Before Counting Manipur, Establish who Belongs: Why the Government must Reconsider the Census-NRC Question

The controversy over the Census in Manipur has reached a point where the Government of India and the Government of Manipur can no longer afford to respond merely by insisting that the Census is a statutory exercise and therefore must proceed according to schedule. Nor can the growing movement demanding that the National Register of Citizens (NRC) be updated before the Census be reduced to an agitation against enumeration itself.

The real question is considerably more fundamental.

Can a population census conducted in a state undergoing an unresolved demographic, territorial and security crisis be treated as an unquestionably accurate foundation for future delimitation, political representation, administrative planning and public policy when a significant section of the population itself is questioning whether the population being counted corresponds to the citizen population of the State?

That question deserves a serious governmental answer.

The Campaign for Just and Fair Delimitation (JFD) along with other civil society organisations, and the 14 CSOs Kangleipak have been demanding that the NRC be updated before the Census and that any subsequent delimitation be based upon an undisputed and credible population database. On August 10, JFD representatives and the 14 CSOs Kangleipak met Home Minister Govindas Konthoujam, in the presence of senior government officials, and urged the government to defer the self-enumeration exercise scheduled from August 17.

The agitation intensified thereafter. JFD’s Students’ Wing disrupted Census-related training at SK Women’s College, Nambol in Bishnupur district, on August 12. On August 14, JFD members gathered in front Lok Bhavan seeking an appointment with Governor Ajay Kumar Bhalla, while its Students’ Wing disrupted again another enumerators’ and supervisors’ training programme at Moirang College. The protesters raised the slogan, “NO NRC, NO CENSUS.”

But there is now an important development that changes the context in which the government must address the agitation.

The Government has already acknowledged the demographic question

The Manipur Government recently hosted a two-day Consultative Meeting- cum-Seminar on the Demographic Profile of Manipur in Imphal on August 7 and 8, 2026. The significance of this initiative should not be underestimated.

The government would hardly have convened a dedicated consultative exercise on Manipur’s demographic profile if demographic change were merely a manufactured political controversy. The very decision to organise such a seminar represents an institutional acknowledgement that the State’s demographic trajectory requires examination and informed public discussion.

More significantly, State leaders announced during the consultations that the Manipur Government had informed the Central Government of its readiness to undertake an NRC exercise within the existing legal framework.

This is a crucial development.

It means that the basic proposition advanced by civil society – that Manipur requires a systematic exercise to identify and document its citizen population – is no longer simply an external demand being imposed upon a reluctant government. The State Government itself appears to have its preparedness to undertake such an exercise, provided it is conducted within the law.

The political question has therefore shifted.

It is no longer principally whether Manipur needs to discuss demographic verification.

The government has already acknowledged that the issue merits serious consultation and has conveyed its readiness for an NRC.

The question now is when that exercise should take place and whether the Census should proceed before the concerns surrounding citizenship, migration and demographic change have been adequately addressed.

That is precisely why the demands of the JFD and the 14 CSOs Kangleipak deserve much more serious consideration.

If the State Government is prepared to conduct an NRC, why should the Central Government refuse even to consider whether the two exercises can be appropriately sequenced?

From consultation to implementation

The two-day consultative meeting should not become another symbolic exercise in which the government seems listening to concerns and then returns to business as usual.

There is now an opportunity to convert consultation into policy.

The State Government should place before the Centre a formal proposal setting out the exceptional demographic circumstances of Manipur and requesting an appropriate mechanism for citizenship verification before the population figures generated by the Census acquire broader political significance.

This need not be presented as a rejection of the Census.

Indeed, the State Government should make the opposite argument.

Manipur wants an accurate Census precisely because it wants accurate demographic data.

An NRC and a Census serve different purposes. There is therefore no contradiction in arguing that they should be coordinated.

The Census can establish the population profile.

The NRC can establish the citizen register.

Migration records can identify movement into and out of the State.

Refugee-registration mechanisms can identify persons who entered from Myanmar because of armed conflict or otherwise over decades.

Displacement records can establish the permanent and temporary locations of internally displaced Indian citizens.

Taken together, these mechanisms would provide a much more reliable demographic picture than a Census alone.

The State Government can no longer remain ambiguous

The recent consultative meeting has also placed the Manipur Government under a greater obligation to articulate a clear position.

For years, the demographic issue has occupied an uncomfortable space between public anxiety and governmental caution.

Civil society groups have raised concerns about illegal immigration, particularly from Myanmar. The Government of India has itself identified demographic security as one of the considerations behind its decision to alter the Free Movement Regime with Myanmar. The State has experienced a substantial influx of people fleeing conflict in Myanmar, while simultaneously dealing with internal displacement caused by the violent conflict that erupted on May 3, 2023.

Against this background, the State Government cannot reasonably tell its citizens that their concerns are simply unfounded.

Nor should it accept every allegation about illegal immigration without verification.

The proper governmental position should be – investigate, document, verify and distinguish.

That is what an effective NRC-related exercise should accomplish.

Myanmar makes the question particularly urgent

Manipur’s demographic concern cannot be separated from the instability across the international border.

