The Ministry of Ayush, Government of India, organized a high-level review meeting and consultative discussions on the development of the International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI) and National Health Intervention Codes (NHIC) for Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani (ASU) systems of medicine on May 25–26, 2026, in online mode.
Following the landmark Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and Donor Agreement between the Ministry of Ayush and the World Health Organization (WHO), the initiative aims to integrate traditional medicine interventions into the WHO’s ICHI framework.
Cross-border support
The objective is to develop a globally standardized and scientifically robust coding vocabulary for ASU clinical interventions to enable cross-border data exchange, strengthen clinical research, and support global health system interoperability, including insurance integration.
The meeting was chaired by Vaidya Rajesh Kotecha, Secretary, Ministry of Ayush, who emphasized the strategic importance of internationally aligned intervention classifications. He stated that the initiative would significantly contribute to integrating traditional medicine into global health systems, strengthening documentation practices, and enhancing interoperability in digital health ecosystems.
The inaugural session began with welcome remarks by Dr. N. Srikanth, Deputy Director General, Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS). In her introductory remarks, Dr. Kavita Jain, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Ayush, highlighted the significance of standardized intervention terminology in strengthening evidence-based traditional medicine systems.
This was followed by addresses from representatives of the World Health Organization, including Dr. Pawan Godatwar, Technical Officer, WHO South-East Asia Regional Office (SEARO), and Dr. Geetha Krishnan, Unit Head, GTMC Jamnagar.
Coding directories
Detailed technical presentations on the four-level hierarchical coding directories for Ayurveda, Siddha, and Unani systems were delivered by the respective Research Councils during a high-level technical session.
The Ayurveda coding directory (NHICA) was presented by Prof. Vaidya Rabinarayan Acharya, Director General of the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS). The Siddha coding directory (NHICS) was introduced by Prof. Dr. N. J. Muthukumar, Director General of the Central Council for Research in Siddha (CCRS).
Coding systems
The Unani coding directory (NHICUM) was presented by Dr. N. Zaheer Ahmed, Director General of the Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine (CCRUM). The three Director Generals outlined the structure and implementation framework of their respective four-level hierarchical coding systems, aimed at standardizing terminology and enabling interoperability across traditional medicine databases.
International experts from the WHO Data Standards and Informatics team, including Dr. Nenad Kostanjsek, Technical Officer, WHO, deliberated on the future roadmap and technical requirements for aligning ASU intervention classifications with global health informatics standards.
Breakout sessions
The two-day meeting also included separate breakout sessions for Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani systems, facilitating detailed technical review, vetting and expert consultations on draft documents. Around 30 scientists from the three Research Councils, along with faculty members from various Ayush National Institutes such as ITRA, AIIA, NIUM and other reputed institutions, participated in the deliberations.
The finalized framework will form the basis for the upcoming WHO-ICHI ASU Alpha Draft editorial workshop scheduled for July 2026.
The ancestral lands and traditional jurisdictions of Ukhrul and Kamjong belong strictly to the indigenous Tangkhul Naga people.
The Tangkhul Naga Long (TNL) has issued a stern directive to Kuki villages located within Ukhrul and Kamjong districts, ordering them to disregard recent instructions from Kuki civil society and student organizations regarding tax payments and district identification.
The apex Tangkhul customary body characterized these moves as totally irresponsible, unconstitutional and highly provocative amidst the state’s ongoing volatility.
Rejection of Orders
The TNL’s reaction follows recent mandates issued by the Working Committee of Kuki CSOs Ukhrul (WCKCSO) and the Kuki Students’ Organisation (KSO), Ukhrul District. The WCKCSO had reportedly ordered Kuki villages in Ukhrul and Kamjong areas to pay hill house tax to Kangpokpi, while the KSO instructed villages to install signage identifying themselves as part of “Kangpokpi District.”
In a statement issued Tuesday, TNL Vice President RS Jollyson asserted that no “self-styled” organization or student body possesses the power to alter territorial classifications or create parallel administrative structures through intimidation. The TNL warned that these directives constitute a direct challenge to the rightful owners of the land and will not be taken lightly.
