When the State falls silent: Two civil society reports on violence in Manipur
|
YENNING
Two substantial advocacy reports, published within a month, mark a significant development in Manipur’s contemporary intellectual and civic history. As the State continues to grapple with the violence that began on 3 May 2023, civil society organisations are producing carefully researched documentary records of the violence. These reports seek to record suffering, preserve evidence and encourage institutional accountability.
The first report, The Tronglaobi Attack of 7 April, 2026: A Call for Civilian Protection, was published in Imphal in May 2026 by Concerned Citizens and Organisations, convened by Langdai Khongsunaha, a civil society forum. Running to forty-nine pages, it examines the Tronglaobi bombing. Also, it incorporates two earlier case studies: the Kwakta Massacre (4 August 2023) and the coordinated attacks of 28–31 May 2023.
The second report, Kidnapping, Butchering, and Controversial ‘Discovery’ of Six Innocent Liangmai Naga Civilians, appeared in June 2026. Prepared by Resurgent Manipur, a public charitable trust dedicated to civic action, research, and institutional development, the report runs to about 90 pages. It investigates the abduction and killing of six Liangmai Naga civilians while examining broader issues relating to land, governance, the Suspension of Operations (SoO) framework and the protection of indigenous communities.
These are not ordinary publications. Nor are they political pamphlets in the conventional sense. They occupy an important space between investigative journalism, public policy analysis, historical documentation and human rights advocacy. Their publication reflects the growing willingness of Manipuri civil society to document conflict independently when official responses are perceived to be inadequate.
Why These Reports Were Written
The most striking feature shared by both reports is the clarity with which they explain their purpose.
The Tronglaobi report begins with remarkable candour, “We did not want to write this report. We wanted the Government to do its job. That did not happen.” The Preface continues, “Government inaction compelled us to do this work.” It then clarifies its status, “This is an advocacy document. It is not a judicial inquiry. It is not a Government-authorised investigation.”
The authors claim no institutional neutrality. Instead, they identify as advocates for civilian protection while inviting the Government to challenge their findings with stronger evidence.
Such transparency strengthens rather than weakens the report’s credibility.
The Resurgent Manipur report adopts a different voice. It is calmer, more legalistic and more restrained. Its Foreword explains that the report was prepared “to document serious violations affecting indigenous communities and to advocate for justice, accountability, and the rule of law.” It also acknowledges its limits : “This report does not claim to provide a final judicial determination of responsibility.” Instead, it seeks “to present the available evidence, document the concerns of affected communities, identify areas requiring further investigation, and advocate for an impartial, transparent, and credible process of accountability.”
The contrast between the two reports is instructive. One speaks in the language of civic advocacy, while the other adopts the language of legal documentation. Yet both distinguish careful documentation from judicial adjudication. In an environment where rumours often spread faster than verified facts, that distinction is both responsible and necessary.
Beyond Advocacy: Documentation and Analysis
Although both publications are advocacy reports, they differ considerably in structure.
The Tronglaobi report is organised around a central analytical argument. It seeks to demonstrate that infiltration attacks on civilians are not isolated incidents but part of a recurring tactical pattern. Beginning with colonial records dating from 1878 to 1914, the authors compare historical raids with attacks in 2023 and 2026. They argue that the methods have remained broadly similar. The weapons have evolved from traditional arms to improvised explosive devices and locally assembled rocket launchers. The report also develops a conceptual model, described as the “provocation-retaliation cycle,” through which repeated violence perpetuates insecurity and fuels further retaliation.
The report supports this argument with substantial evidence. On 7 April 2026, in the early hours of the morning, a timer-activated IED killed two children at Tronglaobi Awang Leikai in Bishnupur district. The victims were Oinam Tomthin, aged five, and Oinam Laishana, aged five months. Their mother was severely injured. A Pompi device and a second unexploded projectile were recovered at the scene.
The authors build this attribution through converging evidence: repeated attacks on Tronglaobi, the Pompi device, documented militant advocacy, and the absence of other plausible attributors. They also acknowledge an important limitation: “We do not claim definitive forensic proof... We invite the Government to prove us wrong with contrary evidence.”
Three structural drivers of continuing violence are also examined: illegal opium cultivation, forest encroachment, and immigration from Myanmar. The report concludes with a detailed assessment of Government responses and twelve specific advocacy demands focused on investigation, civilian protection, law enforcement and institutional reform.
