The United Kuki Council (UKC) has issued a detailed communication to the Chakhroma Public Organization (CPO), expressing appreciation for long-standing community ties while also placing on record its position on historical and jurisdiction-related concerns. In a letter dated April 8, 2026, the UKC acknowledged receipt of CPO’s earlier communication regarding jurisdiction and agreements, and responded by underlining the importance of maintaining mutual respect and understanding between communities. The council began by appreciating the role of the CPO and the Angami community in maintaining peace and stability in the region. It described the relationship between the Kuki and Angami communities as one rooted in shared history, trust, and cooperation. The UKC also recalled the support extended by Angami and other Naga groups during the 1995 violence, when many Kukis were affected and displaced. It said this support remains an important and respected part of their shared past.
At the same time, the UKC raised concerns over what it termed as “misconceptions” in some public narratives. It clarified that the presence of Kuki communities in the Naga Hills is not recent, and pointed to colonial-era records to support its claim. The letter cited British administrative records, ethnographic works, and census data to argue that Kuki settlements existed in the region well before Indian independence.According to details mentioned in the document, colonial records from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including writings by J.H. Hutton and administrative reports by J.P. Mills, refer to Kuki villages in the Naga Hills. It also stated that at least 26 Kuki villages were recorded in the region before 1947, and the 1881 Census documented a Kuki population of around 15,000 in the area. The UKC said these references show that the Kuki presence in the region has historical continuity and should not be viewed only in the context of events after 1995. It stressed that the violence during that period affected already settled communities rather than marking the beginning of their presence.
The organisation further said that such clarifications were being made to prevent misunderstandings and to ensure that public discourse remains based on historical facts. It emphasised that maintaining harmony between communities should remain a priority. The council also called for dialogue and constructive engagement to resolve any differences. It stated that issues related to jurisdiction or agreements should be handled through mutual understanding and respect, rather than confrontation.
