The Gamnomphai (Saiton-Nganukon) Blast: A Strategic Gambit to Replace Neutrality with Partisan Rule

The ethnic cauldron of Manipur continues to boil, now well, into its third year since the violence erupted on May 3, 2023. Over 200 lives lost, families shattered, villages razed—yet the most insidious weapon remains not the gun or the IED, but the lie, and the strategic calculus that deploys it. The latest chapter in this tragic saga unfolded in the early hours of January 5, 2026. Multiple IED blasts ripped through the Gamnomphai (Saiton-Nganukon) area of Churachanpur district, a sensitive fringe zone. While two meitei civilians suffered injuries, the most significant damage was not physical but political: a calculated strike against the very idea of neutral security, designed to manufacture a pretext for the return of partisan, state-sanctioned force.

A Facade of Neutrality, A History of Bias

Since February 2025, Manipur has been under President's Rule, a direct administration from New Delhi instituted after the Supreme Court noted an "absolute breakdown of law and order" and allegations of state collusion with perpetrators. This move temporarily sidelined the government of Chief Minister N. Biren Singh, whose administration was widely documented as exhibiting a "pro-Meitei bias." His government allegedly provided political patronage to Meitei vigilante groups such as the Arambai Tenggol and Meitei Leepun, which have been accused of looting state armories and orchestrating attacks on Kuki-Zo communities.

This is the critical backdrop. The central security forces—the Assam Rifles, CRPF, and others—while imperfect, represent the principle of neutral intervention in this conflict. They are the barrier standing between communities and total war. For elements invested in a majoritarian project, these forces are an obstacle. Their neutrality is their offense.

The Gambit: Discredit, Demand, Replace

The Gamnomphai blast bears the hallmark signature of a provocation designed not for territorial gain, but for narrative and political leverage. The target was an abandoned Meitei house in a heavily secured buffer zone. The result was limited casualties but maximum propaganda value. The immediate, orchestrated outcry from Meitei hardliners follows a predictable script: it brands the central forces as impotent, incapable of protecting lives, and implicitly complicit for failing to stop an incursion that defies logistical sense.

The unstated but glaringly obvious demand that follows this narrative is for the "ineffective" central forces to be sidelined. The intended replacement? The very state police apparatus whose partisan conduct helped fuel this crisis. There is a documented precedent for this desire. During the conflict, Kuki civil society groups strongly condemned the deployment of Manipur Police commandos, viewing them as an instrument for indiscriminate operations against their community. Conversely, Meitei groups have at times displayed mistrust toward the central security forces , accusing them of siding with the Kukis. This mutual suspicion of neutral forces benefits those who seek a monopoly of violence.

The goal is to revert to a security paradigm where the line between state police and radical Meitei militias is deliberately blurred. Groups like the Arambai Tenggol have operated with such impunity that they have attacked and abducted their own state police officers. They occupy properties of displaced Kuki-Zo families in open violation of Supreme Court orders, with signage boldly marking their takeover. They can bring a capital city to a standstill during President's Rule, digging up roads to the airport and issuing threats with no consequence, a stark demonstration of power that exists beyond the law. The fantasy of certain radicals is a "popular government" that would not just tolerate this force, but actively deploy it as the vanguard of the state. Replacing central forces with state police commandos is the first legal step toward legitimizing this militia rule.

The Ultimate Double Standard: Law for Thee, Militia for Me

This brings us to the foundational double standard that this blast seeks to cement. When violence occurs in a Kuki-Zo area, it is often framed through a lens of criminality or militancy. When it occurs in a Meitei area, especially in a sensitive zone, it is instantly weaponized as an act of "terror" and a failure of the Indian state's security apparatus. The demand is never for justice alone; it is for a fundamental shift in security power toward entities with a proven record of bias.

The people are exhausted by violence, but they are also hostages to a narrative war where truth is the first casualty. The Gamnomphai blast is not merely an attack on a building; it is a sophisticated attempt to bomb the fragile bridge of neutral governance. It aims to shatter the principle that security must be impartial, and to replace it with the old, bloody paradigm where the uniform of the state serves the interests of one community over another.

Accepting the narrative manufactured around this blast is to surrender to that paradigm. True peace will not come from appeasing those who seek to replace the guardrails of neutrality with the weapons of partisan policing. It will come only when the rule of law applies equally, when militias on all sides are disarmed, and when the security of every citizen is vested in forces accountable to the Constitution, not to ethnic chauvinism. The investigation into January 5th must see past the smoke and mirrors, for what is really under attack is the very possibility of peace across the buffer zones.