The report’s attempt to construct an explanatory framework, rather than merely recount events, is intellectually significant. Advocacy literature in Manipur has rarely pursued this level of analytical ambition.
The Resurgent Manipur report proceeds differently. Instead of building around a single conceptual argument, it presents a comprehensive documentary record. Its chapters examine the hostage crisis, land disputes around Konsakhul, the historical land lease agreement of 1920, settlement expansion, the abduction and deaths of the six Liangmai Naga civilians, questions surrounding responsibility, public concerns regarding security responses and a series of advocacy recommendations.
The facts are grave. Between 13 May and 10 June 2026, six Liangmai Naga civilians from the Koubru range were abducted and held for approximately 27 days. The victims were Pr. Kenpibou (Pastor), Rev. Manu (Pastor), Phenrongwibo Thuimai, Dilip Thuimai, Kaliwangbou Abonmai and Ch Phenrilung (Church Deacon). None belonged to an armed organisation. Despite search operations and negotiations, none of the six was rescued alive.
Their dismembered bodies were recovered on 10 June 2026, reportedly showing signs of severe violence. The report documents the abduction as having occurred near the Leimakhong military installation and records that the KNF(P), an organisation associated with the SoO framework, was publicly identified by Deputy Chief Minister Losii Dikho as allegedly responsible for taking custody of the victims.
A notable strength of the report is its careful handling of evidence. Rather than presenting every statement as a fact, the authors distinguish between verified information, witness testimony, official records, historical documents, public statements and allegations requiring further investigation. They also acknowledge the constraints imposed by restricted access, continuing insecurity and the absence of forensic powers. Information is said to have been cross-checked wherever possible through evidentiary triangulation.
Strengths and Limitations
Both publications make extensive use of documentary material. The Tronglaobi report contains tables, photographs, maps, timelines and comparative analyses. The Resurgent Manipur report similarly incorporates historical agreements, administrative records, satellite imagery, organisational statements and legal documents, including the Land Lease Agreement of 19 October 1920, which established the terms of a Vaiphei settlement within the traditional boundary of Konsakhul. Considerable effort has gone into collecting, organising and presenting the evidence.
This documentation is their greatest contribution. Much of Manipur’s recent history has been documented through newspapers, television, social media and official press releases. Such material is valuable, but it is often fragmented and quickly forgotten. These two reports organise evidence into coherent narratives that future researchers can examine, verify, challenge or build upon.
The reports preserve voices that might otherwise disappear from the historical record. Witnesses, victims’ families, village authorities, community organisations and local institutions all find a place in these documents. In conflicts, where memory is often contested, documentation becomes an essential form of historical preservation.
Another strength is their policy orientation. Neither report merely describes tragedy; both conclude with concrete recommendations to Governments and public institutions. Their proposals range from criminal investigation and forensic examination to improved civilian protection, institutional accountability, administrative reform and conflict prevention. This practical orientation distinguishes them from publications that merely catalogue grievances.
Their advocacy character nevertheless imposes limitations. Both rely on community documentation, witness testimony, media reports and publicly available records. They lack subpoena powers, classified intelligence, or the forensic authority of official agencies.
Consequently, some findings remain provisional. Both reports acknowledge these constraints, enabling readers to distinguish between documented evidence, analysis and unresolved questions.
An Important Documentary Legacy
The broader significance of these publications lies beyond the incidents they document. They reveal a changing relationship between citizens and public institutions. Civil society is performing functions traditionally associated with commissions of inquiry, fact-finding missions and public investigations.
Whether this trend should continue is another matter. Ideally, independent, timely and credible official investigations should remain the primary means of establishing facts. Civil society documentation cannot replace judicial processes. However, where public confidence has weakened, such reports play a vital supplementary role by preserving evidence and ensuring incidents are not forgotten.
Future historians of Manipur will certainly consult these publications. Researchers studying conflict, governance, law, public administration and human rights will also find them valuable. They represent primary documentary material produced during an unfolding crisis rather than retrospective historical interpretation.
The most powerful sentence appears near the conclusion of the Resurgent Manipur report: “Justice requires truth, accountability requires evidence, and lasting peace requires institutions that are capable of protecting all citizens equally under the law.” That sentence also captures the larger significance of both reports.
Ultimately, the enduring importance of these publications lies not in establishing every disputed fact. That task remains the responsibility of competent investigative and judicial authorities. Their value lies in preserving evidence, testimony and public memory while those processes unfold.
In doing so, they contribute significantly to Manipur’s contemporary documentary history and provide a foundation for future scholarship, public debate and institutional accountability.