Ancestral Land, Territorial Integrity
At the heart of the dispute is the TNL’s assertion of historical ownership. The TNL maintained that the ancestral lands and traditional jurisdictions of Ukhrul and Kamjong belong strictly to the indigenous Tangkhul Naga people, claiming their historical ownership predates what they described as “fabricated narratives” currently being imposed.
The TNL also reiterated the long-standing position of the Nagas in Manipur, under the United Naga Council (UNC), regarding the 2016 creation of seven new districts. The TNL continues to demand a rollback of that decision, arguing it was an unconstitutional move that arbitrarily bifurcated Naga ancestral land without the consent of landowners. Consequently, the TNL stated they do not recognize Kangpokpi as a separate district, viewing it instead as an administrative part of Senapati.
Warning Against Escalation
Citing the fragile security situation in Manipur, the apex Tangkhul customary body has directed all Kuki villages within its jurisdiction to refrain from erecting any provocative signage and to refuse compliance with orders to pay taxes to Kangpokpi authorities.
The TNL reiterated that any defiance of this directive would likely escalate the already volatile situation in the state.
Where is the responsibility of the Manipur State Government?
This is not a rhetorical whisper. It is a thunderous indictment echoing from the broken highways, from the burnt villages, from the eyes of mothers who have not slept since their sons disappeared, from the ancestral soil that is slipping through the fingers of its rightful sons and daughters.
If the Chief Minister, the indigenous MLAs, and the MPs of Manipur cannot stand before their people and declare with unflinching clarity: “No to the Suspension of Operations that has become a shield for rampage, kidnapping, killings, and highway blockades against innocent villagers. No to a Union Territory for immigrant Kukis. No to the erasure of the historical and ancestral land of Manipur’s indigenous peoples” — then what remains of leadership? What remains of a government?
Without land, without the right of the people to live securely on their own soil, without the interest of the indigenous being paramount, what is politics? A theater of chairs? A marketplace for contracts? To trade collective security for personal wealth is not politics; it is betrayal. It is selling the birthright of a nation for silver, and calling it governance.
II. The Moral Anatomy of Silence
The Constitution of India is not a museum piece. It is a living covenant between the people and the state. Article 355 commands the Union to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance. Article 21 guarantees the right to life. Article 371C recognizes the special responsibility of the Governor for the hill areas of Manipur.
Where is that Constitution for the Manipur Government? Where is its enforcement when villages are attacked, when highways are cut, when families flee into the forests with nothing but their children in their arms?
To be inactive is not neutrality. To be silent is not prudence. In the face of terrorism, silence is complicity. In the face of demands for territorial bifurcation in favor of those who did not inherit this land, inaction is surrender. A government that watches while its own people are hunted has forfeited its moral claim to govern.
Biblically, “he who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin,” James 4:17. Politically, he who swears an oath to protect the Constitution and does not act, to him it is treason against the people. Socially, a leader who preserves his seat while his people lose their homes has become a caretaker of ruins.
III. The Political and Strategic Failure
This is not mere electoral politics. This is not about portfolios or party banners. This is about the survival of indigenous Manipur — Naga and Meitei, hill and valley, bound by history, geography, and shared destiny. The stakeholders in this crisis are not equal. One seeks to defend ancestral land. The other seeks political redefinition through demographic leverage and armed intimidation.
When elected representatives cannot name the crime, they become its enablers. When the government cannot enforce law on highways, when it cannot guarantee safe passage for farmers, when it cannot protect the sanctity of ancestral boundaries, it ceases to be a government and becomes a bystander.
To reduce the crisis to “law and order” is to insult the dead. To reduce it to “community clashes” is to erase the strategic nature of the assault. This is a challenge to the territorial integrity of Manipur, to the constitutional rights of its indigenous people, and to the very idea that democracy means more than holding elections while a people are dispossessed.
A politics that enriches families while impoverishing the nation is shameful. A politics that sacrifices collective security for private gain is not governance. It is auction.
IV. The Constitutional and Patriotic Imperative
The Constitution is not a menu from which the government may pick convenient clauses. It is the supreme law. The State Government has a duty to protect life, to uphold territorial integrity, to ensure free movement on highways, and to safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples under the Sixth Schedule and other protective provisions.
