*REBUTTAL TO THE STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE COMMITTEE ON TRIBAL UNITY (COTU)* Lamka, Zogam dated 12th June 2025 We, the BTT, issue this response with seriousness and clarity to the Committee on Tribal Unity’s (COTU) letter attacking Pu Ketheos Zomi, Talks Delegate of UPF (Zomi), and misrepresenting both his position and his publicly communicated statement dated 8th June 2025. First, let us state unequivocally: the original letter by Pu Ketheos Zomi was not a personal attack but a carefully considered political communication addressed to the Government of India, conveying the Zomi group’s unified decision not to participate in the June 9 SoO meeting. This decision was grounded in the Zomi leadership’s consultations with civil society and intellectuals and rooted in a formally adopted resolution that clearly outlined the Zomi group's political stand and objectives. To frame this letter as an attack on Pu Aaron Kipgen is a clear misreading of its intent and content if not a deliberate distortion. Clarifications and Rebuttals: *1. Misrepresentation of “Unity” Through the “Kuki-Zo” Label* At the outset, we note with deep concern the casual deployment of the term “Kuki-Zo tribal unity” by COTU. This formulation is itself divisive and dismissive of the historical and political specificity of the Zomi identity. As outlined in widely acknowledged scholarly and community discourses, the term “Kuki-Zo” imposes a subsumptive framework that erases distinctions between communities, particularly the Zomi and Hmar, community who have repeatedly and formally asserted their refusal to be assimilated under the colonial term “Kuki.” For decades, the Zomi people have resisted the forced conflation of distinct identities under externally imposed labels. The use of “Kuki-Zo” erases that resistance and collapses meaningful political divergences into an artificial unity that serves selective interests. Any language of unity that is predicated on the suppression of identity differences is not unity, it is hegemony masquerading as harmony. If unity is truly the goal, it must be forged through recognition, not reduction. It must respect the agency of each constituent group to define its identity and political trajectory. To continue weaponizing “Kuki-Zo” as a shorthand for tribal unity is not only historically inaccurate but also ethically and politically untenable. *2. False Attribution Regarding Calvin H.* COTU claims that Pu Ketheos Zomi “conflates unrelated matters” by dragging Pu Aaron Kipgen into internal ZRA/ZRO issues, specifically by referencing Calvin H., whom they dub “a former ZRA cadre.” This is not only misleading, it is flatly false. Calvin H. was never a ZRA cadre, nor did he undergo the mandatory training that would qualify him as such. That such a glaring factual error made its way into an official public statement speaks volumes not about Pu Ketheos Zomi’s credibility, but about COTU’s standards of due diligence. One would reasonably expect that an organization presuming to speak on behalf of supposedly tribal unity would, at the very least, check the veracity of its claims before going to print. But evidently, basic background verification is too much to ask. The result is not just reputational damage to an individual, but an institutional embarrassment that undermines any moral high ground COTU claims to possess. If COTU is genuinely invested in upholding the dignity of tribal discourse, it might consider raising the bar above WhatsApp forwards and marketplace gossip before issuing public condemnations. *3. UPF is a Shared Platform, Not a Personal Fiefdom* Contrary to COTU’s suggestion that Pu Aaron Kipgen’s leadership must remain beyond scrutiny, Pu Ketheos Zomi’s position reflects not dissent for the sake of disruption but a principled commitment to shared leadership, democratic norms, and strategic clarity. In his June 8 letter, he explicitly stresses the need for “avoiding any role, intended or unintended, that could be misinterpreted as interference or bias,” particularly in contexts where internal reconciliation among Kuki CSOs remains unresolved. This is not evasion rather a political foresight. It is an act of restraint, not rejection. It is what responsible leadership looks like when it understands the fragility of inter-group trust and the dangers of overreach. To brand such restraint as “divisive rhetoric” is to confuse discomfort with dissent, and difference with disloyalty. The insistence that a spokesperson must be immune to critique not only betrays a deep misunderstanding of collective representation, but also exposes a creeping tendency to personalize power in a coalition meant to be plural. Pu Aaron Kipgen is not UPF. No one individual is. UPF is not a coronation platform; it is a coordination mechanism. Its credibility depends not on enforced consensus but on earned legitimacy, something that only grows stronger, not weaker, when voices like Pu Ketheos Zomi hold the mirror to internal dynamics. If anything is divisive, it is the attempt to shield leadership from honest introspection. If anything undermines the collective cause, it is the refusal to accommodate healthy disagreement within the fold. What Pu Ketheos Zomi articulated was not rebellion; it was restraint grounded in context, strategy, and political realism. To mistake that for disruption is not just a failure of reading, it is a refusal to listen. *4. The Real Issue: Mistrust Within the Kuki Side* Even COTU cannot deny the observable realities reflected in Pu Ketheos Zomi's letter, which does not level accusations. His worries regarding the growing gap between Kuki SoO groups and their own CSOs are not hypothetical; rather, they are supported by public discourse and are echoed by the CSOs themselves. The absence of significant