We have read your statement dated April 16, 2026, in which you accuse TNFO and Khanuithot-Khon. We want to clarify that we are not interested in engaging in a press release war. However, we feel it is necessary to address a few points in defence of Kuki’s ancestral lies.
1. The Convoy Incident Was Not a Trivial Matter
You describe the April 14 incident on NH-202 as “unverified” and “reckless.” The Central Working Committee of the Tangkhul Naga Foothills’ Organisation (CWC-TNFO) and Tangkhul Aze Katamnao Long (TAKL) placed the incident on public record. These are representative bodies, not anonymous social media accounts like your minions’ keypad warriors sponsored by SoO Groups. You may dispute their account, but you cannot dismiss it while expecting your own version of events to be accepted without scrutiny.
If our statement is “unverified,” then your counter-claims are unverified as well. The standard must be the same for all sides.
Here is the wider truth that you ignore: Civilian vehicles now need armed escorts to travel on NH-202. This situation is not normal, and it does not reflect peace. It is a direct result of months of attacks by Kuki militants under the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement on this highway, along with illegal taxation, as documented by the TNFO, TAKL, and village authorities.
2. On April 13, Zalenbung Firing
You allege that Tangkhul militants (NSCN Eastern Flank) fired at Zalenbung village from bunkers along the Thoubal riverbank on April 13. You state that security forces “intervened at that time, preventing further escalation.”
• First, if security forces successfully intervened on April 13, it proves they can act when they choose to. So, why didn’t they prevent the arson on February 8? What about the coordinated firing on March 24? Or the all-night attack on Thoyee and Sharkaphung on April 5? You cannot celebrate the security forces’ intervention in one instance while ignoring our complaints about their inaction in many other cases. That is a selective approach.
• Second, you attribute the April 13 firing to “Tangkhul militants.” We ask: What is your evidence? Where is the First Information Report (FIR)? Where is the ballistic report? Where is the site map? Where is the independent forensic confirmation? It has become your ancestral nature to claim NSCN without proof.
You request “credible proof” from us regarding the convoy incident; however, you provide none for your allegations. There is no independent verification, no named source, just an assertion. A claim itself is not evidence. If your version of events is accurate, please publish the proof. Until then, it remains Kuki’s ancestral lies
3. The Timeline You Ignored
You claim that we are hiding facts about the ambulance incident. Additionally, you allege that the ambulance was intentionally targeted by Tangkhul militants in a “deliberate attempt to misattribute blame and frame the Kuki community.” This is a serious accusation that requires equally substantial evidence, but none has been provided.
Since you lack the courage to provide proof, let’s review the timeline of your narco-terrorist operations, as documented by village authorities, TNFO, and TAKL:
• February 8, 2026: Armed Kuki militants entered Sikibung/ Sharkaphung village and torched more than 23 houses belonging to Tangkhul Nagas, including the residence of the village headman. Shots were fired toward populated areas.
• February 23, 2026: Portions of the Lungter Hill Range of Sinakeithei village were set on fire. A villager was abducted at gunpoint.
• March 19, 2026: Kuki militants, armed with heavy weapons, attempted to enter Sirarakhong village, triggering a gunfight with Tangkhul Naga village volunteers.
• March 24, 2026: Kuki militant groups operating under the SoO agreement carried out coordinated firing from Shangkai and Mangkot Chepu, targeting Naga villages including Kamjong, Sharkaphung, and Thoyee. Two civilians sustained injuries.
• April 5, 2026: Armed Kuki militants launched heavy gunfire toward civilian settlements in Thoyee and Sharkaphung beginning around 6 pm. Firing continued throughout the night. At least six houses in Thoyee were struck by bullets.
• For the past two months, the Sinakeithei Village Authority has publicly stated that Kuki bunkers at Lungter and the surrounding ridges remain intact and operational, while women and children in Sinakeithei have been trapped by fire from these positions. Despite this, security forces have not dismantled the offensive bunkers, and the situation continues.
4. On the Mongkot Chepu Firing
You mention that around 10:27 PM on April 14, six rounds were fired toward Mongkot Chepu from “the vicinity of the Bible College in Leingangching @ S. Laho.” You claimed this was “an attempt to provoke escalation” and that security forces “effectively prevented” it.
Once again, note the pattern: when security forces act to protect Kuki villages, you praise their intervention. When they fail to protect Naga villages, you call our complaints “hypocrisy.”
