The arrest of several members of Arambai Tengol by central agencies and security forces has triggered widespread protests across Manipur, reopening difficult questions about trust between the government and the people at a time when the State is struggling to emerge from one of the most turbulent periods in its history.
On February 20, 2025, the Governor of Manipur made a public appeal urging people, particularly the youth in both the hills and the valley, to voluntarily surrender looted and illegally held arms and ammunition. The appeal was framed as a confidence-building measure aimed at restoring peace and normalcy after months of violence. Importantly, the Governor assured that no punitive action would be initiated against those who surrendered such weapons within the stipulated period. The message was clear: return the weapons, choose peace, and help rebuild trust.
Many responded to that appeal. The surrender of arms was projected as a significant step towards reconciliation and de-escalation. It demonstrated that sections of society were willing to cooperate with the authorities in the interest of peace.
Against this backdrop, the recent arrests have generated intense public anger. The issue is not merely about the individuals arrested; it is about the perception that those who responded to the government’s call are now facing prosecution. Whether the arrests are legally justified is a matter that must be determined through due process and evidence. However, the political and moral implications cannot be ignored.
If the individuals were arrested for offences unrelated to the mere possession or surrender of weapons, the government has a duty to clearly explain the grounds for the arrests. Transparency is essential. In the absence of clear communication, a perception takes root that the assurances given during the surrender process were not honoured.
Trust is a critical ingredient in conflict resolution. Governments often rely on voluntary disarmament programmes in situations of unrest. Such programmes succeed only when people believe that commitments made by authorities will be respected. If those who respond to official appeals later perceive themselves to be targeted, future efforts at disarmament may become far more difficult. Citizens may hesitate to cooperate with government initiatives, fearing unforeseen consequences.
The government must therefore recognise that this is not simply a law-and-order issue. It is a credibility issue. Restoring public confidence requires openness regarding the nature of the allegations, adherence to due process, and reassurance that voluntary participation in peace initiatives will not be used against those who acted in good faith.
Manipur has already paid a heavy price for conflict and division. The path to lasting peace requires more than arrest of those already followed the path of peace by surrendering weapons; it requires trust between the state and its citizens. Any action that weakens that trust, even if legally defensible, must be handled with extreme care and transparency.
The current controversy should serve as a reminder that peace-building is not sustained by force alone. It is sustained by confidence that the government’s word carries meaning and that commitments made in the name of reconciliation will be honoured in both letter and spirit.