To allow the demand for a separate Union Territory to be pursued through violence, kidnapping, and blockade is to reward force over law. To treat armed groups under SoO as untouchable while innocent villagers are unprotected is to invert the moral order.
Retrospectively, we must ask: what will history say? That in 2023, 2024, 2025, and beyond, the leaders of Manipur had the chance to stand, to speak, to act — and they chose silence? That they preserved procedure while the people lost their land?
Introspectively, every MLA, every MP, every minister must ask: if my own village were burning, would I wait for orders? If my own children were missing, would I call it “sensitive”?
V. The Call to Righteous Action
The time for euphemism is over. The time for performative statements is gone. The people demand more than condolences. They demand security. They demand that SoO not be a license for terrorism. They demand that the ancestral land of Manipur not be bartered in backroom negotiations. They demand that indigenous rights be non-negotiable.
Leadership is not about managing headlines. It is about bearing the weight of the people’s trust. A leader who cannot say “no” to terror, “no” to illegal immigration, “no” to the dismantling of Manipur, is not a leader. He is a caretaker of his own legacy, and that legacy will be ash.
Democratically, the people have the right to demand accountability. Nationalistically, the people have the duty to defend their land. Patriotically, every official must choose: will you be remembered as the one who stood, or as the one who sold?
# VI. Conclusion: The Line in the Soil
The ancestral land of Manipur is not real estate. It is memory. It is graves. It is the altar of generations. Without it, politics is hollow. Without the people’s right, governance is fraud.
The Manipur State Government must answer: Where is the Constitution? Where is the will? Where is the courage to say “enough”?
To act now is to redeem. To remain silent is to be judged — by the people, by history, and by the God who sees when leaders sleep while their flock is scattered.
Let it not be written that Manipur fell not to an enemy without, but to the inaction of those within. Let it be written instead that in her darkest hour, her sons and daughters, her leaders and people, stood together — sharply, strongly, vehemently, righteously — and said: “This land is ours. These people are ours. And we will not let them go.”
Michael Meiphami Shaiza is Co-incharge of BJP Manipur State Political Programmes and Meetings and President of Ukhrul-based NGO Ecological Rehabilitators’ Association (ERA).
(Views expressed are writers’ own and do not, in whatsoever manner, reflect that of Ukhrul Now)
The UNC reaffirmed its “Forward With Unity” commitment, insisting no district opposes Naga interests.
The United Naga Council (UNC) on Friday issued a strong rejoinder to a statement by the Kuki Organization for Human Rights Trust (KOHUR) dated May 19, saying the response ignored the substantive points raised by the UNC a day earlier and mischaracterised its concerns.
‘KOHUR missed the point’
In its rejoinder, the UNC accused KOHUR of branding the UNC’s May 18 statement as an “advocacy text” while, the UNC alleged, KOHUR itself engaged in similar advocacy “against Nagas with concocted narratives” that were “out of the context” of the original statement.
The UNC said it had expected a human-rights organisation to focus on immediate humanitarian concerns — particularly the safety and the safe exchange of captives reportedly held by both sides — rather than level unproven political allegations.
Allegations, counter-questions
The UNC criticised KOHUR for what it called a “strange conflation” of separate incidents: the killing sprees and attacks on Tangkhul Nagas, and the allegation that an ambush had been carried out by ZUF (K) and NSCN-IM.
“What reason or benefit, politically or otherwise, would the ZUF (K) and NSCN-IM gain by snuffing out the lives of late Dr. Sitlhou and his fellow reverends?” the UNC asked, urging KOHUR to “deeply and truthfully reflect” and suggesting that “the bullets and the guns were but yours only.”
May 13 ambush, hostage-taking
Recalling the May 13 ambush, the UNC said that “the Kukis turned a peaceful area into a conflict zone” by taking 20 Naga civilians hostage and killing an “innocent Chiru Naga” on the same day. The council said Nagas, in the interest of greater peace, had refrained from retaliatory action and instead relied on law enforcement and civil authorities to discharge their duties.
