By Markson V Luikham
Why were Kuki militants shielded and their injured cadres escorted while the families of six murdered Nagas waited for justice?
Ukhrul, June 20 | EKHON: This dossier is written from within the Naga and Meitei experience. It documents what happened, examines what it reveals, and demands what must follow. Where sources are cited, they support the record. Where interpretations are offered, they reflect the understanding of the communities who lived through these events. This is not a neutral document. It is a truthful one.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐨 𝐑𝐈𝐌𝐒: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞, 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞
On the morning of June 15, 2026, three injured Kuki youths were transported under armed escort by the Assam Rifles to the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences in Imphal. To the thousands of Nagas and Meiteis who converged on the hospital gates within hours, these were not simply injured civilians. They were Genlenmang Vaiphei, Lunliandaw Vaiphei, and Paogoulal Chongloi, men widely alleged to be cadres linked to KNF‑P and other Kuki militant groups.
The escort itself dramatized a pattern they had been living for years: the state mobilizing its resources for those it appeared to protect, while ordinary citizens waited for justice that never came. That pattern had been hardening since the Kuki‑Meitei conflict erupted in May 2023 and intensified when violence spilled into Naga‑inhabited areas in early February 2026.
The roots of the present crisis lie in the morning of May 13, 2026. Hours before the abduction that would tear through the Naga conscience, three Thadou Christian leaders were ambushed and killed on Tiger Road between Kotzim and Kotlenin Kangpokpi district. Rev. Dr. Vumthang Sitlhou, President of the Thadou Baptist Association and former General Secretary of the Manipur Baptist Convention; Rev. Kaigoulun Lhouvum, Finance Secretary of the Thadou Baptist Association International; and Pastor Paogoulen Sitlhou. Survivor HekaiSimte, 56, described the firing as “non‑stop for at least a minute” before suddenly ceasing (The Wire, May 13, 2026). The circumstances suggested a planned and deliberate attack rather than a spontaneous confrontation.
Sitlhou had recently led a delegation of Kuki Christian leaders to neighbouring Nagaland to broker peace between Kukis and Tangkhul Nagas (Vatican News, May 14, 2026; Fides News Agency, May 14, 2026). Members of the Thadou community have stated publicly that the slain leaders had resisted pressure to align with the Kuki‑Zo political project and had refused to submit their pulpits to armed actors. Their killing was a message directed at a community that had chosen to remain independent, a warning about the cost of refusing the political project being advanced under the protective umbrella of the Suspension of Operations agreement.
Shortly after the Tiger Road ambush, armed men intercepted a wedding party. At around 11 am, eighteen Naga civilians were pulled from their vehicles. Twelve women. One infant. Six men, among them two pastors. They were assaulted, their phones seized, and marched blindfolded into the forest (The New Indian Express, May 14, 2026; FIR, Sekmai Police Station, May 14, 2026). Some of the abducted made frantic calls describing the situation as “very hostile.” Then the calls stopped.
Whether viewed separately or together, the killing of the peace‑builders and the abduction of the wedding party reinforced a growing perception that armed actors had become more powerful than civilian authority. The road became a symbol of a deeper crisis: those seeking reconciliation and those travelling unarmed were alike vulnerable to violence.
Upon learning of the abduction, Naga groups detained twenty‑eight Kuki individuals as a security measure. The women and infant were released on May 15. At the same time, Nagas released fourteen of the detained Kukis unharmed. The remaining fourteen were released on June 9 by Naga village guards, before the bodies of the six Naga men were found.
Here is the single most devastating moral comparison in the entire sequence. Naga custodians returned all twenty‑eight detainees alive and unharmed. They were given blankets, rice and dal, and tea. Not a single one was harmed. Six Naga men were taken. Six were returned as mutilated corpses, beheaded, dismembered, identifiable only by a blue sneaker, a missing skull, severed limbs. Twenty‑eight returned alive. Six returned dead. That is not merely an asymmetry of outcomes. It is a revelation of moral character.
The women and infant returned. The six men did not.
