In a significant development towards restoring peace, the first-ever meeting between the representatives of Thadou and leaders of the Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) led by Meitei was held in Imphal on August 6, 2025. Since the outbreak of the violent conflict on May 3, 2023 due to the attacks of the Kuki-Zomi militants against Meiteis in Churachandpur, Kangpokpi, Saikul and Moreh to claim the areas as their exclusive territories and the counter attacks by the Meiteis against the Kuki-Zomis in Imphal, this is the first time that Thadou leaders have come to Imphal and met with the Meiteis. A 17-Member delegation of Thadou Inpi Manipur (TIM) was received by the leaders of Coordinating Committee on Manipur Identity (COCOMI) at Imphal Airport.
The meeting was hosted by COCOMI and joined by All Manipur United Clubs’ Organisation (AMUCO), Federation of Civil Society Organisations (FOCS). Arambai Tenggol leaders witnessed the meeting. Leaders of Manipur’s powerful six student organisations and Meira Paibis (women torch bearers) were also present in the meeting.
“Roadmap to Peace: Covenant of Coexistence and Community Understanding” was signed between the Thadou Inpi Leaders and leaders of the CSOs led by Meiteis while Arambai Tenggol signed as witness to the Covenant. Thadou Community International (TCI) in a separate press release issued on August 6, 2025 applauds the Meitei-Thadou Covenant of Coexistence and Community Understanding.
The meeting can be considered as a major step toward reconciliation in the wake of a violent conflict that has, since May 3, 2023, left more than 61,000 people homeless, at least 270 people dead, 32 persons still untraceable, thousands of houses destroyed and burned down to ashes, villages and residential areas were bull-dozed and wiped out.
The Thadous, who were also affected by the violent conflict, used the opportunity to clarify their identity. The Thadou Inpi Manipur, in a statement issued after the meeting, said the discussions were part of a “community understanding programme” between both sides.
The statement added that the Thadous, long considered part of the larger Kuki umbrella, are in fact a “distinct indigenous identity.”
“A major source of confusion between the Thadou tribe and those identifying as Kuki tribes arises from the similarities in attire and cultural expressions. However, it is crucial to understand that Thadou tribe is a distinct indigenous identity, while the Kuki nomenclature, as used today, has become a politicised and ideological label,” TIM stated.
TIM further claimed that the nomenclature ‘Kuki’ is not a genuine ethnic identity but a political construct. “Historically and culturally, there is no community known as ‘Kuki’ indigenous to Manipur,” the statement added.
According to the TIM, “The term Kuki has foreign origins, and those who adopt it today often do so to push a separatist and extremist ideology. Many who currently identify as Kuki are suspected illegal immigrants, having settled in Manipur in recent decades.”
TIM also alleged that over time, church politics and religious affiliations contributed to the misclassification of many Thadou people under the Kuki label, thereby creating further confusion and undermining the true identity of the Thadou people.
TIM warns that such misrepresentation posed a threat not only to the Thadou tribe but also to Meiteis, Meitei-Pangal, other tribal communities, and the unity of Manipur as a whole.
Now, it is needed to discuss the recent development in the context of complex multi-ethnic landscape of Manipur for a lasting peace in the region.
The complex ethnic landscape of Manipur has long been marked by competing identity claims more prominently after the insertion Article 371C just ahead of granting Statehood to Manipur in 1972, with the Thadou community’s assertion of distinctiveness from the broader “Kuki” political identity emerging as a significant fault line. The recent signing of the “Roadmap to Peace: Covenant of Coexistence and Community Understanding” between the Thadou Inpi Manipur (TIM) and COCOMI-AMUCO-FOCS represents a watershed moment in Manipur’s ethnic politics. This agreement not only challenges the dominant and homogenising Kuki political narrative but also raises critical questions about tribal solidarity, state recognition, and the future of conflict resolution in Manipur.
This analysis broadly examines: 1.The historical and political differences between the Thadou community and the constructed “Kuki” identity. 2. The challenges faced by Thadou Community International (TCI) and TIM in asserting a distinct Thadou identity. 3. The potential consequences of the Thadou-Meitei agreement on intra-tribal relations and Manipur’s broader conflict dynamics.
Thadou vs. Kuki: The Politics of Identity and Recognition – Historical Context of Thadou and Kuki Identities: The term “Kuki” is a colonial construct, historically used by the British to categorize various hill tribes in Manipur, Lushai Hills of Assam now Mizoram, Tripura, Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh, and the Chin Hills of Myanmar. It is not an ethnic or tribal name but an administrative umbrella term encompassing multiple distinct communities, including the Thadou, Gangte, Simte, Paite, Hmar, Zou, and others. In short, different tribes having many similarities are categorised as Kuki.
In contrast, Thadou is a specific ethnic group with – a distinct Tibeto-Burman language (Thadou) while some of the Thadous also subscribe to Kuki nomenclature.
Legal Recognition and Scheduled Tribe Status: A crucial distinction lies in legal recognition. Thadou was listed as a Scheduled Tribe (ST) in Manipur in “The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950” after the merger with India in 1949. Kuki as “Any Kuki Tribe” was only added to the ST list in 2003, decades after Manipur’s statehood in 1972.
This disparity underscores how the Indian state historically recognized Thadou as a distinct tribe while later accommodating the broader and homogenising “Kuki” label for political convenience. For Thadou leaders, this reinforces their argument that Kuki is a political, an ideology, not ethnic, identity. Therefore, demands to delete “Any Kuki Tribe” from the ST List.