The UNC stressed that this restraint should not be mistaken for weakness.
KOHUR failing duty
The statement also accused KOHUR of failing in its “first duty” as a human-rights organisation by not condemning the killings of reverends and those injured in the violence, and by remaining silent over the reported hostage-taking. “Human Rights Organisation, which KOHUR claims to be one, fails in its first duty to condemn the gross violation of human rights and hence, unworthy to claim themselves as one,” the UNC said.
‘Prioritise safe release of captives’
The UNC said its rejoinder would not stray from the immediate humanitarian imperative — securing the release of Naga captives — and emphasised that the priority for Nagas at this “tumultuous moment” is to save lives and extend “the humane touch that society is crying out for.”
No response yet
As of Friday, there has been no public response from KOHUR to the UNC’s rejoinder. State authorities and police have not released an update on the status of the reported hostages or on any progress in investigations into the May 13 ambush and subsequent hostage-taking.
The United Naga Council (UNC) has formally appealed to Union Home Minister Amit Shah for his personal intervention to secure the immediate release of six Naga civilians allegedly held hostage by the Kuki National Front‑P (KNF‑P) and residents of Leilon Vaiphei village in Kangpokpi district, Manipur, warning that the situation in the state is grave and rapidly worsening.
In a written representation addressed to the Union Home Minister and routed through the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati district, UNC president Ng. Lorho and general secretary Vareiyo Shatshang stated that eyewitness accounts and reliable sources confirm that six Naga civilians — including two pastors — remain in Kuki custody after the abduction of 18 people at Leilon Vaiphei on 13 May 2026.
Details of the abduction
The council said the 18 civilians, including men, women and married couples, were taken hostage in broad daylight at Leilon Vaiphei around 10:30–10:50 am on 13 May. Twelve women and one child were later released on 15 May, it added, leaving the six still unaccounted for.
Citing reliable sources, the UNC further alleged that the six Naga hostages may have already been killed while in the custody of KNF‑P, though the claim has not been independently verified. The council said the continued indecisiveness and inaction of the Manipur government has “unduly delayed” any resolution of the case and raised public doubts about the effectiveness of the state machinery and Central forces.
Allegations against State
The letter also questioned whether the perceived failure to act is linked to the influence of Deputy Chief Minister Nemcha Kipgen, describing her as the “wife of the supremo” of KNF‑P, Thangboi Kipgen. The Naga leadership asserted that these concerns had deepened public anxiety and called into question the impartiality of the State administration.
“The Naga people therefore urge your good office to intervene for the handing over of the Naga hostages, dead or alive, without further delay,” the UNC said, stressing that only direct intervention from the Union Home Minister could de‑escalate the volatile situation.
Demand for immediate action
Drawing attention to the “explosive nature” of the hostage crisis, the council requested the Union Home Minister to “take urgent cognizance” of the matter and ensure an immediate resolution. It underlined that the safe return — or return of the mortal remains — of the six Naga hostages is essential both for justice and for restoring trust in the rule of law in Manipur.
The womenfolk in traditional attire gathered at both venues, holding banners and chanting slogans including “Release 6 Naga hostages now” and “Govt of Manipur, act fast, save lives.” Demonstrators also echoed calls including “Nemcha Kipgen, resign.”
Thousands of aggrieved womenfolk staged sit-ins at the district headquarters in Ukhrul and Kamjong on Wednesday under the banner of the Naga Women Union (NWU), demanding the immediate release of six Naga civilians whose whereabouts have remained unknown after they were allegedly held captive by Kuki militants.
The demonstrations were organised by Tangkhul Shanao Long (TSL), the Tangkhul women’s league, in line with the collective call of the NWU across Naga-inhabited areas in Manipur.
Political resignation demand
While pressing for swift legal action against those responsible for the abduction, protesters also called for the resignation of Manipur deputy chief minister Nemcha Kipgen, accusing her of being linked to the kidnapping incident.
Protesters alleged that Nemcha Kipgen’s husband’s armed organisation was involved in the kidnapping of six Naga civilians from Leilon Vaiphei village in Kangpokpi district on May 13.
