Are We Left Only to Count the Dead, Even After the Return of a People's Government?

How many more people must die in Manipur before we stop merely counting the dead and start asking whether their killers have been brought to justice?

 

Ten killed. Six killed. Three killed. The figures appear in newspaper headlines, are repeated on television and draw statements of condemnation from political leaders and organisations. For a few days, the deaths dominate public discussion. Then another incident takes place, and the previous tragedy gradually disappears from the headlines.

 

What we rarely hear with the same prominence is whether the killers have been prosecuted, whether the cases have reached trial or whether anyone has been convicted and punished under the law.

 

This is the question Manipur must confront after the restoration of an elected government in February 2026. Are we to remain a society that keeps counting its dead while waiting endlessly for justice?

 

When Yumnam Khemchand Singh took oath as Chief Minister on February 4, people expected more than the return of elected representatives to office. They hoped the government would restore public confidence in the state's ability to protect its citizens.

 

After nearly a year of President's Rule, Manipur once again had a people's government. Its elected representatives were entrusted with the responsibility of governing the state, protecting lives and rebuilding institutions weakened by years of conflict.

 

But what has changed for families living in vulnerable villages, for people travelling along roads where their safety remains uncertain, or for those trying to earn a livelihood in areas exposed to armed violence?

 

The continuing reports of killings make these questions difficult to avoid. Reports and running accounts suggest that around 76 people may have been killed since February, although the figure needs to be checked against official records. Whether the confirmed number is slightly higher or lower, the loss of human life remains deeply troubling.

 

Behind every figure is a family that has lost someone who will never return. Every killing also raises questions about the government's ability to prevent violence, identify the offenders and ensure that justice follows.

 

For more than three years, Manipur has been counting casualties. Surely, the people deserve to hear something beyond another announcement of deaths and another statement condemning the incident.

 

The recent killing of three civilians near Nongshum and Khongbal Tangkhul has brought the issue back into focus. The victims had reportedly gone to collect firewood when they came under attack.

 

Police subsequently announced arrests and the recovery of weapons and ammunition. These are important steps and should be acknowledged. But an arrest does not mean that justice has been delivered.

 

What happens after the arrest? Has the investigation been completed? Have investigators collected sufficient evidence? Has a charge sheet been filed? Will the case reach trial, and will those found guilty be punished?

 

These questions are not limited to the three recent killings. They apply to the many other incidents in which civilians have lost their lives across Manipur.

 

There is a difference between arresting a suspect and securing a conviction. Every accused person is entitled to due process, and no one can be treated as guilty until a competent court establishes guilt. That principle must be respected.

 

But respect for due process should not mean that the public is left without information about the progress of criminal cases.

 

The government should be able to tell the people how many murder cases arising from the continuing violence remain under investigation, how many charge sheets have been filed, how many cases have reached trial and how many have resulted in convictions.

 

Without such information, how can the public judge whether the criminal justice system is functioning? How can families know that their cases are moving forward rather than remaining buried in police files while fresh killings continue?

 

The question becomes more serious when we consider the security arrangements already in place.

 

Manipur has its state police, central paramilitary forces, intelligence agencies and other security arrangements intended to protect vulnerable areas. Yet civilians continue to lose their lives.

 

It would be unfair to say that security personnel are doing nothing. Nor can any government guarantee that every crime will be prevented. But repeated killings demand a serious examination of how security forces are deployed, how intelligence is shared and how quickly authorities respond to threats.

 

Are vulnerable villages receiving adequate protection? Are warnings being acted upon? Is there proper coordination between state and central agencies?

 

These are matters that the state government and the Centre must answer together. Administrative boundaries cannot become an excuse for avoiding responsibility.

 

There is another question that Manipur cannot afford to ignore. Over the past few years, much of the political debate has centred on who should govern the state rather than how peace can be restored.

 

We have witnessed demands for the removal of a Chief Minister, the imposition of President's Rule, the restoration of a popular government and, now, renewed calls for Central rule.

 

But have these changes brought Manipur any closer to lasting peace?

 

Former Chief Minister N. Biren Singh resigned on February 9, 2025, amid mounting political pressure and longstanding opposition from Kuki organisations and legislators. President's Rule followed on February 13, bringing elected administration to a halt for almost a year.

 

During that period, demands for the restoration of a popular government remained closely linked to opposition to the return of Biren Singh and leaders associated with his administration.

 

Eventually, Yumnam Khemchand Singh was chosen as leader of the BJP Legislature Party and took oath as Chief Minister on February 4, 2026.

 

The new government included Nemcha Kipgen, a Kuki legislator, and Losii Dikho, a Naga legislator, as Deputy Chief Ministers. The arrangement sought to provide representation to different communities within the elected administration, although participation in the government remained contested among Kuki organisations.

 

Barely nine months later, demands for President's Rule have resurfaced. At a press conference in New Delhi, Kuki-Zo Council spokesperson Ginza Vualzong claimed that no Kuki civilian had been killed during President's Rule. He argued that Central rule should be restored to protect the safety, security and dignity of the community.

 

The Council also reiterated its demand for a separate administration in the form of a Union Territory with a legislature.

 

The claim about casualties during President's Rule requires independent verification. Any comparison must also consider the different periods and circumstances involved. Nevertheless, the argument raises a question that deserves an answer.

 

If the removal of Biren Singh was considered necessary, if President's Rule was seen as a safer arrangement, and if an elected government without Biren Singh was subsequently restored, what is the solution being proposed now?

 

Is another change in administration expected to resolve the crisis? And if President's Rule returns, what guarantees are there that the violence will end?

