Counting People, Defining Citizenship: Understanding the “No NRC, No Census” Debate in Manipur

Manipur has recently witnessed growing protests around the slogan “No NRC, No Census.” Civil society organizations and sections of the public are demanding that the National Register of Citizens (NRC) be updated before the Census is conducted. The campaign has gained momentum as Census preparations move forward, with protests targeting training programmes and government offices.

At the heart of the campaign is a genuine concern over demographic change. Manipur shares a long international border with Myanmar and has experienced large-scale displacement since the outbreak of violence in 2023. Protesters argue that conducting a Census before addressing illegal immigration and displacement could produce an inaccurate demographic picture. Some organizations have consequently demanded an NRC based on the 1951 framework and rehabilitation of internally displaced persons before the Census.

These concerns deserve attention. However, the debate has also generated several misleading narratives, particularly regarding the purpose of a Census.

A Census is Not an NRC

The most important distinction is between counting people and determining citizenship.

A Census is primarily an exercise to collect demographic, social and economic information about the population. An NRC, on the other hand, concerns the identification and verification of citizens under the applicable legal framework.

Therefore, the claim that being counted in the Census automatically makes an undocumented migrant an Indian citizen is misleading. Inclusion in a population count does not, by itself, establish citizenship.

This distinction needs to be communicated clearly by the government. When official communication is limited or unclear, misconceptions can easily gain traction.

Is the NRC Demand Legitimate?

Yes, the demand for an NRC can legitimately be debated.

Concerns over illegal or undocumented cross-border migration are particularly relevant in a border state such as Manipur. Citizens are entitled to seek greater clarity about population changes, citizenship and migration.

The concern over internally displaced persons (IDPs) is also valid. Thousands of people displaced by the conflict have not returned to their original homes. Questions about where displaced people should be enumerated and how their original places of residence should be recorded require clear answers.

However, legitimate concerns should not be converted into the assumption that the Census itself will grant citizenship to migrants.

The 1951 NRC Demand Needs Careful Handling

The demand to use 1951 as the baseline for NRC updation is another contentious issue. Supporters argue that it would help distinguish long-established residents from later migrants.

However, such an exercise cannot simply presume that anyone unable to produce a document dating back to 1951 is an illegal immigrant. Many legitimate residents may lack records from that period. The process would therefore require clear rules concerning documentary evidence, descendants, people born after the cut-off date, displaced families, claims and appeals.

An NRC must ultimately remain a legal citizenship-verification exercise, not an ethnic or community-based filtering mechanism.

Should the Census Be Delayed?

Making the Census entirely dependent on completion of an NRC could create practical difficulties. NRC implementation would potentially involve extensive documentation, verification, objections and appeals. Delaying the Census indefinitely could leave the state without updated population data.

At the same time, proceeding without addressing Manipur's concerns would deepen mistrust.

A better approach would therefore be parallel processes rather than an either-or choice: conduct the Census while separately developing a transparent and legally sound framework for NRC-related verification.

What Should the Government Do?

The government should take four immediate steps:

·        First, clearly state that Census enumeration does not confer citizenship and explain the distinction between the two exercises.

·        Second, provide a transparent roadmap for addressing the NRC demand, including its legal basis, methodology and safeguards.

·        Third, clearly explain how IDPs, temporary residents and people displaced from their original homes will be enumerated and how duplicate counting will be prevented.

·        Fourth, engage civil society organisations through structured dialogue rather than allowing the issue to become a confrontation between protesters and security forces.

This is particularly important as the campaign has increasingly targeted Census-related activities and government institutions. Continued confrontation could shift the debate from a legitimate policy discussion to a law-and-order issue.

The Larger Issue Is Trust

Ultimately, the “No NRC, No Census” campaign is about more than two administrative exercises. It reflects deeper anxieties about demographic change, political representation, migration, identity and the future of Manipur.

The government should therefore neither dismiss these concerns nor accept misleading claims about the consequences of Census enumeration.

Civil society groups, meanwhile, also have a responsibility to distinguish legitimate demographic concerns from unverified claims. Treating every population change as evidence of an organised effort to alter Manipur's identity risks turning a serious policy debate into communal fear.

The real question should not be simply “NRC or Census?”

It should be:

How can Manipur obtain accurate population data while separately and lawfully addressing citizenship, illegal migration and displacement?

Manipur needs an accurate Census, a transparent citizenship-verification mechanism and credible safeguards against demographic manipulation. Above all, it needs public confidence that these processes will be conducted according to law, evidence and due process—not political pressure or misinformation.