“Release 6 Naga hostages now”
The womenfolk in traditional attire gathered at both venues, holding banners and chanting slogans including “Release 6 Naga hostages now” and “Govt of Manipur, act fast, save lives.” Demonstrators also echoed calls including “Nemcha Kipgen, resign.”
The womenfolk in traditional attire gathered at both venues, holding banners and chanting slogans including “Release 6 Naga hostages now” and “Govt of Manipur, act fast, save lives.” Demonstrators also echoed calls including “Nemcha Kipgen, resign.”
TNL cites Christian faith
At the Ukhrul demonstration held at the district mini-secretariat, Tangkhul Naga Long (TNL) president Sword Vashum condemned the hostage-taking of innocent civilians. He described the situation as a critical moment for the peace-loving Naga people and blamed what he called systematic acts of aggression and provocation by armed Kuki militants.
Tangkhul Naga Long (TNL) president Sword Vashum condemned the hostage-taking of innocent civilians. He described the situation as a critical moment for the peace-loving Naga people.
Vashum urged the Nagas community to remain firm in Christian convictions, warning that perpetrators would face divine judgment.
Scrap SoO Call
At both sites, demonstrators also demanded “Listen to people’s voice, scrap the SoO,” along with calls to “Bring back trust, security forces” and “Remove SoO from Naga areas.”
Memo to CM
Later, the Tangkhul Shanao Long submitted a memorandum to chief minister Y. Khemchand Singh through the Ukhrul deputy commissioner, urging immediate state intervention to secure the safe release of the six hostages and demanding prompt police action to arrest and prosecute those responsible, as described by the organisers.
TKS president Ramreichan said 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.
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.
The speakers emphasized that India possesses an extensive array of anti-terror legislation that has remained largely untapped in addressing the security challenges facing Naga populations in Manipur.
A coalition of senior rights activists and civil society leaders from Ukhrul district has called upon both the central and state governments to deploy anti-terror legislation and mechanisms against what they describe as ongoing terrorist activities in Naga-inhabited areas of Manipur. The group accused authorities of failing to apply existing national and international counter-terror frameworks to protect civilian populations, describing the situation as a crisis that has persisted for decades.
The activists articulated their concerns during a press conference held at the Ukhrul Press Club on Sunday, presenting a detailed critique of governmental inaction while tracing the origins and evolution of what they characterized as militant threats to Naga communities.
The press conference brought together several prominent figures, including human-rights activists, legal experts, and representatives of civil-society organizations, all of whom sought to draw attention to what they termed systematic failures in addressing security concerns in the state’s hill districts.
History of Unaddressed Violence
The speakers emphasized that India possesses an extensive array of anti-terror legislation that has remained largely untapped in addressing the security challenges facing Naga populations in Manipur. They noted that the nation has enacted a series of anti-terror laws over the past four decades, including the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Acts of 1985, 1987, and 1997, along with the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2002—which was repealed in 2004—and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967, substantially amended in 2019. The activists pointed out that these legal instruments exist alongside robust international cooperation mechanisms, including Joint Working Groups with countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, Canada, Russia, Israel, and various European Union states.
The speakers emphasized that India possesses an extensive array of anti-terror legislation that has remained largely untapped in addressing the security challenges facing Naga populations in Manipur.
Despite these comprehensive frameworks, the speakers argued that such instruments have not been effectively deployed to protect Naga civilians in Manipur. This failure, they contended, represents not merely a legal oversight but a profound abandonment of constitutional obligations toward citizens residing in the state’s hill areas.
“We’re Being Terrorised in Our Own Land”
Senior human-rights activist Hungyohung delivered the most pointed criticism of governmental policy, alleging that armed Kuki.groups operating in the region have perpetuated a campaign of terror against Naga communities with apparent impunity. “We are being terrorised in our own land,” Hungyohung stated, drawing a direct parallel between the suffering of Naga populations and the rhetorical commitments made by national leaders to combating terrorism elsewhere in India.