For twenty‑six days, mothers, wives, children, villages, and entire Naga communities, together with many Meiteis, lived suspended between hope and dread. Neighbours gathered in church halls to pray. Rumours of a possible sighting near the forest edge sent families rushing toward the tree line, only to find nothing. Every passing day sharpened the same unbearable question: were they still alive? The state, which had mobilized armed escorts for three injured Kuki youths in a matter of hours, offered no such urgency for six missing Naga men.
Twenty‑six days is not a procedural delay. Twenty‑six days is an announcement of priorities.
On June 10, hope collapsed. After nearly 24 hours of sustained search operations involving approximately 450 personnel, the mortal remains were recovered from a jungle near LeilonVaiphei village (Manipur Police Statement, June 10, 2026). The United Naga Council described the remains as “highly mutilated and dismembered” and called the act “the most unacceptable and gross violation of human rights” and a “sacrilegious and satanic act” (UNC Statement, June 10, 2026). The rescued women later testified they had been kept blindfolded throughout their captivity and, on one occasion, were fed a meat curry whose smell and taste they could not identify (NTIMES, June 12, 2026; The Wire, June 12, 2026). That testimony demands forensic investigation. A state serious about justice does not leave such allegations to fester in the dark.
The scale of the brutality became clearer as family members began identifying the remains. Paisho Thiumai, younger brother of Rev. Dr. Manu Thiumai, described what relatives encountered:
”The rest of the bodies were totally mutilated. They were butchered and beheaded. We couldn’t see any intact joints. This is horrific. We are deeply angry and broken by this entire inhuman act.”
His testimony provided a human dimension to what official statements described as mutilation and dismemberment. For the families, the crime was not an abstraction recorded in forensic terminology. It was a devastating encounter with the physical reality of what had been done to their loved ones.
𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐖𝐚𝐬 𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐀 𝐇𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥
Those testimonies. Those bodies. Those unanswered questions. They are what brought thousands to RIMS on June 15. People did not gather because they opposed medical treatment. They gathered because RIMS became the stage upon which a deeper contradiction was publicly and violently revealed.
Before any public accounting had been provided, before any arrest had been made, before the families had been allowed even the dignity of burial, the state appeared before the public not in pursuit of justice, but in protection of those many citizens believed were connected to the very structures responsible for the violence. The crowd at RIMS was not opposing healing. They were opposing impunity. The response came not in explanations but in batons and tear gas. That response was itself an answer: those who demand justice will be treated as a threat to order.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐞 𝐚𝐭 𝐑𝐈𝐌𝐒
The three injured Kuki youths were transported from the 183 Military Hospital at Leimakhong to RIMS under heavy escort. For protesters, the optics were devastating. Here were men they believed to be militants, receiving the full protective apparatus of the state, while ordinary Naga and Meitei civilians could not travel freely through their own districts.
Julia Shinglai of the Foothills Naga Coordination Committee: “We are very disappointed with how the government is giving special treatment to the Kukis. Their sick are escorted to Imphalfor treatment when our movement is limited within certain areas” (Imphal Times, June 15, 2026). Security personnel used tear gas and baton charges to disperse the crowd. RIMS authorities later clarified their “sole responsibility is to provide medical care to all patients” (RIMS Statement, June 15, 2026). But the question was never about RIMS. It was about the armed escort that brought the patients there. Once again: the protest was not against medical care. It was against the spectacle of armed protection for those accused of violence, while the victims’ families received nothing.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐧 𝐕𝐚𝐢𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐢 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠
The June 15 firing incident is a case study in how information is weaponized. According to Kuki Inpi Manipur, the attack was carried out by the NSCN‑IM and its “proxy outfit” ZUF‑K (KIM Statement, June 15, 2026). The incident occurred on the same day as the funeral of Jangngam Hangshing, a Kuki resident killed in the June 13 Lasan‑Langka attack.
