How Mob Intimidation is Killing Free Speech and Dividing Manipur Lately?

A troubling incident unfolded in the evening of March 25, 2026, in Singjamei where a large crowd of angry locals stormed at the residence of Thokchom Sujata, President of Imagi Meira, demanding clarification over her alleged controversial remarks against the newly selected Chief Minister, Yumnam Khemchand Singh. 

Reports describe tension gripping the area as supporters  of Khemchand Singh expressed strong disapproval, seeking a public apology.  Unable to protect herself and the families, Sujata later issued an apology for her “unwarranted comments,” requesting forgiveness from the public and the CM.

The trigger was Ima Sujata’s sharp criticism of the CM over the perceived lack of serious action on the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and related governance priorities like deferment of Census. 

In her remarks, she referenced a viral video of CM Khemchand in which he was seen struggling, falling or unable to lift his pants while dancing. Her criticism framed this as symbolic of weak or ineffective leadership, but not a personal attack on his private life.

The video itself had already circulated widely on social media, making it part of public commentary.This episode raises a deeper question. 

In a democracy, no one is above criticism, not Trump, not Modi, not Biren Singh, and not Yumnam Khemchand. Public figures must develop thicker skin, and their followers must learn that disagreement, even deliberate, pointed speech urging legislators to serve the state, is not disloyalty. 

When does legitimate political criticism cross into something that justifies mob mobilization at someone’s doorstep? And more alarmingly, what does it say about democratic health when supporters rally in large numbers not just to protest, but reportedly to threaten, morally break down, and intimidate critics—promising to target families and extract public apologies? 

The phrase “Yes Boss, We will be your Army” captures this sentiment perfectly. The blind loyalty that treats any dissent as an existential threat requiring collective intimidation.

Thokchom Sujata is no ordinary critic. As president of Imagi Meira, she has been a vocal champion for Meitei interests, indigenous rights, land protection, and accountability during and after the 2023 ethnic crisis. Her organization has consistently raised concerns about illegal immigration, census safeguards, free movement on highways, and the urgent need for NRC-like mechanisms to protect demographic integrity.

Her recent remarks were not isolated outbursts. They formed part of her deliberate and consistent advocacy. In public speeches and interventions during the ongoing session of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, she has repeatedly urged legislators, both ruling and opposition, to rise above partisan lines and work genuinely in the interest of the people and the state. 

She has called on MLAs to enact protective legislation that prioritizes citizenship verification before any census operations, questioned their silence on critical issues affecting indigenous communities, and demanded decisive action on governance failures rather than mere procedural assurances. 

Her words reflect a deep commitment to public accountability that MLAs must legislate boldly to safeguard identity and future of the state, not remain passive spectators.

Her recent scolding of the CM was in the same spirit, directed at the office and its perceived inaction, not at Khemchand as a person. However, the response was not a counter-argument or institutional engagement. 

A significant number of large gathering of mobs assembled at her residence, creating an atmosphere of intimidation. Sujata’s subsequent public apology highlights the pressure such mobilizations exert. It sends a chilling message that even constructive criticism calling for legislators to serve the people can invite collective backlash at one’s doorstep.

Notably, Sujata has been a sharp and consistent critic of the previous regime as well. For years under former Chief Minister N. Biren Singh, she openly scolded and even used strong, abusive language against him and his government, dragging his administration over issues like failure to protect civilians, handling of the ethnic crisis, and perceived inaction on indigenous concerns. 

She publicly questioned the government’s priorities and demanded accountability in forceful terms. However, neither Biren Singh himself nor his loyal supporters from Heingang or elsewhere ever responded by intimidating her, storming her residence, threatening her family, or forcing a public apology. 

They allowed her criticism, however harsh, to remain within the domain of political discourse and public debate. But, in stark contrast, the new Chief Minister Yumnam Khemchand's supporters appear quick to target Sujata, mobilizing a large crowd at her doorstep over remarks that were comparatively milder and rooted in a widely circulated public video. 

Adding to the irony, Sujata herself hails from the Singjamei Assembly Constituency, the very seat represented by CM Khemchand. This raises serious concerns as weell. Is the new dispensation and its loyalists adopting a lower threshold for tolerance, turning local criticism from a constituency resident into an excuse for mob pressure rather than engaging with the substance of her demands?

The most glaring inconsistency lies in how different leaders have been treated in Manipur itself. During the prolonged 2023-2025 crisis under former Chief Minister N. Biren Singh, he faced relentless criticism, abuse, and personal attacks. Rallies were organized in the Churachandpur, Kangpokpi Moreh and neighboring states like Mizoram where derogatory language was openly used against him. 