Two substantial advocacy reports, published within a month, mark a significant development in Manipur’s contemporary intellectual and civic history. As the State continues to grapple with the violence that began on 3 May 2023, civil society organisations are producing carefully researched documentary records of the violence. These reports seek to record suffering, preserve evidence and encourage institutional accountability.
The first report, The Tronglaobi Attack of 7 April, 2026: A Call for Civilian Protection, was published in Imphal in May 2026 by Concerned Citizens and Organisations, convened by Langdai Khongsunaha, a civil society forum. Running to forty-nine pages, it examines the Tronglaobi bombing. Also, it incorporates two earlier case studies: the Kwakta Massacre (4 August 2023) and the coordinated attacks of 28–31 May 2023.
The second report, Kidnapping, Butchering, and Controversial ‘Discovery’ of Six Innocent Liangmai Naga Civilians, appeared in June 2026. Prepared by Resurgent Manipur, a public charitable trust dedicated to civic action, research, and institutional development, the report runs to about 90 pages. It investigates the abduction and killing of six Liangmai Naga civilians while examining broader issues relating to land, governance, the Suspension of Operations (SoO) framework and the protection of indigenous communities.
These are not ordinary publications. Nor are they political pamphlets in the conventional sense. They occupy an important space between investigative journalism, public policy analysis, historical documentation and human rights advocacy. Their publication reflects the growing willingness of Manipuri civil society to document conflict independently when official responses are perceived to be inadequate.
Why These Reports Were Written
The most striking feature shared by both reports is the clarity with which they explain their purpose.
The Tronglaobi report begins with remarkable candour, “We did not want to write this report. We wanted the Government to do its job. That did not happen.” The Preface continues, “Government inaction compelled us to do this work.” It then clarifies its status, “This is an advocacy document. It is not a judicial inquiry. It is not a Government-authorised investigation.”
The authors claim no institutional neutrality. Instead, they identify as advocates for civilian protection while inviting the Government to challenge their findings with stronger evidence.
Such transparency strengthens rather than weakens the report’s credibility.
The Resurgent Manipur report adopts a different voice. It is calmer, more legalistic and more restrained. Its Foreword explains that the report was prepared “to document serious violations affecting indigenous communities and to advocate for justice, accountability, and the rule of law.” It also acknowledges its limits : “This report does not claim to provide a final judicial determination of responsibility.” Instead, it seeks “to present the available evidence, document the concerns of affected communities, identify areas requiring further investigation, and advocate for an impartial, transparent, and credible process of accountability.”
The contrast between the two reports is instructive. One speaks in the language of civic advocacy, while the other adopts the language of legal documentation. Yet both distinguish careful documentation from judicial adjudication. In an environment where rumours often spread faster than verified facts, that distinction is both responsible and necessary.
Beyond Advocacy: Documentation and Analysis
Although both publications are advocacy reports, they differ considerably in structure.
The Tronglaobi report is organised around a central analytical argument. It seeks to demonstrate that infiltration attacks on civilians are not isolated incidents but part of a recurring tactical pattern. Beginning with colonial records dating from 1878 to 1914, the authors compare historical raids with attacks in 2023 and 2026. They argue that the methods have remained broadly similar. The weapons have evolved from traditional arms to improvised explosive devices and locally assembled rocket launchers. The report also develops a conceptual model, described as the “provocation-retaliation cycle,” through which repeated violence perpetuates insecurity and fuels further retaliation.
The report supports this argument with substantial evidence. On 7 April 2026, in the early hours of the morning, a timer-activated IED killed two children at Tronglaobi Awang Leikai in Bishnupur district. The victims were Oinam Tomthin, aged five, and Oinam Laishana, aged five months. Their mother was severely injured. A Pompi device and a second unexploded projectile were recovered at the scene.
The authors build this attribution through converging evidence: repeated attacks on Tronglaobi, the Pompi device, documented militant advocacy, and the absence of other plausible attributors. They also acknowledge an important limitation: “We do not claim definitive forensic proof... We invite the Government to prove us wrong with contrary evidence.”
Three structural drivers of continuing violence are also examined: illegal opium cultivation, forest encroachment, and immigration from Myanmar. The report concludes with a detailed assessment of Government responses and twelve specific advocacy demands focused on investigation, civilian protection, law enforcement and institutional reform.
The report’s attempt to construct an explanatory framework, rather than merely recount events, is intellectually significant. Advocacy literature in Manipur has rarely pursued this level of analytical ambition.
