The Harvest Season Under Siege – Understanding the Nature of Kuki Terrorism

As Manipur enters the paddy harvest season, a grim pattern re-emerges: targeted attacks on farmers by Kuki militants, creating an atmosphere of fear and insecurity for communities who should be focused on gathering the year’s crop. The recent killing of Sapam Sofia, a mother of three working in her field, illustrates this urgent issue. This tragedy is not isolated but part of a recurring cycle of violence that seems to peak each harvest season, particularly after the rainy season, when fields are most accessible. Despite assurances of protection from security forces, farmers remain vulnerable, raising serious questions about the government’s commitment and the effectiveness of security measures.
These attacks follow a predictable pattern, one that militants seem to exploit, knowing farmers will be outside in open fields, exposed. The recent attack took place shockingly close to a BSF outpost, only 200 meters away. Local farmers had informed security personnel of their planned work schedule and requested a protective presence, but militants were still able to strike, resulting in a tragic loss of life. This proximity to a security outpost, which should theoretically offer protection, instead highlights a significant lapse in response. For many in the community, this failure has only deepened a pervasive distrust in the central forces assigned to protect them. When protection fails even within sight of armed forces, what hope is left for farmers working in remote fields?
The inability of security forces to respond effectively is part of a larger issue, one that many see as a reluctance on the government’s part to genuinely engage with the ground reality in Manipur. Adding to this issue is the recent controversy surrounding alleged statements by Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma, who reportedly made remarks in the United States challenging India’s national integrity and potentially impacting the territorial stability of Manipur. Allegations that such statements have gone largely unaddressed by the central government have provoked frustration within Manipur’s communities, who view this as a tacit tolerance of divisive rhetoric. As this controversy escalates, the recent attacks may serve as a distraction, drawing attention away from a political debate with implications for the state’s stability.
In this context, it is difficult to ignore that these violent acts during harvest time could serve dual purposes for militant groups: terrorizing rural communities and diverting attention from political issues with serious ramifications. By creating fear and disrupting the agricultural cycle, these groups can achieve their immediate objectives and also indirectly shield high-profile political issues from public scrutiny. Manipur’s security forces, which should act as a protective barrier, have largely failed to contain these risks effectively. Despite multiple appeals from local communities for better protection and various government initiatives, there has been little change on the ground. Since the beginning of conflict last year, community leaders and citizens have called on state and central authorities to implement robust security measures, but repeated incidents show how weak the government’s efforts have been, as evidenced by the frequent violence farmers face.
The failure of security forces is even more apparent given the seasonal timing of the attacks. The rainy season has ended, leaving clear skies, ideal for harvesting but also for ambushes on isolated fields. This is not a new phenomenon; it happens annually, exposing a critical gap in security planning. If militants know this time is ideal for attacks, surely security forces should be equally prepared to reinforce vulnerable areas. The persistence of this “seasonal vulnerability” points to a lack of foresight and coordination. Year after year, the response falls short, leaving farmers to fend for themselves despite government assurances.
Farmers are essential to the state’s food security, yet they face enormous risks without substantial support. Certain regions have seen repeated attacks, reinforcing the belief that the government’s assurances are hollow. Various committees and task forces have been set up, but many feel these measures are more about bureaucracy than genuine intervention. On the ground, where farmers need immediate and tangible support, these initiatives have translated into little more than promises. In Manipur, distrust of central forces grows, and there is increasing sentiment that only local entities, which understand the unique security dynamics of the area, can provide the protection so clearly lacking.