In Episode 1918, titled “Complexities and politics as conflict escalates in Manipur with Naga Vs Kuki adding a new dimension,” ThePrint described Kamjong as a district with a “mixed Naga and Kuki population”. The remark, made in a discussion of the evolving conflict in Manipur, raises an important question about how the district’s demographic composition is being characterised.
For readers unfamiliar with Manipur and, in particular, Kamjong district, such a description may be taken at face value. Without adequate geographical, historical and demographic context, it risks creating an impression of a more evenly distributed population than the available settlement records may suggest. It is therefore essential to examine the evidence before accepting narratives that could lend political legitimacy to competing claims over land and territory.
In today’s polarised environment, where social media narratives increasingly find their way into mainstream reporting, journalists must exercise particular care when discussing land, maps, settlement patterns and demography. These are not solely matters of terminology. They can shape public perceptions of territorial belonging, historical presence and political legitimacy.
To begin with, independent research by Dr Sinalei Khayi documents 251 Tangkhul Naga villages across Manipur, including 145 villages in Kamjong district, and an additional 31 Tangkhul villages in Myanmar’s Somra Tract. Drawing on historical gazettes, records of Tangkhul organisations, cultural research and oral accounts, the study examines the geographical distribution and traditional topographical divisions of Tangkhul Naga settlements.
According to Dr Khayi’s research, the 145 Tangkhul Naga villages in Kamjong fall under the Kamo region. Kamo is used as a broad geographical designation for Tangkhul villages in the district. However, when used to refer to a particular group of people, the term has a more specific cultural meaning. The research associates this group with naming conventions such as Mopa, Kopa and Tipa, and discusses cultural affinities with the Khmer/Hmong. The Kangpat-Sorde-Nambashi group is also described as sharing a similar origin. The Kamo topographical division comprises nine ranges.
ALSO READ | Tangkhul Villages: A Comprehensive Guide to Their Distribution and Heritage
Khukok Range — 7 villages
- Alāng (Ngayophung)
- Chungka
- Ramsophung/Khongjal
- Loushing
- Loushing Khunthak
- Phungyar
- Tusom South
Sambu — 25 villages
- Apong
- Chāhong Khullen
- Chāhong Phalung (hamlet)
- Chāhong Chingthak (hamlet)
- Chamu
- Hango Kaphung (hamlet)
- Changa
- Chatric (Khullen, Khunuo)
- Hangkaw
- Kashung
- Khayang
- Khayang Phungtha (hamlet)
- Langkhe
- Lāngli
- Maku
- Mapum
- Madoyah
- Pushing
- Roni
- Rusheah
- Sahamphung
- Shingchā
- Sampui
- Yedah
- Zingsui
Raizan — 14 villages
- Bungpā Khullen
- Bungpā Khunou
- Grihāng
- Huimine Thanā
- Kangpāt Khullen
- Kangpāt Khunou
- Kongkān
- Meiti
- Ningchou
- Ningthi
- Phange
- Ramphoi
- Skipe
- Z Choro
Lungpha Range — 9 villages
- Khambi
- Kumram
- Mailiang
- Nongman
- Patbung
- Punge
- Sorathen
- Sorbung
- Sorde
Leimarol — 29 villages
- Wanglee
- Bungpun
- Makan
- Phungchon/Punouram
- Kangkum
- Kashung
- Nambashi Khunou
- Nambashi Khullen
- Khonglo
- Manthouram
- Nambashi Valley
- Khunthak
- Tarong
- Kasom Khullen
- Kasom Khunou
- Lairam Khullen
- M Reishangphung
- Lairam Phungka
- Khoiripok Ato
- Khoiripok Aze/Yeasom
- Khamlang
- K. Ashang Khullen
- K. Ashang Khullen Ato
- K. Ashang Khullen Aze
- Mawai
- Shangpunram
- Chongdan
- Hongbei (hamlet)
- Kangoi
Shangpun Long — 18 villages
- Irong Kongleiram
- Maryland
- Mumlo Ringpam
- K. Leihaoram
- Lungthar
- Heinganglok
- Sotun/Somdhar
- Sadak-khunbi
- Irong Ato
- K Somrei
- Nambashi Horton
- Komlaching
- Shungriphai/Soraland
- Keihao
- Chakhama
- Kharan
- Tangkhul Khullen
- Sochanram
Tomching Range — 17 villages
- Laikoiching
- Happyland
- Risophung
- Leishiphung
- Island
- Sopleng/Moirangpan
- New Salem
- Silent/Honkhuiphung
- Thangchingpokpi
- Ngarumphung
- New Canaan
- Muirei
- Wunghon
- Mayophung
- Leiyaram
- South Luoshing
- Tongkoi/Colley
Mapithel Range — 17 villages
- Lungpha
- Shingta
- Marou
- Shingkap
- T Hundung
- T Hundung Khunou
- Nongdam
- Chadong
- Ramrei
- Ramrei Aze
- Riha
- Thoyee
- Louphong
- Bohoram
- Itham
- Manthou
- Chingshou
Nongmaiching Range — 9 villages
- Kaprang
- Saman
- Lishamlok
- Poirou
- Lembakhul
- Ngaranphung
- N. Kachumram
- Tamaram
- T Saram
The significance of these records becomes clearer when viewed against the official administrative figures. According to the Kamjong district administration’s website (https://kamjong.nic.in/), the district has 123 villages across its four subdivisions: Kamjong, Phungyar, Sahamphung and Kasom Khullen.
The number and distribution of Kuki villages in the district also warrant closer scrutiny. The list available for this editorial identifies 13 Kuki villages, although the number may be slightly higher and remains subject to verification.
Kuki villages in Kamjong district (13 listed):
- Aishi
- Chassad
- Khoikai
- Kultuk
- Molvailup
- Phaikok
- Phaimol
- Kachouphung K (deserted)
- Lanchah
- Maokot
- Thawai (Kuki)
- Lakhan
- Gambal
Some are reportedly deserted, making it important to establish the current habitation status and population of each settlement through reliable administrative records.
ALSO READ | The Manipur Crisis and the Left Media’s Blind Spot
Ultimately, Kamjong’s demographic character cannot be established through sweeping assertions, but through verifiable records, population data and historical context. A loose description of Kamjong’s population in national media is not a minor error. In a conflict where land and identity are fiercely contested, such claims can be seized upon by radical groups to push their own narratives and justify political demands. That is precisely why journalists must check the facts before putting such characterisations into circulation.
Dr Sinalei Khayi’s independent research documents 145 Tangkhul Naga villages in Kamjong, while the list available for this editorial identifies 13 Kuki villages, some reportedly deserted. These figures are not, by themselves, a census of the district’s population, and the classifications, of course, require verification.
The figures presented invite a closer examination of how Kamjong’s demographic profile is being described and whether the term “mixed population” adequately reflects the district’s settlement patterns and historical context.
The obligation, therefore, is to interrogate claims based on hearsay, not inadvertently legitimise them.
