The conflicting narratives highlight fissures in India’s security apparatus. While the NIA’s focus on domestic suppliers suggests internal vulnerabilities, the Army Chief’s emphasis as “false narrative” underscores geopolitical tensions.
TFM Report
The conflict in Manipur has taken a contentious turn as India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Indian Army Chief presented starkly contrasting accounts about the perpetrators behind recent drone attacks in the state, deepening confusion over the crisis that has claimed over 250 lives and displaced 60,000 since May 2023.
NIA Report: Delhi-Haryana Suppliers Linked to Attacks
According to a report by Northeast Today (February 24, 2025), the NIA’s ongoing probe into drone bombings in Manipur’s Koutruk and Kadangband areas has identified domestic suppliers based in Delhi and Haryana as key players. The agency alleges that these suppliers provided Kuki militants with Chinese-made drones, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and technical components used in attacks targeting security forces and civilian zones.
The NIA claims to have traced financial transactions and communication records linking these suppliers to “Khaigoulen Kipgen from Gamngai village”, implying that internal networks—potentially with cross-border funding—are driving the escalation. As per the report, Kipgen was “the key buyer of these drone bombs, procuring them from Delhi-based Mayank Sharma and Rohtak-based Vikram Chaudhary for a hefty sum”. Citing the NIA report, media houses have also reported that the investigation further uncovered that Kipgen paid for the drones and accessories, including batteries, through both cash and online transactions. The report underscores concerns about the domestic proliferation of drone technology amid the ethnic conflict between Meitei and Chin-Kuki-Zo communities.
Army Chief Earlier Dismissed Claims
This report based in NIA’s findings contradicts the Indian Army Chief General Manoj Pande. Pande in a news report published by Moneycontrol (October 2, 2024), dismissed allegations of local drone supply chains as “false narratives.”
In the report, “The Army chief also denied the use of weaponised drones to drop bombs on civilians…”. He is reported to have said, “The ethnic strife in Manipur has transformed into a battle of narratives that continues to be driven by falsehoods such as the use of drones to drop bombs and 900 militants trained in Myanmar infiltrating the state for targeted attacks…”
A New Phase in the Conflict
As reported by The Diplomat (September 10, 2024), the introduction of drone warfare marks a dangerous shift in Manipur’s conflict. Once reliant on traditional arms, militant groups now deploy drones for surveillance and targeted strikes, complicating counterinsurgency efforts.
The report said the drone attack on September 1, 2024 broke a brief lull of three months in the restive state. “The attack on Koutruk in Imphal West, contiguous to Kangpokpi district, came from the neighboring hills and killed two people while injuring nine others. Imphal West is inhabited by the Meiteis and Kangpokpi is home to the Kuki community”.
Three people were injured in another drone bomb attack at Senjam Chirang the next day. Four days later, on September 6, militants fired two rockets, killing one person in Bishnupur, said the report.
“The Manipur Police had termed the drone attack as “unprecedented” and said it marked a “significant escalation” in the conflict in the state. Further, the involvement of “highly trained professionals possibly with technical expertise and support” cannot be ruled out, the police added.
The report by The Diplomat said that the Manipur Police had constituted a high-level committee to “critically examine and study” the weaponized drones believed to have been used by Kuki militants to drop bombs. The committee was to “probe the available evidence and the specifications of the drones to find ways and means to counter such attacks”.
Contradictions Raise Questions
The conflicting narratives highlight fissures in India’s security apparatus. While the NIA’s focus on domestic suppliers suggests internal vulnerabilities, the Army Chief’s emphasis as “false narrative” underscores geopolitical tensions. Local analysts and observers who do not want to be identified have expressed the views that the contradiction in the versions of the NIA and the Indian Army could hinder effective policy responses.
“If the state cannot agree on who the enemy is, crafting a coherent strategy becomes impossible,” said a security analyst. Others speculate whether the Army’s stance aims to deflect scrutiny from intelligence lapses or to justify heightened border operations.
Broader Implications
The Manipur conflict has strained India’s Act East policy and raised concerns about regional stability. Bangladesh and Myanmar have denied involvement, but the alleged cross-border movement of militants and arms risks inflaming diplomatic ties.
As debates rage, civilians in Manipur remain caught in the crossfire. Despite the imposition of President’s Rule, Manipur does not see an immediate solution even as the central government faces mounting pressure to resolve the crisis.
ALSO READ: https://thefrontiermanipur.com/use-of-drones-to-drop-bombs-a-grave-concern/