Naga Students Association Manipur seeks clarification from MP Bimol Akoijam over remarks on Article 371C

The All Naga Students’ Association Manipur (ANSAM) has sought clarification from Bimol Akoijam over statements he allegedly made regarding forest land in Manipur’s hill areas, the demand for Scheduled Tribe status for the Meitei community, and the constitutional safeguards under Article 371C of the Constitution of India.

In a statement, ANSAM said the remarks made by the MP from the Inner Manipur Lok Sabha constituency during various discussions and a recent talk circulated on social media since January 14, 2026, have raised serious concerns among tribal communities.

The organisation said Article 371C was introduced during Manipur’s transition to statehood to provide administrative safeguards for the hill areas and protect the rights of tribal communities over land, resources, culture and customs. The provision also created the Hill Areas Committee in the Manipur Legislative Assembly and assigns special responsibility to the governor to ensure proper administration of the hill districts.

ANSAM further pointed out that various court rulings, including those by the Supreme Court of India, have affirmed that there is no government-owned “khas land” in the hill areas of Manipur and that land traditionally belongs to indigenous tribal communities.

The association said that the land administration system in the valley areas differs significantly from that in the hills. Following the merger of Manipur with the India in 1949, valley lands came under state administration through formal land revenue laws, while hill areas continue to follow customary land ownership systems.

Expressing concern over statements suggesting that forest lands in hill areas could be claimed by communities outside traditional tribal inhabitants, ANSAM said such remarks appear to disregard established legal and constitutional protections for tribal land rights.

The student body also questioned whether the statements reflect the personal views of the MP or the official position of the Indian National Congress.

ANSAM reminded that Article 371C was introduced during Congress rule as part of the constitutional arrangement during Manipur’s statehood and reflects the distinct historical and administrative structure of the hill regions.

The organisation also raised concerns about representation of tribal communities in the state legislature, noting that hill districts hold only 20 seats in the 60-member Manipur Assembly.

Referring to constitutional protections granted to tribal communities across the Northeast, ANSAM said similar safeguards exist in other states such as Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh, including provisions like Article 371A of the Constitution of India.

The association further urged the MP to maintain responsible public discourse, stating that statements questioning constitutional safeguards for tribal communities could deepen divisions in a state already facing social and political challenges.

ANSAM has demanded a public clarification from Akoijam on his position regarding Article 371C, the land and resource rights of indigenous tribal communities in the hill areas, and the implications of extending Scheduled Tribe status to communities outside traditional tribal groups.

The organisation warned that if no clarification is issued, it may consider both the MP and the Congress party as acting against tribal interests in the state.