KHANUITHOT KHON – the voice of the Tangkhul Naga Youth in an open letter has condemned the misuse of legal proceedings against freedom of speech.
The statement by KHANUITHOT KHON reads “We have taken note of a complaint filed on 15 March 2026 by one Lungoulen Guite, resident of Kangpokpi, seeking the registration of an FIR against Ashang Kasar, Chief Advisor of the Indigenous People’s Forum, under Sections 198 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The complaint pertains to statements made by Mr. Kasar during a broadcast on Impact TV, Manung Hutna (Episode 58: “AFTER MEITEI-KUKI, NAGA-KUKI NEXT?” | 12th March 2026).
“This complaint represents a dangerous attempt to weaponize the law against legitimate speech while ignoring a sustained, coordinated campaign of misinformation and historical distortion being waged by Kuki social media warriors across every digital platform imaginable. We write this open letter not to evade accountability where genuine wrongdoing exists, but to demand that the law be applied equally to all citizens and that its protections not be selectively deployed as a sword against one community while remaining a shield for another.”
THE LEGAL PROVISIONS CITED MUST BE EXAMINED IN THEIR FULL CONTEXT
Section 353 BNS penalizes the making, publishing, or circulating of any statement, false information, rumour, or report, including through electronic means, with intent to cause fear or alarm to the public, or with intent to incite any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community. The section specifically addresses statements intended to create or promote feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different groups on grounds of religion, race, language, or community.
However, the same section contains a crucial exception that the complainant has conveniently omitted from his narrative. The Exception clause to Section 353 explicitly states:
“It does not amount to an offence, within the meaning of this section, when the person making, publishing or circulating any such statement, false information, rumour or report, has reasonable grounds for believing that such statement, false information, rumour or report is true and makes, publishes or circulates it in good faith and without any such intent as aforesaid.”
This exception is not a minor footnote. It is the very foundation of a free society. It recognizes that citizens must have the right to speak on matters of public concern based on information they reasonably believe to be true, without the chilling fear of prosecution. Mr. Kasar, as a public figure commenting on matters of grave public concern involving communal tensions, violence, and the killing of civilians, is precisely the kind of speaker this exception was designed to protect.
The Allahabad High Court has recently affirmed in similar contexts that the question of whether a statement amounts to promoting enmity must be examined in light of the speaker’s intent and the factual basis for their belief. In Afaq Ahmad v. State of U.P., the Court observed that even “unsaid words” that convey an underlying message of communal targeting must be examined in context, but the exception for good faith belief in truth remains a fundamental protection. Mr. Kasar was commenting on events of public importance following the killing of two Kuki men and the abduction of twenty-one Naga civilians. These are matters of intense public debate and legitimate concern. His statements were made in a public forum, subject to scrutiny and rebuttal. That is precisely how democratic discourse is supposed to function.
SECTION 198 BNS: A CURIOUS CHOICE OF LEGAL WEAPON
The complainant has also invoked Section 198 BNS, which deals with “Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person.” We are puzzled by the inclusion of this provision. Section 198 falls under Chapter 12 of the BNS, which specifically covers offences by or relating to public servants. It applies exclusively to “whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will by such disobedience, cause injury to any person.”
The illustration provided in the statute itself describes an officer of law failing to execute a court decree. Mr. Ashang Kasar is not a public servant. He is a civil society leader. How can a provision meant to punish public servants for dereliction of duty be invoked against a private citizen engaged in protected speech? This alone demonstrates either a fundamental misunderstanding of the law or a deliberate attempt to intimidate through the mere filing of a complaint, hoping that the target will not have the resources to defend themselves.
THE DOUBLE STANDARD CANNOT BE IGNORED
While this single complaint is being filed against one individual, the Kuki digital ecosystem has been flooding every platform with misinformation, disinformation, and historical distortion for years without consequence. Let us be specific about what is being ignored by authorities who now rush to entertain this complaint:
• On YouTube: Channels regularly broadcast content claiming Naga ancestral lands as “Kukiland,” presenting fabricated narratives of history as fact, and inciting communal hatred under the guise of commentary.
• On X (formerly Twitter): Coordinated campaigns spread manipulated videos and images, flipping narratives to portray aggressors as victims and victims as aggressors, all while tagging official accounts and demanding action against Nagas.
• On Facebook and Instagram: Pages and groups dedicated to Kuki nationalism freely circulate content that defames Naga communities, threatens violence, and asserts territorial claims over lands where Kukis themselves were historically classified as refugees and conditional settlers.
• On websites and blogs: Pseudo-scholarly articles masquerading as research present archival distortions as historical truth, attempting to rewrite the documented record of who arrived when, under what conditions, and under whose authority.
