UKHRUL: The District Development Co-ordination Committee (DDCC), representing nine tribes (Aimol, Moyon, Monsang, Maring, Tarao, Chothe, Tangkhul, Khoibu and Lamkang)has raised serious concerns over the conduct of the Deputy Commissioner of Tengnoupal regarding the development of the district headquarters (DHQ).
In a statement, the DDCC alleged that the proposed development of infrastructure at Tengnoupal village is “impractical and unwise” due to its challenging topography, shortage of water, low population density, and the presence of Suspension of Operations (SoO) camps. The committee stated that it had earlier submitted a formal petition to the Governor, Chief Minister, and Chief Secretary of Manipur, advocating for the establishment of the DHQ at Khebung in Machi block, citing its geographic and developmental advantages.
Referring to the Manipur Gazette notification dated December 8, 2016, which created Tengnoupal district, the DDCC pointed out that no specific location for the DHQ was officially designated. It further noted that a recent notification issued by the Finance Department, Manipur (No. PLG2-7/5/2025-PLG-PLANNING-Part (1)) under the Special Assistance to States for Capital Investment (SASCI) scheme for FY 2025–26 lists several projects for Tengnoupal district. However, items at Serial Nos. 62, 63, and 64 do not specify Tengnoupal village as the mandatory site for infrastructure development, instead referring broadly to the district.
ALSO READ: KZC Warns of Renewed Violence if Central Forces Are Replaced in Manipur Hills
The DDCC also cautioned contractors, including Kowar Dillung and Asem Ningthoujam, against commencing work without prior consultation with all stakeholders, warning that such actions could lead to misunderstandings. The committee alleged a pattern of exclusion and administrative failure, claiming that during a key stakeholder meeting held on July 29, 2025, to discuss the DHQ development, the Deputy Commissioner failed to invite representatives of the nine tribes and instead consulted only members of the Kuki community. It stated that this reflects partiality and exclusionary governance.
Further, the DDCC alleged that the Deputy Commissioner disregarded instructions from the Additional Secretary (Home) to examine the feasibility of Khebung and submit a formal report, thereby stalling a transparent decision-making process. It warned that the current approach risks deepening communal divisions and could result in poorly planned infrastructure that does not serve the wider population of the district. By favouring a single location without a clear legal mandate or inclusive consultation, the administration, it said, is undermining equitable distribution of state resources.
To ensure fair development and restore trust in the district administration, the DDCC has placed two key demands: the immediate transfer of the current Deputy Commissioner of Tengnoupal over alleged biased conduct, and the construction of the district headquarters at Khebung.
The committee further warned that if these demands are not addressed, it will initiate a total bandh along the Imphal–Moreh road from April 20, 2026. The blockade will continue until the state government provides a satisfactory resolution.
Reaffirming its position, the DDCC stated that Naga communities have inhabited the lands of Tengnoupal district since time immemorial and continue to regard it as their ancestral homeland. It said this historical and cultural connection forms an integral part of their collective identity.
ALSO READ: One-Day Workshop on Natural Farming Held at Oasis College, Kangpokpi
In this context, the committee also strongly objected to recent statements issued by the “Village Volunteers Eastern Zone,” described as a Kuki group, which reportedly claimed Tengnoupal district as “Kukiland” and issued threats concerning the proposed visit of the Chief Minister to the district. The DDCC termed such assertions unacceptable, stating that they disregard the historical presence and lived realities of the Naga people in the area.
It further emphasised that no unmandated organisation has the authority to unilaterally define or declare the identity and ownership of a region shared by multiple communities with longstanding ties to the land. The committee underscored the need for such sensitive issues to be addressed with responsibility, inclusivity, and respect for all stakeholders.