The recent arrests linked to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in Manipur have brought the Arambai Tenggol question back into public debate. Reports indicate that ten accused persons were arrested in coordinated operations by the NIA, Manipur Police, and Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in connection with serious cases arising from the conflict. Arambai Tenggol chief Korounganba Khuman reportedly stated that three of those taken into custody were volunteers of the organisation.
These arrests follow earlier cases, including the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arrest of Ashem Kanan Singh in June 2025 and other arrests of persons described as Arambai Tenggol members. The context of these arrests is crucial in understanding the situation in Manipur. Since May 3, 2023, Manipur has experienced fear, displacement, ethnic separation, armed attacks, and a collapse of public trust. Many citizens believed that the institutions meant to protect them were absent, slow, or ineffective when protection was most needed. In this atmosphere, Arambai Tenggol was seen by many not as an ordinary organisation, but as a de facto community-protection force that stepped into a security vacuum. This context matters, as Arambai Tenggol members did not emerge in normal times. They emerged when many civilians felt exposed and abandoned.
To many in Manipur, they were not men acting against society, but men acting because society felt unprotected. They took on a role that many believed should have been performed by formal security forces: guarding localities, responding to fear, and standing between civilians and danger. India’s legal and moral traditions recognise sacrifice. Gallantry awards honour those who risk their lives in defence of the nation and its people. However, such honour is reserved for acts that are lawful, necessary, and directed towards protection. The law should not ask only whether force was used, but also why force was used, against whom, under what threat, with what means, and whether state protection was realistically available. A person who stood guard during fear cannot be judged in the same way as a person who acted for private gain.
A person who acted to prevent attack cannot be judged in the same way as a person who planned violence after the threat had passed. The correct legal position is neither blanket punishment nor blind immunity. If a person merely belonged to Arambai Tenggol, that cannot justify arrest. If he stood guard because people feared attack, that cannot be equated with criminality. If he acted in immediate defence, the law must examine that defence seriously.
If he is accused of a grave offence, the state must prove not only the act but also the unlawful character of the act. Equal justice is indispensable in Manipur. Every victim must count, and every killing must be examined. However, equal justice also means Arambai Tenggol members should not become symbols on whom the state demonstrates firmness. If they filled a security vacuum because people felt abandoned, that fact must matter in bail, remand, prosecution, and trial. India will not strengthen justice by treating community defence as criminality by default. It will strengthen justice only by letting law see context, evidence, and the duty to protect people.
