The recent violence in Litan under Ukhrul district has once again exposed the fragility of peace in Manipur. For many citizens, a troubling question persists: how did such large-scale arson and gunfire occur despite the presence of substantial security forces?
Reports indicate that around fifty houses belonging to the Tangkhul community were set ablaze, displacing families and reigniting fear. Allegations have also surfaced that armed Kuki militants were transported under the watch of Indian security forces. Similar accusations were raised in earlier phases of the Meitei–Kuki conflict and were officially denied. Yet in a deeply polarized environment, perception often carries as much force as fact. When transparency is limited, distrust expands.
These allegations require an impartial and credible inquiry. If security forces are wrongly accused, only transparent findings can restore confidence. If lapses occurred, accountability is necessary. A security apparatus perceived as partisan cannot effectively function as a guarantor of law and order.
The incident comes at a time when there were tentative signs of de-escalation in the prolonged ethnic conflict. Ordinary citizens across communities had begun to recognize that sustained violence yields no collective benefit. The humanitarian and economic costs have been borne by all. The restoration of a popular government under Chief Minister Yumnam Khemchand was seen by many as an opportunity to rebuild administrative stability and public trust. However, the events in Litan and unrest in Churachandpur suggest that destabilizing forces remain active.
In Churachandpur, attempts by large groups to target the residence of a sitting MLA and minister, a former Director General of Police, reflect a dangerous blending of political rivalry and communal tension. Democratic disagreement is legitimate; intimidation and mob action are not. In such a climate, speculation about political motives must be handled cautiously. Allegations require evidence, not assumption.
More concerning than individual incidents is the pattern of selective outrage. When one community suffers, responses from other communities are often muted. When Tangkhul houses burn, where is the unified condemnation? When Meitei families were driven from their homes, why were some organizations silent? When Kuki civilians faced displacement, did every civil society body speak with equal clarity?
Human rights cannot be defended selectively. Conditional empathy entrenches division. Silence in the face of another’s suffering weakens moral authority when one’s own community becomes the victim. If solidarity remains confined within ethnic boundaries, the cycle of grievance will continue.
The larger question is who benefits from continued instability. It is not the displaced family, the unemployed youth, or the small trader struggling to survive. Prolonged unrest erodes institutions, weakens economic prospects, and deepens social fractures. Instability often strengthens those who derive relevance from division—armed actors, polarizing voices, and opportunistic interests.
Security presence alone cannot secure peace. Trust must accompany enforcement. Transparent investigation into the Litan incident would help separate fact from rumor. Clear communication from authorities is essential in preventing misinformation from filling the vacuum.
Civil society organizations across communities must also reflect. A unified, principled condemnation of every act of violence—irrespective of the victim’s identity—would mark a decisive shift. Leadership demands consistency. It requires defending life and dignity without ethnic qualification.
Manipur’s communities share a common future, however contested their past may be. Recent months had shown that de-escalation is possible when restraint prevails. The violence in Litan is a warning that peace remains delicate.
The choice before the state is stark: respond to each incident with renewed polarization or commit to collective accountability. Peace will not endure through selective silence. It will endure only when every act of violence, against any community, is met with a unified demand for justice and an unwavering commitment to coexistence.