- Markson V Luikham
Ukhrul, Manipur | EKHON: Your open letter dated 7th May 2026 reached me through various social media platforms. It’s a curious document, blending sermon-like tones with a propaganda dossier, and it’s entirely based on the Kuki revisionist playbook that’s been repeatedly debunked by many writers, including myself. You contacted me anonymously as Dr. Adim. I understand that’s a tactic inherited from your predecessors, operating in the shadows. Since you addressed me by name, I’ll respond point by point.
1. On Head-Hunting
You lectured me on the pre-Christian practice of head-hunting as though you have discovered an original sin unique to the Tangkhul people. This is either intellectual dishonesty or profound ignorance. Head-hunting was practiced across every Naga tribe, Angami, Ao, Lotha, Sumi, Chakhesang, Tangkhul and numerous other tribal societies across Southeast Asia. It was inter-village, not inter-ethnic. The smaller villages you speak of were protected through alliances, not by Kuki intervention. Your attempt to frame this as a specifically Tangkhul moral failing while implicitly portraying the Kukis as saviours is historically illiterate.
But since you raised head-hunting, let us discuss numbers. While Naga tribes fought village-to-village skirmishes, Kuki raiders in 1910 took 250 heads from Naga villages in the Naga Hills alone, while 2,000 Naga men were away in France serving as labour corps for the Allied Forces. When the Naga warriors were fighting at the frontier in the World War, your ancestral has killed many women and children, and you called yourself “Anglo-Kuki War.”
In 1871, 450 Kookies [Kukis] attacked a single Naga village, killing 28 and carrying off heads along with women and children alive. These are not Tangkhul narratives. These are colonial archives. The Naga practice of head-hunting was ritualised and declined with Christianity. The Kuki practice was territorial expansion by decapitation, and it continued well into the 20th century.
2. On Christianity and Hypocrisy
You quote Matthew 7:3-5 to me. I accept the scripture. But let us apply it evenly. You speak of the speck in the Tangkhul eye while ignoring the log in the Kuki one. The Tangkhul people were the first community in Manipur to embrace Christianity, twelve men baptised by Reverend William Pettigrew in 1901 at Phungyo Baptist Church, the first Christian church in Manipur. By the time the NBCC made its 1977 Pfutsero Covenant, the Tangkhuls had already been Christian for over seven decades.
But you do not quote Matthew 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Where is the Kuki peacemaking? Where is the Kuki repentance for the hundreds of Naga villages burned, the thousands of Nagas displaced? Where is the Kuki Christian leadership condemning the daily shelling of Sinakeithei, the ambush of Naga Village Guards, the cross-border raids from Myanmar? You demand forgiveness from Nagas while your community continues to wage war against Nagas. That is not Christian morality. That is the weaponisation of scripture to disarm the victims of your aggression. Allow me to ask why most Kukis like you wanted to frame the ethnic conflict as a religious issue. Remember: “And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven” (Luke 12:10).
3. On the NBCC Covenant and the NSCN
Your attempt to link the 1977 Pfutsero Covenant to the 1980 formation of the NSCN, and further to allege that the NSCN replaced 10,000 missionaries with 10,000 cadres, is a fabrication of breathtaking proportions.
Let me tell you some history before poking someone nose. The Pfutsero Covenant was made on 15 October 1977 by the Nagaland Baptist Churches Council to send 10,000 missionaries for world missions, to preach the Gospel beyond Nagaland. Rev. Alemmeren, under whose leadership the resolution was passed, later moved his entire family to Hong Kong, living under a bridge, to fulfil this missionary calling. The promise remains unfulfilled not because of the NSCN, but because of the church’s own failures, a fact lamented by Naga Christian leaders to this day.
The NSCN was formed on 31 January 1980 by Isak Chishi Swu (Sumi), Thuingaleng Muivah (Tangkhul), and S.S. Khaplang (Hemi Naga of Myanmar), a multi-tribal leadership. It was formed because these leaders rejected the 1975 Shillong Accord, which they viewed as a surrender of Naga sovereignty. To reduce this complex political history to “Tangkhul supremacy” is to insult the Sumi, Hemi, and every other Naga who joined that struggle.
