The tragic event of October 2024, where three lives were lost and nearly 30 others were injured, remain a painful reminder of the devastating consequences of unresolved disputes. What should have been a manageable dispute between two major Tangkhul villages, Hunphun and Hungpung, continues to divide rather than heal. The dispute is not just about a piece of land; it is about the dignity of villages, the interpretation of historical claims, and the psychological postures that often define ownership, strength, and identity.
Yet, if we pause to reflect, the lessons are clear that no amount of land or pride can justify the loss of human lives. The cost of violence always outweighs the so-called gains of ‘victory’ in such disputes.
Opinion | The Tangkhul Dilemma: Trust Deficit as the Root of Political and Social Struggles
Let us be clear that this reflection is not an attempt to ‘rectify’ or ‘rewrite’ the historical truth of Hunphun or Hungpung. Both villages have rich histories, deep-rooted legacies, and valid perspectives about their rights. To dwell endlessly on who is ‘right’ or who ‘came first’ or who ‘owned first’ risks trapping both in a cycle of accusations, rebuttals, and further alienation.
Instead, what is urgently needed is a collective reimagination, a forward-looking approach that is logical, rational, humane, and, above all, consistent with our shared Christian faith.
We live in the 21st century, not in the pre-Christian era of dominance, posturing, and power contests. The yardstick for our actions should not be patriarchal notions of strength or the pride of past centuries, but the higher calling of compassion, coexistence, and peace.
One of the most dangerous frameworks in any land dispute in Tangkhul is the zero-sum mindset: the belief that if one village gains, the other must necessarily lose. This mental trap not only hardens positions but also blinds us to creative solutions.
When land, history, and identity become entangled in such thinking, dialogue collapses into deadlock. But disputes do not always have to be resolved by ‘winners’ and ‘losers.’ There are precedents across cultures and communities where shared resources, joint stewardship, and reconciliatory frameworks have enabled both villages to emerge with dignity intact.
The question is, are Hunphun and Hungpung willing to rise above the zero-sum game and imagine something new?
As Christians, our moral compass should be clear. The message of reconciliation, forgiveness, and brotherhood is not a vague ideal but a practical imperative.
When we gather in our churches on Sundays, sing hymns of unity, and read the Scriptures that call us to ‘love thy neighbour,’what credibility do we carry if, on Monday, we allow hatred and violence to consume us over territorial or village lines?
The credibility of our faith is at stake here. The Tangkhul community, respected for its pioneering role in embracing Christianity, cannot allow its testimony to be stained by internecine conflict. The world is watching, and future generations are learning from today’s example.
The Peace Committee established to mediate in the Hunphun-Hungpung dispute carries a delicate but crucial responsibility. Its task is not to adjudicate, not to declare one village right or wrong, but to create an environment where dialogue can flourish and imagination can take root.
Opinion | Slacktivism and Clicktivism: Curse for Naga Political Movement
This requires neutrality, patience, and courage. Too often, peace committees are seen merely as temporary firefighting bodies. But their role must go deeper, to cultivate trust, to remind both villages of the bigger picture, and to act as a moral compass. They must steer discussions away from rehearsed narratives of the past and instead encourage explorations of a shared future.
The Peace Committee must also help dismantle the psychological dominance that underpins such disputes. In patriarchal cultures, strength is often equated with victory, and concession with weakness. But real strength lies in restraint, in the ability to compromise, and in the courage to embrace peace even when anger tempts us otherwise.
The Hunphun-Hungpung dispute is not only about physical land but also about mental space. It is about the deeply ingrained psychological need to assert dominance, to prove legitimacy, and to resist perceived subordination. These mental frames are rooted in pre-Christian concepts of pride and power, carried forward into the modern era without adequate questioning.
We must unlearn these harmful attitudes. A community that prides itself on education, modernity, and global exposure cannot afford to cling to outdated modes of conflict. If we truly believe that the Tangkhul people have a role to play in shaping a better Naga, a better Northeast, and even a better India, then our first test is at home, resolving disputes with dignity and compassion.
The Hunphun-Hungpung land dispute cannot be seen in isolation. It reflects a broader challenge in the Tangkhul community, the tension between historical rights and the demands of modern coexistence. If such disputes are allowed to fester, they will only weaken the Tangkhul voice at a time when unity is most needed.
For the Tangkhul people, whose history of resilience and leadership is well-known, to be consumed by intra-community disputes is nothing short of self-defeating. Unity is not just desirable but essential for navigating the uncertainties of the future.
The Hunphun-Hungpung dispute is a test of conscience. Will we allow anger, pride, and historical grievances to dictate our future, or will we choose the harder but holier path of reconciliation? Will we cling to patriarchal concepts of dominance, or will we embrace the Christian calling to humility and forgiveness?
No land, however fertile or sacred, is worth more than human lives. No historical fact, however valid, should blind us to the moral urgency of peace. The choice before Hunphun and Hungpung is not between victory and defeat, but between perpetuating a cycle of violence or inaugurating a legacy of peace and unity.
The October 2024 violence must be the last of its kind. Both villages must come together not to argue over history but to write a new chapter, one defined by broad-mindedness, accommodation, and humanity.
Opinion | Khongjai Hills and Kuki Claim to Indigeneity: The Fact
The Peace Committee can only create the environment; the real decision rests in the hands and hearts of the Hunphun and Hungpung villagers themselves.
We owe it to ourselves and our children to rise above the narrowness of the past. Let the Hunphun-Hungpung dispute become not a scar but a symbol, a ‘turning point’ where we choose peace over pride, dialogue over dominance, and life over land.
The Hunphun-Hungpung land dispute offers a test of our Christian ethos. We cannot preach peace and then practice hostility. If our faith is real, it must guide us toward dialogue, empathy, and compromise.
Pamreihor Khashimwo is a research scholar based out of Delhi. (The author can be reached at khashimwo.jnu@gmail.com)
(The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ukhrul Times. Ukhrul Times values and encourages diverse perspectives.)