Bimol Akoijam and the 1951 Base Year Debate: Navigating the NRC Question in Manipur
The demand for an updated National Register of Citizens (NRC) has long simmered in Manipur, but it has acquired fresh intensity in 2026 as preparations for the national census advance. At the heart of the discussion lies a contentious question: should 1951 serve as the cut-off or base year for determining citizenship? Inner Manipur Congress MP Dr. Angomcha Bimol Akoijam has emerged as one of the more measured yet firm voices in this debate. His remarks, particularly those delivered at a sensitisation programme organised by the All Manipur Bar Association in early May 2026, have sparked both criticism and clarification, illuminating the practical, legal and political complexities surrounding the issue.
Manipur’s demographic anxieties are rooted in its modern history. After the state’s merger with the Indian Union in 1949, the earlier permit system that regulated the entry of outsiders was abolished in 1950. Subsequent census figures showed a sharp acceleration in population growth. The decadal growth rate, which stood at around 12.8 per cent in the 1951 census period, rose dramatically to over 35 per cent by 1961. Many indigenous groups attribute this surge, at least in part, to migration from neighbouring regions, including present-day Myanmar and Bangladesh. Agreements reached in the early 1980s between the state government and student organisations, as well as a 1994 memorandum, referenced 1951 or dates close to it as a benchmark for identifying non-residents. Later legislative efforts, including the Manipur People Bill of 2018 and Assembly resolutions in 2022 and 2024, have repeatedly underscored the need for an NRC exercise, often with 1951 as the preferred base year.
Akoijam’s intervention in May 2026 did not reject the principle of an NRC. On the contrary, he described the updating of citizenship records as both a moral and legal responsibility of the Indian state. Speaking at the Bar Association programme, he warned that unchecked illegal immigration could erode the political and social rights of indigenous communities. He pointed to the state’s porous international border and the long-standing difficulties of distinguishing genuine citizens from those who entered after independence. At the same time, he drew attention to a practical problem that many advocates of a strict 1951 cut-off had preferred to overlook: the availability of reliable records.
Citing replies obtained under the Right to Information Act, Akoijam noted that the Directorate of Census Operations, Manipur, had stated in October 2015 that the NRC 1951 document was not available with the office. A more recent response from the Office of the Registrar General of India in May 2025 reportedly indicated that the NRC 1951 was not conducted in Manipur. Yet older administrative reports from the 1951 census period mention the sanction of funds and the distribution of forms linked to the preparation of a National Register of Citizens. This contradiction, he argued, creates genuine confusion. How, he asked, can an exercise be anchored to 1951 records if those records cannot be located or if official agencies deny their existence?
Rather than declaring that no 1951 NRC had ever taken place, Akoijam highlighted the ambiguity and proposed workable alternatives. He suggested that a National Register of Indian Citizens could be prepared using the electoral rolls of 1952 and 1957, supplemented by the 1951 Village Directory. He also cautioned against relying on the 1948 electoral roll, arguing that as a pre-merger document it might not command acceptance from the Government of India. In his view, the goal should be a credible, document-based process capable of distinguishing citizens from non-citizens, including through the establishment of Foreigners Tribunals under the Immigration and Foreigners Act of 2025.
These remarks triggered sharp reactions. A coalition of fourteen civil society organisations accused him of misleading the public and of failing to press the Centre hard enough to produce the 1951 records. Some groups insisted that administrative reports from the Superintendent of Census Operations for Assam, Manipur and Tripura confirmed that registers had been prepared and preserved. The Meitei (Meetei) Tribal Union similarly criticised the tone of his comments, arguing that any NRC process must remain firmly anchored to 1951. The Manipur Pradesh Congress Committee responded by clarifying that Akoijam had not denied the possibility of a 1951 exercise; he had merely pointed to the documentary gaps and offered practical pathways forward. The party emphasised that his primary concern remained the protection of indigenous political rights against the consequences of prolonged illegal immigration.
The debate over the base year cannot be separated from the wider ethnic and political fault lines that have marked Manipur since the outbreak of violence in 2023. Meitei and Naga organisations have largely converged on the demand that an NRC with 1951 as the base year must precede any census or delimitation exercise. They contend that abnormal population growth recorded in certain hill subdivisions in earlier censuses, some of which were later questioned in court, risks distorting electoral representation. Kuki organisations, by contrast, have expressed serious reservations. The Kuki Zo Council has argued that hill areas in 1951 were extremely remote, with limited road connectivity. Many villages, they maintain, may never have been properly enumerated. A rigid 1951 cut-off could therefore exclude legitimate indigenous residents and fail to reflect the demographic reality of the hills. They have called for the census to proceed without being made conditional on an NRC exercise.
By August 2026 the controversy had escalated into street protests and a temporary shutdown of educational institutions. Civil society groups and student organisations demanded that the census be deferred until citizenship verification is completed. The state government reiterated its support for an NRC, citing earlier Assembly resolutions, while opposition voices, including Akoijam, continued to press the Centre for prioritisation of the issue. In letters to the Union Home Minister and interventions in Parliament, Akoijam has repeatedly linked the census question to the unresolved humanitarian crisis of tens of thousands of internally displaced persons and the absence of a robust mechanism for distinguishing citizens from non-citizens.
Akoijam’s position occupies a distinctive space in this polarised landscape. As an academic who has long studied identity, conflict and the politics of the Northeast, and as a first-term parliamentarian, he has combined support for the principle of an NRC with a insistence on documentary feasibility and legal clarity. He has rejected the idea that the demand itself is flawed, describing it instead as a necessary response to the state’s vulnerability. At the same time, he has refused to treat 1951 as an unproblematic talisman. By pointing to the gaps in the archival record and proposing alternative legacy data, he has forced a more sober conversation about how an NRC in Manipur might actually be implemented without reproducing the difficulties experienced in Assam.
The larger stakes remain clear. For many in the valley and among Naga groups, an updated citizenship register is essential to safeguard land, political representation and cultural identity against what they see as sustained demographic pressure. For hill communities wary of a 1951 cut-off, the fear is that an imperfect historical baseline could itself become an instrument of exclusion. Bridging these positions will require more than rhetorical commitment. It will demand careful archival recovery, transparent methodology, institutional capacity to handle claims and objections, and a political climate capable of absorbing the results without further violence.
In highlighting both the urgency of citizenship verification and the practical obstacles that stand in its way, Bimol Akoijam has contributed a necessary note of realism to a debate that is otherwise dominated by competing historical narratives and community anxieties. Whether the Centre and the state can translate that realism into a workable process remains the central unanswered question of Manipur’s ongoing struggle over identity, belonging and the rule of law.
About The Author