Your allegation that the World Baptist Alliance supported a “Kuki genocide” is a conspiracy theory so detached from reality that it hardly warrants a response. Provide one document. One piece of evidence. You will not, because none exists.
4. On Factionalism and “Tangkhul Supremacy”
You blame the 1988 NSCN split on “Tangkhul supremacy.” This is a Kuki propaganda line, not historical analysis. The split occurred between the Khaplang faction, which held to the position that the Naga armed struggle must continue uncompromised and opposed any negotiated settlement that fell short of full sovereignty, and the Isak-Muivah faction, which favoured a pragmatic approach towards a solution that addresses Naga sovereignty through political negotiation while rejecting the Nagaland state formation as a final settlement. Both factions maintained the core Naga political aspiration. Their divergence was over strategy and the conditions under which talks with the Indian state could proceed, not over the goal of Naga self-determination. This was an ideological and strategic divergence common to liberation movements globally. To racialise it as “Tangkhul supremacy” is to borrow from the Kuki nationalist script, which seeks to isolate the Tangkhul Naga from their Naga brethren.
The Zeliangrong homeland issue is equally misrepresented. The Zeliangrong people are a foundational pillar of the Naga movement. Haipou Jadonang, a Rongmei Naga, was martyred by the British in 1931. His disciple, Rani Gaidinliu, spent fourteen years in British prisons. The Zeliangrong movement was the ignition of Naga resistance, and the colonial archive itself records that one of its causes was to avenge Kuki attacks on Zeliangrong villages during the Kuki Rebellion of 1917 to 1919. If there are tensions within the Naga fold, and there are, they are political, not ethnic. And they do not erase the fact that the Kukis are the common historical enemy of all Naga tribes, including the Zeliangrong.
5. On the “Data” of Alleged Killing
You present a list of alleged NSCN-IM killings by tribe with numbers that you yourself admit “require independent verification.” Let me be direct: this list is a Kuki propaganda artifact, compiled by Kuki organisations, circulated in Kuki digital echo chambers, and now presented by you as objective data.
The figures for Kukis, 1,221, are drawn from the Kuki “genocide” narrative concerning the 1992-1997 ethnic conflict. What your list omits is context. That conflict began when Kuki militants attempted to capture the strategic Moreh town in Naga-inhabited territory. It escalated into a full ethnic war that displaced over 100,000 people and destroyed over 360 villages, the majority of them Naga. The Kuki Inpi’s own memorandum to the Prime Minister claimed 905 Kukis killed. Even accepting these contested figures, they must be weighed against the centuries of Kuki aggression against Nagas, the villages burned, the heads taken, the lands occupied.
The numbers for other Naga tribes are similarly unverifiable. They are drawn from intra-Naga factional clashes spanning decades, fratricidal violence that every Naga mourns. These are tragedies born of a complex political struggle that no single group can be blamed for without verified evidence. The Hongbei killing of four NSCN cadres in March 2026 was condemned by the Tangkhul community, who burned an NSCN office in protest. That is not the action of people who endorse violence against their own.
I will not dignify this list further with a point-by-point rebuttal because it does not deserve one. It is propaganda dressed as data. Come back with independently verified figures, with named victims, dates, and sources, and I will address them. Until then, this list is noise.
6. On Lanchah Village
You accuse “Tangkhul militants” of burning Lanchah Kuki village on 6 May 2026, alleging it violated a ceasefire declared by Nagaland church leaders. The only source for this allegation is the Kuki Inpi Manipur, the same organisation that has spent months issuing press releases designed to portray the aggressor as victim. There is no independent verification. No neutral investigation. No named perpetrators.
But even if we accept the allegation for argument’s sake, let us speak of scale and context. One Kuki village allegedly burned is your evidence of Tangkhul aggression. Meanwhile, the Kukis have been waging a systematic, unrelenting campaign of violence against Naga civilians as early as 1960s or even earlier.
The record, spanning years and escalating sharply in 2026, stands for itself:
- 4 August 2021: Two Sinakeithei villagers, Thotreichan Kashung (31) and Naosomi Lungleng (29), abducted and brutally murdered. Bodies found decomposed on the banks of the Ihang River on 8 August. Victims were bound, blindfolded, and executed in a barbaric, cold-blooded, pre-planned manner, as confirmed by the Tangkhul Naga Long.
