Published by Aloto Naga | July 24, 2025
On July 23, the Young Kuki group issued a strongly worded statement titled:
“No Naga ancestral land for Nagas & No Zoland for Zomis,” openly rejecting both Naga and Zomi claims over territories they believe historically belong to the Kuki people. They referenced British colonial records to support Kuki presence in key regions like Churachandpur, Chandel, Tengnoupal, Senapati, Tamenglong, and others across Manipur.
The group asserted that there is no such land as “Zoland” for Zomis within Kuki territory and rejected the idea of ancestral Naga ownership in the same. They emphasized their biblical lineage as descendants of the lost tribe of Manasseh, declaring the Kukis as a distinct and ancient people deserving of a separate homeland.
Kuki-Zo Council Responds with Call for Unity
In direct contrast, the Kuki-Zo Council, in its July 24 release, called for restraint and solidarity. While not naming the Young Kuki group directly, it criticized divisive elements within the community for creating internal unrest and distracting from the larger movement for a separate Kuki-Zo administration.
“Let’s not let petty provocations distract us from our struggle. Our land is our identity,” the Council stated.
The KZC emphasized that the Kuki-Zo territory historically extended from Chittagong (Bangladesh) through the NC Hills in Assam, Peren District, and deep into Kachin areas of Myanmar. Villages like Phaibung Khullen, Karong, Makhel, and others—once inhabited by Kukis are now allegedly claimed by the Kacha Nagas, a situation the Council called “very unfortunate.”
Competing Claims and Complex Ethnic Identities
The Council also pointed to tribes such as the Anals, Aimol, Chothe, Lamang, and Maring—traditionally regarded as part of the old Kuki identity—now being associated with the Naga identity. This, they said, reflects the overlapping and politically sensitive nature of ethnic identities in the region.
KZC further asserted claims over Chassad Kamjong and Bunning in Tamenglong, calling them part of Kuki ancestral lands. They stressed the need for mutual respect, historical understanding, and cooperative coexistence among all communities in Northeast India to prevent escalation.
Conclusion
These dual statements expose a growing divide within the Kuki leadership over strategy, identity, and territorial vision. As demands for political autonomy and historical justice continue, unity within the community appears fragile at a time when collective strength is most needed.
