If negotiations were possible, why are six Nagas still missing ?
|
Naorem Mohen
The ongoing hostage crisis in Manipur has raised troubling questions that extend far beyond ethnic politics. Reports suggest that efforts were made to explore a humanitarian resolution involving the 14 Kuki hostages, yet one critical obstacle remains unresolved—the fate of the six missing Naga civilians.
As families continue to wait for answers and communities demand accoun- tability, a fundamental question has emerged: if negotiations and communication channels were possible, why do the where-abouts of the six missing Nagas remain unknown ?
The answer to that question may hold the key not only to resolving the present crisis but also to rebuilding trust between communities fractured by conflict.
Besides, the ongoing efforts to resolve the hostage crisis involving 6 Naga and 14 Kuki civilians have exposed a fundamental ques- tion about justice, reciprocity, and humanitarian responsibility in Manipur.
What is known is that the Naga civil society leaders reportedly made efforts to facilitate a peaceful resolution. However, these efforts have not produced a final breakthrough because one critical issue remains unresolved: the fate and whereabouts of the six missing Nagas.
This distinction is important. Many Naga organi- zations and community members are asking why there should be a one-way humanitarian gesture when six Naga civilians remain in captivity and their condition remains unknown.
The demand is not complicated. Families want confirmation that the six missing Nagas are safe. Communities want answers. Until those answers emerge, public anger and distrust are unlikely to disappear.
The resulting protests in Naga areas are not occurring in a vacuum. They are rooted in the belief that humanitarian concerns must apply equally to all communities.
If innocent Kuki civilians deserve protection and safe return, then innocent Naga civilians deserve exactly the same concern.
The issue has become even more complicated because influential Kuki civil society organizations like Kuki Inpi Manipur (KIM) have publicly stated that they have no knowledge of the whereabouts of the six missing Nagas. If that claim is true, it raises troubling questions.
The disappearance of six civilians in conflict-affected areas is not a minor incident. It is one of the most serious unresolved cases arising from the ethnic conflict.
Therefore, when Kuki CSO confidently state that they know nothing about what happened, many people find that explanation difficult to reconcile with the influence these organizations are generally under- stood to possess within Kuki-dominated areas.
However, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether enough has been done to determine the fate of the missing Nagas. The credibility of civil society organizations depends not only on representing their own communities but also on demonstrating concern for innocent lives regardless of ethnicity. Silence or inaction in a case of this magnitude inevitably creates doubts and deepens mistrust.
Meanwhile, the Kuki CSOs have aggressively pushed a victim narrative, organizing rallies and appeals focused solely on their 14 hostages. This ignores the sequence : Naga hostages taken first in retaliation to the Thadou Church leaders' killing. Refusing (or failing) to close the loop on the six missing men sustains outrage and justifies further mobilization, but it prolongs civilian suffering on both sides.
Unlike more cohesive Naga apex bodies like the UNC, which responded to public pressure, Kuki coordination appears weaker or more resistant to compromise. The Hmar and Zomi have distanced themselves from the current Naga Kuki conflict. This inability to deliver verifiable action undermines their credibility as representatives capable of de-escalation.
Against this backdrop, the Government of Mani-pur's decision to hand the case over to the NIA appears understandable.
The transfer suggests that authorities view the disappearance as more than a routine missing-person case. It indicates concern that organized actors or larger security issues may be involved. Whether the investigation ultimately confirms such suspicions remains to be seen, but the involvement of the NIA reflects the seriousness with which the matter is now being treated.
At its core, this is not about politics. It is about six missing human beings. It is about families waiting for answers. It is about communities demanding equal treatment.
And it is about a principle that should guide every peace effort in Manipur: humanitarian gestures cannot be one-way.
A sustainable solution requires reciprocity, trust, and transparency. Attempts to secure the release of the 14 Kuki hostages deserve support. But lasting progress will remain difficult as long as the fate of the six missing Nagas remains unknown. The road to peace cannot be built on selective compassion.
The first step toward restoring trust is simple: establish the truth about the six missing Nagas and ensure that every effort is made to bring them home safely.
Now, a question increasingly being asked is why Kuki civil society organizations have not been able to facilitate the release or safe return of the six Nagas when efforts were reportedly underway from the Naga side to resolve the issue involving the 14 Kuki hostages.
If Kuki CSOs possess significant influence within Kuki-dominated areas and are recognized as important stakeholders in community affairs, many people find it difficult to understand why they have been unable to provide clarity on the whereabouts of the six Nagas men or create conditions for a humanitarian resolution.
If they genuinely have no information, that itself raises serious concerns about who controls events on the ground. If they do have influence, then the public naturally expects them to use that influence to help secure the safe return of innocent civilians.
Until the fate of the six Nagas is established, many Nagas will continue to question why a reciprocal humanitarian gesture has not materialized despite reported willingness from the Naga side to move toward a peaceful resolution.
Every Kuki CSOs and so called Human Rights organizations must confront an uncomfortable question: with the influence they claim within their communities, why have they been unable to provide credible information or facilitate the safe return of the six missing Naga civilians ? Whether due to lack of control, denial, or strategic reluctance, this inability has deepened distrust and undermined their own appeals for compassion.
True peace cannot be built on one-way gestures or selective victimhood. Families on both sides deserve answers, and innocent lives — Naga and Kuki alike — deserve equal concern. Until the fate of the six missing Nagas is transparently established and humanitarian principles are applied without ethnic bias, cycles of mistrust and retaliation will persist.
Selective compassion is not compassion — it is division disguised as humanity.
