Kanto Sabal and the security questions Manipur cannot avoid
|
Naorem Mohen (Editor Signpost News)
Contd from previous issue
Sekmai MLA Heikham Dingo Singh also came out strongly and attributed the incident to what he described as laxity on the part of Army personnel. His statement added to the growing demand for an explanation of how the arson could occur in such a heavily guarded and sensitive area.
Congress Legislature Party Leader Keisham Meghachandra Singh was another senior political leader to respond. He questioned how houses could be burnt at Kanto Sabal despite the village being located close to the Army and Assam Rifles establishments at Leimakhong. He also asked why violence had resurfaced only hours after the Chief Minister had spoken of de-escalation and sought clear answers from both the Central and State Governments.
Later in the evening, at around 7.30, Inner Manipur MP Dr Angomcha Bimol Akoijam visited Kanto Sabal and inspected the affected area. Unlike the earlier reactions issued through social media, his intervention took place on the ground. Videos from the site showed him questioning security personnel and Manipur Police officials about how six houses could be burnt despite the presence of the Army and Central forces.
This is important because it shows the difference between political reaction and political presence. The first four responses placed the incident on record and raised serious questions. Dr Bimol Akoijam’s visit later that evening added a direct, physical dimension to the demand for accountability by taking those questions to the officials present at the site.
This was an important intervention because it shifted the discussion from anger to governance. The central issue is not merely that violence occurred. It is whether the institutions responsible for preventing violence acted with the planning, speed and neutrality required of them.
Local residents have made allegations that require an impartial and transparent investigation. Several villagers claimed that they were prevented from reaching their burning houses, that security vehicles blocked access and that force was used to disperse those attempting to move towards the area. Five civilians were also reported injured during the security action.
These allegations should neither be accepted automatically nor dismissed without inquiry. A credible investigation should establish the precise sequence of events. It should determine when the gathering began, who approved or monitored its route, when the first information about the fire was received, which officer held operational command and why the houses could not be protected.
One of the most painful stories to emerge from Kanto Sabal is that of for-mer India footballer Laiton- jam Sanathoi. Already displaced by the conflict, he reportedly watched helplessly as his house burned. Speaking to the media while holding photographs from his football career and a trophy recovered from the road, he questioned why he had allegedly been prevented from approaching his home despite repeatedly requesting permission.
His experience gives the incident a human meaning that institutional statements often fail to capture. His house was not an empty structure. It contained the record of a sporting career, the memories of a family and the remaining possibility of returning to normal life.
The same sense of devastation was shared by the other displaced families, whose houses and sacred places of worship were damaged in the fire. Residents reported seeing half-burnt tyres at the site, while videos circulating on social media appeared to show youths running with bottles containing petrol. These details may indicate that the arson was not entirely spontaneous and may have involved some degree of preparation.
That possibility makes the reported inaction of the security forces even more difficult to explain. If personnel were present in and around the area, did they notice the movement of inflammable materials, the burning tyres or the gathering of individuals carrying bottles filled with petrol? At what stage did they become aware that the situation was turning violent, and what preventive action was taken before the houses and temple were destroyed?
These are not questions driven by emotion alone. They concern the basic purpose of security deployment in a conflict-sensitive area. If warning signs were visible and the forces still failed to intervene in time, the public is entitled to ask whether the failure resulted from poor intelligence, delayed orders, operational confusion or a serious lapse in command.
The six houses had remained standing through more than three years of conflict. Their owners continued to live in relief camps with the belief that peace would one day allow them to return. That hope was badly damaged in a single afternoon.
The arrests announced by Chief Minister Yumnam Khemchand Singh are an important first step in the criminal investigation. Those directly responsible for the alleged arson must be identified, prosecuted and punished in accordance with the law. No democratic society can permit organised violence against civilians or their property without legal consequences. At the same time, it would be a serious mistake to treat the arrest of two individuals as a complete answer to the Kanto Sabal incident.
In connection with the case registered over setting fire to abandoned Meitei houses at Kanto Sabal in the Leimakhong area, joint teams of Manipur Police, the CRPF, the RAF and the Army arrested two persons. They were identified as Kammang Lhouvum, 65, son of late Vompao Lhou-vum, chief of Hengjang village and chairman of the Leimakhong Area Protection Committee, and Pagin Hangshing, 30, son of Lun-pao Hangshing, a resident of Khunkho Kuki village.
Criminal accountability addresses only one part of the problem. Institutional accountability is equally important. The public deserves to know who authorised the gathering, who was responsible for securing Kanto Sabal, what intelligence inputs were available, why the preventive arrangements failed and under whose operational command the security deployment functioned that day. These are not secondary issues. They lie at the centre of public confidence in the State.
The questions arising from Kanto Sabal should not be portrayed as an attack on the Army, the police or the civil administration. Democratic institutions protect their credibility through transparency, not silence. Respect for an institution does not require the public to ignore failure. It requires the institution to examine that failure, correct it and hold responsible officers accountable where necessary.
