Manipur Home Minister Govindas Konthoujam on Monday (September 7) told the Assembly that 1951 would be the base year for updating the NRC in the state. He also said the state government cannot implement an NRC on its own without the Centre’s approval, and that officials are tracing the records of the 1951 NRC.The erstwhile princely state of Manipur had a permit system regulating the entry of people from outside the state. It was abolished by then Chief Commissioner Himmat Singh through a notification dated November 18, 1950.In 1951, the first Census of independent India was conducted. Alongside it, a National Register of Citizens (NRC) was prepared across the country, including in Manipur. The register contained details including names, parentage, nationality, age, occupation and residence.During the agitation for the introduction of the Inner Line Permit system in Manipur, the Joint Committee on Inner Line Permit System (JCILPS) argued that this history makes 1951 the logical point from which the entry and settlement of outsiders should be scrutinised. Its argument is that 1951 provides the earliest available demographic baseline after the abolition of the permit system, against which subsequent migration and population change can be assessed.It has also pointed to a sharp increase in Manipur’s recorded decadal population growth — from 12.80% in 1951 to 35.04% in 1961 — which it cites as evidence of a substantial increase in population after the old entry controls were removed. The increase in population, however, does not by itself establish that it was caused by illegal immigration.There is also a longer political history behind the demand. The “Proceedings of Understanding” between the Manipur government and student organisations in July and August 1980, another agreement of November 1994 between Manipur Lt Governor and student organisations under President’s Rule, and the Manipur People’s Protection Bill, 2018, all talk of 1951 as the baseline.The 2018 Bill is significant because it sought to regulate the entry and presence of people from outside Manipur and classified as “non-Manipuris” those who were not Meitei, Meitei-Pangal, members of the Scheduled Tribes or people who had been living in Manipur before 1951. The Assembly passed it unanimously, but it did not become law.Story continues below this adBut Assam NRC used 1971 as the cut-off?Assam had a far longer and more intense history of agitation over illegal immigration, culminating in the six-year Assam Movement of 1979-85, which witnessed substantial violence. Yet the political settlement that followed established a framework based on dates beginning in 1966 and ending on March 24, 1971.Also Read | Routine data or citizenship check? Why the Census questionnaire has sparked concernsUnder the Assam Accord, January 1, 1966 was fixed as the base date. Those who entered Assam before that date were to be regularised; those who entered between January 1, 1966 and March 24, 1971 were to be detected and registered under the law; and those entering on or after March 25, 1971 were to be detected and expelled.The 1971 date therefore emerged from the specific political settlement represented by the Assam Accord, which followed the Assam Movement and was shaped by the history of migration from East Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh.Manipur’s proponents say their historical problem is different. They want to establish a baseline soon after the abolition of Manipur’s own permit system in November 1950 and then examine subsequent demographic change.Why has the demand gained urgency now?Story continues below this adThe demand predates the ethnic violence that began in May 2023, but the influx of people from Myanmar after the 2021 military coup gave it a new security dimension. It has now acquired another political significance with the 2027 Census and the prospect of delimitation. Meitei and Naga organisations want the NRC completed before the Census, arguing that population figures should not influence future political representation until illegal immigration has been addressed.Why are Kuki-Zo groups opposed?The Kuki-Zo Council has opposed an NRC before the Census, calling the demand premature. The Council has also challenged the reliability of a 1951 baseline. KZC has said most hill areas of Manipur were extremely remote in 1951, with limited accessibility and virtually no road connectivity making comprehensive population enumeration difficult. Thus, using 1951 as the benchmark for the NRC could fail to reflect Manipur’s actual demographic history and potentially exclude indigenous communities whose villages were not covered in that Census.There is an additional historical complication. Kuki, Zomi and Chin communities have historically lived on both sides of the India-Myanmar border. Kuki-Zo organisations therefore fear that a documentary exercise based on a 75-year-old baseline could disproportionately affect people from the community, particularly those who lack records establishing a connection to 1951.What are the challenges for an NRC with 1951 as the base year?Story continues below this adManipur’s own experience shows the difficulty of translating a historical cut-off into policy. In 2018, the Biren Singh government’s Manipur People’s Protection Bill changed its proposed base year from 1971 to 1951 before being passed by the Assembly. The change triggered protests, including in Jiribam, where people from communities with longstanding links to neighbouring Assam feared that the definition could exclude them; the agitation turned violent, with clashes and injuries reported. The Bill eventually did not become law.Also Read | In conflict-torn Manipur, why Congress and BJP have both sought NRC before CensusWhen the government later had to operationalise the Inner Line Permit system, its Cabinet chose 1961 in 2022. Biren Singh said the decision was taken after considering the interests of the state’s different communities, including its 34 recognised tribes. The JCILPS, which has consistently demanded 1951, opposed the move. Even in March 2024, when Biren recommended an NRC to the Centre, he proposed 1961 as the base year.The history points to the central difficulty with a 1951 cut-off: how does the state distinguish between a recent migrant and a long-settled resident who simply cannot produce records linking the family to 1951? Records from the period are uneven, particularly in the hills, and the government is now itself trying to locate the original 1951 NRC records. The Centre would also have to prescribe the evidentiary and appeals framework and clarify what exclusion from the register would mean legally. In a state where thousands have been displaced by the conflict, documentary verification would be even more complicated.