Manipur Police reported an encounter in which one suspected militant was killed and an AK‑47 recovered (Manipur Police Statement, June 15, 2026). Kuki MLA Letzamang Haokipcountered that the deceased was a civilian (The Wire, June 16, 2026). Nagas note a third dimension: according to Naga sources, the exchange was an internal confrontation between KNA and KNA(B) factions. Regardless, the political consequence was reinforcement of a narrative justifying continued protection of SoO groups while intensifying suspicion toward Naga actors.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
The June 15 protests were the culmination of a documented pattern. In March 2026, the Tangkhul Naga Long alleged that Assam Rifles personnel warned local civilians that any retaliation against Kuki militants would be met with violence from security forces themselves (TNL Statement, March 2026). On March 11, 2026, ANSAM accused the Assam Rifles of colluding with Kuki militants following the abduction of 21 Tangkhul Naga civilians from Shangkai village, an abduction that allegedly occurred “right under the nose of the Assam Rifles” (ANSAM Statement, March 11, 2026).
Whether these incidents are viewed individually or collectively, they point to the same public perception: that armed groups are operating with a degree of confidence that ordinary civilians do not possess. The persistence of that perception, across different districts and among different Naga organisations, is itself a political fact that demands explanation.
When multiple communities reach the same conclusion independently, they form a coherent pattern. Security forces have created a permissive environment in which armed groups operate with the confidence that the state will not hold them accountable.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐎 𝐀𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠?
The SoO framework is not a local village arrangement. It is a political architecture designed, funded, supervised, and renewed by the Union Government through the Ministry of Home Affairs. Signed on August 22, 2008, between the Government of India, the Manipur government, and the Kuki National Organisation and United People’s Front, it provides stipends of ₹6,000 per month per cadre and designates camps monitored through a Joint Monitoring Group. If groups operating under that framework stand accused of atrocities, responsibility cannot be confined to the hills of Manipur. The chain of accountability extends upward to Delhi.
Peace agreements derive legitimacy from outcomes rather than intentions. When communities repeatedly associate an agreement not with security but with recurring violence, confidence in the framework inevitably collapses.
On June 14, Manipur Deputy Chief Minister Losii Dikho alleged that those involved in the killing of six Naga civilians belonged to a group covered under the SoO arrangement (India Today NE, June 14, 2026). The UNC has demanded abrogation. ANSAM has called it “a licence to kill and abduct innocent civilians” (ANSAM Statement, June 2026). An opinion piece asked: “How long will SoO remain a license for Kuki militants to take innocent lives?” (Morung Express, June 15, 2026).
The state cannot offer stipends and designated camps to groups accused of abduction, torture, mutilation, and beheading. The SoO agreement, in the eyes of many of its critics, is no longer perceived as a peace mechanism. It is increasingly viewed as a framework that shields those accused of violence from meaningful accountability.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐊𝐍𝐅‑𝐏, 𝐍𝐞𝐦𝐜𝐡𝐚 𝐊𝐢𝐩𝐠𝐞𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐟𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭
Deputy Chief Minister Nemcha Kipgen’s husband, SemtinthangKipgen alias Thangboi, is the president of KNF‑P, the group accused by Naga bodies of involvement in the abduction and killings (The Assam Tribune, June 13, 2026). This is not a matter of guilt by association. It is a matter of institutional integrity. A Deputy Chief Minister married to the leader of an accused militant group is not a perception problem. It is a structural reality. The UNC’s memorandum to Union Home Minister Amit Shah cited this relationship as raising concerns over internal security and public confidence (UNC Memorandum, June 2026).
Yet the government has taken no visible action. The Deputy Chief Minister remains in office. The militant group remains under SoO protection. The families of six murdered Naga men have still received neither justice nor the dignity of burial.
𝐉𝐮𝐧𝐞 𝟏𝟓 𝐖𝐚𝐬 𝐀 𝐌𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐎𝐟 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲
Nagas and Meitei’s have disagreed on many things. Yet on June 15 they stood on the same side of the barricade asking the same question: who is being protected? Once citizens begin asking whether institutions protect victims or armed actors, the crisis ceases to be merely a security crisis. It becomes a crisis of legitimacy.
Governments do not survive on force alone. They survive because citizens believe institutions deserve obedience. Legality can be enforced. Legitimacy must be earned.
When grief, outrage, and suspicion crystallize into a collective challenge to the state’s claim of neutrality, something fundamental has shifted. The RIMS protest was a turning point. June 15 will be remembered not as the day a crowd gathered, but as the day the state’s moral claim to govern was openly and collectively refused. For the indigenous peoples of Manipur, the sight of Nagas and Meiteis standing together was itself a historic statement.
𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐌𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐄𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐞
For many Nagas, June 15 was understood through memories of the 1990s, through experiences of displacement, through unresolved grievances. The Kuki‑Naga conflict of the 1990s claimed hundreds of lives. Those burned villages and the unburied dead of 2026 are chapters of the same story, a story reopened because the structures that caused the original wound were never dismantled. The RIMS protest therefore became not merely a reaction to a recent crime but an expression of accumulated historical memory.
If the state continues to shield militants while denying justice to victims, the crisis will deepen beyond the capacity of any authority to contain. International law reinforces this obligation. The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms require states to protect all persons against arbitrary violence. When security forces provide safe passage to alleged perpetrators while tear‑gassing those who demand accountability, those principles are not merely violated. They are inverted.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐖𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐈𝐬 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠.
On May 13 the six Naga men were abducted. On June 10 they were returned to their families as mutilated remains. The six men were identified as Pastor Reverend Manu Thiumai, Pastor Kenpibou Chawang, Phenrongwibou Thiumai, PhenrilungbouChawang, Dilip Thiumai, and Kaliwangbou Abonmai (FIR, Sekmai Police Station, May 14, 2026). The UNC has declared it will not formally receive the remains until the government addresses its charter of demands. Those bodies still lie in the JNIMS mortuary, unclaimed.
𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐬: 𝐀 𝐃𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐕𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐢𝐱
The public response did not end with statements, protests, or memoranda. After reports emerged that a candlelight vigil proposed by the Naga Students’ Union Delhi was denied permission and that an alternative memorial gathering in a rented venue was subsequently withdrawn, many Nagas felt that even the simple act of publicly mourning the six murdered men was being constrained. In response, a group of concerned Naga youth transformed grief into action by launching an online signature campaign that became a digital vigil for the dead.
The initiative was not organised by any political party, Naga political group, student body, church institution, or civil society organisation. It emerged as a grassroots effort by concerned individuals seeking truth, justice, accountability, and a comprehensive forensic investigation into the abduction, torture, mutilation, and murder of the six Naga civilians.
Addressed to the Prime Minister’s Office, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the National Investigation Agency, and the United Nations Human Rights Office, the petition calls for a full forensic investigation into the killings, including examination of the circumstances surrounding the victims’ deaths, the allegations raised by released hostages, digital forensic examination of publicly circulated social media material, and accountability for all those responsible.
What makes the campaign remarkable is not merely its demands but its reach. Despite having no institutional backing, the petition crossed more than 46,000 signatures within five days and continues to attract support from Nagas and non-Nagasacross different countries. Its rapid growth suggests that the killings resonated far beyond the immediate communities affected and became a broader concern about justice, accountability, human dignity, and the rule of law.
The petition remains active and continues to receive signatures:
In a conflict where physical spaces for mourning, protest, and remembrance became contested, the campaign evolved into something larger than an online petition. For many supporters, it became a digital memorial to the six murdered men, a collective expression of grief, and a public declaration that their deaths would not be allowed to disappear into silence, delay, or political expediency. In that sense, every signature became not merely a demand for accountability, but a small act of remembrance.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐁𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞
1. The NIA must release a full public forensic update, including analysis of the unidentified meat, DNA matching, and digital forensic examination of the social media comment “we cooked and ate them already” (Facebook Screenshot, Lm Khongsai Lm Khongsai, May 16, 2026).
2. The SoO agreement must be abrogated with all Kuki militant groups involved in ethnic violence.
3. The Government of India must declare KNF‑P a terrorist organisation and initiate criminal proceedings against its leadership.
4. Deputy Chief Minister Nemcha Kipgen must be removed from office pending a full conflict‑of‑interest inquiry.
5. The UNC’s four‑point charter must be addressed before the bodies are received.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
They ask why security forces protect those accused of butchering our people. They ask why Kukis receive treatment in Imphal while Nagas cannot move freely. They ask how a Deputy Chief Minister whose husband leads a militant group remains in office. They ask when the NIA will release the forensic truth about the unidentified meat.
