The statement issued by the Media & Info Cell of Khanuithot-Khon reads, “the Kuki militants sponsors Kuki CSOs Working Committee and Kuki-Zo Council statement demands scrutiny not for what it says, but for what it carefully omits.”
1. The Moral Bankruptcy of Blaming the Victim’s Voice
Two unarmed Tangkhul Naga civilians, Lt. SW. Chinaoshang and Lt. Yaruingam Vashum, were gunned down in broad daylight on NH-202. They were traveling home. The TNL President spoke the truth
of the community’s grief and named those responsible based on ground realities and victim testimonies. The Kuki militants sponsor Kuki CSOs response? Not assistance in finding the killers. Not condemnation of the specific armed groups operating with impunity. An FIR demand against the man who dared to speak. This is not a pursuit of justice. It is the silencing of mourning. It is an assault on free speech dressed in legal costume. It reveals a leadership more concerned with protecting narrative than protecting lives.
2. The Political Calculus of Deflection
The demand for an FIR against the TNL President serves one purpose: to shift national attention away from the blood on NH-202. While the public focuses on a manufactured controversy over “dangerous misinformation,” the real question goes unasked. Who fired the sniper rounds? Whose INSAS or M-16 rifles were used? From which illegal settlement did the attack originate? The Kuki CSO statement offers no answers because answers lead directly to SoO camps and illegal settlements under their political umbrella. Deflection is not innocence. It is a tactical evasion.
3. The Legal Absurdity of the FIR Demand
Under Indian law, a citizen has the fundamental right to petition the state for justice and to name suspected perpetrators based on available evidence. The TNL President exercised that right. To seek his criminalization for doing so is not merely frivolous. It is an abuse of legal process intended to intimidate community leadership into silence. If the Kuki militants sponsor CSOs believe the allegations are false, the remedy is not an FIR against the accuser. The remedy is to cooperate with investigators, produce the numbered weapons inventory from SoO camps, and identify whose cadres were unaccounted for on 18th April 2026. Silence on this front while demanding legal action against the victim’s voice is not a defence. It is an admission.
4. The Evidentiary Vacuum of “Government-Recognised Villages”
The Kuki militants sponsor CSOs like Kuki-Zo Councils claim that Kuki villages in Ukhrul are “government-recognised and backed by valid records.” Produce them. Show the land titles. Show the pattas. Show the court orders establishing independent Kuki ownership over any contested foothills settlement. The Tangkhul Naga side has produced Civil Case No. 276 of 1939-40. Miscellaneous Case No. 232 of 1952-53. The 1980 reaffirmation agreement. The Gauhati High Court proceedings of 1983. The present Hill House Tax records. Where is the equivalent documentary chain from the Kuki side? A claim without a document is not a record. It is Kuki ancestral lies. Must defend.
5. The SoO Shield and the Illegal Settlement Launch Pads
The attack originated from the direction of Mongkot Chepu and Yaolen, illegal Kuki settlements from which fatal rounds have been fired repeatedly. These settlements sit in close proximity to designated SoO camps. The pattern is established: cadres leave camps, attack Naga villages or civilian convoys, and retreat to the safety of these settlements or camps. The Suspension of Operations agreement, intended as a peace measure, has become a shield for impunity. The weapons used are numbered and recorded. The perpetrators are identifiable. The failure to identify them is not investigative difficulty. It is deliberate complicity dressed as administrative neutrality.
6. The Unanswered Questions the Kuki CSO Must Address
If the Kuki militants sponsor Kuki CSOs genuinely seek peace and truth, let it answer the following:
1. Which SoO camp’s weapons inventory shows unaccounted or matching ballistics for the 18th April ambush?
2. Which cadres were absent from designated camps during the hours of the attack?
3. Why have illegal settlements at Mongkot Chepu and Yaolen, from which attacks repeatedly originate, not been dismantled?
7. The Verdict of Silence
The Kuki CSO statement condemns violence in the abstract but refuses to name its perpetrators in the specific. It demands legal action against a community leader while offering no cooperation to find the killers of two unarmed civilians. It claims “valid records” while producing none. It speaks of peace while its political allies demand the relocation of entire Naga communities to create contiguous territory. This is not a peace statement. It is a public relations exercise designed to buy time while facts on the ground are alterec by violence.
We are closely observing your modus operandi in making claims and counterclaims on behalf of Kuki militants. You had already issued a statement denying involvement while the victims were still lying on NH-202.
“The blood of Lt. Chinaoshang and Lt. Yaruingam demands more than a press release. It demands truth. It demands accountability. It demands that the numbered weapons be tracked and the killers named. Until the Kuki CSO provides those answers, its words are weightless and its condemnation is complicity by another name” added the statement issued by the Media & Info Cell of Khanuithot-Khon.
