In ethnic conflict zones, truth is often the first casualty. Rumours travel faster than facts, emotions overpower reason, and communities become convenient targets for accusations. The recent killing at Leibol Khullen has once again exposed a disturbing tendency that has become increasingly common in Manipur: the instinctive rush to blame Naga groups and organizations even before evidence is presented to the public.
What is striking is not merely the allegation itself, but the pattern behind it.
Within hours of many incidents occurring in Kuki-dominated areas, fingers are often pointed toward Naga organizations, Naga villages, or Naga armed groups. Statements are issued, accusations are amplified through social media, and a narrative is carefully constructed. Yet when the public asks for evidence, very little is produced beyond suspicion, speculation, and political rhetoric.
The recent rebuttal statements issued by both the NSCN/GPRN and the Zeliangrong United Front (ZUF) reflect what many Naga organizations view as a sustained campaign of slander, misinformation, and politically motivated propaganda by certain Kuki civil society organizations. After years of being routinely blamed for incidents without publicly presented evidence, there is a growing sense among Nagas that such accusations have become a convenient tool for deflecting attention from internal conflicts and failures.
Both organizations categorically rejected any link to the Leibol Khullen incident and challenged their accusers to produce credible, verifiable evidence instead of relying on emotion-driven narratives and unsubstantiated allegations. In doing so, they exposed a fundamental principle that appears increasingly absent from public discourse: accusations must be backed by facts, not assumptions.
Whether one agrees with these organizations or not, their challenge raises an important question: where is the evidence?
In any civilized society, accusations must be supported by facts. The burden of proof rests on those making the allegation. This principle applies equally to governments, civil society organizations, armed groups, and ordinary citizens. Without evidence, an accusation remains exactly that—an accusation.
The tragedy of Leibol Khullen should have united all communities in demanding a professional and impartial investigation. Instead, certain civil society organizations appear more interested in assigning blame than seeking truth. Such an approach may generate headlines and mobilize public sentiment, but it does little to establish justice.
More troubling is the selective nature of outrage.
When violence erupts due to internal disputes, factional rivalries, criminal activities, or local conflicts within Kuki areas, there is often an immediate attempt to externalize responsibility. Rather than examining internal dynamics, attention is diverted toward neighboring communities. This strategy may provide temporary political convenience, but it does not solve underlying problems.
The repeated effort to portray Nagas as the default culprit in every crisis in Ukhrul,Kamjong, Kangpokpi or Noney serves neither truth nor peace. It only deepens mistrust between communities that have lived side by side for generations.
The danger of such narratives is immense. Once a community is branded guilty without evidence, collective suspicion takes root. Villages become targets of hostility. Historical grievances are revived. Young people grow up believing narratives of victimhood and blame rather than coexistence and dialogue.
Manipur has already suffered enough from ethnic polarization. The state cannot afford another cycle of accusations built on assumptions rather than facts.
Civil society organizations occupy a special position in society. They are expected to act responsibly, verify information, and promote peace. Their credibility depends on their commitment to truth. When they become instruments of propaganda or political mobilization, they risk undermining the very principles they claim to defend.
If those accusing Naga organizations possess credible evidence, they should place it before investigating agencies and the public. Let the evidence speak. Let independent investigators examine the facts. Let accountability follow wherever the truth leads.
But if such evidence does not exist, then the public deserves honesty rather than speculation.
The people of Manipur have witnessed too many tragedies being transformed into political tools. Every death is mourned by a family. Every victim leaves behind loved ones. Exploiting these tragedies to advance ethnic narratives is a disservice not only to the deceased but also to the larger cause of justice.
Until evidence is produced, the practice of automatically blaming Nagas for every incident occurring in Kuki areas must be questioned. In the end, truth does not belong to any tribe, organization, or political movement. Truth belongs to facts. And facts must come before accusations.
