Kuki Groups’ Reaction to AT’s Disarmament Reveals their True Agenda

The recent surrender of weapons by Arambai Tenggol has elicited a telling response from Kuki militant groups. Instead of welcoming the move as a step toward peace, they have dismissed it as a ploy to garner sympathy. Their reaction is not only revealing but also exposes a deep-rooted unwillingness to engage in any peace process that does not favor their armed dominance.
At the heart of this frustration is an undeniable reality: the surrender of arms by Arambai Tenggol disrupts a long-held narrative. Kuki groups have consistently portrayed themselves as victims, arguing that Meitei armed groups in the valley are the aggressors. With Arambai Tenggol disarmed, that justification no longer holds water. If the Meitei side has taken a step toward disarmament, the logical expectation would be for the Kuki militants to do the same. However, their response suggests that they were never prepared for this scenario. They had likely counted on Arambai Tenggol refusing to give up weapons, allowing them to maintain the status quo under the pretext of self-defense.
Another key factor in their frustration is the political shift in Manipur. With N. Biren Singh sidelined, one would expect that the Kuki groups—who have long viewed him as an obstacle—would now consider engaging in the peace process. However, their hostility toward Arambai Tenggol’s surrender makes it evident that peace was never truly on their agenda. Instead, their goal remains the continuation of armed conflict to sustain territorial control and political leverage.
The imposition of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) in the periphery areas and the disarming of Arambai Tenggol should, in theory, create conditions conducive to peace talks. But Kuki militant groups have made it clear that disarmament is not an option for them. Their resistance underscores a deeper issue: they have no interest in de-escalation unless it guarantees them a political advantage.
The refusal to acknowledge Arambai Tenggol’s disarmament as a step toward peace is telling. It indicates that these groups were never interested in negotiations but were instead using the rhetoric of victimhood to justify continued militarization. If they were sincere about peace, they would welcome a scenario where both sides lay down arms and work toward reconciliation. Instead, they now face a dilemma—if they refuse to disarm, their justification for keeping weapons becomes increasingly untenable.
This also raises an uncomfortable question: Will Kuki groups ever be willing to give up arms, even if the conditions they have demanded are met? The answer, based on their current stance, appears to be a resounding no. Their reaction to Arambai Tenggol’s disarmament reveals that their armed struggle is not merely about self-defense but about maintaining control. The absence of Biren Singh from the political scene and the de-weaponization of a key Meitei armed group should have been an opportunity for progress. Instead, it has only exposed the Kuki groups’ unwillingness to move toward peace.
Their frustration is not merely about Arambai Tenggol’s actions—it is about losing the narrative. The argument that they remain armed only in response to Meitei aggression has now collapsed. If they refuse to surrender their weapons while insisting that the Meiteis are disarmed, their true intentions become clear. Manipur’s conflict has always been more than just a battle over territory—it is also a battle of narratives. And with this latest development, Kuki militants have lost significant ground.