Michael Samjetsabam

As a person born in the state of Manipur, I appreciate the efforts that Mr. Karan Thapar is making to look for openings, even if they are tiny, between Meiteis and Kukis for dialogue and reconciliation. To him, I say: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God”(Matthew 5:9, NIV).

Now that I have praised him for his efforts, there are certain things that needs to be communicated to him.

Mr. Thapar needs to understand that when it comes to statistics of North East India, particularly that of Census, it might not be the same as other parts of India. To explain the matter, I am addressing the old data of late 19th or early 20th century Census and the recent 2001 and 2011 Census data. I show that Mr. Thapar is not only relying on doubtful data but also compares apples and oranges in reading the data.

Let us now first consider how controversial is the recent 2011 data before discussing the old data of 1901.

Karan Thapar’s 2011 Census Data

In his interview with Mr. Wilson Lalam Hangshing, Mr. Thapar declares, countering Nishikant Sapam, that Kukis are 14.5 percent of the total population in 1901 and 16 percent in 2011. Mr. Thapar further declares that “in a hundred and ten years, 1901 to 2011, the percentage increase of Kuki has been 1.5 percent, which is normal, natural and understandable” [watch 26: 40 to 27: 17 minutes of the 34: 49 minutes long interview]. Furthermore, Mr. Thapar says that Naga population is 24 percent of the total population and Meiteis are 53 percent in his interview with Dr. Mary Grace Zou [watch 31:50 to 32:11 of 42: 12 minutes long interview].

There is no need to comment on the data given by Sapam as I do not know its source or methodology with which he arrived at these numbers. But, regarding Mr. Thapar’s data, as he says the source of his data is Census, we can meaningfully discuss it.

Let us first see the tricky Naga and Kuki numbers and see the Meitei numbers later. The following table is the 2011 Census data on Scheduled Tribes in Manipur.

It is not apparent from Thapar’s data how he calculated the Naga data and the Kuki data because he does not tell us which tribes he is counting as Nagas and which tribes he is considering as Kukis. I have tried many combinations to find out how Thapar arrived at these numbers. Even though I do not understand the rationale behind it, it is possible that Thapar made the following combinations of tribes shown below to arrived at Naga’s share of population in Manipur in 2011 as 24 percent and Kuki’s share as 16 percent.

For convenience, let us call Group 1 as Thapar’s Kuki data and Group 2 as Thapar’s Naga data. Note that Aimol, Anal, Chiru. Chothe, Koirao, Koireng, Kom, Lamgang, Purum, Tarao, Kharam are included in Group 2 whose population shares corresponds to Thapar’s Naga population share of 24 percent. And, these small tribes are not included in Group 1 which corresponds to the Thapar’s Kuki share of population in percentage.

Messed-up Data [Karan gi Data]: Questioning Naga, Kuki and Meitei Population Share in 2011 Manipur Census

Uncertain Naga Numbers in 2001 Census

Let us now first see how accurate is Thapar’s Naga data drawn from 2011 Census.

In July 2nd, 2004, Imphal based Sangai Express published a report that Registrar General of India (Census) rejected the data of Mao-Maram, Purul and Paomata subdivisions of the Senapati district of Manipur.

In the 2001 Senapati District Handbook of Census, there is footnote in the page xiv of the introduction of the handbook that the “following tables” (which includes ST 14 table) do not include the data of three northern subdivisions of erstwhile Senapati as Census data from these subdivisions were rejected for administrative and technical reasons.

These three subdivisions bordering Nagaland are Naga majority areas. A large number of Mao tribe, Maram tribe and Poumai Nagas (only recognised in 2002) reside in this area and their population share is quite large if we consider the total population of Nagas residing in Manipur. For instance, in 1991 Census, Mao tribe with a population of 76972 is recorded as the second most numerous tribe among Nagas after Tangkhul which has 107244 people in numbers (see page 810 and 812 in “ST 16: Religion for Schedule Tribes,” Census of India 1991, Part VIII(II), Special Tables on Schedule Tribes).

Therefore, we cannot be really sure how many Nagas are there in 2001 given that a large number of them were not included in the Census if we take the 1991 Census number seriously. Later an estimate of these three subdivision was inserted while calculating the entire population of the state in 2001 Census but the methodology undertaken for the estimation is not very clear. Furthermore, no official estimates are available for specific ST population or other related data to ST population such as religious community data or mother tongue data for these three subdivisions.

