Why Chief Minister Khemchand’s Litan, Jiribam, and Guwahati Peace Gestures Failed the Tronglaobi Test

Nearly two months into his tenure as Chief Minister of Manipur, Yumnam Khemchand Singh has made several visible attempts to reach out to the Kuki community. These efforts include high-profile visits to sensitive areas and dialogues with influential groups. 

However, the horrific bomb attack at Tronglaobi in Bishnupur district on April 7, 2026, which killed two innocent Meitei children—a five-year-old boy and his five-month-old sister—while they slept, along with critically injuring their mother, has exposed the limitations of these peace initiatives.

The attack, allegedly carried out using a projectile or bomb launched from nearby  areas close to the volatile boundary with Churachandpur, shocked the conscience of the state. It drew widespread condemnation from Governor Ajay Kumar Bhalla, former Chief Minister N. Biren Singh, veteran leader Okram Ibobi Singh, and even leaders from Naga and Muslim communities. 

However,  the near-complete silence from most Kuki CSOs and MLAs whom Chief Minister Khemchand had personally engaged raises serious questions about the depth and reciprocity of the peace process.

His peace resume in his short time in office is noteworthy for a Meitei leader operating in a deeply polarized environment. One of his earliest symbolic moves was his visit to Litan in Ukhrul district even before becoming CM. As the first MLA to reach a Kuki-dominated area post-2023 violence, he held a Kuki baby in his lap—an image that projected compassion and boldness. 

Many observers believe this gesture helped the central leadership view him as someone capable of bridging ethnic divides, contributing to his elevation to the CM post.

He followed this with multiple visits to Jiribam, a hotspot bordering Assam. His first trip occurred within a week of taking oath in February 2026, where he met affected families from Meitei, Hmar, and other communities. He advocated the “forget and forgive” approach, urging victims to move forward for a “new Manipur.” 

Again on April 4-6, 2026, he made a more daring journey—travelling by road along NH-37 with seven other Meitei MLAs, accompanied by heavy security. This was the first such road visit by a CM through sensitive stretches since the 2023 ethnic violence erupted. 

The convoy inspected healthcare facilities, met internally displaced persons (IDPs), and facilitated rare joint interactions among communities. It demonstrated that, with political will and security coordination, normal governance and mobility could gradually return.

Another significant step was the high-level meeting with the Kuki-Zo Council (KZC) in Guwahati in March 2026. This dialogue was notable because Khemchand’s cabinet had previously distanced itself from or critiqued the council’s role. Held in a neutral venue, the meeting focused on confidence-building, justice for victims,  de-escalation and even talk of non existence buffer zones. 

However, CM Khemchand described it as a “first step” toward peace and called upon the community to support restoration of normalcy. He also personally engaged with the late Vungzagin Valte, the Paite MLA from Thanlon AC, during Valte’s airlifted from Imphal for the treatment in Gurugram before his death in early 2026. 

The two reportedly discussed peace and a united future for Manipur.These actions—Litan’s symbolic embrace, repeated Jiribam outreach, the Guwahati dialogue, and personal outreach to late Valte—formed a proactive agenda aimed at appeasing or rebuilding trust with the Kuki side after nearly three years of conflict that claimed over 300 lives and displaced tens of thousands.

The horrific attack in Tronglaobi Awang Leikai  on April 7 shattered any illusion of rapid progress. The victims were ordinary civilians, young children from a family linked to a BSF personnel. The incident occurred in a low-lying Meitei area near the hills, heightening fears of renewed cross-boundary violence. 

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has taken over the probe, reflecting the gravity of the case.While condemnation poured in from across political and ethnic lines, the response from Kuki stakeholders was strikingly muted. Except for Deputy CM Nemcha Kipgen, who strongly denounced the “heinous” act, major Kuki CSOs that Khemchand had met in Guwahati and Jiribam issued no immediate public condolences or unequivocal statements against the killing of sleeping infants. 

