Manipur Forest Department Prepares Crackdown on Illegal Poppy

Forest officials in Manipur have identified over 300 hectares of illegal poppy cultivation across three hill districts as authorities prepare destruction drives and explore alternative livelihoods.

On Friday, 9 October 2026, Manipur’s Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Anurag Bajpai announced in Imphal that the Forest Department has identified 307 hectares of illegal poppy cultivation across forest land in Churachandpur, Senapati and Chandel districts. Officials are currently drawing up plans for major destruction operations as field surveys that restarted in mid-September continue across the hills, meaning the recorded figures could climb higher in the coming weeks. The department, which has monitored poppy cultivation across the state since 2018, is facing a critical window because the crop cycle moves swiftly. In the higher reaches, the poppy season begins in October, when the plants typically flower, before extending across middle and lower elevations through November and December. To carry out the drive, forest authorities are finalising a standard operating procedure to prevent illicit farming inside woodland tracts and are coordinating closely with central security forces to enter these sensitive terrains. The issue strikes at the very heart of the state’s fragile stability, where poppy-driven forest clearing has been widely seen as one of the triggers of ethnic conflict. While state authorities maintain that strict enforcement is vital to protect reserve areas and dismantle illicit drug economies, any large-scale intervention in the hills must navigate deeply contested community relationships with forest land and the delicate social peace on the ground.

The state’s natural landscape faces immense ecological stress that extends well beyond illegal poppy fields, raising urgent questions about environmental management and institutional accountability. Official data underscores the scale of degradation: Manipur lost about 50 sq km of forest cover according to the 2023 Forest Survey of India assessment, while the state recorded roughly 6,000 forest fires last year alone. Alongside these sweeping losses, Bajpai issued sharp warnings against illegal tree felling, unauthorised mining and earth cutting that continue to strip vulnerable hill slopes and accelerate soil erosion. Internal lapses within the forest department’s own regulatory machinery have also come under public scrutiny. On 26 September, the department suspended all 12 frontline staff at the Yairipok Beat Office in Thoubal district after more than 100 pine trees were felled, with an inquiry report expected within days. This disciplinary measure highlights a troubling reality within forest administration. While enforcement drives frequently direct attention towards remote hill pockets, vigilance over state personnel tasked with safeguarding vulnerable beats has visibly faltered. Holding ground-level staff accountable represents an essential first step, yet it also exposes systemic gaps where unauthorized extraction can occur directly under the watch of official stations before higher authorities intervene.

Beyond immediate destruction drives, the broader challenge rests on what happens to degraded hillsides and the impoverished agrarian families caught up in illicit cultivation. To restore cleared forest patches, the administration planted bamboo on 255 hectares of land where poppy was destroyed during 2024-25 and 2025-26, and officials state that the government is actively exploring other livelihoods for affected communities. The official position remains that clearing illicit crops alongside ecological restoration will curb the narcotics economy and restore the region's depleted green cover. However, critical questions remain over who truly pays the price during these drives and whether proposed alternative livelihoods can genuinely sustain marginal cultivators who often turn to poppy cultivation amid rural poverty and an absence of viable economic options. As forest teams prepare destruction operations alongside central forces and finalise their standard operating procedures, authorities must answer whether enforcement will dismantle the wider networks profiting from the trade or simply dispossess vulnerable farming households. Without genuine, lasting economic support for local communities and transparent oversight over forest administration, coercive destruction alone risks deepening rural distress in a state already grappling with severe conflict and environmental loss.