Census, Consensus and Accuracy in 2011 Census Data

On what happened to the Naga data in these three subdivisions of northern Senapati, The Telegraph article  “Villagers reject fresh census in Manipur,” dated October 20th, 2003 reported that Chief Minister of Manipur ordered a fresh census of three Naga majority subdivisions in Senapati district of Manipur owing to an abnormal increase in population in these areas. It writes:

“An official source said enumerators met with resistance from villagers while attempting to do a headcount again in Purul, Paomata and Mao-Maram subdivisions. He said: “When the survey team went there, the houses were locked. The few villagers present there refused to say anything.”

“The fresh census in three subdivisions of Manipur’s Naga-dominated Senapati district has turned out to be an exercise in futility with residents refusing to cooperate with the enumerators.”

On the abnormal growth rate of Senapati and the refusal of the tribal population to cooperate with Census officials, Thongkholal Haokip (2022, 243) writes:

This abnormal high population figures in the three subdivisions of Senapati district and the non-cooperation to census enumeration can be understood in two ways: Ethnopolitics in the hills of state is largely fragmented on tribes and clans. There is competition among tribes for having a representation or more representation from their tribe in state assembly. Secondly, who within the tribe and whom among the clans will represent the constituency.

Not only these three subdivisions in Manipur bordering Nagaland, the  entire Nagaland’s Census Data of 2001 was also rejected owing to abnormal decadal growth rate in Nagaland. In this context, The Hindu in July 12th 2012 reported:

According to Mr. Rio [Nagaland CM], the actual population of Nagaland in 2001 was six lakh less than the 2001 census figure of 20 lakh. He argued, however, that a recount would not help as there were “warnings from village and district levels that in the review, the population will increase, not decrease.” So, instead of stirring up a hornet’s nest, the Central and State governments adopted a cautious approach. To avoid ethnic conflict, the Centre deferred delimitation to 2031, while the State government rejected the 2001 census and concentrated on conducting the 2011 census properly. The State government canvassed the Opposition, the bureaucracy, and organisations of tribes, village elders, churches, and students to convince the people that a reliable and accurate census was indispensable “for (the) proper planning of development and also establishing political and social harmony.”

In 2011 Census, the population of Nagaland reduced by 11534 and it registered a decadal growth rate of negative 0.58 percent.

The important thing to note is no Nagaland-like exercise was undertaken by involving community leaders or religious institutions to get an accurate Census data of 2011 in these three subdivisions of Manipur where abnormal growth rate was found in 2001. For that matter, no such attempt was made in any Naga majority districts of Manipur at that time.

To make matters worst, complaints again surfaced that there was abnormal growth in Senapati’s three Naga majority subdivisions in the provisional population data of 2011 Manipur Census. There was pressure to reject it. The matter even went to the court. Later, the issue was resolved with a recount of population in these three subdivisions which lasted for two/three years. After that, the Census officials entered the enumerated numbers as the official number.

This recount made the hill district of Senapati the second most populous district of Manipur after Imphal West, overtaking all hills districts by a margin of more than two lakhs. The entire Senapati’s growth rate from 2001 estimated population to 2011 enumerated population is almost 69 percent which comes close to pre-2011 Nagaland decadal growth rate making the 2011 Senapati data highly suspicious.

On the 2011 Senapati Census data, Vikas Kumar writing for The Wire in 2020 says:

“The registrar general “cancelled” the enumerated figures for these three sub-divisions [in 2001 Census] “due to administrative and technical reasons” that were never explicitly spelt out and released the estimated population of these subdivisions as the official figures. After the 2011 Census, under similar circumstances, the registrar general first released the estimated population before it eventually “finalised” the enumerated figures as official data.”

He, further, writes:

“The registrar general’s solution satisfied neither side even as it (inadvertently) laid down the foundation of future conflicts. In fact, the discrepancy between the approach adopted by the registrar general after the 2001 and 2011 censuses leaves room for manoeuvring.”

Vikas Kumar’s remarks makes us realise that in Manipur the numbers in Census have to be satisfactory to the communities first and their accuracy is sometimes secondary.

Now that the Naga numbers seems doubtful, it would be wrong to state that so and so tribes are so and so percent of the total population with authority and certainty. If there are issues in Naga numbers, its population share in percentage becomes an issue and it further impacts the population share of Kukis in percentage. When Mr. Thapar announces that Kuki population share is 16 percent or Naga is 24 percent is 2011, he should know that these numbers are contested numbers. There are dangers to announcing them out loud repeatedly.

Are Meiteis Really 53 Percent?

Let us now see the Meitei share of population in 2011 which Mr. Thapar believes is 53 percent of the total population in 2011.

