The violent ethnic conflict in Manipur, marked by violent clashes, has been further complicated by allegations of institutional bias and social media-driven provocations.
TFM Report
The Assam Rifles (AR), a paramilitary force of India responsible for border security, counter-insurgency, and maintaining law and order in Northeast India, has been tasked with maintaining public order in Manipur. However, the AR has faced persistent allegations from the Imphal Valley of favouring the Kuki community—a claim amplified by recent revelations of a fake social media account operated by one of its officers to spread alleged divisive narratives.
On 24 Jan 2025, a viral X post (https://x.com/UndeterredChanu/status/1882775698080760171) thread by a Meitei user Anamika @UndeterredChanu exposed a fake account, @kiaraa_jain, (the X account does not exist anymore as X says “This Post is from an account that no longer exists. Anamika @UndeterredChanu had posted the account vanished immediately after the expose.
SEE. https://x.com/UndeterredChanu/status/1882784326359908841.
The account @kiaraa_jain had allegedly been operated by a serving Assam Rifles officer posted at IGAR (South), Mantripukhri; Imphal, Manipur. The thread alleged that the same account had posted pro-Kuki and anti-Meitei content and was linked to a person through an IGNOU enrollment number (2550666463) inadvertently left in one of his X posts or tweets.
Anamika @UndeterredChanu claims that a Meitei X handle https://x.com/diana_warep reportedly used “program codes” to extract the officer’s details from IGNOU’s database, revealing his identity as an Assam Rifles officer. Screenshots show @kiaraa_jain criticizing the CRPF for operations against Kuki militants, including the killing of 10 Hmar armed militants in Jiribam, and brutality upon Kuki women during clashes with security forces at Uyokching.
Key Questions and Violations
The Assam Rifles officer’s alleged actions violate the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, which prohibit public commentary on sensitive issues. His disparagement of CRPF operations (“belittling CRPF for killing 10 Hmar militants”) also raises the issue of inter-force tensions. It may be recalled that critics, including ex-BSF ADG PK Mishra, had argued Assam Rifles’ perceived partiality justifies their removal from Manipur. Mishra stated, “High time Assam Rifles be completely shifted out.”
The issue has also raised institutional accountability concerns. Few questions that arise include: Why has AR not addressed the conduct of the officer who used a fake X account? Should CRPF file a case against the officer for “maligning” their operations? Will the Manipur government act on evidence of AR’s role in fueling violence?
Responses and Silence
So far, the Assam Rifles has not issued any public statement. The paramilitary force has historically denied bias, citing its “neutral peacekeeping” mandate. Neither has the CRPF reacted to the Assam Rifles officer’s criticism on record. The Manipur government has also remained silent despite demands for action from some quarters.
The exposé underscores concerns about institutional bias and the weaponization of social media in ethnic conflicts. Legal experts argue that the officer’s actions warrant disciplinary proceedings under the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, and potential criminal charges for inciting discord.
As tensions persist, the Manipur public awaits answers: Will Assam Rifles act against the officer? Will the state and central governments intervene? Or will silence further erode trust in the institutions tasked with protecting Manipur’s peace? Wait and watch.
Accusations of Bias Against Security Forces Not New
The ethnic conflict between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities in Manipur has been marked by violence, displacement, and accusations of bias against security forces. Some cases have underscored the legal and political tensions surrounding the role of armed forces and free speech in the region.
A critical allegation, first raised by activist Jagat Thoudam, an advisor to the Indigenous People’s Front, Manipur in May 2023, accused the Inspector General of Assam Rifles (South) [IGAR (South)], based in Mantripukhri, of exacerbating tensions. Thoudam, in one of his signed articles, had accused the Assam Rifles (AR) of systematically favoring Kuki narratives while marginalizing Meitei concerns. In a direct response, Assam Rifles filed an FIR against Thoudam alleging defamation and incitement.
The FIR was lodged by a senior officer of the Assam Rifles’ Inspectorate General (South) [IGAR (South)] against Jagat Thoudam. The complaint revolved around an article titled “Civilians Do Not Fight with Militants in Ethnic Clash”, authored by Thoudam and published in May, 2023. The Assam Rifles, a central paramilitary force deployed in Manipur, accused Thoudam of disseminating “unverified and false information” aimed at tarnishing its reputation and exacerbating ethnic discord.
Central to the FIR Are Two Charges Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
The charges include Section 124-A (Sedition), and the article allegedly incited hatred and disaffection toward the Assam Rifles, described as a “government agency,” by accusing it of partiality in handling the ethnic conflict.
Second, Section 153-A (Promoting Enmity): The Assam Rifles contended that Thoudam’s narrative deliberately stoked hostility between communities, undermining efforts to restore peace amid the Meitei-Kuki-Zo clashes.
The FIR emphasized the article’s potential to provoke violence and destabilize national integration, particularly in a state already reeling from ethnic polarization. It calls for an immediate investigation by Sub-Inspector Farooque Sheikh and urges legal action against Thoudam, alongside measures to suppress similar publications.
The document, signed by N. Ingocha Singh, Officer-in-Charge of Imphal Police Station, reflects the Assam Rifles’ institutional resolve to counter what it perceives as defamatory attacks on its operational integrity.
This legal action must be contextualized within Manipur’s fraught socio-political climate. The FIR against Thoudam, therefore, seems to represent not merely a legal rebuttal but a strategic effort to shield the force from public scrutiny and criticism.
However, the invocation of sedition laws raises critical questions about the balance between national security and freedom of expression. Critics argue that such charges risk stifling dissent and obscuring legitimate grievances about institutional conduct. Thoudam’s article, which critiques the Assam Rifles’ role in the conflict, intersects with broader debates about accountability, transparency, and the militarization of governance in India’s northeastern states.
FIR No. 541(06)2023 epitomizes the complex interplay of media, law, and security in Manipur’s crisis. While it seeks to penalize alleged misinformation, it also highlights the precarious state of civil liberties in conflict zones. So far, since the filing of the FIR, little is known about the stage of the investigation already initiated. However, the case will ultimately test the judiciary’s capacity to navigate competing claims of institutional defamation and democratic dissent—a dilemma emblematic of Manipur’s enduring struggle for peace and justice.
One should note that the FIR underscored institutional sensitivity to media criticism in conflict zones. It also reflected the legal weaponization of sedition laws to suppress dissenting voices, despite the Supreme Court ruling on the same law. It may be recalled that in May 2022, the Supreme Court of India temporarily suspended the sedition law, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court ordered that no coercive action be taken on pending sedition cases while the government re-examined the law. The Thoudam case amplified calls for accountability in security forces’ conduct during ethnic clashes.