The situation in Myanmar is fundamentally different from ordinary international migration. Armed conflict, displacement and political instability have pushed people toward neighbouring countries, including India.

The humanitarian dimension must be respected. But humanitarian protection cannot be confused with citizenship.

A person fleeing armed conflict deserves humane treatment. That does not automatically confer Indian citizenship.

Likewise, a person who has migrated to Manipur illegally from Myanmar should not automatically be treated as a permanent demographic addition to the Indian citizen population.

This is precisely why the government needs a robust system of identification.

Without documentation, the State cannot know the scale of migration.

Without verification, it cannot distinguish citizens from foreign nationals.

Without reliable data, it cannot determine whether demographic changes are natural, migration-driven, displacement-driven or the result of undocumented cross-border movement.

And without such distinctions, a Census figure can become politically contentious.

The fear of demographic imbalance cannot simply be dismissed

There is a tendency to dismiss fears of demographic imbalance as expressions of ethnic insecurity.

That would be an inadequate response.

Demographic change is a legitimate matter of public policy in every border state.

The issue becomes especially sensitive where population figures may later influence political representation.

The people of Manipur are therefore entitled to ask whether substantial undocumented migration could alter the demographic balance of particular districts, subdivisions or constituencies.

They are entitled to ask whether refugees and illegal immigrants are being adequately distinguished.

They are entitled to ask whether internally displaced citizens will be counted at their temporary locations or linked to their permanent homes.

And they are entitled to ask what safeguards exist to ensure that population changes produced by an extraordinary period of conflict do not inadvertently become the basis for permanent political consequences.

These are questions of democratic accountability.

They should not be silenced by accusations of communalism.

The demographic seminar must lead to a demographic policy

The consultative meeting cum seminar seminar provides the government with an important institutional foundation.

Instead of allowing the issue to remain in the streets, the State Government can establish a permanent expert mechanism on Manipur’s demographic profile.

Such a mechanism could examine:

• historical demographic trends;
• district-wise population changes;
• migration from neighbouring states;
• cross-border movement from Myanmar;
• refugee inflows since the outbreak of conflict in Myanmar;
• internally displaced populations since May 2023;
• emergence of new villages;
• changes in village populations;
• citizenship documentation;
• birth and death registration;
• electoral rolls;
• land records;
• population movement across vulnerable border areas; and
• the relationship between demographic changes and future delimitation.

The exercise should be evidence-based rather than politically predetermined.

If the evidence establishes that fears of demographic transformation are exaggerated, the government should say so.

If the evidence establishes substantial undocumented migration, the government should say that too.

Either outcome would be preferable to uncertainty.

The Centre should respond to Manipur’s request constructively

The Central Government should also recognise the significance of the State Government’s reported communication expressing readiness to undertake an NRC within the legal framework.

New Delhi should not interpret the State’s position as a challenge to its authority.

It should treat it as a request for institutional cooperation.

The Centre can determine the legal and administrative architecture of such an exercise while the State provides local institutional support and demographic knowledge.

A centrally supervised and legally robust exercise would also protect the process from allegations that it is being manipulated by local political interests.

The objective should be to establish a credible database – not to produce a predetermined demographic outcome.

Why sequencing matters

The central argument of the JFD is ultimately about sequencing.

It is not unreasonable to ask whether citizenship verification should precede the creation of a population baseline that may subsequently acquire political consequences.

There is a legitimate distinction between asking:

“How many people are living here?”

and asking:

“Who among those people are citizens?”

In normal circumstances, the distinction may not create an immediate political crisis.

In Manipur, it does.

The State has experienced large-scale displacement.

The international border has witnessed continuing movement for decades.

The political geography of the State remains deeply contested.

And delimitation after the first Census following 2026 is likely to give population data renewed political significance.

Under these circumstances, sequencing deserves consideration.

The Government need not accept the slogan “NO NRC, NO CENSUS” as a binding legal proposition.

But it should recognise the underlying concern and determine whether an appropriate sequencing mechanism can be developed.

The danger of creating another disputed baseline

The most dangerous outcome would be for the Census to proceed amid deep public distrust and for the resulting numbers later to become the foundation for political decisions.

Once population figures become official, challenging them becomes considerably more difficult.

They acquire administrative legitimacy. They enter electoral and delimitation debates. They influence allocation of resources.

And if communities subsequently believe that the figures were distorted by illegal migration, displacement or inadequate verification, the controversy will become much harder to resolve.

Manipur has already experienced the consequences of disputed demographic data. The State should not allow another disputed demographic baseline to emerge.

An NRC must protect citizens, not merely identify migrants

There is, however, a critical safeguard that must accompany any NRC.

The process must not become a mechanism for arbitrary exclusion.

Manipur’s conflict has displaced tens of thousands of people. Many families may have lost documents, property records or other evidence of residence. A fair NRC must therefore contain adequate provisions for internally displaced persons.

A citizen temporarily living in a relief camp must not be mistaken for a foreign migrant simply because his or her normal place of residence has become inaccessible.

Similarly, a person born and raised in Manipur should not be excluded merely because bureaucratic records have been disrupted by conflict.

