When the State fails to protect : Arambai Tenggol and the law of defence
|
Dr Atom Sunil Singh
When people believe the State has failed to protect them, community-defence formations emerge. Arambai Tenggol members should not be judged by association alone; their actions must be examined through evidence, necessity, proportionality and Manipur’s security vacuum.
The latest NIA-linked arrests in Manipur have brought the Arambai Teng-gol question back to public debate. Reports say ten accused persons were arrested in coordinated operations by the NIA, Manipur Police and CRPF in connection with serious cases arising from the conflict. Arambai Tenggol chief Korounganba Khuman reportedly stated that three of those taken into custody were volunteers of the organisation. The arrests follow earlier cases, including the CBI arrest of Ashem Kanan Singh in June 2025 and other arrests of persons described as Arambai Teng-gol members.
These developments cannot be understood through ordinary criminal vocabulary alone. Since 3 May 2023, Manipur has lived through fear, displacement, ethnic separation, armed attacks and a collapse of public trust. Many citizens believed that the institutions meant to protect them were absent, slow or ineffective when protection was most needed. In that atmosphere, Arambai Tenggol was seen by many not as an ordinary organisation, but as a de facto community-protection force that stepped into a security vacuum.
This context matters. Arambai Tenggol members did not emerge in normal times. They emerged when many civilians felt exposed and abandoned. To many in Manipur, they were not men acting against society, but men acting because society felt unprotected. They took on a role that many believed should have been performed by formal security forces: guarding localities, responding to fear and standing between civilians and danger. Any serious legal discussion must begin from this reality.
India’s legal and moral traditions recognise sacrifice. Gallantry awards honour those who risk their lives in defence of the Nation and its people. But such honour is reserved for acts that are lawful, necessary and directed towards protection. BNSS does not create awards; it provides criminal procedure safeguards. The more relevant legal framework is Article 51A(c), Article 51A(d) and Article 51A(i) of the Constitution, read with Sections 34 to 38 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita on private defence.
This distinction is important for Manipur. The law should not ask only whether force was used. It must ask why force was used, against whom, under what threat, with what means, and whether State protection was realistically available. A person who stood guard during fear cannot be judged in the same way as a person who acted for private gain. A person who acted to prevent attack cannot be judged in the same way as a person who planned violence after the threat had passed.
India’s own history shows that the meaning of taking up arms depends on context. Members of the Indian National Army were treated by the colonial State as offenders, but many Indians remembered them as patriots. The analogy is not exact, because Manipur today is part of the Indian Constitutional order. Yet the moral lesson remains relevant: law should not look only at the weapon. It must also look at purpose, compulsion, sacrifice, failure of protection and the community’s perception of threat.
This does not mean that every act committed in the name of protection is automatically lawful. No organisation can claim formal immunity from criminal law. Victims and families deserve justice. Serious allegations must be examined. But no Arambai Tenggol member can be treated as guilty merely because he belonged to the organisation, supported it, guarded a locality or responded to insecurity. Criminal liability must be individual. Association is not guilt. Repu- tation is not proof.
The Constitution does not permit guilt by association. Article 21 protects life and personal liberty by requiring that any deprivation of liberty must follow a procedure established by law — a procedure that Courts have read to mean fair, just and non-arbitrary. In the Arambai Tenggol cases, this means that membership, sympathy or proximity to the organisation cannot substitute for individual evidence of unlawful conduct.
Article 22 requires that an arrested person be informed of the grounds of arrest, allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice, and produced before the nearest Magistrate within twenty-four hours, excluding travel time. Article 14 requires equality before law. These safeguards matter most when the accused belongs to a controversial organisation and public pressure demands punishment.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita underlines the same point. Section 35 makes arrest without warrant conditional on credible information, reasonable suspicion, necessity and recor- ded reasons. Section 47 requires communication of the grounds of arrest. Section 48 requires information about the arrest and place of detention to be given to a relative, friend or nominated person. Section 58 carries the twenty-four-hour safeguard, while Section 187 requires judicial scrutiny when investigation cannot be completed within that period. Arrest is a legal power, not a political signal.
This is where the law of defence becomes crucial. If an Arambai Tenggol member acted in immediate protection of life, property or community safety during a moment of institutional failure, that circumstance must be examined seriously. Courts must ask : Was there an immediate threat ? Was the response proportionate ? Was there a realistic chance to wait for State protection? Was the act defensive, retaliatory or planned? Action taken in a security vacuum cannot be judged as if normal state protection existed.
The correct legal position is neither blanket punishment nor blind immunity. If a person merely belonged to Arambai Tenggol, that cannot justify arrest. If he stood guard because people feared attack, that cannot be equated with criminality. If he acted in immediate defence, the law must examine that defence seriously. If he is accused of a grave offence, the State must prove not only the act but also the unlawful character of the act.
Equal justice is indispensable in Manipur. Every victim must count and every killing must be examined. But equal justice also means Arambai Tenggol members should not become symbols on whom the State demonstrates firmness. If they filled a security vacuum because people felt abandoned, that fact must matter in bail, remand, prosecution and trial. India will not strengthen justice by treating community defence as criminality by default. It will strengthen justice only by letting law see context, evidence and the duty to protect people.
Dr Atom Sunil Singh is the Registrar at Khong-nangthaba University and Faculty in the Department of Geography, Pravabati College, Imphal, Manipur. He can be contacted at [email protected].