The incident also demands honest reflection from the political leadership. Public statements have value. Expressions of sympathy reassure affected families that their suffering has been noticed. Condemnation also places the position of a government or political leader on record. But none of these can replace visible leadership during a crisis.
Citizens expect elected representatives to visit affected areas, listen to grieving families, examine the condition on the ground and seek answers from officials. A physical visit cannot rebuild a burnt house, but it carries institutional meaning. It tells the victims that their suffering has not been reduced to a social media post.
History often remembers not only what leaders said during a tragedy, but what they did. People remember who reached the site, who stood beside displaced families and who confronted the responsible authorities. They also remember delayed responses, prolonged silence and visible absence.
This is why Dr Bimol Akoijam’s presence at Kanto Sabal attracted public attention. His visit did not resolve the crisis, but it established an important standard. Leadership in a conflict zone must be visible, direct and willing to ask difficult questions.
The same standard must apply to every elected representative, whether from the ruling party or the opposition. Visiting Kanto Sabal should not be interpreted as taking the side of one community against another. It should be under- stood as standing with citizens whose homes were destroyed and demanding that the law operate fairly.
Manipur has endured more than three years of displacement, fear and uncertainty. Thousands of families remain away from their villages, waiting for conditions that would permit them to return with dignity. For them, the destruction of abandoned homes is not only a material loss. It weakens their belief that the state is capable of protecting the places to which they are expected to return.
No rehabilitation policy can be credible if displaced families’ properties remain exposed. No peace process can inspire confidence if homes continue to burn in areas under extensive security deployment. No Govt can expect patience from relief camp residents while failing to protect the last physical connection they retain with their villages.
The people of Manipur deserve more than carefully drafted condemnations after every tragedy. They deserve institutions capable of preventing violence before it begins, security arrangements that inspire confi- dence and political leaders who remain present during moments of grief as well as celebration.
Above all, they deserve a Govt willing to answer difficult questions openly in- stead of allowing them to disappear beneath the next crisis.
Kanto Sabal should not become another forgotten chapter in Manipur’s conflict. It should become the moment when the state undertakes a serious exami- nation of rally permissions, buffer zone enforcement, intelligence coordination, security command and political responsibility.
The final question is simple but unavoidable.
If a crowd of around 600 people could move towards a vulnerable village, if security zones failed to stop that movement, and if six houses could burn near a major military establishment, then who was responsible for protecting Kanto Sabal?
Until that question is answered, the fire at Kanto Sabal will continue to burn in the public conscience.
Contd from previous issue
Sekmai MLA Heikham Dingo Singh also came out strongly and attributed the incident to what he described as laxity on the part of Army personnel. His statement added to the growing demand for an explanation of how the arson could occur in such a heavily guarded and sensitive area.
Congress Legislature Party Leader Keisham Meghachandra Singh was another senior political leader to respond. He questioned how houses could be burnt at Kanto Sabal despite the village being located close to the Army and Assam Rifles establishments at Leimakhong. He also asked why violence had resurfaced only hours after the Chief Minister had spoken of de-escalation and sought clear answers from both the Central and State Governments.
Later in the evening, at around 7.30, Inner Manipur MP Dr Angomcha Bimol Akoijam visited Kanto Sabal and inspected the affected area. Unlike the earlier reactions issued through social media, his intervention took place on the ground. Videos from the site showed him questioning security personnel and Manipur Police officials about how six houses could be burnt despite the presence of the Army and Central forces.
This is important because it shows the difference between political reaction and political presence. The first four responses placed the incident on record and raised serious questions. Dr Bimol Akoijam’s visit later that evening added a direct, physical dimension to the demand for accountability by taking those questions to the officials present at the site.
This was an important intervention because it shifted the discussion from anger to governance. The central issue is not merely that violence occurred. It is whether the institutions responsible for preventing violence acted with the planning, speed and neutrality required of them.
Local residents have made allegations that require an impartial and transparent investigation. Several villagers claimed that they were prevented from reaching their burning houses, that security vehicles blocked access and that force was used to disperse those attempting to move towards the area. Five civilians were also reported injured during the security action.
These allegations should neither be accepted automatically nor dismissed without inquiry. A credible investigation should establish the precise sequence of events. It should determine when the gathering began, who approved or monitored its route, when the first information about the fire was received, which officer held operational command and why the houses could not be protected.
One of the most painful stories to emerge from Kanto Sabal is that of for-mer India footballer Laiton- jam Sanathoi. Already displaced by the conflict, he reportedly watched helplessly as his house burned. Speaking to the media while holding photographs from his football career and a trophy recovered from the road, he questioned why he had allegedly been prevented from approaching his home despite repeatedly requesting permission.
His experience gives the incident a human meaning that institutional statements often fail to capture. His house was not an empty structure. It contained the record of a sporting career, the memories of a family and the remaining possibility of returning to normal life.
