Dr. Pamreihor Khashimwo
The recent incident surrounding the Hongbei Village and the subsequent public insurrection in Ukhrul Town have forced an urgent and uncomfortable question upon Tangkhul society: are we witnessing a crisis of leadership, or is this a deeper, more pervasive collective failure? While it is tempting to assign blame to particular leaders, organisations, or institutions, a closer and more critical examination reveals a far more complex and systemic breakdown, one that implicates not just those in positions of authority but the broader social fabric itself.
The Hongbei Village incident should not be mistaken for the origin of the crisis; rather, it is a trigger point that exposed accumulated tensions. For years, grievances have simmered beneath the surface, ranging from governance overreach to erosion of moral authority. The incident acted as a spark in a landscape already saturated with discontent. The intensity of the public reaction demonstrates that the issue is systemic, not episodic.
This event has laid bare the fractures within the community, fractures that have been normalised over time. The insurrection in Ukhrul Town, particularly among the youth, signals a growing impatience with the status quo and a desire for structural change.
One of the most critical underlying issues is the development of a long-overarching parallel governance structure. Over decades, formal democratic institutions have coexisted and often competed with informal governance systems. This duality has blurred lines of authority, accountability, and legitimacy. Such parallel systems may have originated under specific historical and political compulsions, but their continued dominance raises serious questions. When governance operates outside transparent, democratic frameworks, it inevitably leads to arbitrary decision-making and a lack of accountability. The people are left navigating between systems that neither fully represent nor effectively serve them.
The role and overreach of the NSCN-IM have become particularly moot. Originally positioned as a political movement with a defined historical and ideological mandate, its evolution into a de facto governing authority in many aspects of daily life has raised consequential concerns. The issue is not merely its presence, but the extent of its interference. From political decision-making to personal disputes, from family matters to territorial conflicts, and even into financial transactions and development activities, the reach has expanded beyond what many consider rational or justifiable.
This overextension has had tangible consequences. Development and infrastructure projects, which should ideally be driven by transparency, efficiency, and public welfare, are often perceived to be monopolised or influenced by non-transparent mechanisms. Such monopolies stifle competition, discourage innovation, and breed resentment among those excluded. Moreover, when development becomes entangled with power structures rather than community needs, it undermines trust and perpetuates inequality.
Compounding this problem is the role of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), which, in theory, should function as watchdogs, mediators, and representatives of public interest. However, there appears to be a troubling inversion or “flip” in their roles. Instead of holding power accountable, all CSOs are perceived as aligning with or reinforcing existing power structures. This shift erodes their credibility and weakens their moral authority. When CSOs become opaque and unaccountable in their own functioning, they cease to be instruments of public good and instead become part of the problem.
Transparency, or the lack thereof, is a recurring theme in this mess. All CSO leaders operate without clear mechanisms of accountability to the people they claim to represent. Decisions are often made behind closed doors, with little explanation or consultation. This opacity fosters suspicion and alienation, particularly among the public, who are increasingly aware, connected, and unwilling to accept unquestioned authority.
Equally concerning is the unneeded and often problematic mixing of religious institutions with political and social affairs. Churches have historically played a central role in Tangkhul society, serving not only as spiritual centres but also as moral anchors. However, when religious institutions become entangled in political alignments or power strugglesor corporate-like functions, their moral authority is compromised. Instead of serving as neutral arbiters of ethical conduct, they risk becoming partisan actors, further deepening divisions.
The perceived decay of morality within society is often attributed to this very failure of religious and moral institutions. When leaders, whether political, social, or religious, fail to embody the values they preach, it sends a powerful and damaging message. Corruption, favouritism, and dishonesty appear normalised in Tangkhul society. Over time, this normalisation erodes the ethical foundations of society, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish right from wrong in public life.
This moral and institutional decay is also reflected in the growing discord between older generations and the youth. The younger generation, exposed to broader perspectives and more democratic ideals, often finds itself at odds with traditional power structures that resist change. While elders may view youth dissent as disrespect or impatience, the youth see it as a necessary challenge to stagnation and injustice. This generational divide, left unaddressed, risks further fragmenting society.
Yet, to frame this insurrection solely in terms of institutional failure would be incomplete. There is also a profound element of individual responsibility that cannot be ignored. The reluctance or abstention of ordinary citizens to speak the truth, challenge wrongdoing, and demand accountability has contributed to the current situation. Whether due to fear, apathy, or complicity, silence has allowed problematic practices to persist and evolve.
Corruption, in this context, is not limited to high-level actors. It permeates various levels of society of the Tangkhul, manifesting in everyday actions and decisions. When individuals participate in or tolerate corrupt practices, however small, they reinforce a system that ultimately harms everyone. Thus, the insurrection is as much about collective behaviour as it is about leadership.
The discontent among the public, particularly the youth, with what is perceived as an authoritarian style of functioning by the NSCN-IM in a democratic context is both significant and consequential. In a society that increasingly values democratic principles, such as transparency, participation, and accountability, authoritarian approaches are bound to face resistance. This tension between differing models of governance has far-reaching implications, not only for political stability but also for social cohesion.
The neoteric insurrection in Ukhrul Town, therefore, should not be dismissed as a momentary outburst. It represents a deeper yearning for change, a demand for systems that are fair, inclusive, and accountable. It is an expression of frustration, but also of hope. The public is signalling that the status quo is no longer acceptable and that meaningful reform is both necessary and urgent.
This moment, while fraught with challenges, also presents an opportunity. The Hongbei Village incident and its aftermath could serve as a turning point, a catalyst for introspection and transformation. However, for this to happen, there must be a willingness across all sections of society to engage in honest self-examination.
Leaders must recognise the limits of their authority and the importance of accountability. CSOs must reclaim their role as independent and transparent representatives of the people. Religious institutions must reaffirm their commitment to moral guidance, free from political entanglements. And citizens must overcome fear and apathy to actively participate in shaping their collective future.
Ultimately, the question of whether Tangkhul society is facing a leadership crisis or a collective failure may be a false dichotomy. The reality is that it is both. Leadership does not exist in a vacuum; it is shaped by the society it serves. Likewise, society reflects the values and actions of its leaders. Addressing one without the other would be insufficient.
What is required is a holistic approach, one that acknowledges the interconnectedness of these issues and seeks to address them in a comprehensive manner. This includes strengthening institutions, promoting transparency, fostering dialogue across generations, and cultivating a culture of integrity and responsibility.
The path forward will not be easy. Change often encounters resistance, particularly from those who benefit from the existing system. However, the cost of inaction is far greater. Continued erosion of trust, deepening divisions, and persistent injustice will only lead to further instability and conflict.
In this critical time, the people of Tangkhul have a choice. They can either allow the current trajectory to continue or they can seize this moment to redefine their collective future. The events in Hongbei Village and the Ukhrul Town insurrection have illuminated the challenges, but they have also revealed the potential for unity and renewal.
If approached with courage, honesty, and a genuine commitment to the common good, this crisis can indeed become a turning point for the Tangkhul, not just for addressing immediate grievances but also for building a more just, transparent, united, and peaceful society.
(Views in this article belong solely to the author and do not represent the official stance of EKHON.)