The writer is Editor Signpost News
The ongoing hostage crisis in Manipur has raised troubling questions that extend far beyond ethnic politics. Reports suggest that efforts were made to explore a humanitarian resolution involving the 14 Kuki hostages, yet one critical obstacle remains unresolved—the fate of the six missing Naga civilians.
As families continue to wait for answers and communities demand accoun- tability, a fundamental question has emerged: if negotiations and communication channels were possible, why do the where-abouts of the six missing Nagas remain unknown ?
The answer to that question may hold the key not only to resolving the present crisis but also to rebuilding trust between communities fractured by conflict.
Besides, the ongoing efforts to resolve the hostage crisis involving 6 Naga and 14 Kuki civilians have exposed a fundamental ques- tion about justice, reciprocity, and humanitarian responsibility in Manipur.
What is known is that the Naga civil society leaders reportedly made efforts to facilitate a peaceful resolution. However, these efforts have not produced a final breakthrough because one critical issue remains unresolved: the fate and whereabouts of the six missing Nagas.
This distinction is important. Many Naga organi- zations and community members are asking why there should be a one-way humanitarian gesture when six Naga civilians remain in captivity and their condition remains unknown.
The demand is not complicated. Families want confirmation that the six missing Nagas are safe. Communities want answers. Until those answers emerge, public anger and distrust are unlikely to disappear.
The resulting protests in Naga areas are not occurring in a vacuum. They are rooted in the belief that humanitarian concerns must apply equally to all communities.
If innocent Kuki civilians deserve protection and safe return, then innocent Naga civilians deserve exactly the same concern.
The issue has become even more complicated because influential Kuki civil society organizations like Kuki Inpi Manipur (KIM) have publicly stated that they have no knowledge of the whereabouts of the six missing Nagas. If that claim is true, it raises troubling questions.
The disappearance of six civilians in conflict-affected areas is not a minor incident. It is one of the most serious unresolved cases arising from the ethnic conflict.
Therefore, when Kuki CSO confidently state that they know nothing about what happened, many people find that explanation difficult to reconcile with the influence these organizations are generally under- stood to possess within Kuki-dominated areas.
However, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether enough has been done to determine the fate of the missing Nagas. The credibility of civil society organizations depends not only on representing their own communities but also on demonstrating concern for innocent lives regardless of ethnicity. Silence or inaction in a case of this magnitude inevitably creates doubts and deepens mistrust.
Meanwhile, the Kuki CSOs have aggressively pushed a victim narrative, organizing rallies and appeals focused solely on their 14 hostages. This ignores the sequence : Naga hostages taken first in retaliation to the Thadou Church leaders' killing. Refusing (or failing) to close the loop on the six missing men sustains outrage and justifies further mobilization, but it prolongs civilian suffering on both sides.
Unlike more cohesive Naga apex bodies like the UNC, which responded to public pressure, Kuki coordination appears weaker or more resistant to compromise. The Hmar and Zomi have distanced themselves from the current Naga Kuki conflict. This inability to deliver verifiable action undermines their credibility as representatives capable of de-escalation.
Against this backdrop, the Government of Mani-pur's decision to hand the case over to the NIA appears understandable.
The transfer suggests that authorities view the disappearance as more than a routine missing-person case. It indicates concern that organized actors or larger security issues may be involved. Whether the investigation ultimately confirms such suspicions remains to be seen, but the involvement of the NIA reflects the seriousness with which the matter is now being treated.
At its core, this is not about politics. It is about six missing human beings. It is about families waiting for answers. It is about communities demanding equal treatment.
And it is about a principle that should guide every peace effort in Manipur: humanitarian gestures cannot be one-way.
A sustainable solution requires reciprocity, trust, and transparency. Attempts to secure the release of the 14 Kuki hostages deserve support. But lasting progress will remain difficult as long as the fate of the six missing Nagas remains unknown. The road to peace cannot be built on selective compassion.
The first step toward restoring trust is simple: establish the truth about the six missing Nagas and ensure that every effort is made to bring them home safely.
Now, a question increasingly being asked is why Kuki civil society organizations have not been able to facilitate the release or safe return of the six Nagas when efforts were reportedly underway from the Naga side to resolve the issue involving the 14 Kuki hostages.
If Kuki CSOs possess significant influence within Kuki-dominated areas and are recognized as important stakeholders in community affairs, many people find it difficult to understand why they have been unable to provide clarity on the whereabouts of the six Nagas men or create conditions for a humanitarian resolution.
If they genuinely have no information, that itself raises serious concerns about who controls events on the ground. If they do have influence, then the public naturally expects them to use that influence to help secure the safe return of innocent civilians.
Until the fate of the six Nagas is established, many Nagas will continue to question why a reciprocal humanitarian gesture has not materialized despite reported willingness from the Naga side to move toward a peaceful resolution.
Every Kuki CSOs and so called Human Rights organizations must confront an uncomfortable question: with the influence they claim within their communities, why have they been unable to provide credible information or facilitate the safe return of the six missing Naga civilians ? Whether due to lack of control, denial, or strategic reluctance, this inability has deepened distrust and undermined their own appeals for compassion.
True peace cannot be built on one-way gestures or selective victimhood. Families on both sides deserve answers, and innocent lives — Naga and Kuki alike — deserve equal concern. Until the fate of the six missing Nagas is transparently established and humanitarian principles are applied without ethnic bias, cycles of mistrust and retaliation will persist.
Selective compassion is not compassion — it is division disguised as humanity.
The writer is Editor Signpost News