When people believe the State has failed to protect them, community-defence formations emerge. Arambai Tenggol members should not be judged by association alone; their actions must be examined through evidence, necessity, proportionality and Manipur’s security vacuum.
The latest NIA-linked arrests in Manipur have brought the Arambai Teng-gol question back to public debate. Reports say ten accused persons were arrested in coordinated operations by the NIA, Manipur Police and CRPF in connection with serious cases arising from the conflict. Arambai Tenggol chief Korounganba Khuman reportedly stated that three of those taken into custody were volunteers of the organisation. The arrests follow earlier cases, including the CBI arrest of Ashem Kanan Singh in June 2025 and other arrests of persons described as Arambai Teng-gol members.
These developments cannot be understood through ordinary criminal vocabulary alone. Since 3 May 2023, Manipur has lived through fear, displacement, ethnic separation, armed attacks and a collapse of public trust. Many citizens believed that the institutions meant to protect them were absent, slow or ineffective when protection was most needed. In that atmosphere, Arambai Tenggol was seen by many not as an ordinary organisation, but as a de facto community-protection force that stepped into a security vacuum.
This context matters. Arambai Tenggol members did not emerge in normal times. They emerged when many civilians felt exposed and abandoned. To many in Manipur, they were not men acting against society, but men acting because society felt unprotected. They took on a role that many believed should have been performed by formal security forces: guarding localities, responding to fear and standing between civilians and danger. Any serious legal discussion must begin from this reality.
India’s legal and moral traditions recognise sacrifice. Gallantry awards honour those who risk their lives in defence of the Nation and its people. But such honour is reserved for acts that are lawful, necessary and directed towards protection. BNSS does not create awards; it provides criminal procedure safeguards. The more relevant legal framework is Article 51A(c), Article 51A(d) and Article 51A(i) of the Constitution, read with Sections 34 to 38 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita on private defence.
This distinction is important for Manipur. The law should not ask only whether force was used. It must ask why force was used, against whom, under what threat, with what means, and whether State protection was realistically available. A person who stood guard during fear cannot be judged in the same way as a person who acted for private gain. A person who acted to prevent attack cannot be judged in the same way as a person who planned violence after the threat had passed.
India’s own history shows that the meaning of taking up arms depends on context. Members of the Indian National Army were treated by the colonial State as offenders, but many Indians remembered them as patriots. The analogy is not exact, because Manipur today is part of the Indian Constitutional order. Yet the moral lesson remains relevant: law should not look only at the weapon. It must also look at purpose, compulsion, sacrifice, failure of protection and the community’s perception of threat.
This does not mean that every act committed in the name of protection is automatically lawful. No organisation can claim formal immunity from criminal law. Victims and families deserve justice. Serious allegations must be examined. But no Arambai Tenggol member can be treated as guilty merely because he belonged to the organisation, supported it, guarded a locality or responded to insecurity. Criminal liability must be individual. Association is not guilt. Repu- tation is not proof.
The Constitution does not permit guilt by association. Article 21 protects life and personal liberty by requiring that any deprivation of liberty must follow a procedure established by law — a procedure that Courts have read to mean fair, just and non-arbitrary. In the Arambai Tenggol cases, this means that membership, sympathy or proximity to the organisation cannot substitute for individual evidence of unlawful conduct.
Article 22 requires that an arrested person be informed of the grounds of arrest, allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice, and produced before the nearest Magistrate within twenty-four hours, excluding travel time. Article 14 requires equality before law. These safeguards matter most when the accused belongs to a controversial organisation and public pressure demands punishment.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita underlines the same point. Section 35 makes arrest without warrant conditional on credible information, reasonable suspicion, necessity and recor- ded reasons. Section 47 requires communication of the grounds of arrest. Section 48 requires information about the arrest and place of detention to be given to a relative, friend or nominated person. Section 58 carries the twenty-four-hour safeguard, while Section 187 requires judicial scrutiny when investigation cannot be completed within that period. Arrest is a legal power, not a political signal.
This is where the law of defence becomes crucial. If an Arambai Tenggol member acted in immediate protection of life, property or community safety during a moment of institutional failure, that circumstance must be examined seriously. Courts must ask : Was there an immediate threat ? Was the response proportionate ? Was there a realistic chance to wait for State protection? Was the act defensive, retaliatory or planned? Action taken in a security vacuum cannot be judged as if normal state protection existed.
The correct legal position is neither blanket punishment nor blind immunity. If a person merely belonged to Arambai Tenggol, that cannot justify arrest. If he stood guard because people feared attack, that cannot be equated with criminality. If he acted in immediate defence, the law must examine that defence seriously. If he is accused of a grave offence, the State must prove not only the act but also the unlawful character of the act.
Equal justice is indispensable in Manipur. Every victim must count and every killing must be examined. But equal justice also means Arambai Tenggol members should not become symbols on whom the State demonstrates firmness. If they filled a security vacuum because people felt abandoned, that fact must matter in bail, remand, prosecution and trial. India will not strengthen justice by treating community defence as criminality by default. It will strengthen justice only by letting law see context, evidence and the duty to protect people.
Dr Atom Sunil Singh is the Registrar at Khong-nangthaba University and Faculty in the Department of Geography, Pravabati College, Imphal, Manipur. He can be contacted at [email protected].