N Biren's personal life and character were targeted. TV panelists slammed him daily. Social media was flooded with memes and calls for his ouster. Importantly, Biren Singh’s supporters did not respond by storming homes of critics in hundreds or forcing public apologies. The former CM endured the barrage as part of the rough-and-tumble of politics.

During Biren Singh’s tenure, however, the Manipur Police, particularly the cyber crime cell, actively intervened in several cases involving social media posts and comments perceived as critical of the government or spreading hate speech. Authorities issued warnings, registered FIRs, summoned individuals, and in some instances made arrests.

Personally, during N. Biren Singh’s regime, I was pulled up by the police three times. On one occasion, I was kept in lock-up; twice, I was released after questioning at the station. Imagine facing this three times, yet I never made a personal issue out of it or stood against Biren Singh as an individual. 

My differences were always between a concerned citizen and the responsibilities of the CM’s chair, not between Mohen and Biren personally. Criticism, even when it leads to legal scrutiny, is part of holding power accountable.

In the case of Sujata too, her remarks were not born out of personal enmity against Yumnam Khemchand as an individual, but directed at the CM’s chair and the perceived inaction on critical issues like NRC implementation and postponement of Census. Her broader speeches have consistently appealed to legislators to prioritize the interest of the people and the state. 

So why the intimidating mob at Sujata’s residence? Is this becoming a dangerous new trend to silence every critic of the government through street pressure rather than ideas or due process?

A fresh layer of inconsistency emerges when we examine the December 2024 Cabinet decision under CM N. Biren Singh, in which Yumnam Khemchand also served as a Cabinet Minister. The Cabinet explicitly resolved to denounce the Kuki-Zo Council as a “non-existent” organisation. 

An official statement issued on December 18, 2024, categorically asserted that “There is no organisation called Kuki-Zo Council; public are advised not to pay heed.”Under Article 164(2) of the Indian Constitution, the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly. 

This principle means all ministers, including Khemchand at the time, share joint accountability for Cabinet decisions. Ministers are expected to publicly stand by collective decisions or resign if they have fundamental disagreements.

However, on March 21, 2026, as Chief Minister, Yumnam Khemchand held a high-level meeting with leaders of the same Kuki-Zo Council in Guwahati, inviting criticisms from various CSOs. He described the talks as a “good beginning” and the “first step” to rebuild trust and bridge the trust deficit between communities. 

While the meeting was termed an “ice-breaker,” the very act of official engagement appears to contradict the earlier Cabinet resolution that dismissed the Council’s existence.This reversal raises legitimate questions about policy consistency and the spirit of collective responsibility. 

In a state recovering from ethnic conflict, such flip-flops on sensitive issues risk deepening mistrust.

Thus, the “Yes Boss, We will be your Army” approach, pledging to threaten dissenters, target families in large groups, and extract public apologies, represents a dangerous erosion of democratic norms. It transforms supporters from engaged citizens into enforcers. 

When criticism of governance failures, or even calls for legislators to work sincerely in the interest of the people, is met with mob pressure instead of engagement, it discourages civil society voices like Sujata’s from speaking out. 

Activists, especially women leaders in the Meira Paibi tradition, have historically played crucial roles in highlighting injustices. Silencing them through intimidation weakens the very checks and balances needed for good governance.

Free speech, even when uncomfortable or satirical, is the lifeblood of democracy under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Public mockery of a leader’s awkward moment from a viral video, or sharp but policy-focused criticism urging MLAs to serve the state, hardly qualifies as hate speech or incitement. 

If every such voice invites a hundred-strong gathering at a critic’s home, we risk turning politics into a protection racket enforced by numbers rather than ideas.

Leaders like US President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi endure far harsher trolling, memes, and personal jabs without their supporters resorting to doorstep intimidation. In Manipur’s own recent history, the 2023 crisis saw extreme rhetoric from multiple sides, yet the restraint shown by N Biren’s camp prevented further descent into chaos on that front.

The new administration under Y Khemchand, tasked with healing deep ethnic wounds and addressing root causes like illegal immigration, would do better to project strength through performance, effective governance, consistent policy, and open dialogue, rather than tolerating or encouraging intimidation tactics.

The Singjamei incident should serve as a wake-up call. Blind loyalty that manifests as “we will threaten them, break them down, intimidate families” is not strength, it is insecurity dressed as devotion. True support for a leader comes from defending policies with facts and results, not suppressing dissent through numbers and fear.

Moreover, forcing apologies at the doorstep may yield short-term silence, but it breeds resentment and weakens the social fabric.Manipur has suffered enough from violence and mistrust.

Let criticism, even acerbic or meme-based, and calls for accountable governance be met with better performance and open dialogue, not with an “army” at someone’s gate. Only then can the state move from crisis management to genuine.


The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of India Today NE or its affiliates.