The Fate of Two Meitei Youths held as hostage by Kuki militants should be the nation’s concern

The ongoing crisis in Manipur has taken another disturbing turn with the recent abduction of two Meitei youths by Kuki militants. These abductions, and the subsequent ransom demands for their release, have added to the complexity and severity of the conflict. Among the demands is the release of Mark Haokip, a key figure currently imprisoned in Imphal for anti-national activities. Haokip has been instrumental in fueling secessionist ideologies, claiming that Manipur’s merger with India involved only 700 sq. km. His release, as demanded by the militants, could further destabilize the already volatile situation.
In addition to Mark Haokip’s release, the militants have also called for the relocation of Kuki inmates from Imphal’s Sajiwa and Central Jails to Churachandpur. This demand is particularly alarming as it seems aimed at consolidating Kuki influence in the region. Relocating inmates to an area where Kuki militants and sympathizers hold greater sway could weaken the government’s control, undermining the rule of law in Imphal and strengthening the militants’ strategic positions. Such actions would only embolden these factions, making future conflicts even harder to contain.
However, no substantial security operation has been conducted to rescue the two remaining hostages, raising serious questions about the state’s response to such abductions. The lack of immediate action from security forces or the state government reflects either a failure in coordination or a hesitation to confront the militants head-on.
Furthermore, the release of one of the three abducted individuals, (Which police claimed to have been rescued by Indian Army), seemingly without confrontation, casts doubts on the transparency of actions on this matter by armed forces.
A critical question emerges from this crisis: Why have no decisive security operations been initiated to rescue the remaining hostages? In most cases of abduction, particularly those involving insurgent groups, the expectation is that security forces would launch immediate rescue efforts. The absence of such an operation suggests a lack of urgency or a failure to assess the gravity of the situation. The involvement of the Indian Army in the earlier release of one of the kidnapped individuals has only added to the confusion. If military forces were already involved, why has there been no subsequent action to secure the release of the remaining two youths?
This lack of response raises concerns about the broader handling of Kuki militancy by both state and central authorities. Despite their involvement in repeated acts of violence and abductions, Kuki militant groups have not yet been designated as terrorist organizations. This omission is puzzling, especially considering their consistent role in inciting violence, spreading secessionist ideologies, and destabilizing the region. The abduction of civilians, coupled with ransom demands that include the release of a figure like Haokip, should be sufficient grounds to classify these groups as terrorist organizations. The government’s failure to do so not only emboldens these militants but also undermines the state’s authority, sending a dangerous signal about its inability to protect its citizens.
Furthermore, this situation highlights the broader issue of the state’s capacity to respond to Kuki militancy. The fact that two Meitei youths remain in captivity, despite the involvement of the Indian Army, points to a significant operational gap. This gap could reflect deeper issues within the state’s security apparatus, including a lack of coordination or hesitation to take decisive action. The abduction of civilians for political leverage is not just a criminal act; it is a direct challenge to the state’s sovereignty and authority. The abduction of two Meitei youths by Kuki militants is not merely a criminal incident but a reflection of the larger crisis engulfing Manipur. The demands for the release of Mark Haokip, the relocation of Kuki inmates, and the absence of a robust security response highlight deep-seated issues in the state’s handling of the conflict.