By Chon LM
Ukhrul | EKHON: This write up is in reference to the article titled “Nagas and Kukis will remain neighbors with or without war” published in the Nagaland Post on May 21, 2026 by a certain Pakinrichapbo.
The writer’s contention lacks factual basis. While advocating for peace and harmony, the article fails to present substantive arguments regarding the protracted social and political unrest in Manipur.
Peace is not surrender, nor is it a one-sided demand that victims of repeated aggression must disarm and accept encroachment as “neighborly fate.” While Nagas and Kukis are geographic neighbors, geography does not obligate any community to become a doormat for demographic expansion, land grabs, or unprovoked violence. True coexistence requires reciprocity, respect for historical claims, and deterrence against aggression, not moral lectures that equate aggressors with defenders or demand that Nagas erase their indigeneity to accommodate others.
The article’s call to stop labeling Kukis as “latecomers or refugees” while urging mutual recognition ignores documented history. Nagas have deep ancestral roots in the northern, eastern, and southern hills of Manipur, including Ukhrul, Senapati, and Chandel, including areas now under Tengnoupal district.
The pattern of overlapping claims is well documented. Many Kuki groups expanded significantly during the 19th century, often under British colonial policies. In many Naga-dominated hill areas of Manipur, Kukis arrived later and settled with permission on lands traditionally belonged to the Nagas. Tensions escalated when settlement claims evolved into ownership claims.
The Naga-Kuki conflict of the 90s began in Chandel district in mid-1992, particularly in Moreh town, when Kuki organizations issued “Quit Notices” to Naga residents, leading to mass displacement, followed by declarations of war and attacks on Naga villages. The violence that followed killed over thousands and displaced tens of thousands. Ignoring these historical realities while promoting “peaceful coexistence” effectively asks Nagas to concede ground where they have longstanding roots and historical presence.
The 1990s conflict and recent flare-ups in 2026, including ambushes, killings in Ukhrul and Senapati, and armed clashes, did not emerge from some abstract “both sides” equivalence. They stem from recurring triggers such as attacks on civilians, territorial encroachments, and militant assertions.
Calling on Nagas to stop referring to Kukis as “latecomers or refugees” while downplaying documented migration patterns and past aggressions is not neutral peacemaking. It is an attempt to rewrite history and pressure indigenous people into gradually surrendering their ancestral lands, historical rights, and identity under the guise of “peace” and coexistence. Nagas have legitimate aspirations for political integration and protection of their ancestral lands. Dismissing those concerns while expecting Nagas to endlessly endure displacement, loss, and encroachment demands a level of submission that no community in human history has ever tolerated indefinitely.
Invoking Christianity or Gandhi does not negate one of the oldest lessons of human history: when aggression carries no meaningful consequences, it is usually repeated, expanded, and normalized. Deterrence matters for a reason.
Practical peace should be:
– Clear demarcation and respect for traditional territories, backed by verifiable historical claims rather than force or demographic swamping.
– Disarmament and withdrawal of militants from civilian areas on both sides. SoO groups violating terms by attacking neighbors should face consequences, not protection.
– Honest dialogue that acknowledges indigeneity and migration timelines instead of enforcing selective political correctness.
No community benefits from endless war, but “peace” imposed through selective moralizing while one side faces repeated attacks, village burnings, and displacement breeds resentment, not resolution.
Neighbors coexist best when boundaries, rights, and deterrence are respected, not when one side continues expanding at the expense of the other. Lasting peace comes through strength, reciprocity, and justice, not unilateral restraint.
Those grieving losses on all sides deserve security, not hollow proposals that embolden extremists. Nagas have the right to defend their people, lands, and future without apology.
This is not a call for war. It is a refusal to accept perpetual victimhood disguised as virtue.
Finally, the article closes with Mahatma Gandhi’s words: “An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.” This is a profound misapplication that reveals either detachment from reality or ignorance of history. This conflict is not a petty cycle of mutual retaliation. It is a sustained pattern of aggression, quit notices, territorial encroachment, village attacks, and demographic assertion, against indigenous communities seeking to protect the lands God has given their forefathers.
Christ did not call us to be doormats. He turned the other cheek to personal insults while boldly confronting injustice, cleansing the temple, and defending the vulnerable. He taught us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, yet He also commanded us to stand for truth, seek justice, and protect the innocent.
True Christian peace is not the silence of the oppressed or the erasure of history; it is righteousness, justice, and peace built on truth. Nagas, like any people, have the solemn duty to defend their families, ancestral lands, and future generations.
Neighbors can truly coexist only when aggression carries clear costs, history is honored rather than rewritten, and both sides walk in the fear of God. Let us pursue genuine peace, but never at the altar of falsehood or surrender.
(The views expressed in the article are solely those of the writer and do not reflect the vision, policy, or editorial position of Ekhon.)
