Manipur: Suspected Kuki militants attack Meitei villagers with bombs; 2 women seriously injured

IMPHAL: Suspected Chin Kuki Militants attacked Meitei villagers with bombs on the morning of January 5 at Saiton village in Bishnupur District, around 55 kilometres away from the capital city Imphal. More than two villagers, including women, were injured in the attack. Enraged villagers protested in front of the Security Forces posted nearby and asked them to prevent such repeated attacks.

Injured villagers have been identified as Nongthombam Indubala Devi (37), W/o (L) N Bishworjit Singh of Saiton Haiyaikon Maning Leikai, and Soibam Sanatomba, 51 years of Saiton Awang Leikai. It should be mentioned that this is the second such attack on Meitei villagers by suspected Kuki militants within one month, where the armed militants have targeted IDPs who were returning home after over 2 years.

Earlier on December 16 a similar attack was reported in Manipur. In connection with the indiscriminate firing by Kuki armed groups at Torbung, an FIR was registered for further investigation in this regard.

Security was enhanced in and around the area, and joint security forces are conducting intensive combing operations and area domination to ensure public safety. DIG concerned and other senior police officers visited the incident site and took stock of the situation.

Violation of fundamental rights and constitutional order:

The Coordination Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI) emphasises that such acts of violence directly contravene the Constitution of India – particularly the guarantee of Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21) for all citizens – and strike at the very foundation of constitutional governance and democratic order. Violent intimidation undermines the rule of law, disrupts public order (Article 19), and imperils social harmony. Public justification of violence by Kuki-Zo Council leadership has exacerbated this grave situation. In the public statement issued by Ginza Vualzong, a leader of the Kuki-Zo Council, in which he allegedly:

• Justified and rationalised the attack,

• Offered inflammatory allegations,

• Made statements likely to provoke further unrest and incite violence.

COCOMI views such public defence of armed violence as an affront to constitutional values and democratic norms. Statements that morally endorse terroristic acts threaten public safety, embolden armed actors, and may constitute criminal incitement and abetment under Indian law.

Credit : Organiser Weekly