organisations in revolutionary endeavours, the open discontent among constituents, and the internal criticism of leadership are Kuki confessions rather than Zomi inventions. Moreover, COTU conveniently ignores the structural reality: Kuki CSOs operate on multiple, often disjointed, planes. From the City-based Kuki Innpi in Delhi and Guwahati, to the Manipur-based state-level Kuki Inpi, from district-wise Inpis to various branches of the Kuki Students’ Organization (KSO), each body functions autonomously, often without inter-CSO cohesion or policy clarity. These are not branches of a single tree; they are parallel circuits, running on different bandwidths, emitting mixed signals to both their people and negotiating counterparts. In such a fragmented ecosystem, who speaks for whom? How can external parties engage meaningfully when the Kuki civil society sphere itself lacks an internal mechanism of coherence, consensus, or coordination? If COTU wishes to defend the sanctity of its own leadership, it must first reckon with the accountability gap within its broader fraternity. The Zomi side has made it clear: engagement with the Government of India must rest on internal clarity and collective preparedness. That clarity is still elusive on the Kuki side, not because of Zomi withdrawal, but because the Kuki CSOs themselves operate in silos, often at odds with one another. Until that intra-CSO dissonance is acknowledged and addressed, it is both reasonable and responsible for the Zomi group to refrain from complicating the process with premature or ambiguous participation. *5. Ground Realities and Zomi Autonomy* The idea that questioning Pu Aaron Kipgen’s role amounts to “disrespecting the people of Kangpokpi” is not only a false equivalence but rather a reduction of political discourse into personality cultism. Critiquing a spokesperson’s role in a collective political front is not a slight against any community; it is a legitimate demand for clarity and accountability, especially in a platform like UPF that claims to represent diverse tribal constituencies. Zomi community are not bound, nor do they claim to be, by Kangpokpi’s internal dynamics. They have never expressed political aspiration over Kangpokpi’s territory, nor have they interfered in the community-specific governance of the said district. On the contrary, the Zomi political roadmap has consistently focused on consolidating their geographical and administrative aspirations grounded in their historic land, cultural unity, and demographic reality. Unlike the community issuing this complaint, the Zomi groups have no interest in extending political stakes into territories outside their traditional domain. It is precisely this respect for boundaries, territorial, political, and rhetorical that informs the Zomi’s decision to refrain from participating in a dialogue process clouded by unresolved tensions and representation ambiguities within the Kuki front. To interpret this respectful non-intervention as “disrespect” is not only misguided, but reveals a deeper anxiety: that the legitimacy of the current Kuki representation is being questioned not just from outside, but from within. That is not the Zomi’s burden to resolve. It is the Kuki leadership’s responsibility to introspect and recalibrate. Until then, the Zomi’s position remains unchanged: dignified engagement with the Government of India is only possible when internal frameworks are in place, and when participation does not come at the cost of one’s own political coherence. *6. A Call for Maturity and Respect* True unity cannot be built on falsehoods or forced alignments. It must be rooted in mutual recognition and space for respectful disagreement. COTU’s attempt to silence legitimate decisions and concerns from Zomi groups through an accusatory public statement weakens rather than strengthens our collective position in the peace process. History is instructive. The disintegration of the Khul Union serves as a cautionary tale of what happens when unity is reduced to submission when one group mistakes numerical dominance or historical narrative control for moral right. The Khul Union fractured not because sister communities lacked the will to cooperate, but because supremacist ambitions eroded the foundation of mutual trust. That moment must not be repeated. Today, the use of the term “Kuki-Zo” operates in the same fashion—an exclusionary misnomer that pretends to unite but ultimately serves to erase. It is not a bridge, but a branding exercise. It rewrites political identities to suit majoritarian agendas. The sooner this rhetorical project is abandoned, the more possible genuine solidarity becomes. If the Kuki leadership is sincere about collective progress, it must confront the legacy of its own overreach and resist the temptation to repackage old hegemonies under new banners. Zomi community, for their part, have demonstrated principled leadership: restraint in the face of provocation, clarity in the midst of confusion, and commitment to dialogue even when met with distortion. Therefore, we remain steadfast in our path of dignity, dialogue, and democratic participation. As the June 8 letter reaffirmed, we will engage when the conditions are conducive to genuine collaboration, not performance unity. We call upon COTU to retract its misleading statement and to rise above parochial defensiveness. Let this moment be an inflection point—not for deepening factionalism, but for opening space to rebuild trust. Tribal unity is not achieved through gatekeeping or erasure, but through honest dialogue, mutual respect, and the courage to confront uncomfortable truths. We urge our counterparts to meet us there, not with dictates, but with open hands and minds. BTT 🔴🟡🟢 https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaYCqe71yT229xZ6f42y