Instead of questioning PUCL, Prof. Akoijam should explain his silence on rapes, murders, and the collapse of justice in Manipur, says Seilen Haokip.
BY PC Bureau
The Kuki National Organisation (KNO) has expressed its deep concern over the recent remarks made by Prof. Bimol Akoijam, a Meitei Member of Parliament from Manipur’s Inner Constituency, against the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) report on the ongoing two-year-long violence in Manipur.
KNO is an umbrella body of several Kuki armed groups in Manipur. Its constituent groups are currently under the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement with the Government of India , which is a ceasefire arrangement aimed at political dialogue.
KNO spokesperson Seilen Haokip pointed out that the PUCL Tribunal, chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph and supported by three eminent experts, comprised 14 distinguished members — none of them from Manipur — in order to ensure impartiality and credibility.
“The report has been rightly hailed by the minority Kuki-Zo people as fair and just, but predictably dismissed as partisan by the MP representing the majority community, which has been widely acknowledged as the primary perpetrator of this prolonged violence,” Seilen said.
In his desperation, Prof. Akoijam has chosen to parrot the language of valley-based militant organisations such as Arambai Tenggol, Meitei Leepun, and COCOMI, who have long opposed the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement between the Government of India and Kuki-Zo groups, the KNO spokesperson alleged.
READ: Why SC Must Order a Probe in Gujarat Donation Scandal
The KNO spokesperson referred to media reports, according to which the Professor went so far as to allege that SoO groups were “hand in glove” with the BJP and had received “crores of rupees” from the Centre. Such reckless statements from an elected representative are highly irresponsible. Before making such allegations, he should have acquainted himself with the facts, Seilen said.
Facts on the SoO agreement ( As contended by Seilen Haokip)
-
Dialogue as the foundation
The Government of India signed the SoO agreement with Kuki-Zo groups in 2008 precisely because both sides agreed to pursue dialogue within the framework of the Indian Constitution. -
Political aspirations betrayed
Until 3 May 2023, the Kuki-Zo demand was for political autonomy through a Territorial Council within Manipur. An MoU to this effect was scheduled to be signed on that very day. The sudden outbreak of violence on 3 May was no coincidence. The majority-led state government, which had already diluted the Autonomous District Councils in place since 1972, could not tolerate the idea of enhanced autonomy. Following the pogrom of 3 May—when Kuki-Zos were violently expelled from the valley—the demand escalated into a call for Separate Administration, and by 1 September 2023, for Union Territory status under Article 239A. The scale, intensity, and coordination of the pogrom is undeniable proof of premeditation, as also recognised by the PUCL.
PUCL Report Under Fire: Cong MP Akoijam Says It Fuels Division, Ignores Ground Realities https://t.co/R8ov37ncpP #ManipurViolence #BimolAkoijam #PUCLReport #EthnicConflict @Bimol_Akoijam
— POWER CORRIDORS (@power_corridors) August 26, 2025
-
The ‘crores of rupees’ misrepresentation
The only financial component of the SoO is a modest maintenance allowance of ₹6,000 per month for each of the 2,000+ cadres. These payments were often delayed for months or years. When pending allowances were eventually released in a lump sum, the Professor misleadingly presented it as “crores of rupees exchanged.” In reality, this was nothing more than subsistence payments that had been withheld for long periods.
Peace dividends of SoO
-
The Kuki-Zo groups responded positively to the Centre’s overtures, creating an environment for dialogue.
-
The SoO brought peace and stability to the Kuki-Zo hills: people accessed bank loans, built homes, and bought vehicles.
-
The Union Home Minister himself called for “peace first and then a negotiated political settlement.” While the Kuki-Zo side remained committed to this approach, valley-based groups—backed by the state government—clamoured to abrogate the agreement. The question arises: are these Meitei groups opposed to peace itself?
“The more Prof. Akoijam tries to dismiss the PUCL report with convoluted academic arguments, the more his bias becomes self-evident, ” the KNO leader said.
READ: Twin directives to NFSL in Biren Singh Alleged Tape Case
Questions for Prof. Bimol Akoijam
The KNO leader confronted the Manipur MP about the truth of the Manipur violence and said If the MP is genuinely concerned about “divisive narratives,” he must first answer these five questions:
-
Why have there been no arrests in multiple cases of rape and murder of Kuki-Zo women, even after two years? Did you raise this in Parliament?
-
Why has there been no conviction in any of the three dozen cases transferred by the Supreme Court to the CBI and NIA?
-
Why did you never highlight the hardships faced by hill residents due to lack of access to hospitals and schools? Did you ask the Centre for helicopter services to Churachandpur and Kangpokpi?
-
Why were you silent when Arambai Tenggol went on a rampage in Imphal after Kana Singh’s arrest—burning the city, firing at the army, assaulting police, and causing curfew and internet shutdowns for four days? Whom were you afraid of?
-
And finally, why do you blame PUCL for a “divisive agenda” when you have repeatedly echoed the voices of the perpetrators, while ignoring the victims’ suffering?
The PUCL report reflects truth and justice, grounded in verifiable facts. Attempts to discredit it through baseless allegations only expose the desperation of those seeking to mask the reality of a premeditated pogrom against the Kuki-Zo people.
