself stranded in Saparmeina after stepping off a Senapati-bound bus. 

In a heartwarming act of compassion, the Kuki community of Saparmeina ensured his safety, and Kangpokpi District Police facilitated his transfer to Sekmai Police Station in Imphal West, reuniting him with his family. 

This gesture echoes an earlier incident in August 2023, at the height of Manipur conflict, when a Kuki man, Seilun Guite, 62, wandered into a Meitei village at  Pukhao Ahanlup, in Imphal East. 

Despite the raging animosity between the two communities, Meitei villagers recognised seilun Guite’s mental health challenges, sheltered him, and coordinated with security forces to ensure his safe return to Sadang village in Kangpokpi. Several other Kuki individuals who entered the Meitei-dominated valley during this period were similarly handed over safely to police. 

Despite being vilified by Kuki CSOs and their propaganda outlets, Arambai Tenggol too rescued a Kuki woman, Kimneilhing Kipgen (34), during intense firing in 2023 and handed her to the Imphal East district police in December. Found in a passenger van, she initially used a forged Aadhaar card, claiming to be Pomila Tangkhul from Chandel district. It was later revealed that Kimneilhing, married to a South African man with a child, was attempting to conceal her true identity.

Also Read: Manipur Congress observes 9th death anniversary of former CM Rishang Keishing

These acts of humanity shine as beacons of hope in a state scarred by violence since May 3, 2023, which has claimed over 300 lives and displaced nearly 70,000 people. Yet, the Committee on Tribal Unity (CoTU), a Kuki civil society organization, cast a shadow over the Saparmeina incident, labeling Angom Yumjao’s presence a “serious violation” of a “mutually recognized Buffer Zone” and threatening stricter “self-checks.” 

The Committee on Tribal Unity (CoTU)’s claim of a “mutually recognized Buffer Zone,” as stated in their August 20, 2025, condemnation of a Meitei man’s presence in Saparmeina, lacks clarity, as no specific agreeing party is named. The Manipur Police’s May 2024 denial of official buffer zones and Meitei CSOs’ rejection of any Buffer zones in the state, suggest CoTU’s “mutual recognition” is likely a unilateral assertion. It may stem from internal consensus among Kuki groups like ITLF or misinterpretation of central paramilitary forces’ patrolling along the Kuki inhabitants areas, undermining state's efforts for free movement and internally displaced persons (IDP) resettlement.

By framing  Angom Yumjao’s presence as a breach of a “mutually recognized” zone, CoTU misrepresented reality and threatened vigilante-style restrictions on movement. This stance undermines the compassion shown by Saparmeina’s Kuki residents and echoes the misuse of “buffer zones” in cases like Seilun Guite’s, where the term was invoked despite no official designation. The absence of official buffer zones suggests CSOs are exploiting a governance vacuum failed administration in the hills, creating de facto boundaries that deepen ethnic mistrust. The government’s failure to challenge these claims has emboldened groups like CoTU, complicating efforts to restore unity.

Further, the Manipur Police’s May 2024 clarification that no official buffer zones exist exposes CoTU’s claims as baseless, raising a critical question: how can the government’s plan to resettle IDPs succeed when Kuki CSOs enforce fictional boundaries? By fueling ethnic divides, these groups threaten to derail Manipur’s path to peace and the safe return of its displaced people.

The audacity of these CSO-enforced buffer zones reached a new low when Inner Manipur MP Dr. Angomcha Bimol Akoijam was barred from entering parts of his own constituency, due to restrictions imposed by these fictional boundaries. Despite the Manipur Police’s clear stance that no official buffer zones exist, central forces prevented the elected representative from accessing his constituents, citing security concerns tied to these unofficial divisions. Shockingly, no action was taken against those responsible, highlighting the government’s inability to assert authority over CSOs. This incident not only undermines democratic representation but also signals the extent to which unauthorized buffer zones hinder free movement, even for public officials, casting further doubt on the feasibility of resettling IDPs in contested areas.

On July 4, 2025, former Chief Secretary Prashant Kumar Singh announced a three-phase plan to resettle 57,000 IDPs by December, offering ₹3 lakh for destroyed homes and prefabricated housing for 9,000–10,000 unable to return to volatile areas like Kangpokpi. Yet, CoTU’s buffer zone restrictions, like their December 2024 opposition to bus services, and oppose to free movements along the Highways in March 2025 stifle free movement. 

Meanwhile, the Meetei IDPs, like those in Tairenpokpi, Imphal West, protested their July 15 relocation, citing insufficient security near Kuki-dominated areas with ongoing gunfire. Ningthoujam Nanao, a displaced resident, told media, “We want to go home, but without security protection, it’s impossible.” Complaints about the inadequate Rs 3 lakh package further highlight the plan’s flaws, as it fails to address trauma and mistrust, risking superficial solutions.