- 8 September 2025: A passenger bus traveling from Sinakeithei to Imphal was stopped at Molnom village by armed Kuki militants who seized and inspected passengers’ mobile phones, reviving bitter memories of the 2021 murders and imposing a “Free Movement at your own risk” reality on Naga civilians.
- 7 February 2026: A Tangkhul villager attacked in Litan. Later that evening, school teacher Stalin A. Shimray assaulted around 9:10 pm by Kuki immigrants without provocation, sustaining grievous injuries. This was the final day of peace.
- 8 February 2026: Armed Kuki militants entered Sikibung/Sharkaphung village and torched more than 23 Naga houses, including that of the village headman. Shots fired into populated areas, creating mass panic.
- 23 February 2026: Unprovoked firing by Kuki militants at Sinakeithei. Rasheng Awungshi abducted at gunpoint. The Lungter hill range, a community reserved forest, deliberately torched, witnessed by Yangmalung Zimik. Kingson Muivah chased and fired upon while fleeing the scene.
- 7 March 2026: Unprovoked firing targeted innocent farmers tending their fields at Sinakeithei, a direct assault on the food supply.
- 12 March 2026: First major armed assault on Sinakeithei. Kuki militants fire automatic rifles and advance to within 300 meters of the village perimeter. Heavy exchange of fire from 11:00 AM to 3:00 PM.
- 15 March 2026: Gunfire erupts at 7:40 AM specifically timed to disrupt the Sunday church service at Sinakeithei. Later, as children assemble for Sunday school, incessant gunfire continues, creating panic and trauma.
- 17 March 2026: Kuki militants observed constructing bunkers and fortifications at Memory Kaphung, Lungter range. Armed militants from T Gamnom Camp and Mt Sinai Camp manning checkpoints around the clock.
- 19 March 2026: Coordinated three-pronged attack on Sinakeithei, Thawai, and Litan from 11:00 AM, continuing past midnight. Illuminating mortar shells deployed.
- 21 March 2026: A mother and her son, harvesting cabbage in their field, pinned down under heavy, sustained fire for several hours before rescue by the 4th Mahar Regiment.
- 25 to 26 March 2026: Kuki militants burn down a hut and nearby fields in the Loknung area. A dozen bullets fired at the New Bridge area to create psychological terror.
- 4 April 2026: Firing at South-Eastern parts of Sinakeithei from multiple directions. Attack continues until the next morning.
- 5 April 2026: Armed Kuki militants cross the Ihang River into the territorial boundary of Sinakeithei at approximately 9:00 AM. Warning shot fired by village defenders. Militants respond, triggering an intense exchange of fire.
- 6 to 7 April 2026: Heaviest assaults on Sinakeithei to date. Relentless gunfire and bombs from multiple directions using advanced weapons and explosives. Attacks repelled with combined efforts of security forces and village volunteers.
- 10 April 2026: Indiscriminate firing from Mongkot Chepu towards Sharkaphung, a Tangkhul Naga village in Kamjong District, resulting in the killing of a BSF constable.
- 17 April 2026: Kuki militants attack Sinakeithei with heavy firearms and IED/Pumpi bombs. Unexploded bombs found the next morning within the village premises.
18 April 2026: Two unarmed Tangkhul Naga civilians, Mr. Chinaoshang Shokwungnao (45) of Tashar village and Mr. Yaruingam Vashum (42) of Kharasom village, ambushed and shot dead by Kuki militants while travelling home on National Highway 202 at TM Kasom.- 19 April 2026: Sunday coordinated attack on Sinakeithei from all directions from 7:00 PM until 3:00 AM the next day. Heavy volume of gunfire and bombs.
- 21 April 2026: Fresh attacks on Sinakeithei. Village Authority issues desperate appeal for additional Manipur Rifles personnel.
- 22 April 2026: Chihanngam Rungsung (30) shot in the heel by a sniper from a Kuki bunker on Lungter Hill. The bullet pierced through his right heel while he was simply moving within the village.