The Resurgent Manipur report proceeds differently. Instead of building around a single conceptual argument, it presents a comprehensive documentary record. Its chapters examine the hostage crisis, land disputes around Konsakhul, the historical land lease agreement of 1920, settlement expansion, the abduction and deaths of the six Liangmai Naga civilians, questions surrounding responsibility, public concerns regarding security responses and a series of advocacy recommendations.
The facts are grave. Between 13 May and 10 June 2026, six Liangmai Naga civilians from the Koubru range were abducted and held for approximately 27 days. The victims were Pr. Kenpibou (Pastor), Rev. Manu (Pastor), Phenrongwibo Thuimai, Dilip Thuimai, Kaliwangbou Abonmai and Ch Phenrilung (Church Deacon). None belonged to an armed organisation. Despite search operations and negotiations, none of the six was rescued alive.
Their dismembered bodies were recovered on 10 June 2026, reportedly showing signs of severe violence. The report documents the abduction as having occurred near the Leimakhong military installation and records that the KNF(P), an organisation associated with the SoO framework, was publicly identified by Deputy Chief Minister Losii Dikho as allegedly responsible for taking custody of the victims.
A notable strength of the report is its careful handling of evidence. Rather than presenting every statement as a fact, the authors distinguish between verified information, witness testimony, official records, historical documents, public statements and allegations requiring further investigation. They also acknowledge the constraints imposed by restricted access, continuing insecurity and the absence of forensic powers. Information is said to have been cross-checked wherever possible through evidentiary triangulation.
Strengths and Limitations
Both publications make extensive use of documentary material. The Tronglaobi report contains tables, photographs, maps, timelines and comparative analyses. The Resurgent Manipur report similarly incorporates historical agreements, administrative records, satellite imagery, organisational statements and legal documents, including the Land Lease Agreement of 19 October 1920, which established the terms of a Vaiphei settlement within the traditional boundary of Konsakhul. Considerable effort has gone into collecting, organising and presenting the evidence.
This documentation is their greatest contribution. Much of Manipur’s recent history has been documented through newspapers, television, social media and official press releases. Such material is valuable, but it is often fragmented and quickly forgotten. These two reports organise evidence into coherent narratives that future researchers can examine, verify, challenge or build upon.
The reports preserve voices that might otherwise disappear from the historical record. Witnesses, victims’ families, village authorities, community organisations and local institutions all find a place in these documents. In conflicts, where memory is often contested, documentation becomes an essential form of historical preservation.
Another strength is their policy orientation. Neither report merely describes tragedy; both conclude with concrete recommendations to Governments and public institutions. Their proposals range from criminal investigation and forensic examination to improved civilian protection, institutional accountability, administrative reform and conflict prevention. This practical orientation distinguishes them from publications that merely catalogue grievances.
Their advocacy character nevertheless imposes limitations. Both rely on community documentation, witness testimony, media reports and publicly available records. They lack subpoena powers, classified intelligence, or the forensic authority of official agencies.
Consequently, some findings remain provisional. Both reports acknowledge these constraints, enabling readers to distinguish between documented evidence, analysis and unresolved questions.
An Important Documentary Legacy
The broader significance of these publications lies beyond the incidents they document. They reveal a changing relationship between citizens and public institutions. Civil society is performing functions traditionally associated with commissions of inquiry, fact-finding missions and public investigations.
Whether this trend should continue is another matter. Ideally, independent, timely and credible official investigations should remain the primary means of establishing facts. Civil society documentation cannot replace judicial processes. However, where public confidence has weakened, such reports play a vital supplementary role by preserving evidence and ensuring incidents are not forgotten.
Future historians of Manipur will certainly consult these publications. Researchers studying conflict, governance, law, public administration and human rights will also find them valuable. They represent primary documentary material produced during an unfolding crisis rather than retrospective historical interpretation.
The most powerful sentence appears near the conclusion of the Resurgent Manipur report: “Justice requires truth, accountability requires evidence, and lasting peace requires institutions that are capable of protecting all citizens equally under the law.” That sentence also captures the larger significance of both reports.
Ultimately, the enduring importance of these publications lies not in establishing every disputed fact. That task remains the responsibility of competent investigative and judicial authorities. Their value lies in preserving evidence, testimony and public memory while those processes unfold.
In doing so, they contribute significantly to Manipur’s contemporary documentary history and provide a foundation for future scholarship, public debate and institutional accountability.