An NRC must therefore be transparent, evidence-based and subject to due process and appeal.

Its objective should be citizenship verification, not ethnic profiling.

That distinction must be made unmistakably clear.

The Government should establish a Manipur-specific framework

The most constructive response would therefore be for the State Government to ask the Centre for a special Manipur demographic and citizenship framework.

Such a framework could include:

1. a formal assessment of demographic change since the last reliable population baseline;
2. identification and documentation of persons who entered Manipur from Myanmar after the outbreak of conflict there;
3. identification and documentation of persons who migrated illegally in Manipur from Myanmar over decades;
4. a separate mechanism for registering refugees and other foreign nationals;
5. protection of the citizenship rights of internally displaced Indians;
6. cross-verification of electoral rolls, birth and death registers, land records and other legally relevant documents;
7. independent demographic and statistical auditing;
8. transparent procedures for inclusion and exclusion from an NRC;
9. adequate appeal and review mechanisms; and
10. a clear rule preventing temporary displacement or undocumented foreign migration from being automatically converted into permanent political representation.

Such measures would answer both sides of the controversy.

They would allow the government to proceed with the Census while simultaneously addressing the concerns that have generated the NRC movement – or, if necessary, allow the sequencing of the exercises in a manner that preserves public confidence.

The State Government has an opportunity and an obligation

The recent demographic seminar could become a turning point.

For perhaps the first time in the present controversy, the government has moved beyond simply defending administrative procedure and has publicly engaged with the demographic question itself.

Its reported communication to the Centre that Manipur is ready to conduct an NRC within the legal framework is even more significant.

The State Government should now go one step further.

It should place its position before the people.

It should say whether it supports an NRC in principle.

It should explain what it has communicated to the Centre.

It should explain what legal framework it proposes.

It should explain how Myanmar-origin refugees and undocumented migrants will be treated.

It should explain how internally displaced citizens will be protected.

And, most importantly, it should explain whether it believes that the Census should proceed before these questions are adequately addressed.

This is no longer simply a demand from JFD or the 14 CSOs Kangleipak.

It is now a question of governmental credibility.

The government must not allow demographic anxiety to become another source of conflict

Manipur has already endured more than three years of violent conflict.

The last thing the State needs is another unresolved question capable of generating long-term distrust.

If people believe that the government ignored demographic concerns, those anxieties will not disappear when the Census begins.

They will become embedded in every subsequent debate over delimitation, representation, land, citizenship and political power.

Conversely, if the government addresses the concerns transparently and demonstrates that every citizen will be protected and every undocumented foreign national will be dealt with according to law, much of the anxiety can be reduced.

That is why listening now is in the government’s own interest.

Demographic truth must precede demographic politics

Ultimately, Manipur does not need a Census that is politically convenient.

It needs a Census that is trusted.

It does not need an NRC designed to produce a predetermined result.

It needs an NRC that establishes citizenship through law and due process.

It does not need a demographic policy directed against any ethnic community.

It needs a policy that protects citizens, regulates migration, recognises humanitarian obligations and safeguards the integrity of the international border.

And it does not need a delimitation based merely on numbers that are officially available.

It needs a delimitation based on numbers that are credible, verifiable and broadly accepted as reflecting the genuine demographic reality of the State.

The two-day government-sponsored consultative seminar on Manipur’s demographic profile should therefore not end with another set of speeches and recommendations. It should be followed by a concrete institutional roadmap.

The State Government has reportedly already told the Centre that it is ready to conduct an NRC within the legal framework.

That statement should now become policy.

The Central Government should respond constructively.

And the State Government should take a clear position on the sequencing question rather than leaving the public to infer its position from administrative actions.

The government does not have to choose between the people and the law.

It can uphold both.

It can recognise the legal independence of the Census while acknowledging that Manipur’s extraordinary demographic circumstances justify additional safeguards.

It can reject xenophobia while taking illegal immigration seriously.

It can protect refugees while distinguishing refugees from citizens.

It can protect internally displaced citizens while preventing temporary displacement from distorting permanent demographic records.

And it can support delimitation while insisting that delimitation must rest upon credible population data.

The central principle should therefore be straightforward:

Before population figures are allowed to shape the political future of Manipur, the government must ensure that the population being counted is understood, documented and verified with sufficient confidence.

The people of Manipur are not asking the government to stop counting them.

They are asking the government to make sure that the count does not become another source of uncertainty about who they are, where they belong and what their political future will be.

After the demographic seminar, the Government has less reason than ever to dismiss that concern.

It has already acknowledged that Manipur’s demographic profile deserves examination.

It has already indicated its readiness to undertake an NRC within the law.

The next step should therefore be neither confrontation nor silence.

It should be action, transparency and a clear agreement with the Centre on how citizenship verification, demographic enumeration, refugee management, regulation of cross-border movement, internal displacement and future delimitation can be made mutually consistent.

For a State whose identity, territory and political representation have already been profoundly shaken, demographic accuracy is not a statistical luxury.

It is a question of public confidence, constitutional fairness and long-term peace.