Such actions make it nearly impossible for IDPs to return to areas controlled by opposing communities, particularly in Kuki-dominated regions. Dr. Akoijam Bimol has criticized the plan’s lack of consultation, warning that insecurity in areas like Churachandpur could delay returns. Amnesty International notes that trauma and mistrust, exacerbated by CSO-enforced divisions, deter IDPs from leaving relief camps.

Under President’s Rule since February 2025, the  Presidential Rule government’s failure to confront CSOs like CoTU and Joint CSO Moreh, which perpetuate division through buffer zone claims, reflects a broader inability to lead decisively. The lack of action against those who oppose the government effort of resettlement exposed this weakness. By allowing CSOs to operate unchecked, the state has ceded control, enabling them to block highways, intimidate travelers, and dictate terms that undermine peace and normalcy in the state.

Government often overlooked at the Kuki CSOs which oppose their resettlement plans. For instances, the Joint CSOs, Moreh has categorically asserted that any initiative of the Government to resettle Meiteis at Moreh should be opposed tooth and nail. Why Government deals such people and the organization with iron hands? 

Over 750 days of conflict have exposed Manipur’s vulnerabilities, yet the state has learned little. The root causes of Manipur problems are linked in the colonial “divide and rule” policies and post-independence laws like the 1960 Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act. Protests, roadblocks, and inflammatory rhetoric achieved little beyond entrenching mistrust. Kuki demands for a separate administration, amplified by CoTU’s “Separation Day” declaration have widened the gap.

The government’s silence on buffer zones mirrors its failure to counter false narratives. The Assam Public Service Commission’s retracted question about Manipur’s conflict, corrected after Meitei Heritage Society intervention, highlights the state’s inability to shape its narrative. The Meitei community’s past rejection of ST status, driven by cultural superiority, and the Kuki-Zo’s push for separation reflect a refusal to embrace shared identity. These unlearned lessons perpetuate Manipur’s cycle of division.

To further derail the peace process, Private organizations like the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) may label their reports as "independent," using terms like "tribunal" and "deposition" to lend credibility. However, such efforts often serve political agendas rather than justice, as they fail to address the decades-long plan by Kuki groups to fragment Manipur. Their primary aim appears to be perpetuating unrest, undermining the government's initiatives for free movement and peacebuilding. Authorities must actively challenge these misleading narratives rather than remaining passive observers. 

Despite calling for the prosecution of those spreading hate propaganda and inciting violence, the group has disseminated false information through one-sided narratives, deliberately concealing the Jiribam massacre, instances like forceful occupation of religion sites at Koubru and Thangjing hills, the killing of security forces by Kuki militants, and the abduction of Meitei teens along the foothills, as well as the missing man from the Army camp. The government must respond to such agenda-driven reports to counter their misleading claims.

To salvage its resettlement plan, the government must act decisively. It should reaffirm that no official buffer zones exist and direct security forces to dismantle informal ones, ensuring safe highway access. When CoTU warns against crossing buffer zones, it casts a long shadow over IDPs from Kangpokpi district, particularly Meiteis who fled Motbung, Kanglatongbi, and Kangpokpi. These families, displaced by violence, face daunting prospects of returning to their ancestral lands in Kuki majority areas where CoTU’s influence holds sway. 

On August 21, 2025, a delegation of IDP CSOs met Governor Ajay Kumar Bhalla, raising concerns about road accessibility, resettlement, education, healthcare, and housing. The Manipur Governor has assured them that these issues are being addressed, but CoTU’s insistence on fictional boundaries undermines such promises. Without free movement, Meitei IDPs cannot safely reclaim their homes, and the government’s plan risks leaving them in limbo, confined to relief camps or prefabricated shelters. This challenge epitomizes the broader struggle: CSOs like CoTU, by enforcing division, directly threaten the resettlement of the most vulnerable section of the society - refugee in their own homeland! 

Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s concerns about “strange people” entering Assam from outside resonate with similar issues in Manipur, where external actors have been accused of spreading false reports to fuel unrest for personal agendas and vendettas against indigenous communities. Just as Himanta Biswas Sarma warned that those disrupting law and order or engaging in “fundamentalist activities” in Assam would face arrest, the Manipur government must also take decisive action against individuals or groups who visit the state and propagate misleading narratives. These actors, often hiding behind labels like "independent" reports or tribunals work overtime to perpetuate ethnic tensions and undermine peace-building efforts in collusion with local CSOs. 

By failing to confront CSOs, the state risks prolonging the suffering of its displaced people. Manipur must act—dismantling fictional boundaries, engaging communities, and countering divisive narratives like those of PUCL—to build a future where peace and unity prevail.