A recent article claiming that Kukis in Imphal had amassed “₹4,335 crore of wealth” has sparked strong reactions, not only because of the size of the figure but also because of the way it has been presented. A detailed rebuttal issued by the Outer Manipur Kuki IDPs Welfare Association argues that the claim is misleading, dangerous, and disconnected from legal and economic reality.
At the centre of the controversy is a simple but serious confusion. The ₹4,335 crore figure does not refer to cash, bank deposits, or liquid wealth. It refers to the estimated replacement value of immovable properties such as houses, small shops, schools, churches, and godowns built over several decades by thousands of individuals. Property valuation, experts point out, is not the same as income or disposable money. A house cannot be equated with cash in hand.
The rebuttal explains that presenting this figure as “wealth” creates a false picture. If the total value of all properties owned by any community in Imphal were added up, every group would appear extremely wealthy on paper. This does not mean that people are sitting on piles of cash. Much of this property is self-occupied, inherited, mortgaged, or no longer accessible to its owners. 
Another major concern raised is the way averages were used. The claim that this amounts to nearly Rs 2 crore per family was made by dividing a large aggregate number by an assumed number of households. Economists say this approach is misleading. Property ownership is never evenly spread. Many families owned only small homes, while a limited number of commercial properties inflate the total value. Using averages without showing how assets are actually distributed distorts reality.
The rebuttal also highlights that the legal status of these properties was deliberately ignored. According to the association, Kuki-owned properties in areas such as New Lambulane, Checkon, Dewlahland, Langol, Mantripukhri, and other parts of Imphal were backed by valid land allotments, pattas, municipal records, and revenue documents. Until the violence that erupted in May 2023, these ownership rights were not under dispute. No court or government authority has declared these properties illegal or benami.
Under Article 300A of the Constitution, lawful property cannot be questioned simply because of the identity of the owner. The rebuttal argues that suggesting otherwise amounts to selective targeting. It also rejects the idea, implied in the original article, that Scheduled Tribe status requires permanent poverty. ST status is based on historical disadvantage, social exclusion, and geography, not on a lifetime income ceiling. Education, urban migration, or economic improvement do not cancel constitutional identity.
The association further accuses the article of deliberately mixing two separate issues: urban property ownership and poverty in hill areas. Urban-rural inequality exists across all communities, they argue, and cannot be used to imply wrongdoing by one group. Hill poverty, the rebuttal says, is the result of long-term neglect, difficult terrain, limited infrastructure, and administrative failures, not because urban Kukis diverted public funds.
One of the most serious objections raised is the suggestion of links between property ownership and illegal activities such as drug trafficking or money laundering. The rebuttal states clearly that no FIR, charge sheet, Enforcement Directorate attachment, or CBI case has linked Kuki homeowners in Imphal to narco-terror or proceeds of crime. Making such suggestions without evidence, it argues, amounts to collective criminalisation of an entire community.
Equally troubling, according to the association, is the moral comparison drawn between cultural loss and property loss. While acknowledging the pain caused by damage to cultural sites, the rebuttal stresses that forced displacement, arson, looting, and permanent exile are also severe forms of loss. One community’s suffering cannot be used to dismiss or question another’s constitutional rights.
The biggest omission, the rebuttal says, is the issue of displacement. Kukis did not “cash out” their properties. Many were forced to flee, with homes burnt, looted, or occupied. Orders from courts and government authorities have called for the protection of displaced persons’ properties and prevention of illegal sales. In this context, valuation figures matter only for compensation and restitution, not to create suspicion.
The association says that the Rs 4,335 crore figure exists to calculate fair compensation based on replacement cost, a standard practice in disaster relief and rehabilitation. Undervaluing destroyed or inaccessible property, it warns, would amount to a second injustice.