The same sense of devastation was shared by the other displaced families, whose houses and sacred places of worship were damaged in the fire. Residents reported seeing half-burnt tyres at the site, while videos circulating on social media appeared to show youths running with bottles containing petrol. These details may indicate that the arson was not entirely spontaneous and may have involved some degree of preparation.
That possibility makes the reported inaction of the security forces even more difficult to explain. If personnel were present in and around the area, did they notice the movement of inflammable materials, the burning tyres or the gathering of individuals carrying bottles filled with petrol? At what stage did they become aware that the situation was turning violent, and what preventive action was taken before the houses and temple were destroyed?
These are not questions driven by emotion alone. They concern the basic purpose of security deployment in a conflict-sensitive area. If warning signs were visible and the forces still failed to intervene in time, the public is entitled to ask whether the failure resulted from poor intelligence, delayed orders, operational confusion or a serious lapse in command.
The six houses had remained standing through more than three years of conflict. Their owners continued to live in relief camps with the belief that peace would one day allow them to return. That hope was badly damaged in a single afternoon.
The arrests announced by Chief Minister Yumnam Khemchand Singh are an important first step in the criminal investigation. Those directly responsible for the alleged arson must be identified, prosecuted and punished in accordance with the law. No democratic society can permit organised violence against civilians or their property without legal consequences. At the same time, it would be a serious mistake to treat the arrest of two individuals as a complete answer to the Kanto Sabal incident.
In connection with the case registered over setting fire to abandoned Meitei houses at Kanto Sabal in the Leimakhong area, joint teams of Manipur Police, the CRPF, the RAF and the Army arrested two persons. They were identified as Kammang Lhouvum, 65, son of late Vompao Lhou-vum, chief of Hengjang village and chairman of the Leimakhong Area Protection Committee, and Pagin Hangshing, 30, son of Lun-pao Hangshing, a resident of Khunkho Kuki village.
Criminal accountability addresses only one part of the problem. Institutional accountability is equally important. The public deserves to know who authorised the gathering, who was responsible for securing Kanto Sabal, what intelligence inputs were available, why the preventive arrangements failed and under whose operational command the security deployment functioned that day. These are not secondary issues. They lie at the centre of public confidence in the State.
The questions arising from Kanto Sabal should not be portrayed as an attack on the Army, the police or the civil administration. Democratic institutions protect their credibility through transparency, not silence. Respect for an institution does not require the public to ignore failure. It requires the institution to examine that failure, correct it and hold responsible officers accountable where necessary.
The incident also demands honest reflection from the political leadership. Public statements have value. Expressions of sympathy reassure affected families that their suffering has been noticed. Condemnation also places the position of a government or political leader on record. But none of these can replace visible leadership during a crisis.
Citizens expect elected representatives to visit affected areas, listen to grieving families, examine the condition on the ground and seek answers from officials. A physical visit cannot rebuild a burnt house, but it carries institutional meaning. It tells the victims that their suffering has not been reduced to a social media post.
History often remembers not only what leaders said during a tragedy, but what they did. People remember who reached the site, who stood beside displaced families and who confronted the responsible authorities. They also remember delayed responses, prolonged silence and visible absence.
This is why Dr Bimol Akoijam’s presence at Kanto Sabal attracted public attention. His visit did not resolve the crisis, but it established an important standard. Leadership in a conflict zone must be visible, direct and willing to ask difficult questions.
The same standard must apply to every elected representative, whether from the ruling party or the opposition. Visiting Kanto Sabal should not be interpreted as taking the side of one community against another. It should be under- stood as standing with citizens whose homes were destroyed and demanding that the law operate fairly.
Manipur has endured more than three years of displacement, fear and uncertainty. Thousands of families remain away from their villages, waiting for conditions that would permit them to return with dignity. For them, the destruction of abandoned homes is not only a material loss. It weakens their belief that the state is capable of protecting the places to which they are expected to return.
No rehabilitation policy can be credible if displaced families’ properties remain exposed. No peace process can inspire confidence if homes continue to burn in areas under extensive security deployment. No Govt can expect patience from relief camp residents while failing to protect the last physical connection they retain with their villages.
The people of Manipur deserve more than carefully drafted condemnations after every tragedy. They deserve institutions capable of preventing violence before it begins, security arrangements that inspire confi- dence and political leaders who remain present during moments of grief as well as celebration.
Above all, they deserve a Govt willing to answer difficult questions openly in- stead of allowing them to disappear beneath the next crisis.
Kanto Sabal should not become another forgotten chapter in Manipur’s conflict. It should become the moment when the state undertakes a serious exami- nation of rally permissions, buffer zone enforcement, intelligence coordination, security command and political responsibility.
The final question is simple but unavoidable.
If a crowd of around 600 people could move towards a vulnerable village, if security zones failed to stop that movement, and if six houses could burn near a major military establishment, then who was responsible for protecting Kanto Sabal?
Until that question is answered, the fire at Kanto Sabal will continue to burn in the public conscience.