From Herod to ISIS to Manipur: Beheading, Kuki Radicalisation and the Collapse of Constitutional Rule

Manipur is witnessing a horrifying descent into violence in which human life appears increasingly expendable, with no accountability for the perpetrators. On 10 October 2026, ten people, including 42-year-old Domkhonei Touthang of Chassad village, were killed in a single day amid escalating Kuki–Naga ethnic violence. The incidents occurred across Kamjong, Kangpokpi and Ukhrul districts, where numerous houses were also burnt down.

These killings underscore the continuing failure to restore law and order and protect civilians from recurring ethnic violence.

The violence reportedly began when Domkhonei was allegedly shot dead by India Reserve Battalion (IRB) personnel stationed at Chassad during a confrontation with local residents. The incident was followed by a reported retaliatory attack by KNA-Burma cadres from across the border on a Tangkhul Naga village within Indian territory. Although KNA-B has denied involvement, the incident and the other killings warrant thorough investigation to establish responsibility and bring the perpetrators to justice.

I express my deepest sorrow and heartfelt sympathy to the bereaved families of all the victims.

Among the most disturbing incidents was the beheading of a 52-year-old Naga civilian man, Ajinpou Ringkangmai of Makui village in Kangpokpi district, and the display of his severed head as though it were a trophy—a gruesome act of brutality and a macabre spectacle of human cruelty that shocks the conscience of humanity. The viral video, which I have personally seen, shows his severed head on the ground near armed, camouflage-clad Kuki militants. The militants appear to laugh mockingly as they look at the displayed head and call out, “Makui man,” while multiple gunshots can be heard.

This disturbing scene evokes chilling parallels with historical atrocities and terrorist tactics in which human remains are displayed to terrorise communities, humiliate victims and project power through fear.

The incident demands an urgent criminal investigation and unequivocal condemnation from everyone. Has violence become a spectacle through which armed groups seek to intimidate communities, demonstrate power and normalise terror, believing they can act without consequences?

From Herod’s Platter to ISIS: The Spectacle of Beheading

The image evokes the biblical account of John the Baptist, who was beheaded and whose severed head was presented on a platter at Herod’s command (Matthew 14:1–12; Mark 6:14–29). In modern times, terrorist organisations such as the brutal and infamous Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have used beheadings and filmed executions as tactics of terror, intimidation and propaganda to project control and power through fear.

The comparison concerns the brutality, ideological framework and potential purpose of these acts, not any claim of organisational connection. Yet the question is unavoidable: What kind of political movement allows human heads to become instruments of intimidation, spectacle or triumph? History remembers Herod and ISIS for their association with such brutality. Is this the legacy Kuki militant groups wish to leave behind—to be remembered for displaying severed human heads to terrorise and dehumanise communities and glorify violence?

Those who commit such atrocities, those who justify or condone them, and the government and authorities who failed to prevent or adequately respond to them must all hang their heads in shame. The Chief Minister Yumnam Khemchand Singh and his government, meanwhile, appear disturbingly indifferent, as though these killings were simply business as usual.

The victim’s family and community deserve the return of his head for forensic examination, a dignified burial and closure. Authorities must identify those visible in the viral video, establish the circumstances of Ajinpou Ringkangmai’s death and prosecute those responsible. No ethnic narrative, political calculation or militant justification can excuse such cruelty.

A Dangerous Pattern of Violence

This horror cannot be viewed in isolation from other reported atrocities. On 13 May 2026, six Naga civilians were reportedly abducted amid violence that also claimed the lives of three Thadou church leaders earlier that day. Their bodies were recovered on 10 June, reportedly showing severe mutilation and evidence of beheading. Reports further alleged that the flesh of the murdered Naga men was cooked and served to their families while they remained captive to Kuki militants. The Kuki-Zo Council subsequently acknowledged in a video press conference that the acts had been committed by their people and expressed regret over the killings. Yet the perpetrators remain at large.

Historical grievances, including the bloody Kuki–Naga clashes of the 1990s, cannot justify fresh atrocities. Victims do not become legitimate targets because of their ethnicity, and present-day civilians and innocent people cannot be held collectively responsible for the actions of earlier generations. Repeating yesterday’s brutality does not avenge the dead; it creates new victims and perpetuates the cycle of violence. No historical grievance can justify murdering, mutilating or beheading another human being.

Kuki Radicalisation and Extremism Must Be Confronted

The glorification of violence in pursuit of political objectives and ethnic supremacy among certain Kuki radical elements is deeply concerning. In many instances, radical Kuki church leaders and pastors have openly preached violence and retribution from pulpits and on social media, or encouraged the purchase of guns for armed aggression. When those expected to preach peace and reconciliation instead promote vengeance and violence, and places of worship become centres of radicalisation and indoctrination, the risk of further atrocities increases.

This is not an accusation against every person who identifies as Kuki. However, this distinction must not become an excuse to ignore extremist movements that promote ethnic supremacy while also claiming to be victims of minority persecution, intimidate dissenters, or use violence to enforce political demands. The state must confront such movements firmly, while protecting the rights of all communities and those who reject militant domination.

When Religion Becomes a Political Weapon

Religion can inspire compassion, forgiveness and the protection of human life. However, religious language can also be manipulated to sanctify political ambitions, portray a movement as divinely chosen and dehumanise those who stand in its way.