According to the activist, these armed Kuki groups maintain cross-border linkages and have operated with what he described as backing or tolerance from elements within the Indian state apparatus. He traced the emergence of these groups to the 1990s, characterizing their evolution from modest beginnings into a sustained insurgency that has employed sophisticated tactics including guerrilla warfare, psychological operations, drone technology, and explosive devices. “These acts of terrorism continue to this day,” Hungyohung emphasized, rejecting any suggestion that the threat has diminished with time.
The senior activist directed his criticism at both the Manipur state government and the central administration in New Delhi, accusing both of failing to take the fundamental step of proscribing militant Kuki outfits as unlawful or terrorist organizations under existing law. “Our MPs and MLAs should have stood up and asserted that these armed groups are unlawful or terrorists,” he told reporters. “Because they are not speaking, we the people must stand up and insist the Government of India declare these groups terrorist organisations.”
He further alleged that perceived protection extended to these groups by authorities has left other communities exposed while simultaneously emboldening the militants, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of violence and intimidation.
Land, Identity, and Demographic Transformation
Beyond the immediate security concerns, the activists framed the dispute in terms of land rights and ethnic identity, arguing that these questions lie at the heart of the conflict. Hungyohung rejected assertions that Kukis are indigenous to the Naga-inhabited areas of Ukhrul district, describing them as historically more mobile populations and attributing recent demographic shifts to refugee movements from neighboring Myanmar. He characterized these changes as fundamentally altering land dynamics that had been stable for centuries.
“We are indigenous people, native to this land; the land belongs to us and we belong to this land,” Hungyohung declared, establishing what he described as an inalienable connection between Naga identity and territory. He opined that this framing positioned the conflict not merely as a law-and-order issue but as a existential question of survival for indigenous communities facing irreversible demographic transformation.
Dr. YL Mingthing, convenor of the Discussion Forum Ukhrul (DFU), provided historical and ethnographic context to support these claims. He described the state’s response to the complex ethnic composition of Manipur as “very, very helpless,” suggesting that governmental institutions have proven incapable of managing the intricate social dynamics of the region.
Dr. Mingthing emphasized that Naga tribes across the wider region—including the Konyak, Ao, Angami, Lotha, and Tangkhul communities—carry long-running grievances concerning land rights and governance that have accumulated over decades of neglect.
The scholar attributed significant responsibility for current tensions to demographic pressures generated by recent arrivals and refugee settlements, some originating from the Chin Hills of Myanmar and from Bangladesh. He argued that these population movements have fundamentally undermined local peace arrangements and transformed the social fabric of communities that had maintained stable relationships for generations.
“Central security policies and the deployment of forces under the Home Ministry have not addressed Naga concerns. That is why we have grievances,” Dr. Mingthing stated.
Governance Failures in Hill Areas
Senior Advocate Daniel Ramsan, chairman of the Manipur State Commission for Social Care, expanded the critique to encompass broader governance failures affecting the hill areas. He highlighted the non-implementation of the Manipur Village Authorities in Hill Areas Act of 1986, which he noted covers roughly 2,500 villages across the hill districts. Ramsan explained that statutory provisions contained in that legislation, including the establishment of village courts under Section 19, remain unimplemented decades after the law’s passage.
“Till today there is no office established by the state government,” Ramsan disclosed, describing a situation in which village authorities in the hills are expected to perform administrative duties without the basic infrastructure that such responsibilities require. He noted that these authorities lack dedicated offices, functional courts, secretarial support, or compensation for their services—effectively operating in a governance vacuum despite clear legislative mandates.
The legal expert further pointed to constitutional and statutory provisions that grant special powers to hill area institutions. He cited Article 371C of the Indian Constitution and the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Area Committee) Order of 1972, which empower the state to frame distinctive laws concerning land, forest, and marriage specifically for hill-area communities. Ramsan asserted that these powers had not been exercised effectively, leaving hill communities without the legal frameworks necessary to govern their own affairs.
“We are maintaining our land and forest without land law, without forest rules,” he observed. “How can we progress?” The advocate urged the state government to enact and implement the relevant rules and to extend legal recognition to customary marriages that currently exist outside formal legal structures, leaving families vulnerable to arbitrary disruption.