Your own words illustrate our point about selective enforcement. We have become increasingly aware of your tactic of repeatedly using references to “Christian, Churches, and Bible College.” We recognise your strategy of seeking sympathy from Western countries through religious narratives in order to acquire advanced weaponry. May the Lord forgive you for dragging a religious institution into your narco-terrorist act: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34).
5. The Double Standard You Confessed To
You accuse us of hypocrisy for questioning the neutrality of the security forces. You say that Naga women “obstruct” the forces, issue “restriction notices,” and “mobilize civilians.” Let us explain why Naga women are present on the highway.
• The All Naga Students’ Association, Manipur (ANSAM) has documented that security forces “unlawfully conducted operations in Naga areas dismantling the traditional Naga village bunkers and shelter huts for village guards” while failing to take decisive action against armed Kuki militants.
• The Naga Women’s Union has reported that instead of ensuring civilian safety, security forces used excessive force against women peacekeepers. On April 7, 2026, at S. Laho (Leingangching), women were reportedly subjected to lathi charges, “dazzle rods,” and “chemical sprays.”
• The Tangkhul Naga Long (TNL), the apex civil body of the Tangkhul community, has formally accused “certain security forces of siding with Kuki militants instead of protecting Naga rights” and condemned “alleged collusion by security forces in the torching of Naga houses.”
• On March 25-26, 2026, security forces dismantled 52 illegal bunkers on the Mahadev Thoyee and Zalengbung ridges. Many of these were Kuki militant positions, positions that had existed for months while Naga villages were being fired upon.
Here is a pattern that cannot be denied: Security forces have repeatedly dismantled the Nagas’
defensive bunkers. In contrast, no visible or comparable action has been taken against Kuki bunkers, such as those at Lungter and the surrounding ridges. The bunkers from which Kuki militants have fired upon Naga villages for months remain intact. This situation is not evidence of neutrality; it reflects selective enforcement.
When Naga women stand on the highway, they are not “obstructing” lawful operations. They are responding to a documented pattern: their villages are burning, their defensive bunkers are being dismantled, and the offensive Kuki positions remain untouched. When they protest, they are met with violence.
Protest is not obstruction; it is the last resort of a community that has lost faith in the state’s neutrality. You acknowledged that Kuki village volunteers felt the need to “act in self-defense” due to the “absence of immediate response from the security forces.”
Consider that statement again. You have conceded that security forces are not performing their duties impartially. You’ve admitted that when the state fails, civilians feel compelled to arm themselves.
So, let me ask you this: Why is it considered “self-defense” when a Kuki volunteer picks up a gun, but “obstruction of justice” when a Naga woman stands on a road holding a peace flag? You cannot have it both ways. This is not a rebuttal; it only reinforces the inconsistencies we have been documenting for months.
6. On “Restriction Notices” and TNL’s Alleged “Silence”
You mentioned that Naga groups issue “restriction notices” against central forces. Do you know why that is? When security forces enter Naga villages, they dismantle defensive bunkers, but they do not do the same in areas where Kuki militants operate. This is not a restriction notice against “lawful operations”; rather, it reflects a community saying, “If you will not protect us equally, do not pretend you are here to maintain peace.”
Regarding TNL’s alleged “calculated omission,” TNL has issued multiple public statements documenting violence against the Tangkhul Nagas. They have condemned attacks and called for neutrality. The fact that they did not repeat your version of events does not indicate a “calculated omission”; it signifies a rejection of your narrative. You do not have the authority to dictate what TNL should say, nor can you manufacture guilt from their silence.
7. The Highway and the Demand for Relocation
You question our concern for free movement on NH-202, stating that the highway has “not been under any formal restriction.” You mention threats to Kuki commuters at Leplen and Tingpibung, as well as a “silent economic blockade” at Wunghon. Let us address each point.
• First, regarding the highway: While you claim there is no “formal restriction,” this may be technically true, but it does not reflect the reality on the ground. Civilian vehicles can only travel with armed escorts, and convoys are frequently threatened. Ambulances have even been fired upon. Kuki militants impose illegal taxes along this highway, and we cannot overlook the kidnapping of 21 Nagas on NH-202, which reportedly occurred in the presence of security forces without any effective intervention. Call it what you like; the locals refer to it as a violent blockade. A road may appear “open” on paper, but it can still be unsafe in reality.
