The Manipur government issued a scathing response to Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma on Friday, accusing him of divisive rhetoric and double standards following his sharp criticism of Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh in an interview. Lalduhoma had called Singh a “liability” and questioned his ability to govern effectively amid prolonged violence in the state.
Lalduhoma’s Criticism
In an interview with Hindustan Times, Lalduhoma suggested that President’s Rule might be preferable to Singh’s administration, citing its failure to quell the ethnic clashes that have claimed 260 lives since May 2023. He also criticized Singh’s handling of violence between the Meitei and Kuki communities and accused him of being a “necessary evil” for the BJP.
Manipur’s Counterattack
In a lengthy statement, the Manipur government condemned Lalduhoma’s remarks, calling them an attempt to stoke hatred and division. The statement highlighted Lalduhoma’s controversial political history, including his disqualification under anti-defection laws in 1986 and 2020.
The Manipur government also criticized Lalduhoma’s opposition to fencing the India-Myanmar border, which it described as essential for curbing illegal immigration, arms trafficking, and drug smuggling. It alleged that Mizoram’s stance was hypocritical, pointing out that Mizoram itself limits illegal immigration for fear of resource pressure but criticizes similar measures in Manipur as “anti-tribal.”
Ethnic and Regional Tensions
Manipur accused illegal immigrants from Myanmar of exacerbating the ongoing crisis in the state and blamed Mizoram for opposing border security initiatives. The government linked the violence to drug-related activities and alleged efforts to displace indigenous populations, framing Lalduhoma’s comments as part of a broader agenda to unify the Zo people across India, Myanmar, and Bangladesh.
The statement claimed such aspirations aimed to create a “Kuki-Chin Christian nation” and warned against what it described as secessionist interests threatening the region’s stability.
Broader Implications
The exchange underscores growing tensions in the northeastern states over issues of identity, immigration, and governance. While Lalduhoma’s remarks reflect frustrations with the escalating violence in Manipur, the state government’s strong rebuttal highlights the fragile political and ethnic fault lines in the region.
As the crisis in Manipur continues, these developments point to deep divisions not only within the state but also among its northeastern neighbors.