India’s Counter-Terror Resolve
The activists drew a pointed comparison between the government’s response to terrorism in other regions and its apparent inaction in Manipur. Hungyohung recalled the terror attack in 2025 at Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir, in which more than 20 tourists—most of them foreign nationals—were killed. He noted that Prime Minister Narendra Modi responded by ordering a surgical strike deep inside Pakistan in what was characterized as a decisive response to state-sponsored terrorism.
“We agree with his accusation that Pakistan sponsors terrorism,” Hungyohung stated. “But what makes us unhappy is that, while he accuses others on the global stage, within India he appears to be sponsoring terrorism in our land.”
The activist insisted on applying the same terminology to actors within India’s borders, declaring: “We call those militants terrorists. We call the Kuki militants narco-terrorists or Kuki terrorists because they have terrorised us severely, causing loss of homes, livelihoods, lives and threats to our children.”
Despite what he described as overwhelming evidence of terrorist activity, Hungyohung noted that the Government of India has not proscribed these Kuki outfits under existing anti-terror legislation. This selective application of counter-terror measures, he argued, suggested a discriminatory approach that failed to extend the same protections to northeastern communities that other Indian citizens receive as a matter of right.
Criticism of Security Forces
The senior activist also directed criticism at the Assam Rifles, one of India’s oldest paramilitary forces with a long history of operations in the northeastern borderlands. He alleged that the force has been shielding Kuki militants rather than suppressing them, creating a situation in which local populations have lost confidence in state institutions.
“People feel they must rise,” Hungyohung cautioned. “In the days to come, people may rise and confront not the Kukis but the Assam Rifles, because wherever Assam Rifles are deployed, Kuki militants operate and begin harassing and terrorising civilians. I foresee this confrontation happening very soon,” he warned, suggesting a growing breakdown in the relationship between security forces and local communities.
The press conference was also attended by other public figures, including DFU co-convenor LM Thanmi Shimray.
The speakers renewed their call for existing national counter-terror frameworks to be applied uniformly across all Indian territories and for the central government to take the formal step of declaring and proscribing outfits they described as terrorist organizations operating against Naga populations.
Until such action is taken, they warned, the cycle of violence and neglect would continue, with increasingly severe consequences for the peace and stability of Manipur’s hill districts.
The United Naga Council (UNC) has announced an inter‑district economic blockade of Naga areas in Manipur after accusing Kuki militant groups of continuing to hold six Naga civilians — including two pastors — despite repeated government deadlines to secure their release.
In a statement from the UNC Media Cell, the council said it had issued an ultimatum to the Manipur government on 14 May for the immediate and safe release of 20 Naga hostages held at Leilon Vaiphei and Sapermaina Kuki villages within 24 hours. On the morning of 15 May, 14 of the hostages were released, but the fate of the remaining six remained uncertain, the UNC said.
The state government subsequently sought more time — until 2 pm on 16 May — to trace and free the remaining captives. That deadline was deferred twice to allow authorities to continue search operations, the UNC added. Despite the extensions, the six Naga civilians were still being held and, the UNC alleged, state agencies had been unable to locate or rescue them after the revised deadlines had passed.
“Given the situation, we are constrained to launch an Inter‑District Economic Blockade along the National Highways in the Naga areas in Manipur with immediate effect until the safe rescue and release of the Naga hostages are duly carried out,” the UNC Media Cell said.
On 13 May, an ambush by unknown gunmen in Kangpokpi district left three Thadou Church leaders dead and five others injured. The deceased were identified as TBAI president Reverend Vumthang Sitlhou, TBAI finance secretary Reverend Kaigoulun Lhouvum, and Pastor Paogoulen Sitlhou. Reverend Vumthang had recently headed a delegation of Kuki Christian leaders into neighbouring Nagaland in an effort to mediate peace between Kukis and Tangkhul Nagas in Manipur’s troubled Kamjong and Ukhrul districts.
The attack provoked a wave of retaliatory and preventative abductions and detentions on both sides, deepening an already volatile security situation. Around 20 Nagas of Konsakhul village were reportedly held hostage by people from Leilon Vaiphei village soon after the ambush. In response to the abduction, around 23 Kuki individuals were detained by locals in Senapati district on the same day.
