Conflict has a way of changing people. It also changes institutions.
The second major Naga-Kuki conflict in a span of just three decades has once again shown how quickly violence can consume not only lives and property, but also public discourse. As attacks and counter-attacks continue, restraint becomes increasingly difficult. Words eventually become weapons. Every statement issued by Civil Society Organisations becomes another online battlefield. Yet it is in moments like these that institutions are expected to be different.
The latest statement issued by the Committee on Tribal Unity (CoTU) is a reminder of why that principle matters.
One may agree or disagree with CoTU’s version of events. That is not the point. The concern lies in the language. CSO bodies, if at all CoTU consider itself to be one, should be careful not to confuse accusation with fact, or anger with evidence.
The statement repeatedly uses labels such as “Tangkhul terrorist,” “Kacha Naga Tangkhuls,” “armed Tangkhul militants,” and attributes collective intent to an entire community. It also makes factual allegations, for example, claiming involvement of the NSCN-IM and the Shanni Nationalist Army (SNA) without presenting supporting evidence within the statement itself. It further describes the conflict in sweeping ethnic terms rather than confining its criticism to specific actors allegedly involved. The statement repeatedly employs language that extends beyond condemning an alleged attack. It labels an entire people in sweeping terms, attributes collective motives and employs rhetoric that leaves little room for distinction between individuals, organisations and communities.
Every community in Manipur has suffered. Every community carries stories of loss. Pain, however, does not excuse reckless language. History has never been kind to institutions that surrendered their standards in moments of crisis.
Editorial MANIPUR: The Truth Is Catching Up
The wars of today will not last forever. The gunfire will stop. Governments will change. Peace talks will return. But the statements issued in these difficult years will remain.
There is a reason good institutions avoid saying more than they know. It is not a choice of one against another. To put it simply, because credibility is built that way. An institution does not lose credibility because it speaks firmly. It loses credibility when it speaks carelessly.
This is not a standard for CoTU alone. It is a standard for every organisation in this conflict, Naga, Kuki, Meitei or otherwise. If we expect governments to exercise restraint, we must expect the same from civil society. If we demand responsibility from the media, we must demand it from those who issue public statements.
Institutions should outlive the conflicts they are born into. It another words, it also means leaving behind more than slogans and accusations. It means leaving behind a record of fairness, restraint and honesty, even when those qualities are hardest to uphold. Because when this conflict is finally written into history, people may not remember every statement that was issued. People will remember which institutions never lost their dignity.