The six men are still waiting in a mortuary. Twenty‑eight detainees walked home alive. The women who survived are still waiting for forensic answers. Families are still waiting for justice. A government that moved swiftly to escort the injured must now explain why justice moved so slowly for the dead.
The families are waiting. The dead remain unburied. The world is watching. The time for answers is now.
Disclaimer: This dossier is an advocacy document reflecting documented events, public statements, community perspectives, allegations, and interpretations advanced by Naga organizations, representatives, survivors, and other cited sources. References to responsibility, motive, institutional conduct, political intent, or alleged criminal activity are presented as claims, allegations, opinions, perceptions, or positions attributed to the individuals and organizations identified, unless supported by publicly available official findings. The inclusion of such claims does not constitute an independent judicial finding or legal determination of guilt. This dossier is intended to contribute to public discussion, documentation, accountability, and calls for further investigation.
Documentary Record and References
Note on Sources: The following documentary record identifies the principal sources relied upon in preparing this dossier. Inclusion of a source does not imply endorsement of every claim contained therein. Sources are listed to facilitate transparency, verification, and further investigation.
FIR and Police Statements
• First Information Report, Sekmai Police Station, May 14, 2026 (cited in The New Indian Express, May 14, 2026)
• Manipur Police Statement on recovery of remains, June 10, 2026
• Manipur Police Statement on Leilon Vaiphei encounter, June 15, 2026
• RIMS Statement on medical care and security arrangements, June 15, 2026
Media Reports
• The Wire, May 13, 2026 (survivor Hekai Simte account of Tiger Road killings)
• The Wire, June 12, 2026 (women’s testimony regarding unidentified meat)
• The Wire, June 16, 2026 (Kuki MLA Letzamang Haokipstatement)
• The New Indian Express, May 14, 2026 (wedding party abduction)
• The New Indian Express, June 16, 2026 (Haokipstatement)
• Imphal Times, June 15, 2026 (Julia Shinglai quote on RIMS protest)
• India Today NE, June 14, 2026 (Deputy CM Losii Dikhoallegation)
• NTIMES, June 12, 2026 (women’s testimony)
• Morung Express, June 15, 2026 (opinion piece on SoO)
• The Assam Tribune, June 13, 2026 (UNC memorandum)
• Vatican News, May 14, 2026 (peace delegation)
• Fides News Agency, May 14, 2026 (peace delegation)
• The Daily Guardian, June 11, 2026 (recovery of remains)
• EastMojo, June 12, 2026 (women’s testimony and cannibalism suspicion)
• Ukhrul Times, June 11, 2026 (witness testimonies)
• UNI India (various reports on Manipur crisis)
Organisation Statements
• United Naga Council Statement on recovery of remains, June 10, 2026
• United Naga Council Memorandum to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, June 2026
• Kuki Inpi Manipur Statement on Leilon Vaiphei firing, June 15, 2026
• Tangkhul Naga Long Statement on Assam Rifles conduct, March 2026
• All Naga Students’ Association Statement on Shangkaiabduction, March 11, 2026
• All Naga Students’ Association Statement on SoOagreement, June 2026
Public Record
• Social media screenshot: Lm Khongsai Lm Khongsaicomment, “we cooked and ate them already,” May 16, 2026
UN Documents
• UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials
• Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions
Editor’s Note:
This dossier is a substantially revised version of an article titled “The Day Justice was Tear-Gassed At RIMS, Delhi SoO’s Mask Finally Came Off” originally published by Ukhrul Times on 18 June 2026. While retaining the core factual record and central concerns of the original publication, the present edition has been carefully sanitized and strengthened for greater clarity, evidentiary precision, and analytical coherence. It also incorporates a limited number of additional sections and updates that were not included in the original publication.
The original article appeared in Ukhrul Times on 18 June 2026. Responsibility for all revisions, additions, interpretations, and conclusions contained in this revised edition rests solely with the author.
(Markson V Luikham is an Independent Researcher and Freelance Writer.)
(The views expressed in the article are solely those of the writer and do not reflect the vision, policy, or editorial position of Ekhon.)