Serious concerns surround the convergence of religious messaging, ethnic supremacy and militant politics among certain Kuki leaders, including Rev. Dr T. Lunkim, lifetime leader of the Kuki Christian Church; Dr T. L. Angam Haokip; Pastor D. Angam Haokip; and P. S. Haokip, former president of the KNO, among many others. Their messaging has promoted what I regard as a Kuki-supremacist gospel that intertwines ethnic superiority, vengeance, radical indoctrination and political ambition.

This ideological network extends across Kuki churches, including Kuki Worship Service (KWS), armed militant groups and civil society bodies such as Kuki Inpi and Kuki Students’ Organisation (KSO). Kuki supremacist narratives, prophetic claims, assertions of divine sanction for political objectives and promises of a separate political entity can reinforce one another, merging religious influence, ethnic mobilisation and militant separatism into a common ideological framework.

The danger becomes particularly acute when political objectives—and even violence and unthinkable brutality—are presented as sacred commands, potentially legitimising atrocities and portraying violent retribution as a holy or divinely ordained duty, supposedly rewarded by divine favour.

Thadou organisations have long raised concerns about radicalisation across political, social and certain religious settings associated with the so-called Kukis. These concerns date back to the 1980s, when the Thadou National Council (now known as Thadou Inpi Manipur) warned against anti-Thadou campaigns and demands for the inclusion of “Any Kuki Tribes” (AKT) in Manipur’s Scheduled Tribes List—a demand ultimately realised in 2003 due to political considerations. In its press release dated 23 August 2025, titled “Condemns Continued Persecution of Thadou Tribal Christian Community by Kuki Groups,” Thadou Inpi Manipur (TIM) stated:

“A careful analysis of the modus operandi and trends of deep-rooted and growing Kuki radicalism reveals that it is identical to jihadist-influenced terrorism in some parts of the world. The nation must address this threat with a firm political will to restore peace and stability to the region.”

The book Manipur in Peril: The Danger of Kuki Supremacism and Radicalism examines these concerns in greater detail.

The comparison with Hamas’s influence in Gaza raises a broader question about how an armed movement can extend its influence beyond its fighters through political mobilisation, identity-based narratives, religious messaging and pressure on dissenters. This comparison does not equate the conflicts or imply that all Palestinians support Hamas; it highlights how armed movements can influence civilian life and constrain dissent.

Churches and religious leaders have a responsibility to unequivocally condemn atrocities, reject revenge and defend every innocent person, regardless of ethnicity. For years, annual Kuki Black Day commemorations on 13 September and, more recently, Kuki Separation Day on 3 June have, in my view, been used to promote a Kuki-supremacist agenda, cultivate hatred and invoke divine or communal punishment against another community. Such messaging risks perpetuating Kuki indoctrination, radicalism and hostility, potentially embedding these attitudes across generations.

Genuine Christian witness demands truth, repentance, justice and forgiveness—not the sanctification of violence and brutality. Christianity cannot credibly be invoked to justify hatred, ethnic domination or violence against innocent civilians. I am not necessarily opposed to commemorating 13 September; I oppose how it has been commemorated.

Suspension of Operations Cannot Mean Suspension of the Constitution and the Law

The Suspension of Operations (SoO) framework was intended to facilitate a political process and regulate armed groups. It was never a licence to intimidate civilians, collect illegal taxes, interfere in village affairs or operate as a parallel authority.

Serious allegations concerning SoO-linked groups—including extortion, threats, interference in civilian affairs and the enforcement of political demands—must be addressed urgently. The government must verify the location and status of camps, enforce ground rules, prosecute offences and, most importantly, disarm all armed militants. If the SoO or any ceasefire agreement is being exploited to shield armed actors from accountability, it must be rigorously enforced, fundamentally reviewed or terminated.

A government cannot credibly claim to uphold constitutional rule while civilians live under the shadow of armed groups. Nor can peace be measured simply by whether an agreement remains on paper. An agreement that fails to protect ordinary people is not peace; it is a system in need of urgent correction.

Political patronage, electoral interference and selective law enforcement also require scrutiny. No armed organisation should be permitted to dictate how citizens vote, whom they support or how they identify themselves. Elected representatives must answer to the Constitution and the people—not to militant pressure.

The government must demonstrate that the law applies equally to everyone. Agreements with armed organisations cannot supersede citizens’ rights, and political negotiations cannot be allowed to become a substitute for criminal accountability.

The State Must Choose: Constitution or Gun

Manipur cannot be governed by fear, ethnic supremacy or the gun. The Union and Manipur governments must enforce the law consistently and ensure that no political agreement shields criminal conduct. Religious institutions, civil society and community leaders must reject dehumanisation and make clear that no grievance can legitimise murder.

From Herod’s platter to the propaganda of modern terrorist organisations, the display of severed human heads as trophies and other forms of extreme brutality have been used to terrorise, humiliate and dominate. Manipur must not allow such cruelty to become normalised under the banner of ethnic identity, religious conviction or political struggle.

The dead cannot be brought back. But the living can still be protected—if the government acts, the law is enforced and society refuses to excuse barbarity. Justice must prevail over vengeance, citizenship over ethnic domination, and the Constitution over the gun.

The writer, Jalun Haokip (MSW), is a Melbourne-based native of Manipur with professional experience in social work across mainstream and Indigenous Australian communities. He currently works as a family violence practitioner within the Victorian Government in Melbourne.