- 24 April 2026: Naga Village Guard Horshokmi Jamang (29) of Chatric Khullen village ambushed and killed by suspected Kuki armed cadres operating under the SoO agreement while on patrol near Sinakeithei.
- 28 April 2026: Four NVG members injured when suspected Kuki militants under SoO attacked them at Ringui Horei Hill. Militants had set up bunkers five to six kilometres inside Naga territory.
- 2 May 2026: Kuki narco-terrorists shut down National Highway 202 completely, opening fire from Chepu Yaolen village and paralysing the Imphal-Ukhrul road for the entire day while SoO talks proceeded in Delhi.
- 4 May 2026: Second attack on Ringui village. Pre-dawn assault through the Tongou pocket of the Kampa range. Kuki CSO press release issued within minutes, revealing the pre-written nature of their victim narrative.
- 7 May 2026: Myanmar-based Kuki terrorist group KNA-B crossed the international border and set Naga homes ablaze in Choro village in the Wanglee-Namlee-Choro belt of Kamjong district.
I am not done just yet. Let me also share some of the many historical contexts from our side, because what is happening today brings back painful memories for many Tangkhul families. During the Kuki–Naga ethnic conflict in the 1990s, two Tangkhul villages in and around the Sinakeithei region, Zingtai and Jowai (Jawai) were completely destroyed. Today, Jowai no longer exists as a Tangkhul village. Zingtai later became Chingdai, which is now a Kuki village.
The destruction of Jawai village actually dates back even earlier, to the early 1960s. Even today, the rice fields that once belonged to the villagers are being cultivated by Kukis. At that time, Shangkai Zimik from Sirarakhong village was serving as the pastor of Jawai when the incident took place.
Another small Tangkhul village in Kamjong district, called Phange, suffered a different kind of loss. After the conflict, the villagers were gradually forced to stop speaking their own dialect. Today, the village has almost entirely lost its mother tongue and much of its original cultural identity. The name “Phange,” which means “five,” is remembered because only five households remained there after the violence. Perhaps the village name itself is now one of the last surviving words of their original dialect.
These stories have been passed down through generations, and for many of us, the fear and trauma connected to these places have never fully disappeared.
You shed tears over one allegedly burned Kuki village while remaining silent on these relentless, multi-year campaign of shelling, burning, abduction, assassination, and displacement directed against Naga villages. That is not a moral stand. That is a political posture.
7. On the ceasefire
Genuine peace requires genuine commitment from both sides. The Kuki record of daily attacks, highway shutdowns, and cross-border raids even while their leaders negotiate in Delhi speaks for itself. You cannot demand that Nagas respect a ceasefire while Kuki militants violate it daily.
Conclusion
You close your letter by declaring that Tangkhuls “do not fear the true God” and “worship Sanamahi,” an accusation of idolatry that reveals not only malice but profound historical ignorance. Sanamahi is not a Tangkhul deity. Sanamahi is the primordial household god of the Meitei people, rooted in Meitei creation mythology. As a Christian, learn to respect other’s religion. The Tangkhul Naga had their own distinct ancient spiritual tradition, with deities such as Reisangchonmi the creator, Kameo the spirits of nature, and Ameowa the master of all spiritual beings, belonging to a faith wholly separate from the Meitei religion. To accuse us of worshipping another community’s god is to display an ignorance so complete that it discredits everything else you have written.
The truth is straightforward. The Tangkhul people were the first community in Manipur to embrace Christianity, twelve men baptised by Reverend William Pettigrew in 1901 at Phungyo Baptist Church, the first Christian church in Manipur. We have been Christian for over 120 years. Your accusation is not a theological argument. It is sectarian libel driven by a political agenda.
You quoted Matthew 7:3-5 to me. I return the scripture to you with Matthew 7:15-16: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.” The fruits of Kuki nationalism are burned villages, displaced families, murdered civilians, and a propaganda machine that produces victim narratives faster than its militants produce casualties.
You signed your letter with a title you have not earned. I signed mine with my name, faithfully, to the truth, to my people, and to the historical record that stands unshaken by your accusations.
I am Markson V Luikham, a Tangkhul Naga.
(The views expressed in the article are solely those of the writer and do not reflect the vision, policy, or editorial position of Ekhon.)