• On WhatsApp and Telegram: Encrypted groups serve as coordination hubs for spreading rumours, organizing online attacks, and mobilizing digital armies to amplify falsehoods across platforms.
The law, we are told, is meant to be a double-edged sword. It can cut both ways. It can protect and it can punish. It can shield the innocent and it can hold the guilty accountable. But when the sword is wielded by one party to strike at the other while their own transgressions are met with official silence, the law ceases to be justice and becomes a weapon of war.
THE THADOU COMMUNITY ITSELF HAS REJECTED THIS COMPLAINT
Significantly, the Thadou Students’ Association (TSA) has categorically rejected this complaint, calling it a “baseless” attempt to misuse the name of the Thadou community and escalate ethnic tensions in Manipur. The TSA stated that the killings in Kamjong district had “zero involvement or connection to the Thadou community” and alleged that the complaint was an attempt to exploit a tragic incident for political purposes.
The TSA further questioned Guite’s authority to represent the Thadou community, describing the group he represents as a “fraudulent, unrecognised proxy outfit” acting as a front for “Kuki supremacist agendas.” Describing the complaint as “identity theft, harassment and an assault on free speech,” the association demanded that Guite and others “immediately cease misrepresenting the Thadou community.”
The TSA has consistently defended Thadou autonomy and dignity, stating that “the Thadou voice belongs solely to the Thadou people, not proxies or opportunists.” It has also previously rejected what it called “fraudulent, unauthenticated” documents circulated in the name of the Thadou community, describing them as “malicious attempts to defame and divide.”
THE DISTORTION OF HISTORY ITSELF IS THE ORIGINAL MISINFORMATION
Let us not forget the larger context in which these legal proceedings are unfolding. Kuki social media warriors have built entire careers on the distortion of archival records. They have:
• Claimed indigeneity where records show arrival in the 1840s.
• Demanded homelands on lands where their ancestors paid tribute to Naga chiefs.
• Demanded the relocation of villages based on a false narrative of victimhood.
• Issued threats of “preemptive measures” and self-defense while being armed and funded under the SoO framework.
• Defaced Naga memorials with the word “Kukiland” as an act of territorial assertion.
All of this has been documented, circulated, and amplified across digital platforms. All of it has been met with official silence.
THE EXCEPTION CLAUSE PROTECTS GOOD FAITH SPEECH
Under the Exception to Section 353, Mr. Kasar is entitled to the protection of the law if he had reasonable grounds to believe his statements were true and made them in good faith. The Allahabad High Court has recently affirmed that even “unsaid words” in a message that convey an underlying meaning must be examined in context, but the exception for good faith belief in truth remains a fundamental protection.
Mr. Kasar was commenting on events of public importance following the killing of two Kuki men and the abduction of twenty-one Naga civilians. These are matters of intense public debate and legitimate concern. His statements were made in a public forum, subject to scrutiny and rebuttal. That is precisely how democratic discourse is supposed to function.
The KHANUITHOT KHON demand that the authorities:
1. Apply the law equally. If an FIR is to be registered against Mr. Kasar, then every Kuki digital warrior who has spread falsehoods, distorted history, and incited hatred must also face the same legal consequences. Provide us with the list of FIRs registered against the hundreds of Kuki accounts engaged in this coordinated campaign.
2. Investigate the context. Before proceeding against Mr. Kasar, investigate the broader pattern of misinformation being spread by Kuki social media accounts. The selective targeting of one Naga voice while ignoring an entire ecosystem of Kuki propaganda is prima facie evidence of bias.
3. Recognize the Exception. Mr. Kasar is entitled to the protection of the Exception clause under Section 353. He was speaking on matters of public concern in good faith. This complaint appears designed to intimidate and silence, not to seek genuine justice.
4. Publicly clarify the scope of Section 198. The invocation of a provision meant for public servants against a private citizen is either legally incompetent or malicious. The police must clarify how they intend to proceed on this count.
5. Acknowledge the Thadou Students’ Association’s position. The TSA has clearly stated that this complaint does not represent the Thadou community and is an act of “identity theft.” This must be officially noted.
CONCLUSION
The law was not created to be a weapon that can only be fired at the enemy. It is a double-edged sword, meant to protect all citizens equally. If it is wielded selectively, it loses its moral authority and becomes just another instrument of oppression.
We condemn this complaint not because we oppose accountability, but because we demand equal accountability. If Ashang Kasar must answer for his words, then every Kuki social media warrior who has polluted the digital space with lies must answer too. If this FIR proceeds, we will document every instance of Kuki misinformation and demand that the same sections be invoked against them.
The law is not a toy to be played with. It is not a weapon to be aimed at convenience. It is a sacred trust, and those who misuse it will find that it cuts both ways.
Issued by the KHANUITHOT KHON
(Voice of the Tangkhul Naga Youth)