When the same government organised Video conferencing to talk their problems or sent senior officials, including the Director of Social Welfare, to Churachandpur to extend help and coordinate relief, there was little visible support or reciprocal condemnation from those CSOs.

Even more telling was the absence of Kuki MLAs from an emergency meeting convened at the CM Secretariat to address the rising tensions. This was a most crucial meeting for the future of the state, yet no voice were heard from LM Khaute, Paolianlal Haokip, Ngursanglur Sanate, Letzamang Haokip or Kimneo Hangsing who are in the good book of Khemchand. Their non-participation—even virtually—highlighted a lack of collective ownership at a critical moment. This is particularly disappointing given that Deputy CM Nemcha Kipgen broke ranks to condemn the incident, showing that voices within the community can and do prioritize humanity.

This pattern suggests that while Khemchand has extended olive branches, the expected partners in dialogue have not matched his efforts with tangible solidarity when violence strikes the other side.

Yumnam Khemchand’s initiatives were well-intentioned and carried personal and political risks. Travelling by road through contested highways with heavy security was not just logistical; it was a statement of intent to normalize life. Meeting the Kuki-Zo Council despite past differences showed flexibility. The Litan gesture and “forgive and forget” narrative aimed to humanize the process.

However, these gestures failed the Tronglaobi test because peace cannot be a monologue. Symbolic visits and dialogues create an atmosphere for talks, but they require reciprocity—especially in condemning atrocities against innocents irrespective of community. 

When Kuki CSOs and MLAs remain silent or absent during such moments, the outreach appears one-sided and performative. The trust deficit, built over years of ethnic suspicion, runs too deep for gestures alone to bridge.

The body of the late Vungzagin Valte still awaits resolution of certain demands, symbolizing unfinished business. Similarly, the Tronglaobi victims demand swift justice without any communal shielding. Continued selective outrage—strong when one side suffers, muted when the other does—undermines the very “new Manipur” vision Khemchand discussed with Valte and promoted in Jiribam and Guwahati.

Given the current asymmetry in engagement, CM Khemchand should recalibrate his strategy. While he must not abandon efforts toward the Kuki side and should continue pressing for justice in all cases, specially Tronglaobi slaughter, persistent non-reciprocity suggests that immediate breakthroughs with certain Kuki CSOs and MLAs may remain elusive.

Instead, he should prioritize uniting the Meitei, Pangal, and Naga communities to build a stronger, more cohesive internal front within Manipur. These groups together represent a significant portion of the state’s population and have historically shared spaces in the valley and certain hill areas. Many Naga groups have maintained distinct positions and have, at times, condemned violence against innocents , as seen in responses to Tronglaobi. This does not mean isolation of any community. 

It would signal that the state government is not solely dependent on one-sided outreach but is building resilience and unity where reciprocity is more forthcoming.

Manipur has suffered enough. The children lost in Tronglaobi, like all victims of Jiribam since 2023, deserve justice and a future free from cyclical violence. 

CM Yumnam Khemchand has demonstrated initiative through bold outreach: the Litan gesture, Jiribam visits (twice, including a secure road convoy), Guwahati dialogue with the Kuki-Zo Council, and personal engagement with the late Valte. 

These form a credible early effort to appease or engage the Kuki side after nearly three years of conflict. But the Tronglaobi tragedy, met with near-silence from the very CSOs and MLAs his government has courted, exposes the limits. 

True reconciliation requires more than symbolic laps with babies or guarded road trips. It demands mutual condemnation of atrocities, reciprocal gestures, and a shared rejection of violence against innocents—regardless of community. 

Until Kuki CSOs and MLAs match the CM's outreach with tangible solidarity against incidents like Tronglaobi, his peace initiatives risk being perceived as one-way traffic. Manipur cannot afford hollow dialogues. 

When officers are sent to Churachandpur for welfare support and emergency meetings convene without Kuki participation, one wonders: whom exactly is Khemchand supposed to talk to for sustainable peace?