Contemporary Political Implications: The Kuki identity movement, led by groups like the Kuki Inpi Manipur (KIM), the Kuki National Organisation (KNO) consisting of their 17 militant groups, the United People’s Front (UPF) consisting of their eight militant groups seeks to consolidate various tribes under a single banner for greater political bargaining power. However, this has led to tensions with the Thadou, who argue that their distinct identity is being erased under the Kuki supremacist and umbrella.
Challenges Before TCI and TIM in Asserting Thadou Identity
Opposition from Kuki Political Groups: The push for a distinct Thadou identity faces resistance from Kuki militants organizations, who view it as “Divisive – Undermining tribal unity against Meitei majoritarianism”; “A Meitei Ploy – Some allege that Thadou separatism is encouraged by the Manipur government to weaken Kuki/Kuki-Zo solidarity.
Consequences of this Opposition Social Boycotts – Thadou individuals and villages may face ostracisation. Violent Backlash: Kuki militant groups could target Thadou leaders seen as “traitors.” Political Isolation: Thadou representatives may be excluded from tribal councils and negotiations.
Legal and Administrative Hurdles: Despite Thadou’s ST status, bureaucratic challenges persist: Census Ambiguities – Many government records still classify Thadous as or under “Kuki,” diluting their distinct identity. Land Rights Conflicts – Kuki organizations often claim ancestral lands based on a homogenized Kuki identity, disregarding Thadou-specific territorial claims. Autonomy Demands: The push for a Kuki-Zomi Autonomy could further sideline Thadou interests.
Internal Divisions within the Thadou Community: Not all Thadous support TCI and TIM’s stance. Some Thadous still subscribe Kuki nomenclature and want to identify as Kuki. Some factions argue that tribal unity is necessary to counter Meitei dominance. Economic and security benefits come from aligning with the larger Kuki political bloc. Splintering weakens tribal bargaining power in negotiations with the State.
This internal dissent complicates efforts of TCI and TIM to present a unified Thadou front.
The Thadou-Meitei Covenant: Implications and Consequences
The “Roadmap to Peace: Covenant of Coexistence and Community Understanding” signed between TIM and Meitei CSOs is a historic but contentious development. Its potential impacts must be analysed critically.
Potential Benefits
Reduction in Direct Violence – If implemented, the pact could decrease clashes between Meiteis and Thadous. Recognition of Thadou Distinctiveness – The Meitei side’s willingness to engage separately with Thadous (rather than as “Kukis”) legitimizes their identity.
Alternative Conflict Resolution Model – If successful, it could inspire other tribes to seek independent dialogues, bypassing factionalized Kuki leadership having more than 25 armed militant groups.
Risks and Challenges
Backlash from Kuki Groups: Accusations of Betrayal – The Kuki-Zo Council, Kuki Inpi Manipur (KIM), ITLF and COTU, KNO, UPF may view this as undermining tribal solidarity. Intra-Tribal Violence – In the worst scenario, Thadou villages could face attacks from Kuki militants. Political Marginalization – Thadou representatives may be excluded from future tribal negotiations.
Political Manipulation: Divide-and-Rule Tactics – The government might exploit Thadou separatism to weaken Kuki-Zo or Kuki-Zomi unity.
Implementation Challenges
No Enforcement Mechanism – The covenant lacks a neutral monitoring body. Displacement Issues – Both Thadou and Meitei IDPs (internally displaced peoples) may not trust the assurances without concrete rehabilitation.
Ethnic Polarization
Deepened Tribal Divisions – If Kuki groups perceive Thadous as “collaborators,” it could fracture tribal society. Radicalization Risks – Hardliners on both sides (Meitei and Kuki) may sabotage reconciliation.
Strengths of the Agreement:
- Symbolic Importance: The mere fact that the two sides sat together and signed an agreement is groundbreaking. Given the deep-seated animosity, this dialogue sets a precedent for future negotiations.
- Civil Society Leadership: Unlike previous state-mediated efforts, this agreement is driven by grassroots organizations (COCOMI, AMUCO, FOCS, TIM), suggesting a bottom-up approach to peacebuilding.
- Focus on Justice and Rehabilitation: Acknowledging the need for justice for victims and rehabilitation for displaced persons is crucial for long-term reconciliation.
Conclusion
The Thadou community’s assertion of a distinct identity challenges the politically constructed “Kuki” label, creating both opportunities and risks. The Thadou-Meitei covenant is a bold step toward reconciliation but faces formidable obstacles – internal tribal resistance, Meitei hardliners, and State apathy.
If TCI and TIM navigate this carefully, they could secure greater recognition for Thadous while contributing to broader peace in Manipur. However, if they cannot convince those still subscribe to Kuki nomenclature and want to identify as Kuki, there may be ethnic fractures amongst Thadous and it will be hard to convince the Meitei hardliners.
Thadou Inpi Manipur and Meitei Civil Society Organisations have to take the risks and challenges of the Roadmap to Peace: Covenant of Coexistence and Community Understanding.
Therefore, the road ahead demands inclusive dialogue, legal recognition, and sincere implementation, resistance to potential threats and sabotages from all sides including state and non-state parties—without these, the covenant risks becoming another failed initiative in Manipur’s long history of fractured identities and unresolved conflicts.
Senior Editor: Imphal Review of Arts and Politics