• Second, regarding the incidents in Thawai: The Kuki rebuttal notably omits the repeated attacks originating there. These assaults have terrorised Naga villages along the foothills for months. The pattern is clear: armed Kuki militants under SoO use Thawai as a base for incursions into Naga territory, and security forces have failed to intervene. This is not a minor oversight; it is a deliberate omission of documented violence.
• Third, concerning threats to Kuki civilians: Any threat to civilian life is unacceptable, and we condemn such actions without reservation. Will you also condemn the arson on February 8, the shooting on March 24, the all-night attack on April 5, the kidnapping of 21 Nagas, and the illegal taxation on NH-202? Or does your condemnation only go one way?
• Fourth, regarding the “silent blockade” at Wunghon: if there is evidence of any unlawful restriction, it should be investigated. However, selectively mentioning one instance of roadside disruption does not negate the documented incidents of village burnings, shootings, and repeated armed assaults that have occurred over the same period.
History will remember that in March 2026, the Kuki Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) Working Committee, operating under the guise of Kuki militants, called for a “total shutdown” of the Imphal-Ukhrul road. The demand associated with this shutdown was the relocation of all Kuki villages from Ukhrul to Kangpokpi.
You are demanding the removal of entire communities based solely on their ethnicity. Furthermore, you are using the highway as leverage to advance this demand, while simultaneously lecturing us about “free movement.” Let’s be clear: demanding that an entire community vacate its homes and territory based on ethnic identity is a call for demographic displacement. It is not a peace proposal; it is a threat to the multi-ethnic fabric of the Ukhrul district. If you seek equal standards, then you must accept equal scrutiny of all blockades, all bunkers, and all armed actors.
8. The Kuki-CSO-WC, Ukhrul “Call for Action” (April 16, 2026)
It appears aimed at drawing government attention ahead of the Manipur Chief Minister’s April 17 visit to Ukhrul. It alleges attacks on civilian convoys near Sinakeithel by Tangkhul militants, specifically naming NSCN-IM cadres under Col. Chipemi, and accuses security forces of inaction.
• Security Forces: Kuki settlements in Ukhrul and Kamjong have remained intact since May 2023 due to security force protection. Accusing them of inaction is contradictory, especially given their rejection of the state government’s proposal to replace central forces with state forces. The victim narrative is unfounded.
• NSCN (IM) Neutrality: The Government of India and NSCN-IM remain in political dialogue, and NSCN-IM has maintained neutrality since May 2023. To protect the ceasefire and negotiations, it has not engaged in the ethnic conflict, as reaffirmed by Chairman Q. Tuccu’s April 11, 2026, order. Linking Col. Chipemi to the Sinakeithel incident is unverified and provocative. Repeatedly invoking NSCN-IM since the February 7, 2026, Litan arson appears to be an attempt to draw them into the conflict. This is merely a modus operandi of Kuki CSOs posing as Kuki militants within the SoO groups.
9. Some Assignments to the Kuki CSOs Working Committee
Your rebuttal fails to address the central issue. It merely repeats allegations regarding the ambulance and the hillside, yet provides no FIR, ballistic report, site map, or independent forensic confirmation. A claim is not evidence. If your version of events is accurate, please publish the proof. Until then, you can proceed with some assignments, beginning with the cited dates, times, and incidents mentioned in this statement.
We are not interested in a war of press releases; our concern lies in ensuring that the same rules apply to everyone.
• If bunkers are illegal, dismantle all of them, not just a select few.
• If armed groups are violating the law, hold all of them accountable, rather than selectively.
• If SoO groups break the established ground rules, then suspend the agreement and cut their funding.
• If the state cannot protect civilians equally, admit it. Do not attack those who document this failure.
“The Tangkhul Nagas have been victims of terror due to your collaboration with the Kuki militants. We have witnessed our villages being burned, and our women assaulted by the very forces that are supposed to protect them. We have seen our people kidnapped on a national highway while security forces stood by and did nothing. We have observed illegal taxes being collected with impunity.
“We know your bunkers, your open display of sophisticated weaponry, and the sidelining of security forces. We are aware that the Government of India is paying your salaries under the SoO agreement. We are also observing your meetings with SoO arms groups and your modus operandi under the guise of civil society organisations (CSOs)” stated the statement issued by the Media & Info Cell of KHANUITHOT-KHON.
