The Manipur government strongly criticized Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma for his sharp remarks about N Biren Singh on Friday. The Manipur government condemned his comments, calling them an attempt to incite division and hatred. They also accused Lalduhoma of applying double standards.
The controversy started when Lalduhoma said that Singh was a liability to Manipur, its people, and the BJP. He even argued that President’s Rule would be better than Singh’s leadership, as Singh’s administration has failed to control the violence that has plagued the state for 18 months.
The Manipur government quickly responded, stating, “The government of Manipur strongly disapproves of the comments of Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma on the internal matters of Manipur.”
This exchange of words comes amid rising violence in Manipur. Recent incidents, such as the killings of 10 tribal people and six Meitei individuals, have added to the unrest. Since May 2023, ethnic clashes between the Meitei and Kuki communities have led to nearly 260 deaths, creating widespread instability. Notably, Mizoram shares a border with Manipur and has a significant Kuki-Zo population.
In his interview, Lalduhoma dismissed the idea of offering advice to Singh, who has resisted calls for his removal despite pressure from within his own party. Last week, the National Peoples Party withdrew its support for Singh, even as Union Home Minister Amit Shah held urgent meetings in Delhi. Lalduhoma remarked, “I’m sorry to say that he (Biren Singh) is a liability to the state of Manipur. He has been a liability to his own people and his party. If his service is still needed, in my opinion, it is a necessary evil. More evil and less necessary.”
The Manipur government hit back, pointing out Lalduhoma’s own controversial political career. It reminded the public that in 1986, Lalduhoma became the first MP in India to be discharged under the anti-defection law. Then, in 2020, he was disqualified as an MLA for breaching the same law.
The Manipur government also criticized Lalduhoma’s opposition to the fencing of the India-Myanmar border. The government is building this fence to curb illegal immigration, arms trafficking, and drug smuggling. As the Manipur government explained, “Myanmar is the origin of most of the illegal immigration and drugs problems that Manipur has been facing.”
The statement also defended Manipur’s stance on illegal immigration. It explained that the violence in Manipur is closely tied to illegal immigration from Myanmar. Many immigrants have been involved in illicit poppy cultivation, which has suffered due to Singh’s crackdown on drugs. The government denied accusations of any anti-tribal policies, insisting that the violence was driven by immigration issues, not government actions.
Manipur then accused Mizoram of double standards. Mizoram has restricted illegal immigration due to concerns over land and resources but criticizes Manipur for taking similar actions. The Manipur government questioned, “When Mizoram does, it is perfectly fine. But when Manipur does, it is anti-tribal. Why the double standards?”
The Manipur government also defended the state’s rich cultural history. It pointed out, “Manipur has a recorded history and a rich culture going back thousands of years unlike Mizoram which was carved out of the state of Assam only a few decades ago.”
Manipur emphasized its ongoing efforts to restore peace. The government pointed to the growing population in Kuki-majority areas, but also highlighted the continuous efforts to address issues like drug trafficking and violence.
The Manipur government raised concerns about Lalduhoma’s support for the unification of the Zo people, which it believes is part of a larger plan to create a Kuki-Chin Christian nation across Myanmar, India, and Bangladesh. The government argued that these actions are pushing illegal immigrants into Manipur for land grabs.
Finally, Manipur issued a firm warning, stating it would not tolerate any attempts to fragment Northeast India. The government declared that anyone trying to push such secessionist interests would face strict legal consequences.
