The decision of the Government of Manipur to engage in talks with members of the Kuki-Zo Council (KZC) on March 21 in Guwahati raises serious and unavoidable questions. The KZC, an organisation that emerged during the ongoing Manipur crisis and was formally established on October 11, 2024, had earlier been dismissed outright by the state government itself. Under the previous dispensation led by N. Biren Singh, an official statement issued on December 12, 2024 categorically asserted: “There is no organisation called Kuki-Zo Council; public are advised not to pay heed.”
Also read No ‘Separate Administration’ as per PM Modi: CM Khemchand
This stark contradiction between outright denial and subsequent engagement exposes a troubling inconsistency in the state’s approach. If the organisation was once considered non-existent or illegitimate, on what basis is it now being accorded recognition through formal dialogue? Chief Minister Y. Khemchand Singh owes the public a clear and reasoned explanation.
Another deeply contentious issue is the symbolism associated with the KZC itself. Its logo depicts the map of Manipur overlaid with a conceptual “Kukiland,” subsuming areas widely regarded as part of Naga ancestral lands. Such imagery carries political implications that cannot be ignored. Engaging with an organisation that employs such representations in its logo raises serious concerns about the State government’s lack of due diligence, or worse, a troubling degree of complicity.
In any eventuality, if the answer becomes clearer by dusk—as naturally it will—the Nagas, the Zomis, the Gorkhas, and the Meiteis/Meeteis will unite in holding the current dispensation accountable for such dialogue. The docile and “sab chalta hai” approach by the apex Naga CSOs on this critical matter is equally baffling and for many, incomprehensible.
Also read TNL Questions GoM’s Actions Over Ukhrul Village Attacks, KZC Talks
Equally significant is the position taken by the Zomi Council. At its Annual General Assembly on May 11, 2024, through Resolution No. 1, the Council explicitly rejected the term “Kuki-Zo Council,” declaring it unwelcome in all Zomi-inhabited areas, particularly in Churachandpur district and Lamka township. The subsequent decision by the Government of India to invite the KZC for talks in August 2025 was widely perceived among Zomis as provocative. The Zomi Council responded by denouncing the KZC, questioning both its legitimacy and what it described as a divisive agenda.
Taken together, these developments point to a larger crisis of coherence and credibility in governance. When positions shift so dramatically without public clarification, and when contested entities are engaged despite prior rejection and widespread opposition, it erodes trust and deepens existing fault lines.