The controversy that unfolded at the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal, following the arrival of three injured Kuki men under the custody of central security forces for medical treatment, has generated intense public reaction across Manipur. What is notable is that the objections and demonstrations did not emerge from a single community. Voices of concern came from various sections of both Naga and Meitei society.

The events at RIMS cannot be understood merely through the lens of healthcare. Nor can they be explained as hostility toward Kuki civilians. The facts of the past three years tell a very different story.

Throughout the prolonged ethnic conflict, hospitals in Imphal have quietly treated patients from different communities. Kuki civilians, including children injured in the devastating IED blast at New Canaan and individuals wounded in various incidents, have received treatment in hospitals such as Shija Hospitals and other healthcare institutions in the valley. In many instances, civil society leaders, social workers, and ordinary citizens extended support and solidarity. Journalists based in Imphal were aware that Kuki patients had been receiving treatment in major hospitals. These cases rarely attracted publicity and almost never generated opposition.

Many viewed such acts as small but meaningful steps toward restoring trust in a deeply divided society. This reflects an important reality. Despite the bitterness of the conflict, many people in Manipur continue to believe that healthcare must remain above politics and ethnic divisions. Medical professionals are bound by ethical obligations to treat every patient. Even in situations of war and armed conflict, humanitarian principles require doctors and nurses to save lives irrespective of identity, affiliation, or background.

The demonstrations at RIMS therefore cannot be reduced to opposition against the treatment of Kuki patients. The public reaction arose from a different set of circumstances. People did not protest Kuki civilians receiving treatment in Imphal. They protested the absence of answers, transparency, and accountability.

According to various media reports and prevailing public understanding, the three injured men were wounded in a violent clash connected to attacks on Naga villages. Several Naga civilians have lost their lives in recent incidents. Families continue to await justice. Reports of attacks on Naga villages have surfaced repeatedly over recent months. In such an atmosphere, the arrival of individuals perceived by many as participants in those attacks naturally triggered strong emotions.

Whether these perceptions are fully accurate or not, authorities cannot ignore the context in which public reactions occur. An additional factor that authorities have failed to explain concerns the identities and addresses of the three injured individuals.

Publicly circulating records indicate that the three injured persons are Paogoulal (18), Lunliandaw Vaiphei (20), and Genlenmang Vaiphei (18). Notably, none of the recorded addresses correspond to Leilon Vaiphei village, where the clash reportedly occurred.

Their recorded addresses have become a matter of public discussion. Paogoulal's permanent address is listed as P. Moulding village under Leimakhong Police Station in Kangpokpi district. Genlenmang Vaiphei's address is recorded as Mission Veng, Mantripukhri, also under Leimakhong Police Station in Kangpokpi district. Lunliandaw Vaiphei's address is listed as Kamu Tangnom village under Yairipok in Senapati district.

This discrepancy has prompted questions among many citizens. If the injured individuals were not residents of Leilon Vaiphei, what circumstances brought them there at the time of the incident? In the absence of any official clarification, speculation has inevitably filled the vacuum. Among the perceptions circulating in public discourse is the belief that the location may have been used as a staging point for attacks on Konsakhul and nearby Naga villages. Whether such perceptions are correct or not can only be established through a transparent and credible investigation.

This is precisely why official communication matters. Facts should come from competent authorities, not from rumours, assumptions, or competing narratives. The authorities could have substantially reduced public anger had they addressed these questions in a timely and transparent manner.

The Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI) has publicly maintained that it does not oppose innocent Kuki civilians travelling to Imphal, including for medical treatment. The organisation reiterated that innocent people from both Meitei and Kuki communities have suffered immensely since the outbreak of violence in May 2023.

COCOMI's central demand is straightforward. The Government should clarify who the three wounded men are, how they were injured, and what their legal status is. If they are civilians, the matter should be stated clearly. If they are members of Kuki armed groups involved in acts of violence, the law should take its course.

The organisation also questioned why no official clarification was issued despite the intense public interest surrounding the matter. It argued that much of the controversy could have been avoided through timely disclosure of facts.

Whether one agrees with every aspect of COCOMI's position or not, its fundamental demand for transparency deserves attention. The deeper issue extends beyond the events at RIMS. It concerns a growing perception among many communities in Manipur that justice is not being administered consistently.

The Indian civilizational tradition offers an important lesson through the Mahabharata. The destruction of the Kaurava lineage was not merely the result of a war. It was the culmination of repeated failures to uphold justice. Time and again, wrongdoing was allowed to pass without accountability. King Dhritarashtra, despite being aware of many excesses, chose silence and inaction. The royal court repeatedly failed to enforce justice when it was most needed.

The consequence was catastrophic. What could have been addressed through timely accountability ultimately escalated into a conflict that consumed an entire generation.

The lesson remains relevant today. Societies become unstable when crimes are judged according to identity rather than conduct. Peace cannot endure when one group believes its grievances are ignored while another receives preferential treatment.

Many people in Manipur increasingly feel that a pattern of selective responses has emerged during the ongoing crisis. Whether this perception is entirely accurate or not, it exists and cannot be dismissed lightly. Public confidence depends not only on fairness itself but also on the visible appearance of fairness.

The answer is not to favour Nagas. The answer is not to favour Meiteis. The answer is not to favour Kukis. The answer is to favour justice.

If a Kuki individual commits a crime, the law must act. If a Naga individual commits a crime, the law must act. If a Meitei individual commits a crime, the law must act. Identity should neither provide protection nor invite prejudice.

Many citizens are not demanding the denial of healthcare. They are demanding consistency, transparency, and accountability. They want reassurance that humanitarian considerations do not replace legal accountability and that compassion for the injured does not come at the expense of justice for victims.

When incidents involve individuals linked, rightly or wrongly, to recent attacks, authorities have a responsibility to communicate openly and reassure the public that justice processes remain intact.

The larger lesson is simple. Peace-building requires sensitivity to both humanitarian obligations and public sentiment. One cannot be pursued by disregarding the other.

Healthcare can become a bridge between divided communities. But bridges endure only when they are supported by trust, transparency, and justice. Those are the foundations that the authorities must strengthen if they genuinely seek peace in Manipur.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of India Today NE or its affiliates.)