 

Every political organisation has the democratic right to demand President's Rule or advocate a different constitutional arrangement. Such demands cannot be dismissed merely because others disagree with them.

 

But the right to make a political demand also carries a responsibility to explain how that demand would help the people.

 

What practical measures are being proposed to prevent further killings? How will movement between communities be restored? What arrangements will allow displaced families to return home? How will economic activities resume, and how will confidence be rebuilt among people who have lived in fear for more than three years?

 

These are the questions that should accompany every proposal for political or administrative change.

 

Replacing one government with another may change who holds power. It does not, by itself, remove the conditions that allow violence to continue.

 

The presence of Kuki representatives in the present government makes the issue particularly relevant.

 

Nemcha Kipgen holds the office of Deputy Chief Minister, one of the highest positions in the state administration. Her appointment provides representation within the government, but it does not mean that the grievances and security concerns of Kuki civilians have disappeared.

 

Nor does her participation establish that all Kuki organisations support the present political arrangement. Still, such representation offers an opportunity for engagement through the institutions of government.

 

How is that opportunity being used? What prevents meaningful dialogue? What difficulties have arisen in addressing the concerns of communities that remain divided? And have those demanding another change in administration offered a practical alternative capable of producing peace beyond the immediate political moment?

 

Manipur cannot be governed on the impression that a handful of individuals or organisations can determine when an elected government should remain in office, when it should be removed and when President's Rule should return.

 

The Constitution provides procedures for such decisions. Political pressure and public demands are part of democratic life, but they cannot replace constitutional responsibility or the need for workable solutions.

 

Those who claim to speak for the people must explain not only who should govern Manipur, but how its people can once again live without fear.

 

At the same time, it would be wrong to place the burden of the present crisis entirely on organisations demanding political change. The elected government cannot avoid scrutiny by pointing to the demands of others.

 

Chief Minister Khemchand Singh and his Council of Ministers have a constitutional responsibility to protect citizens, irrespective of their community, political affiliation or place of residence. The Union government and central security agencies also have responsibilities within their respective jurisdictions.

 

If civilians continue to be killed, the government must explain what measures are being taken, where existing security arrangements are falling short and how those failures will be addressed.

 

The responsibility to protect life does not diminish because Manipur is passing through an ethnic and political crisis. If anything, that responsibility becomes more urgent.

 

We must also remember that the suffering in Manipur has not been confined to one community.

 

Meiteis, Nagas, Kuki and other residents have experienced killings, displacement, insecurity and disruption of their lives.

 

The circumstances of individual incidents may differ. The responsibility for each crime must be established through evidence, not through assumptions based on community identity.

 

A civilian killed in a hill village deserves the same justice as a civilian killed in the valley. The law cannot have one standard for one community and another standard for someone else.

 

No organisation can credibly speak of peace while treating the safety of people outside its own community as a lesser concern.

 

Peace cannot mean security for one section of the population while others continue to live in fear. It must mean protection for everyone.

 

This is where the Manipur Legislative Assembly has an important role to play. The Assembly should not remain merely a forum for political exchanges while families continue to mourn their dead.

 

Elected representatives, whether they belong to the government or the opposition, should demand an incident-wise account of civilian killings since February.

 

How many people have been killed? How many cases have been registered? How many suspects have been arrested? How many investigations have been completed? How many charge sheets have been filed? How many cases have reached trial, and how many convictions have been secured?

 

The government should also explain what preventive measures have been introduced in vulnerable areas and whether those measures have reduced the risk of further violence.

 

These are not unreasonable demands. They are basic questions of public accountability.

 

Such information would allow the people to judge the government's performance on the basis of evidence rather than political assurances. It would also help determine whether existing security policies need to be revised and whether investigators and prosecutors require additional resources.

 

For families who have lost their loved ones, the question of justice is not an abstract political argument.

 

Compensation may help a family meet its immediate needs. Condolences may offer some comfort. But neither can replace the truth about what happened or the prosecution of those responsible.

 

A mother who has buried her son, children who have lost their father or a village mourning its residents should not have to wait indefinitely to know whether the law is taking its course.

 

They deserve to know that the institutions of the state are pursuing the case. They deserve protection against further violence. Above all, they deserve reasonable confidence that those responsible for criminal acts will be brought before the courts.

 

Their search for justice should not be forgotten simply because another killing has taken place somewhere else.

 

The return of an elected government in February restored an essential constitutional arrangement in Manipur. But restoring an elected government and restoring public confidence are not the same thing.

 

Confidence will return only when people begin to feel safer, when investigations lead to prosecutions and when the criminal justice system demonstrates that the taking of innocent lives will not be met merely with condemnation.

 

Those demanding the removal of the present government must also explain how their preferred arrangement would achieve what previous administrations have failed to accomplish.

 

Manipur cannot continue moving from one political arrangement to another while the conditions that cost human lives remain unresolved.

 

For too long, the public debate has revolved around who should be Chief Minister, who should resign, who should join the government and whether President's Rule should return.

 

Meanwhile, the killings continue. The people have heard enough casualty figures. They have heard enough statements expressing grief and condemning violence.

 

What they need now are answers. How will the next killing be prevented? What has happened to the investigations into previous killings? How many perpetrators have actually faced trial? And what is being done to create conditions in which the communities of Manipur can live without fear?

 

These questions should be at the centre of every discussion about the future of the state.

 

A people's government must be judged not merely by its presence in office, but by how it exercises the authority entrusted to it. Political organisations demanding change must likewise be judged by the practicality of the solutions they offer.

 

Manipur cannot afford to spend another year counting its dead while waiting for the next change of government.

 

The true measure of a functioning government is not how efficiently it records the dead, but how effectively it protects the living and delivers justice for those who have been killed.