The Tangkhul Katamnao Saklong (TKS) has publicly challenged a viral interview given by an individual identified as Tony Singsit, who purportedly defended the conduct of one community amid the ongoing ethnic conflict between Nagas and Kukis in Manipur.
Speaking at a press briefing held at the Ukhrul Press Club on Sunday, TKS president Ramreichan Keishing condemned what he described as deliberate distortions of fact, asserting that such false narratives have sown widespread confusion among the public in both Nagaland and Manipur.
“The path to peace must be built on truth, dignity, and honour. We all desire peace, but peace cannot emerge from lies and hypocrisy,” Ramreichan declared during the briefing, emphasizing that genuine reconciliation remains impossible when fundamental facts are deliberately misrepresented.
His statements represent the most significant public rebuttal from a Tangkhul community leader since Singsit’s interview began circulating widely on social media, having originally appeared on YouTube before gaining traction across other online channels.
Credibility Questioned
Ramreichan directly challenged Singsit’s authority to discuss the Litan incident from a first-hand perspective, noting that the individual was physically removed from the actual events and was instead presenting what he characterized as a completely fabricated sequence of occurrences.
The TKS president argued that the widespread dissemination of these narratives necessitates a clear public correction, as confusion sown by misinformation only deepens divisions between communities already grappling with violence and mistrust.
His core critique centered on several specific factual discrepancies undermining Singsit’s credibility.
According to Ramreichan, Singsit claimed in his viral video that only seven Kuki hostages had been released, whereas in reality sixteen Kukis had already been freed. He noted that the significant discrepancy, demonstrates either a deliberate attempt to mislead the public or a troubling detachment from the actual ground realities.
Dispute Over Casualty Reports
Beyond the hostage figures, Ramreichan disputed Singsit’s account regarding survivors from an ambush targeting Thadou religious leaders. While Singsit asserted that only one person survived the attack, Ramreichan cited official state government reports indicating that five individuals survived the incident. He said this contradiction is not merely a minor error but a fundamental misrepresentation with direct implications for how the conflict is understood by local populations and outside observers, especially in Manipur and Nagaland.
The TKS president also objected to Singsit’s characterization of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) as a Tangkhul Litan group. Ramreichan described this labeling as misleading and factually incorrect, pointing out that such classifications obscure the organization’s broader identity. “We cannot simply label anything as a militant group,” Ramreichan stated.
“The NSCN is a well-established organization that is currently engaged in negotiations with the Government of India at the highest levels. It represents the entire Naga people, not just the Tangkhul community.” This cla rification affects how responsibility and agency are attributed in the ongoing conflict, particularly in discussions about who speaks for various Naga factions and communities.
The Genesis of Crisis
Ramreichan used the press briefing to provide an account of events he said triggered the current conflict between Nagas and Kukis, placing recent violence within a broader pattern of alleged attacks against Tangkhul villagers. Central to his narrative was a brutal assault that occurred on February 7 in Litan Sareikhong, when an individual named Stalin Shimray was attacked by six or seven people from the Kuki community. Ramreichan described Shimray as a highly respected figure in the Litan area and a teacher by profession who was left in critical condition after the attack and has yet to fully
recover.
The TKS president rejected attempts to characterize the February 7 incident as a drunken brawl, arguing that such explanations represent a deliberate minimization of what he described as a targeted assault. He said this characterization has been used to deflect accountability and obscure the intentional nature of the violence that preceded the escalation.
Placing this incident within a longer timeline of alleged grievances, Ramreichan recalled another assault on December 29, 2020, during which the headman of Sharkaphung village was targeted in an attempted murder. He also referenced an attack on July 18, 2025, involving a minibus driver, noting that after that incident, leaders from both communities met and Kuki representatives agreed in writing to leave the area if similar incidents recurred. Ramreichan implied this agreement was later violated, undermining trust-building efforts and contributing to deteriorating inter-community relations.
Escalation Since Feb 8
According to Ramreichan, tensions escalated dramatically after the February 7 assault when, on the evening of February 8, twenty-three Tangkhul houses were set on fire in what he described as a coordinated act of destruction. He recounted that a subsequent meeting involving the Tangkhul Naga Long (TNL) president, the deputy chief minister of Manipur, concerned Members of the Legislative Assembly, and representatives from both communities was disrupted by gunfire originating from the Kuki village side.
Crucially, Ramreichan characterized the weapons used during this disruption as more serious than conventional hunting arms. “It was not just mere SBBL licence guns. These were automatic guns,” he told reporters, referring to registered weapons commonly used for shotguns and non-automatic weapons in India.
Ramreichan said the gunfire and accompanying threats prevented any conclusive resolution at that meeting, setting the stage for the current protracted conflict. He expressed frustration that whenever violence affects Kukis, many observers assume Tangkhuls are responsible, while symmetric attacks on Tangkhuls rarely generate equivalent condemnation or investigation.
“Would Kukis blame Tangkhuls for attacks on Kukis occurring elsewhere?” he asked rhetorically, highlighting what he perceives as asymmetry in how violence is interpreted and reported.
Unclear Demand Claim
Addressing Singsit’s assertion that Tangkhuls have no clear demands or coherent position, Ramreichan articulated the community’s long-standing stance on the issues driving the conflict. He emphasized that the Tangkhul position centers on recognition of rightful landowners based on historical facts, rejecting attempts to portray their demands as vague or politically manufactured.
Ramreichan said numerous memoranda had been submitted to both state and central authorities requesting formal recognition of land rights the community maintains are historically legitimate. He added that these communications included demands for the removal of encampments that violate the terms of original settlement arrangements.
These specific demands, he argued, are not extremist positions but legitimate grievances that have been systematically ignored or dismissed, contributing to the accumulated frustrations now manifesting in open conflict.
The TKS president’s detailed rebuttal comes at a critical moment as social media continues to amplify competing narratives about responsibility for the violence and the appropriate path to resolution. As communities on both sides grapple with displacement, loss of life, and property destruction, the question of which narratives shape public understanding and policy responses remains central to any prospects for restoring peace to the region.