Mr. Thapar seems to have arrived at the Meitei numbers using the mother tongue data of 2011 Census. However, one cannot just lift the number of Meitei (Manipuri) speaking population from the mother tongue data of 2011 and calculate its share and call it the percentage of Meitei in 2011. More work needs to be done to determine the Meitei numbers because Meitei speaking population in the mother-tongue data includes both Meiteis and Meitei-Pangals. Even though Meitei-Pangals could be considered as Meiteis linguistically, Pangals are nevertheless a distinct ethnic community. And, Kuki-Zomi population also understand this ethnic distinctness of Pangals. Many reports have come out that only drivers from Pangal community are allowed to travel from Meitei area to Kuki-Zomi areas and vice versa during this conflict.

Furthermore, Prof. Kham Khan Suan Hausing, Head of Political Science Department, HCU, clubbed the Pangals along with Meiteis by using the phrase “Meitei speaking population” in Mr. Thapar’s interview at this juncture. It is a sad misrepresentation of data. More sad is Mr. Thapar allowing it [watch 8:10 to 8: 30 minutes of 56: 24 minutes long interview]. This kind of reading of data has implications on the ground. They must understand it.

Lastly, since the Naga numbers are uncertain and Meitei numbers have not been calculated properly, the share of the population of all the communities needs to be reviewed, including that of the Kukis.

Old Kukis + New Kukis = 14 percent in 1901 and Old Kukis + Nagas= 24 percent in 2011

In the 1886 estimate of Manipur population in Captain Dun’s Gazetteer of Manipur, the share of the Old Kuki (now called intermediary tribe) is 3.78 percent and the New Kuki (now called Kuki-Chin Kuki) percentage is 7.7 percent.

(See page 25, 32 and 33 of Dun’s Gazetteer Of Manipur. Also see my analysis on this Dun’s data.)

Old Kuki clans listed in Dun’s nomenclature include Kom, Anal, Namfau, Chiru, Koireng, Chothe, Purum, Mantak and Hiroi or Lamgang tribes. New Kuki clans are Thado, Vungson, Changsen, Shingsol, Mangvung, Khlangam, Chungloe, Chanpui, Haukib, Simmte and Kamhau.

Let us now see the 1901 Census Report for Kuki data. In page 95 of Report on the Census of Assam 1901, Kuki language speaking population is 1413 out of every 10000 people in Manipur.

Therefore, Kuki population is estimated as 40195 and the total population of Manipur is 284465 in 1901. And, Kukis comes out as 14.1 percent of the total population. Thapar is correct in this. However, a problem emerges if we read further in the 1901 census.

In page 90 of Report on the Census of Assam 1901, Kuki population of entire Assam is given as 47042. Here, the clans and tribes included in the Kuki-Chin linguistic category are described.

It is also clear from the above clarification in the 1901 Census report that the Kuki category includes two groups: New Kuki and Old Kuki. However, unlike 1886 estimate, the data does not give the population of each of these subcategories in Kuki category.

The problem is these Old Kukis clans are not considered Kukis anymore in official usage. They are now known as intermediary tribes. It is the New Kuki in Dun’s nomenclature who are now known as Kuki-Zomi/Kuki-Chin.

See the official nomenclature in Zou’s 2018 (33) paper:

Since 1901 Census does not provide numbers for individual tribes in the Kuki category, we do not know the numbers of the intermediary tribes (or Old Kukis) in 1901. And, also an accurate number for the Kuki-Zomi tribe (New Kuki) cannot be drawn from 1901 data.

And, we have seen in the beginning how Mr. Thapar arrives at the 16 percent Kuki population share data of 2011. He excludes in his calculation of Kuki population in 2011 the intermediary tribes (or Old Kukis). So, when Thapar says Kuki population share increase from around 14 percent in 1901 to 16 percent in 2011 he is not talking about the same Kuki. Mr. Thapar compares the 1901 Kuki data and 2011 Kuki data without understanding that they are two different things. His 1901 Kuki data includes both the population of intermediary tribes and Kuki-Chin (Kuki-Zomi) tribes and in his 2011 Kuki data he includes only the population Kuki-Chin (Kuki-Zomi) tribes. Apples and oranges.

However, the matter is hardly about numbers. His reading of Census is a dangerous way of dealing with data especially when small tribes like Kom and Chiru are walking on a tight rope in the present conflict. Furthermore, National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN) in a report in Ukhrul Times says that it “puts on record that the following Naga minor tribes—Aimol, Chiru, Chothe, Kharam, Koireng and Kom are parts of Naga community…Our Meitei brothers and Kukis should not take them otherwise and harass them in any manner.”

So, should we include them in 1901 data as Kuki especially when they do not want to be dragged in the bloodbath? Mainland Indians might not see these nuances but in Manipur, as of now, every data that is being presented is scrutinised and interpreted. Mr. Thapar must understand this too.