Inner Manipur MP Dr. Angomcha Bimol Akoijam has sharply criticised the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) over its recently released tribunal report on the Manipur conflict, accusing the rights body of producing a “biased and insensitive” account that unfairly targets the Meitei community. In a strongly worded letter addressed to PUCL president Kavita Srivastava, Dr. Akoijam alleged that the report was based on “prejudiced narratives” and reflected a mindset influenced by “racist Orientalism.” He said the document painted the Meiteis as perpetrators while overlooking the complex, multi-layered nature of the ongoing violence. “The report is insensitive to the suffering of thousands, biased in its approach, and designed to portray one community as perpetrators while disregarding the larger context. This is nothing but an attempt to malign the Meiteis,” the Congress MP wrote.
Dr. Akoijam further warned that such one-sided reporting could aggravate tensions in Manipur, where ethnic violence has already caused deep divisions and displaced thousands. He said that the findings of PUCL not only lacked balance but also risked “deepening mistrust and disturbing the fragile peace process.” The MP demanded that PUCL withdraw the report immediately and issue an unconditional apology, stressing that the organisation’s credibility was at stake. “Reports of this nature have national and international implications. Civil society groups must act responsibly and not become vehicles of misinformation,” he added.
Calling on PUCL to revisit its fact-finding process, Dr. Akoijam urged the rights body to engage with all communities involved in the conflict to present a fairer and more accurate picture. He emphasised that only a balanced approach would help in reconciliation and pave the way for peace in the strife-torn state. The PUCL report, which highlighted allegations of targeted violence and human rights violations in Manipur, has sparked sharp criticism from several sections of civil society. With Dr. Akoijam’s intervention, the debate around the report’s credibility and its potential impact on public opinion is expected to intensify further.
